Profile of Serrith

....

Merge with combat engineers is most powerful in the early game as you can keep your flamethrower fighting enemy grens and pios a lot longer. In the late game, it's less impactful as due to lack of durability vet, combat engineers just die too fast to make it worth doing in most situations.


I'm ok with the pioneers being 200mp and CE being 170, even in the late game. What is a bit harder to swallow is 25mp reinforcement vs 21(or 20/18 if you use merge to save on mp).

It's the 25mp reinforcement that breaks the piggy bank in the late game, not the initial cost. That's almost as much as assault grens(26) FFS.

Isn't it the other way around?



???

300 < 280?

It's more that long range favors PF less then close range against peniles. The G43s give PFs a sizable edge in close quarters. At long range, they are fairly close in dps though vet 3 peniles should win vs vet 5 G43 PFs At anything above ~15 range.

As for the cost, you really do have to factor in the G43 upgrade munitions since without it the PFs dont even come close to peniles.

...

The reason I dont consider pios comparable in recon is due to how powerful their spotting actually is. While it no doubt can help an MG spot an incoming blob a little earlier, 42 range is insufficient to provide much beyond that. Compare it to the M3A1 with 50 base spotting range, vet 3 M5 with 45.5, su85 with 75 on focus sight, recon T70 with base 52.5, hell even tracking su76/su85/zis/isu is 49... that 42 sight range isnt looking so good beyond spotting for your mgs.

It's not that having 7 extra sight range is bad, far from it. But the application for it is more limited then it would appear at first glance.


Lastly regarding combat engineers, just compare them in terms of cost effectiveness to conscripts. At vet 0, combat engineers on a per model basis are actually stronger then conscripts as they have 9% lower recieved accuracy then cons while only costing 5% more to reinforce. In terms of recruiting, they are a mere 6% higher cost per model.

On a per model basis, a vet 3 combat engineer with no upgrades is the rough equivalent of a vet 2 con. Pretty good for a spammable cheap to replace engineer unit. Obviously the correct squad ratio is 3 CE vs 2 conscripts- 510mp vs 480mp.

I think either a vet requirement reduction or even a cost reduction (reinforce, purchase or both) could help.

Comparing combat engineers and Pioneers, combat engineers in the late game are cheaper to replace, cheaper to reinforce and can assist engagements at safer ranges. Pioneers offer some spotting utility, but Soviets overall have a more diverse set of STOCK recon options anyway so imo bit of a moot point for the late game.
It should also be noted that soviets have more varied and common doctrinal repair options then ostheer

Basically pioneers just need to be easier to replace in the late game. This can take the form of easier "re-vetting" or cheaper cost.




And just as a side note, I think combat engineers are extremely cost effective, one of the most cost effective infantry units in the game. They are not OP, nor are they super powerful but the combat ability and utility you get for their cost is quite decent.

Have a look at my recent games, I've been having a blast with them.

It's not just that you've been playing brits recently, but your paradigm shift in attitude.

Like I said, I have no issues with you personally, but rarely do I see people change fundamental stances so quickly. I'm glad that you are enjoying the brits, personally I've always struggled to have fun playing them- admittedly I havent played them a lot nor terribly recently.