Login

russian armor

The OP utility of engineers.

9 Dec 2015, 15:03 PM
#1
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13076 | Subs: 1

There is large number of unities that can repair vehicles by default:

Royal engineers (can be armed with LMG/HAT* and minesweepers, built emplacements, destroy cover, built mines, wire)

Royal Sappers (has minesweepers, can be equipped with LMG/piats destroy cover, salvage)

Rear Echelon (can be armed with LMG/HAT* and minesweepers, built fighting position, wire, tank traps, cashes)

Assault engineers (can be armed with flamers and LMG/HAT, built fighting position, wire, mines, cashes, cut wire, repair critical, demo charges)

Vehicle crews (repair critical)

Sturmpioneers (can be equipped with minesweapers, mines, R. wire, salvage)

Pioneer (can be armed with flamers or minesweepers, built building, bunkers, mines, wire, cashes)

Combat engineers (can be armed with flamers or minesweepers, built building, mines, wire, cashes, demolition chargers)

(I left out some doctrinal abilities)

The majority of these units (apart from crews, C.E. and pioneers)are good at fighting and can substitute (or even perform better than) standard infantry in fighting. Furthermore they can vet too fast further improving their repair speed.

Imo most of these units offer too much utility (fighting, repairing, creating obstacles, clearing obstacles and all that in a cost efficient price) and with the increased repair speed via vet they can increase the performance of vehicle with allot of HP, by reducing their time out of the field.

The utility of these units is also very different.

Suggestions:

1) Balance out utility, some of these units can carry minesweeper and buy extra weapons other can not, and that affect the performance of weapons like mines, demo chancres, goliaths since some blob can counter them with little loss of firepower while other lose more firepower.

Minesweepers and other weapon should be mutually exclusive so that one units can have one or the other but not both (similar to pioneer and C.E.). All sweepers should be able to be removed similarly to S.P. so that units with them don't lose DPS and can still gain veterancy (remember they can no longer buy weapons).

2) Reduce repair speed of all units to "doctrinal conscript" repair speed, replace the repair speed vet bonuses with a remove repair damage penalty bonus. Reduce built time for emplacements/obstacles.

Make minesweepers increase repair speed and built speed and add repair speed vet bonus, maybe even gain veterancy via repairing.

This changes aim at creating 2 clear path for engineers the combat oriented ones equipped with weapons that can still have utility but be slower, and the utility engineers providing more utility less fighting abilities.

Specific unit changes:

Royal sapper they could spawn with 1-2 piats being an exception in the minesweeper or weapon rule. (the luck utility)

Assault engineers add a 5 member as a vet bonus

Vehicle crews replace the repair critical ability with the following ability, at vet 1 the have a chance to survive vehicle destruction with around 50%HP, then the can merge with a another crew losing 25% of XP.

Repair critical made seance when USF vehicles where UP compared to axis. Currently Sherman and Eays8 are more cost efficient than PZ4 and there is no need for this ability on crews. It can remain on assault engineers making more attractive. This change also helps player remove from the map unwanted crews.

Pioneers and C.E. could become able to benefit from doctrinal weapon upgrades and get G43 and PPsh respectively.

To sum up engineer type unit have very different utility that is not reflected in cost and Imo there should be 2 different path for engineers Combat oriented with slower repair built and Utility oriented with faster repair built speed and less combat ability.


(*) Hand held AT
9 Dec 2015, 15:32 PM
#2
avatar of dasheepeh

Posts: 2057 | Subs: 1

really? engineers op?
9 Dec 2015, 15:47 PM
#3
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13076 | Subs: 1

When there are popular, viable strategies that have armies consisting of more R.E., Roy. eng. or S.P. then mainline infantry I would say yea they have do more utility than they should.
9 Dec 2015, 15:53 PM
#4
avatar of IIGuderian

Posts: 128

OH COME ON
9 Dec 2015, 16:03 PM
#5
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17583 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 15:47 PMVipper
When there are popular, viable strategies that have armies consisting of more R.E., Roy. eng. or S.P. then mainline infantry I would say yea they have do more utility than they should.


Where are these popular strats then?

I hear a whole lot about them, but haven't seen ANYONE do any kind of engi spam, maybe except Romeo who tried to RET spam, sprice who is sprice and does weird shit that somehow works but exclusively for him and Redxwings, who usually fails if he tries stuff like that.

