Snip
Snip
Ahh okay, I thought they only got the weapon of the new squad. Thanks for clarifying guys |
Outside of the issues 'thedarkarmadillo' mentioned, it really comes down to the question of:
Do we want instantaneous reinforcement in the game?
That's really what this discussion turns into. Take two gren squads, for example; one is Vet 3 w/ an LMG, but is down to one model, and the other is a freshly built squad (vet 0, full HP/Models). Merging the Vet 0 squad with the Vet 3 squad brings the much more powerful and expensive squad back to full size (i.e. models) instnantly, essentially letting you transfer the "this squad must retreat" status to a less 'expensive' unit. Additionally, since they are the same squad types, there's no downside.
The only way this could work (IMO) is if the 'merging' squad was objectively worse. This way, while the 'target squad' is instantly restored to full model count, the quality of those models is far worse than if it had retreated and reinforced normally. For example, I don't think letting pioneers merge with anything would be too OP; a gren squad consisting of a normal gren model w/ LMG and 3 pioneers would be pretty terrible.
I was under the impression that the models that get "transferred" kept their stats, including the veterancy of the squad they were originally in? Then when they die and get reinforced normally they have the same vet as the squad. I thought they only got the weapon of the squad they merged with
I could be 100% wrong about that. And i guess even if it somehow didnt cause balance issues, it's bound to cause too many bugs to be worth it like armadillo said |
I voted no
Related question, would it be OP if all squads could merge with a squad of the exact same type? (not across players, just within your own army)
So grens can merge with grens, obers with obers, guards with guards, etc. |
1. Not a different conversation. Especially that people against making pios more competitive or cheaper keep suggesting they do more and thus should be more expensive than CEs. The same people don't see that echelons and sappers can be much more deadly lategame and cost as much as pios. Mainline infantry, especially conscripts, often have more abilities and it is not always/almost never reflected in the price.
Yes it's a different conversation, I just explained why. Balancing mainline infantry is not the same as engineers
And yes it is absolutely reflected in the price. You have unlock costs for their weapon racks, the costs of the weapons themselves, bolster cost... Their better combat potential doesn't just fall out of the sky
The rest is simply "smoke and mirror" from specific users in an attempt to create an imaginary "advantage" of the axis factions have because some things come bundled with tech/buildings.
That supposed to mean something? For someone who gets annoyed about people making things personal you seem to have no problem doing it yourself
I have been bringing it up exclusively within the context of comparing the squads they effect, not the entire factions. It has nothing to do with making up "imaginary advantages" for one side or the other |
The price - it is the same (240mp). I understand that now all forum members who believe that a unit that "does more" should be more expensive will advocate increasing the price on conscripts.
People were saying an engineer that has more utility should be more expensive. Given that the entire job of an engineer is to provide utility...
Now your talking about mainline infantry. Completely different conversation
Also btw, you forgot to mention cons have to invest in side-techs for their snare/worse grenade. They already are more expensive than grens
Reduce pio vet requirements. That's all that's needed
|
Extra sight. It would make sense if they were long range unit. Other than that it changes nothing.
Completely false it makes them great spotters for the best MG in the game. That's literally the reason they added it
Edit: +1 to Storm's points, I think he did a thorough enough job with that post
(a little late sorry)
I think they're more or less equal with same but different roles.
That's pretty much what I think of them. CEs give you less utility, slightly better direct combat. The utility that pios bring in comparison makes up the cost difference imo
I would reduce vet requirements of pios, as stuglife pointed out they are the same as Royals which makes little sense |
With 2 weapon slots, there's no way that RE will ever be lower to reinforce than 25mp.
Yeah thats true I guess. Thats my thing though you need to double equip them for it to be worth that. Otherwise 25mp is crazy for what they give you
Unrelated, I think they should really make the sweeper take up a weapon slot on Royals and Rears. Don't understand why you can have 2 zooks/piats and a sweeper |
Could maybe convince me that 25 mp for RE reinforce is too much, but I think everything else is fine
Grens are not more expensive than Riflemen. Slightly more to reinforce yes, but they also aren't designed to run straight at their target. Whatever problems grens have, it's not cost |
ok are we buffing ass green too as well cause they have like the same cruve of dps , if they are lack cluster imagine an infantry unit that cost more no ambush and no infiltration
and again they cost 26 mp to reinforce cause they are basically ass green, but cost much less from the start ,like a lot less if u count infiltration
The fuck are you talking about assgrens for? This has nothing to do with the thread
Not even a comparable unit to AI partisans. You literally listed some of the reasons why, no camo, no infiltration. Instead they have 5 men (+1), sprint, and cp0. Completely different roles. "Has SMGs" is not a good reason to talk about them in this thread
I would say buff AI partisans and increase their call-in cost at the same time. Maybe increase call-in cooldown as well to prevent spam |
I'm aware of that. I figured since we were talking about CEs I'd go over soviets.
Soviets fight against OKW as well who have plenty of light vehicles
I think the respective costs of the two squads is fine atm. Do you disagree?
|