|
First change I would try would be to make "critical kill" a timed ability and that goes for GLI also.
The change would serve as:
1) A way to inform the player of existence of the mechanism
2) As an anti spam mechanism
3) As a way of increasing player input and decision making |
You don't point anything out, your posts are meaningless and never contribute to the discussion, you only ever derail threads, as you have attempted to here aswell, do you really think we will actually listen to anything you have to say if you lose to a UC+RE rush?
I have pointed out to you that the tittle of your thread or your OP is simply wrong.
If you want to compare penal with other mainline infatry you have to compare them with units like:
Grenadier
Vg
Conscripts
Tommies
Riflemen
From those:
Conscripts have worse Target size
VG have the same
and only Grenadier/Riflemen/Tommies have better target size.
Even so target size on it own does not say much since these squad do not have some number of entities and one should be comparing effective hit point and not just target size.
Once one compares EHP one can see that Penal have more EHP than other squads. |
The only annoying thing about the USF/UKF sidetech racks is that you have to manually pick them up in base. Otherwise it's a valid sidetech that does not weaken USF in any way. It would be better if you also had the option like captain/lieutenant to upgrade one/two BARs/Zooks (or just pick them up, your choice). Especially with the pizza base where you shift-click to take up the weapon(or two) and go to the frontline, only to notice 20 seconds later that the extremely annoying/fu**ing PIZZA base is blocking you and each other. If only Relic allowed a pizza base re-design. Aneurysm-inducing.
Other than that, the side techs are completely valid and legit for USF/UKF
Can we get back on topic which is Pathfinders? |
Do NOT reply to my threads or my posts, I do not value your input and neither does anybody else on this forum.
I hate to have to point out the obvious but the you do not get to decide who post in this forum. |
|
I hate to have to point out the obvious but the following units that are included in OP are simply not mainline infatry:
Jaeger
Obers
Fallschirm
Sturmpio
Sturmoffizier
Pgren
Stormtroopers
|
yeah because you are supposed to wait their infantry upgrades dipshit
Glad that you finally understood what I posted and thus that your response was simply wrong.
Now PLS try to tone down the personal insults.
|
I mean I do, but that's an odd way to phrase that I disagreed with them being more expensive that most mains, which is what you claimed, because both statements are quite inaccurate.
This what I have posted:
"In sort the are clearly more expensive than grenadiers,vg , conscripts and Penals so you original claim of similar price simply does not hold water."
If you agree with something in that sentence feel free to explain with what and why.
I definitely don't agree to that either. The way you phrased your statement is that you're adding the truck and setup on top of Panzerfusiliers, which does not make sense either.
I've always maintained that teching can't be added to unit costs throughout a ton of discussions, since it makes cost distribution and all arguments drawn from that fully arbitrary.
Then what you should ask and answer to your yourself is why choose to disagree with me and not rumartinez89 who actually brought tech cost into equation (I am not actually interested in the answer). I simply pointed that if one want to add tech for penal one has needs to add it for PF.
Those units have their own issues, but at least those have a clear and exploitable weakness. Panzerfusiliers don't.
No matter if there "clear and exploitable weakness" there are two thread here about the problems with Pathfinders and this is one of them. |
Comparing only part of the costs (MP and population) where the Command P4 fares "worse" followed by a comparison of the combat effectiveness of the P4 and Command P4 is misleading to all readers that do not know all the costs by heart. Especially since the combat effectiveness and MP cost are not obviously related.
It is more truthful to at least compare the full costs, that's why I pointed it out.
I havenot compared C.PzIV and PzIV. I have simply pointed out that C.PzIV is more expensive. Once again this is what I wrote:
"Cost more manpower than a normal PzIV."
Please don't reverse this. You were the first comparing it to the normal P4.
Again simply no I made no such comparison.
Anyway: Ostheer has no unit like the P4. The closest unit in CoH2 design-wise is probably the Command Panther, but that's a TD. Any comparison has caveats, it is just important to point them out. The Command P4 shares a lot of characteristics to the normal P4 besides its name: Armor, HP, mobility, AI capability. Even veterancy bonuses and upgrades. Not the AT power though. And that's exactly what I did by saying that you basically trade the AT capability for slightly lower costs and the aura.
