That was a counter argument removed from context.
Ok, fine. You want stormtroopers to have an extra man. I do not think they should get an extra man because this would compromise their identity as an elite ambush unit; they would not need to hide to be effective and would resemble a general-purpose assault unit.
Stormtroopers already have better received accuracy on paper than panzergrenadiers, although the veterancy progression is different. And German Infantry doctrine already gives you five-man squads for when durability is critical. And stormtroopers performing ambushes should mostly be avoiding hits from things like tanks and rocket artillery that don't care about received accuracy.
But if stormtroopers actually do need a durability buff, they should get something that makes them extra durable without having more men. Stormtroopers' small squad size visually reinforces the idea that they are a stealthy ambush unit that surprise the enemy to avoid taking damage. Giving them five men weakens their identity.
|
Tactical advance is a double edge sword. If you were to use it on panzergrens at mid range the panzergrens would win because the stormtroopers would evaporate. It is only good against retreating units or undefended units. It is a crutch that is it and still panzergrens out preform them.
What does "crutch" mean to you? Because to me it means an an ability that requires little skill to use effectively and can paper over a player's weaknesses. So Tactical Advance would not be a crutch because it is situational and risky.
The real crutch in German Infantry doctrine is obviously Veteran Squad Leader, whether or not it is OP. |
They can just buy a sweeper for a 170 manpower engie, shoot mines from afar, done. They can also just arty/katy them accidentally. It can be pulled off (with mines) but basically it is almost always a mistake on the allied side. Regular mines cripple engines too and are much cheaper and don't require the doc. Those mines are nowhere near those soviet combos of guards snare, mark target, ram plus planes (alternatively hoorah plus snare, penal satchel, etc.) I'm not saying that those combos shouldn't exist. They are just so much more powerful.
You need to use a past unreal conditional to describe alternative possibilities in the past.
So the allies "could have bought" a sweeper, but did not. They "could have shot" the mines from afar, but did not. They "could have bombed" them accidentally, but did not. |
I guess one could try replacing the VS upgrade with a separate doctrinal unit with 5 KAR98 (or 4 plus a luger that can be upgrade to MP-40/MP-44) and a hand grenade.
Then the unit could be better designed timed and fine tuned.
Why would you give them a pistol instead of another rifle? If the point is that five rifles is too strong, you can just make the rifles weaker, because you're making an entirely new squad.
Do you want riflemen to have lugers available to loot and take home with them? Is that it? |
Honestly, I used to love using Elite Troops doctrine; but Grens simply don't have the pop they used to have.
With IS getting a significant buff, Riflemen getting a mid range buff, and Soviets getting 7-Man, and Ostruppen being 200, there really isn't a real reason to use Grens.
I wouldn't mind seeing stock Grens getting 5, costing 260, and Veteran Grens have a 6 man upgrade.
Allied Bois would lose their minds though.
If you insist a mainline infantry to be a 4 man squad, if they are squishy, they have to be lethal. Fallschirmjagers are a 4 man squad; but they have access to FG-42's.
When you prematurely accuse the "other side" of overreacting to your proposed balance changes, it suggests that you have a guilty conscience and know in your heart that your proposed changes are lopsided.
And Falls are doctrinal elites, so of course grens look bad in comparison. |
They are the last truley remaining OP ability that axis has to the point even reversing out of the area as soon as it is called in does not work, they chase you way out of the abilies sector too.
As it stands it is an "I win the tank engagement" button and nothing less.
Build AA: I did, "Reverse out of the area as soon as you see it": I did. and all for 200 muni?
Technically, the CAS did not affect the tank engagement. You had already lost the engagement. The planes just blew up your very badly damaged tank after it retreated a short distance, which doesn't seem unreasonable for 200 munis even if the targeting effects are somewhat misleading. |
That's why I don't think free sprint with cooldown would be broken. Definitely, no more broken than abilities such as "step on in". In its current form, sprint may bleed ost too much of munitions. If it was free, there would be some chance to actually make assaut grens viable for players on a similar level without more dangerous combat-stat buffs.
I like that sprint has a munitions cost. Otherwise I would need to constantly weigh the value of some marginal use of sprint versus the speculative future cost of not having access to sprint during the cooldown. It's tiresome. Having a munitions cost makes a lot of marginal uses clearly not worth it, which frees me to think about other stuff. |
|
If you can't build sandbags on or "close to" points, then you can't build sandbags on half the map, which is intrusively arbitrary.
Instead, you could shoot the sandbags with an AT gun. |
I think this is not the right approach to this problem. AT inf are good vs tanks but they should be weak against infantry. This means that the easiest way to counter AT infantry is to use AI infantry, except Rangers and PG have low received accuracy and take too long to die from small arms fire unless you blob against them or use elite infantry. MGs can't follow your tanks around, so don't even suggest that.
By design Piat, Bazooka and PSchreck squads are not intended to fight infantry, so they could die a bit faster from small arms fire. To put an emphasis on it, you could either apply a modifier, but I'd honestly prefer to just swap the AT weapons to other, less small arms fire resilient infantry. Right now I don't see a problem with Piats, but 3-zook Rangers and 2-Schreck PG are a problem with their low received accuracy. I mentioned it already in the other thread, but I think that Rangers could lose ability to wield super-bazookas, it should be moved doctrinally or non-doctrinally to REchelons and PSchreck upgrade should be moved from PG to Grens (disable faust, take all weapon slots). RE with zooks would still be weaker than Panzerfusiliers with Schrecks so I dare you to call bias.
MP bleed that reinforcing AT infantry causes would be higher, even if initial cost of a squad was lower because of the difference in the target size between REchelons/Grens vs Rangers/PGs. Small arms fire would make it easier to punish blobs of AT infantry in mid and low ELO. I don't think top level of any game mode would be affected much. Less cancer for majority of players.
I suggest you pack up your MG and have it follow your tank, so enemy AT infantry can't chase your tank. |
My suggestion is either make it instant (the cast time is eternally long) or allow the healing to take place even under combat. I want a core ability.
In-combat healing is bad.
That's why it doesn't exist in coh2.
|
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
