Honestly, that's just too much of a manpower sink for me, since they cost 30mp to re-enforce making it a really expensive pack howie, especially with how prone to wiping it is now. RE are only 20mp to re-enforce a pack howie, and since it's behind my lines most of the time it can stay reasonably safe. That said, the moment it's flanked by a rifle nade, or any other sort of arty / nade it will be wiped very quickly. Also, airborne take forever to re-enforce too.
I never really use beacon re-enforce anyways, I usually have an ambulance out by the time the airdrop is ready to be called in and I'll just call it in next to my ambulance to re-enforce.
Paras are 28mp to reinforce. That's what I crew them with, just cuz it's nice to be able to reinforce from the beacons after you get pushed by inf a bit or a leig hits the crew or whatever. On top of that, you don't have a lot of cheaper options as usf for weapon crewing; the only thing cheaper than 28 being rear echelons, which aren't that much cheaper (25mp). I think the airdrop reinforce is worth the 3 extra manpower to reinforce, considering the pack howie won't be losing a ton of crew members like a real infantry squad, but when it does, you can stay on the field for that much more time instead of pulling it back. |
I have not compared the units in anyway, I have simply pointed out to OP that is one want to talk about that durability of Rangers one has to include to *0.9 damage reduction.
Feel free to compare the units if you want to.
Um
Ranger also have 10% damage reduction and additional member and thus are more durable.
That looks like a comparison to me. On a sidenote, I'm surprised you didn't bring up the obvious bit that rangers have an extra man lul.
It's a fair point, but the fact that we're even comparing an elite, 3cp assault/cqc squad that costs 400 manpower/90 munitions (if we're counting upgrades) and 35 to reinforce to a 1cp support/pseudosniper (long range) infantry unit that costs 280 manpower/60 muni is an issue. Even with an extra man, that's a problem. If riflemen were man for man as tough as even obers it'd maybe arguably be a bit of an issue, let alone a squad that's actually designed to close to point blank (axis doesn't really have any exact analogues to rangers now that I think about it). |
|
There's literally no way to counter this as far as I can see, except sextons which come about 7cp late for that. Hard to use vickers and lmg sections with leigs around, but there's no way to avoid them most of the time and Brits have no mobile indirect except landmattress, which takes 4 hours to recharge and doesn't really kill anything at max range FoW anyway.
Anyone have any way to play against this? |
Maybe 3 cons with PTRS into snipers? to have the ranger/sniper combo?
You'd still get run over by infantry then. Try 3 cons (without PTRS) and sniper and like 2 guards. Closest you'll get to ranger/sniper there. You'd better have field control though, or else you'll have a hard time with his tanks if you can't field a t34 or SU85 beforehand.
Honestly though its a lot safer and more ergonomic to go 3 cons, maxim, guards and then maybe get an atg or mortar if you need it IMO. |
I can somewhat "counter" the loiter by moving all my troops out of the circle.So what's the difference for having an AA or not?
AA will quickly shoot the planes down after you move out of the circle, so the ability will be countered from that point on and you can move back in before it "ends" (because both the stukas will be dead). It's actually really useful if you already have the thing around, and it gets you a decent amount of vet (and AAHT vet3 is a health boost so it can survive 2 hits so that's super useful, among the best veterancy bonuses out there for light vehicles), so it's definitely worth it. |
-Reduce power level of BAR rifles, STG Volks (they should have access to faster Obers) and not sure IS double bren (i don't know as much it's current situation).
-Make conscripts start with molotovs but lockdown Penal PTRS (maybe vanilla satchel) behind current AT package and rename it AT and demolition pack or something.
At this moment with current Oorah and molotov cost, i don't think of this as such an issue but i could be wrong.
-My fear with reducing reinforcing cost with tech, is that it could make PPSH based strats too spammable even if they are now at 60.
IF you can make a believable reason to exclude it somehow from PPSH conscripts, i could see it working with -1mp per each of the first 2 tiers and -2mp for T4.
-Don't give them LMG. Don't give them PPSH stock. I don't want a late game DPS upgrade. But if you suggest something, i'll rather it be a SVT pack or better, just Guards Mosins. You could call it training or something like that.
Agreed with most of that, but the one issue would be that a lot of USF and brit commanders would be 100% useless for lack of elite infantry. |
Noticed this today - Stormtroopers have hotkey overlap for Flame Nade and Tactical Advance (Both F).
Stormtroopers have had like 3 separate hotkey conflicts since they got revamped lol. I think the old flamenade hotkey conflicted with attack ground. |
Each factions unit cost is dependent of what the faction can achieve. Also each faction has powerspikes to keep clashes a back and forth fight. If you consider that OST has no CQC units until T2, Mg42 is the only way to stop rushing in units.
If you ignore, timestamps, relative faction escalation and resource allocation, oportunity costs and overall endgame, and compare plain simple stats vs cost, you wont understand why any unit of the game costs what it costs.
You dont compare blindly between factions end even less on units that are not meant to fight eachothers
Meanwhile brits are off crying in a corner with no indirect counters and no nondoc assault/cqc infantry but ok.
I seriously think mg42 is fine though. |
I think it was set to 250% cap speed (it was somewhere between 2-3x). It's insanely fast.
Oh shoot. I'll play around with it now XD |
|
Just thinking about it it seems much more efficient to just build 3 cons instead of replacing them with 3 extra engies. Cons are actualy a bit cheaper in the long run since they are less expensive to reinforce but also more efficient with better vet and better utility for the most part. You also don't have to build a separate building for cons like you did for rifles in coh1 so there's not a lot of economic incentive to skip them except for a slightly lower initial cost and buildtime that is more than made up by combat efficiency on cons' part. |
Bleb Feesh
LoopDloop
LoopDloop
Relic Entertainment