I hear a lot about how heavy REs were OP, but not once faced heavy RE spam-the apparently most powerful "engies are core" strat out there, at least according to forums.

So, if these engi centric strats are so strong, why no one plays them?
9 Dec 2015, 16:12 PM
#6
9 Dec 2015, 16:35 PM
#7
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13076 | Subs: 1

this thread is not about my skill or about any strategies involving spamming of engineer type of units.

This thread is about having 2 distinguished roles for engineer type units:
battle oriented with limited utility
utility oriented with less fighting power

I would be happy to debate this proposal but the other issued razed so far seem to me out of topic...
9 Dec 2015, 16:56 PM
#8
avatar of samich

Posts: 205

Its not off topic at all though is it, if you concede that there are no good strategies that involve spamming engineer units then what "OP utility" do they have?
They can supplement damage in a fight a bit and do tasks you would expect of an engineer unit..

9 Dec 2015, 19:33 PM
#9
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13076 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 16:56 PMsamich
... what "OP utility" do they have?
They can supplement damage in a fight a bit and do tasks you would expect of an engineer unit..



Read original post. There are engineer type units that do not just "supplement damage" but are far more cost efficient than base line infantries.

Further more their boosted repair speed via combat veterancy messes with the effeminacy of armor since units return to field way to fast.
9 Dec 2015, 19:40 PM
#10
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7

When paying ammo on squad that is

a) fragile
b) best used elsewhere (repairs , mine placing / disabling)
c) mostly without vet bonuses

is weir for me.

NOTE: flamtrower is utility upgrade not better damage that why flame rifles were OP.

Also right now RE are better that IS in terms of cost effective fighting but I think the problem is in overnerfed IS not OpieOP RE
10 Dec 2015, 13:42 PM
#11
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13076 | Subs: 1

When paying ammo on squad that is

a) fragile
b) best used elsewhere (repairs , mine placing / disabling)
c) mostly without vet bonuses
...



A) inaccurate
(According to http://www.stat.coh2.hu)
Grenadiers have 4X80/0.91= 352 EHP 352/0.77 = 450 HP at VET 3 (1920 XP)

Ro. Eng have 4X80/0.80 = 400 EHP 5X80/0.80/0.67 = 746 HP at vet 3 (1600 XP) I will not even go to heavy engineers...

R.E. 4X80 = 320 EHP 5x80/0.77 = 519 HP at vet 3 (1200? XP)

S.P. 4X80/0.87 = 367 EHP 4X80/0.87/0.77 = 478 HP at vet 3 (2560 XP)

SO I would not actually call them fragile...

B) well if you have allot of them you can use them for everything...

C) inaccurate
Some of best VET 1 bonuses (most units get abilities...)

Royal Engineers -30% cooldown WHEN IN COVER,+50% Reload WHEN IN COVER

Rear Echelon Troops +20% accuracy

Low XP value help them vet faster....

Good vet 3 bonuses

Royal Engineers Reinforce cost reduced by 50%,received accuracy -33%
R.E. Increases the squad's size to 5, -23% received accuracy, -20% weapon cooldown

One of the most cost efficient upgrade with the heavy engineer upgrade...
10 Dec 2015, 13:56 PM
#12
avatar of Kozokus

Posts: 301

Nerf engineers! :o

I am getting tired of thoses threads.
-Pick a rather fine, undiscussed and balanced aspect of the game.
-Call it unbalanced for false reasons and biaised tight view of the game
-Proposes innapropriate solutions to fit the OP's view of the game.
-Claim to be right because.

Reminds me threads like "soviet armor" or "OST earlygame"...:mellow:

I humbly suggest an IP check, it may shows somethin' interestin'.

Kozo.
10 Dec 2015, 14:16 PM
#13
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13076 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Dec 2015, 13:56 PMKozokus
Nerf engineers! :o

I am getting tired of thoses threads.
...


the thread is not about nerfing the engineers, read understand reply (see suggestions)...

If you are getting tired of these threads simply don't read them...
10 Dec 2015, 14:19 PM
#14
avatar of Tatatala

Posts: 589

Yeah, let's all whine about Engineer/Pioneer OP'ness when there are literally 10's of other serious problems.

