Login

russian armor

Rifleman cost-effectiveness

3 May 2015, 21:40 PM
#21
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

Lock veteran riflemen to cp 2-3, but make it consistently give vet 2 rifles. That way it can't be abused early game, and gives USF player easy to replace riflemen for late game. Nerf vet gain so it takes longer for them to get to vet 3 though than say a normal vet 2 riflemen. 20 more manpower for a squad that already has vet and is a call in is a steal.


^^^ Or something of the sort. It'll be better balanced for replacements later in the game than as an unfair advantage at the start of the game.
3 May 2015, 21:47 PM
#22
avatar of Rollo

Posts: 738



Flamers are fine,those are not the problem in that doctrine.


Flamers on core infantry is fine? Flamer/zook spam is borderline broken vs OKW.

IMO the flame thrower should take up two slots, same with the 1919.
3 May 2015, 23:17 PM
#23
avatar of AssaultPlazma

Posts: 300

Guess I never realized people had an issue with rifleman flamethrowers. I always personally found rifle company to be crap. But I do agree the M1919 should be looked at.
4 May 2015, 01:54 AM
#24
avatar of Ulaire Minya

Posts: 372

I think that Def. Stance is fine the way it is, considering it requires an investment of 140 muni per squad to be effective. I'll grow old before 1 1919 suppresses anything.
4 May 2015, 03:38 AM
#25
avatar of Aladdin

Posts: 959

Funny things... Defensive stance is used to attack and bliztkrieg is used to run away...


coh2 is the game of abuse! demo charges originally designed to demolish structures, yet mainly used against infantry, B4 before the patch, guard mortar/ptrs spam after the patch! team games FHQ <444>3 Soviet: abuse at finest
4 May 2015, 04:44 AM
#26
avatar of acosn

Posts: 108 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post3 May 2015, 21:47 PMRollo


Flamers on core infantry is fine? Flamer/zook spam is borderline broken vs OKW.

IMO the flame thrower should take up two slots, same with the 1919.



It can easily end up killing your own squad.
4 May 2015, 04:50 AM
#27
avatar of Arclyte

Posts: 692

just had a game where a mortar hit a vet 3 rifle squad, killed 2 men, then flamer exploded and crit the rest
4 May 2015, 06:37 AM
#28
avatar of Highfiveeeee

Posts: 1740

Some kind of Off topic but it annoys me that the Elite Rifles are in fact a whole different unit. I mean that they have a different name and don't sort in between the 'casual' rifles in the unit selection.

So in your overview it can look like: Rifles, Rifles, Echelon, Vehicle Crew, Elite Rifles, Elite Rifles.

4 May 2015, 07:57 AM
#29
avatar of assbag
Donator 22

Posts: 83

I think m1919s and flamers are fine, but they should reguire BAR upgrade. So they would delay other tech/light vehicles. And defensive stance needs to be fixed
4 May 2015, 14:14 PM
#30
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

Something needs to be done about exploding flame Riflemen.
4 May 2015, 14:23 PM
#31
avatar of Blalord

Posts: 742 | Subs: 1

So you want flame riflemen with 0 explode chance ? wow, sounds OP xD
4 May 2015, 14:47 PM
#32
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

So you want flame riflemen with 0 explode chance ? wow, sounds OP xD


More in-line with Penal troops, this is a doctrinal flame upgrade after all.
4 May 2015, 14:52 PM
#33
avatar of Blalord

Posts: 742 | Subs: 1

So you want a flamer squad good at all range, with smoke, nades, and AT nades and which can equip an additional Bar ? with 0 drawback ? for real ?
4 May 2015, 15:01 PM
#34
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

So you want a flamer squad good at all range, with smoke, nades, and AT nades and which can equip an additional Bar ? with 0 drawback ? for real ?


0 Drawback against what? The flame thrower can still explode/dropped. The only problem is Rifles flame explodes after few hits.
4 May 2015, 15:04 PM
#35
avatar of Blalord

Posts: 742 | Subs: 1

Rifle flamer its the same as engie flamer, it have a drawback, its powerful but can explode, 0 reason that rifle flamers should not explode.
4 May 2015, 15:38 PM
#36
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3600 | Subs: 1

Rifle flamer its the same as engie flamer, it have a drawback, its powerful but can explode, 0 reason that rifle flamers should not explode.


I thought the drawback was to close the range to be effective.
4 May 2015, 15:46 PM
#37
avatar of Blalord

Posts: 742 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post4 May 2015, 15:38 PMEsxile


I thought the drawback was to close the range to be effective.


I don't consider 20 as close, its more medium range.
4 May 2015, 16:14 PM
#38
avatar of RMMLz

Posts: 1802 | Subs: 1

So you want flame riflemen with 0 explode chance ? wow, sounds OP xD


Nope, but to be able to buy it again.
4 May 2015, 17:46 PM
#39
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Rifle flamer its the same as engie flamer, it have a drawback, its powerful but can explode, 0 reason that rifle flamers should not explode.


I think USF flamers (including AssEngis) have a 10% chance to explode in oposition to 5% from EFA.

jump backJump back to quoted post4 May 2015, 16:14 PMRMMLz


Nope, but to be able to buy it again.


This
4 May 2015, 17:55 PM
#40
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

the flamer taking up a slot after exploding is a bug according to the precedent set by every other weapon.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

623 users are online: 623 guests
14 posts in the last 24h
30 posts in the last week
144 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45040
Welcome our newest member, jacantonh81
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM