Man it's been more than two years now since TFN threw in the towel?
Damn. |
Well, it'd probably stand a chance of being useful at least once in a given match considering people generally get DP-28s on Guards compared to REs getting BARs being a lot less likely, but the "Die really fast to maybe suppress" button would still strike me as usually dubious.
Interestingly enough, I've tested this a few times by modding in the ability for Penal Battalions within a DP-28 upgrade. Because it's an automatic weapon, it actually put down a fairly reliable amount of suppression, unlike the RE carbines (which incidentally, appear to use a different weapon and profile for the ability). |
Thanks for the input and for voting everyone so far!
So from what I'm seeing is people don't primarily go for Guards Infantry for their PTRS. And even when they are, their AI capabilities are just as, if not more, important.
I guess a follow-up question is whether or not people choose between Guards and Shocks (or nothing) by virtue of the units, or the doctrines they come in.
And oh man I would love it if DP-28s gave volley fire instead/in addition to Button. |
I only use Reigels in the doctrine with spotting scopes and Elefants. But lately I've been using the Elefant doctrine with the Command P4 because of obvious reasons.
I love reigels, much like I love USF's M20 mines. They can just be hard to use because they are hard to keep them out of battle long enough to get into position. They also take forever to lay. |
If ram shocked both the T34 and the target and dealt a small amount of damage to the T34, that might not be too crazy, especially if it disabled the T34 for a longer time/the ram had a long cooldown afterward. |
With all this recent discussion about Penal Battalions, Soviet elite infantry, and their T1, I've become curious as to the reasons people choose to use Guards as Soviets. |
the flamethrower isn't the problem, the svt 40 is the problem. The flamethrower can ignore the defensive on infantry, it's the great equalizer. If the svt-40 was actually decent people will start using them more.
and satchel charge should have at snare ability. Using a satchel charge to knock out a tank's tread is one of the oldest anti-tank tactic in history.
Actually if Satchel charges could work like vCoH sticky bombs, there might be something there. |
It think it has more implications for map design than anything. The 'cap zone' mechanic really eliminates much of the reason territory points exist in the first place. In vCoH infantry had to actively 'use' the point to capture it. It was a physical object with which entities interacted, which necessitated the visualization.
But that's not how CoH2 works. If territory points completely disappeared and were invisible, and caches could be freely built (only inside cap zone, limit one per) and you'd have a result that is more in line with how CoH2 works.
It would be cool to see the return of actively capturing the territory point object. It should infer the similar penalties to building or repairing, while perhaps speed up the capture rate, or even override enemy units stalling capture.
It'd open up a whole new and dynamic world of gameplay AND map design.
But that said, I'd rather see more diversity in territory points. I miss real cutoff/strategy points and variable resources. |
You have to admit though, SU-85 trollcannon is sorely underused.
That vet 2. Dat vet 3 |
Falls are excellent units but come in a doctrine with no real lategame potential, which really kinda hampers their overall utility. |