If you want to compare it to the Ostwind, go ahead. but the comparison only makes sense if you can put their different characteristics into context. You have a lot more subtle differences though with the Ostwind, so the comparison will likely lead to more speculation and assumptions.
So taken everything together, the comparison to the P4 makes the most sense in my eyes.
You are entitled to your opinion but compact wise C.Pz is much closer to ostwsind which is a AI tank than to PzIV which is mainline tank.
I am not sure how this relates to what I you are quoting.
I don't see how the unit "comparable" to the Ostwind in the sense of that they'd fill the same niche. They don't. They work differently. They are both AI vehicles for sure, but so are Brummbar and Panzerwerfer. They would not be my go-tos for a comparison though. For the reasons explained above, I'd say the most straight forward comparison is to the normal P4, since they share a lot of features.
As I said before, I agree to the point about adjusting XP values. At the very least, the normal P4 and Command P4 should vet at similar speeds given they have the same vet. In the best case, the Command P4 should get its own vet system.
Glad that you agree about XP value and vet bonuse.
I agree to the part that it has a bad gun. What I pointed out what, that this is not due to accuracy.
The same accuracy profile is used across a ton of units in CoH2. Mediums are a major threat to LVs despite using the same accuracy profile. It even has better scatter values, so technically it should hit more than a normal medium. The accuracy is so to say "normal", what drags it down mostly is the low damage and penetration.
Glad to see that you agree it has a bad gun.
I have not claimed that the accuracy is the only problem as I have posted it the combination of factors:
"The gun is simply bad with bad accuracy/bad penetration and bad damage and there nothing to justify that."
But as I said: The Command P4 is a decent unit in team games. If you buff its combat performance, you're also buffing it in the modes it is already good in. So either you increase the price to compensate, or you need to apply another nerf - in the best case one that hits team games harder than small modes, which would probably be the aura.
Imo you are simply over estimating the impact of improving the gun especially for a unit limited to 1. Once more you are entitled to your opinion.
In all comparisons, you've solely been discussing the combat performance. Apart from a suggested rework, you've not even mentioned the aura at all, and therefore neglected the biggest selling point of the unit. That's definitely focusing on combat.
As I already said, the buffs you suggested will also buff the unit in larger modes where it is already good at. They are not balanced, they might lead to a better balanced units in small modes, but potentially give rise to problems in larger modes.
The Command P4 is perfectly capable of fighting infantry. What it needs is a reduction in XP thresholds to reflect the missing damage on vehicles.
Glad to see that you have changed your mind about XP value.
Finally, please don't insinuate things I did not say. I never described the Command P4 as OP, so please don't pretend I did.
That goes both ways. |
Their costs are pretty is pretty much situated in the middle, a bit below the cost of the most expensive main lines of USF and UKF. The difference in MP buy cost amortises itself very quickly due to the lower reinforcement cost.
Glad to see that you agree that they do not "similar price to most mains"
The fact that there needs a truck to be set up does not add to their cost. What it actually means is that OKW has one of the quickest possibilities to upgrade their squads in a viable build order.
You might want to point out that rumartinez89 that wants to take into account the T1 of Penals.
For their price they also come with a lot of utility. Damage, mobility, bleed, recon, grenade and snare, optionally they have a second upgrade path. They even come in very good commanders. I'd say Panzerfusiliers are the most complete main line infantry once they are upgraded.
Yes they are pretty good once upgraded.
They are also currently badly designed the same way Penal and Pathfinder (which is the topic on this thread) are. |
universally agreed to be essentially the best mainline infantry in team mode games and probably in 1v1s as well --->>>> "But...bro...they aren't cost effective!!" (they are)
It seem that you have trouble understanding what you reading.
PF before being upgrade cost 270 manpower, are 5 men squad with worse DPS than VGs. That makes them on the least cost efficient mainline infatry. |
Relic Entertainment