What a shambles.
10 Dec 2015, 14:21 PM
#15
avatar of Zansibar

Posts: 158 | Subs: 2

10 Dec 2015, 14:22 PM
#16
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1896



Where are these popular strats then?

I hear a whole lot about them, but haven't seen ANYONE do any kind of engi spam, maybe except Romeo who tried to RET spam, sprice who is sprice and does weird shit that somehow works but exclusively for him and Redxwings, who usually fails if he tries stuff like that.

I hear a lot about how heavy REs were OP, but not once faced heavy RE spam-the apparently most powerful "engies are core" strat out there, at least according to forums.

So, if these engi centric strats are so strong, why no one plays them?


I bet a lot of people have tried RE spam, failed, and then went back to what they were doing before. Before the price increase, RE's were something like 20 mp to reinforce so if you could keep 6-8 of them going while not losing any then it would work out. As soon as you lose a whole squad then your cost is 40/model for the new one which is expensive for the low combat ability of a new squad. Also, in the previous patch you had to outnumber Grens at least 2 to 1 to win any of the early battles. If you had to retreat a few times you would dig yourself a big hole. I didn't enjoy it, even on the few games that I won. It felt like I lost almost all the battles but won the game because I didn't lose squads and simply out-capped the other player.
10 Dec 2015, 14:36 PM
#17
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1841 | Subs: 1

I don't get this thread at all. The whole point of a RTS game is tactical depth that emphasizes strategy and maneuvering and Engineer units by far best capsulize that in this game. Why do you want to nerf that?

10 Dec 2015, 14:41 PM
#18
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13076 | Subs: 1

I don't get this thread at all... Why do you want to nerf that?

Read post 6...
10 Dec 2015, 14:47 PM
#19
avatar of Kozokus

Posts: 301

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Dec 2015, 14:16 PMVipper


the thread is not about nerfing the engineers, read understand reply (see suggestions)...

If you are getting tired of these threads simply don't read them...


Sorry, my "nerf eng" was juste a unimaginative troll.

On the contrary i think i should read them. Beeing passionated by the game and a member of the community i think i should read everything and not just what pleases me.

I do not agree with thoses who ask for your playercard, as the strengh of your argumentation has nothing at see with your experience of the game. A statement is true or false regardless of who tells it.

I am truely admirative with your suggestions and the immaginative efforts you put into your argumentation. They are quite open minded and creative.
However i discard your claims about the state of the game as i see them narrowed and biaised (which is why other people may suspect a lack of game experience from you) resulting in out-of place suggestions based on unacurate facts.

And it is our role as a community to point what we think is misleading in our forums :)

Currently the playerbase is going through a wave of "OKW OP" or "UKF is fucked" and as i suspect the problem is not that simple i am quite sure it does not lie in the state of the engineers.

If i can give an advice i would suggest you to point your analytic mind in that direction.

Kozo.

10 Dec 2015, 15:24 PM
#20
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13076 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Dec 2015, 14:47 PMKozokus


Sorry, my "nerf eng" was juste a unimaginative troll.

On the contrary i think i should read them. Beeing passionated by the game and a member of the community i think i should read everything and not just what pleases me.
...


It is refreshing to see that one can avoid trolling and give a opinion without insults. Apology not necessary (but accepted since given).

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Dec 2015, 14:47 PMKozokus

If i can give an advice i would suggest you to point your analytic mind in that direction.
Kozo.


Advice taken into account but personally disagree. It is true more important issues than engineer atm but that does not mean that engineer issues should not be looked at.

The number of engineer types units built is after all realted to the relative cost efficiency of the base infantry..(if IS get nerfed more Ro.Eng. will be built, V.G. get a cost increase more S.P. being built...)

Relic has been playing with balance for year now without fixing things that are easier to be fixed and that might actually help with balance.

For instance WFA veterncy abilities and veterancy bonuses should be looked at months ago...a large number of small change can influence balance as much a few big ones...

Anyway thanks for changing your tone...
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
  • Oberkommando West flag Oziligath
  • The British Forces flag T.R. Sidewinder
uploaded by Oziligath

Board Info

244 users are online: 244 guests
53 posts in the last 24h
227 posts in the last week
842 posts in the last month
Registered members: 33228
Welcome our newest member, Ardiontrkis
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM