An elite close to midrange unit that comes bundled only at 3 CPs with target size 1 resulting in a huge manpower drain? Man that is really bad. Since its comes with zero utility/versatility (compare to the utility/versatility of the other two guard versions please) the only thing it should be good at is combat but it just drains your manpower.
Test Vet 3 A.G. in cheat mode vs other squads and you will see who gets drained.
Allow me to remind you that Thompson paras start with 0.95 target size and get to 0.71 at vet 3 and AG start 1 and get with 0.71 at vet 2. In addition at vet 3 AG have +15% more accuracy bonus.
They are simply are not meant to be used as Shock troops. |
Planes have human crush which seems to give them the potential to wipe squads still...
I can confirm that since I lost an ober squad to a plane crush. |
...
6. Combine multiple doctrinal unit upgrades in one commander ability. Many doctrinal unit upgrades (weapons/abilities) are not worth a commander ability slot on their own. Bundle two of them to make place for an additional commander ability. Similar to Assault package at Feuersturm doctrine or Urban assault Kits at Urban Assault Company.
Just one examples: I would bundle some of the tank upgrades at OKW Elite Armored Doctrine. Two of them are not worth it on their own at least.
...
I disagree
Either all abilities should of the same power level or total power of abilities in commander should be about equal to other commanders.
Since making all commander abilities the same power level is not really an option "weak" abilities are need to fill commander with strong abilities. |
Thx. Nice to point that out, i never noticed that (okay I played them once, so maybe I didn't notice because of that single try). So it fits thematically at least.
I remember they felt underwhelming as I played them. So I just tested them a few times in comparison to ShockTroops and sadly Assault Guards are worse combatwise.
So the mix of target size 1 at Vet0 + Vet1, no additional armour and no smoke grenade (or sprint) results in loosing quite a few models by closing in. They are just worse in many ways.
Further drawbacks:
- because of M5 they hit the field at 3 CPs = less game impact / less time for vetting
- exclusively come in bundle with M5
I really hate that bundled abilities. It is the same with the Combat Group ability (Reserve Falls + Howitzer) at USF Recon Support Company that comes at 4 CPs (!) or the Mechanized Grenadier Group (LMG Grenadiers + 250 HT) / Mechanized Assault Group (Pzgrens + 250 HT) at Ostheer Mechanized Doctrine / Mechanized Assault Doctrine that come at 3 CPs.
The worst one is the Combat Group Ability of USF, it means you can't drop your Reserve Falls behind enemy lines, because you will give away that Howitzer to the enemy.
Maybe there is a chance to get this abilities reworked. You should have the option to build the units seperatley in your base at least once you unlocked the ability. Assault Guards should be reworked somehow or just exchanged for something different.
Think you underestimate Assault guards, once vetted they are deadly.
You have to keep in mind that thompons and SVT have very good DPS at MID range, although they named "assault guards" they are not an typical smg squad that perform better at range close to 10.
Thompson is far better weapon than Shocks PPsh at all ranges and they unit does not have to move to range 10 to get good DPS. |
Would it be possible to use the same code that Tank Awareness and similar abilities use?
Tank awareness gives mini map information and IR already has such an ability as timed ability with mu cost (it should be free since kubel get a similar ability for free).
IRHT should have sight of 50 as other reckon vehicles.
For IRHT I simply prefer Sneakeye mod implementation with a timed ability. |
Man, some prime Vipper posting in here. "Adding 50% more AT damage didn't significantly change Penals, PTRS Penals were always good." Absolutely hilarious, how does anyone take that seriously and keep responding. Dude is delusional in his Axis bias....
Allow me to explain something to you when you use quotations marks it meams that what you are posting exactly what someone else has posted.
I have never posted this:
"Adding 50% more AT damage didn't significantly change Penals, PTRS Penals were always good."
or anything even remotely close to its meaning, so I would suggested you delete that part of your post because it simply a lie.
No. As the one who started the post the version does matter. The PTRS used by penals are different from the one both Guard and Conscripts use in game and that has received changes.
It does not matter in context of the debate with Pip but it does matter in thread. I did not bring Guards into to this debate Pip did.
My post included the changes to all AT rifle versions and not the changes to Penals as a squad. |
Context indicates that its' specifically about Penals PTRS, if you read the various posts, Vipper.
Yes, fine, but again, the thread, and these posts, are clearly talking about Penal PTRS squads, which had the further change of a third rifle being added. This is what people are indicating as making PTRS a threat now, not the other changes.
You are mistaken if you believe otherwise, though feel free to just ask what people meant.
This is my last post on the matter because this is quite pointless.
PTRS are weapons available to different squads. Penals are a squad and not a weapon.
I do not really make difference which versions of PTRS the post was about about, it only matter that the post was about the weapon and not a squad.
The weapon recievd minor adjustments (that I had also suggested myself) and it has simply was not turned from crap to gold. The weapon was ok to begin with and adding an extra PTRS on Penal had no effect on the weapon itself.
The penal squad on the other hand where and remain badly designed.
|
The thread is about Penals and their PTRS, Vipper. Nobody's mentioned Guards, especially as they have utility against tanks beyond their PTRS, so the logical thing to think is that he's talking about Penal PTRS being a threat.
If we were talking about Panzergrens and their shrecks, you wouldn't assume someone was referring to Partisans if they didn't specifically mention Pgrens in their post, would you? Nor would you think someone was talking about Ranger SuperZooks when they were posting in a thread about Rear Echelon zook performance? (Especially since the Penal PTRS isnt the same as the Guard one)
Now read again the post I have responded to, among the insult to players, you will see it clearly says PTRS where bad and now they have become valid thread to tanks.
My point is that the changes to PTRS are good but the the did not transform the weapon especially vs medium tanks. Projectile affect only smoke interaction and aim time effect mostly light vehicles.
I would argue that PTRS used to be better vs mediums tanks since they had double the deflection damage
I made my point and have little to add so I suggest we move on. |
I expect what made them more of a threat was the fact that Penals have 50% more of them now, rather than either of those changes (Though both were a nice buff, especially the latter). You're being a bit disingenuous here.
I will be doing, once Seralia has their updated statistics, and I can be sure I have the correct stats onhand.
There is not disingenuous in my response to the claim has to do with PTRS not Penals that did get an extra PTRS. |
In what sense? They don't have the burst damage of Shrecks, Zooks, or PIATs, and even their sustained damage is not fantastic due to their low penetration. You have to hit certain breakpoints of damage for things to be useful, which is why, for example, if you had three tanks;
A: 160 damage a shot
B: 161 damage a shot
C: 159 damage a shot
A and B are approximately equal, but C is effectively 25% weaker.
Test or calculate their TTK vs medium tanks. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
