I also didn't claim they needed to do without. I was arguing against them needing to be able to put their sweepers away. Not sure what words you are trying to put in my mouth but I won't have em. |
still 5 stens vs 4 with sweeper, former is better.
I would like to see it as an option personally.
then dont get the sweeper if you want 5 stens. seems pretty straightforward....
and my comment was originally that the 5 man squad offsets the firepower drain of the sweeper, which is correct as it maintains 4 stens and increases durability. 4 stens no sweeper is the same output as 4 stens and a sweeper. you dont get this option for CE or ost pios and they manage to get by.they dont even have the luxury of having weapon racks. trying to make a 210mp unit comparable to a 300mp one "just cuz" isnt q good basis of balance. |
It's not offset if you have a mandatory sweeper
Offset would be able to put it away like sturms, but no matter what you will have less combat power than regular RE. Basic maths, 5 stens better than 4
Actually regardless of putting the sweeper away 5 man sappers with the sweeper are still better than 4 man sappers without. The 5 man upgrade offsets the sweeper entirely and still provides a durability buff. Over 4 man sappers. They cost 210mp. They are not intended to give commandos a run for effeciency as assault troops. If you want 5 man sappers without the sweeper the situation is rather simple-don't buy the sweeper and suffer the consequences. Sturms cost 50% more than sappers, they are also designed to operate as front line infantry exploiting flanks. THAT'S why they get to out their sweepers away. Notice none of the other 3 factions with comparably priced engineers can put away their sweepers either? It's very much intended. What makes sappers so special that they should be able to do what sturms, who again are 50% more expensive, can do aside from "I want to be able to do everything because I want to and that's why"? |
They are good but mostly for the fact they have comparable repair to Sturms
Their combat ability is negated by mandatory sweeper
partially offset by being able to get an entire extra model (with a gun) |
6-man MG is blocking enemy attack and sniper can do free deal easily
are u insane?
You are forgetting though that it's a maxim. The only thing it's stopping is the Soviet from fielding decent infantry because they are in separate tech buildomgs |
It's a delicate balance because of how the rockets are delivered. To make it worth short range you would need to drastically increase the payload, but because ufse of the way the barrage is applied (volleys) it would be pointless as anything Hit by the first barrage would need to be wiped or its of no use as the following barrage are just area denial. Shorter range would just turn it into a shitty sturmtiger (asc shitty as the sturmtiger already is)
Its unique feature IS its durability, it pays for that with fuel, pop cap, and quite frankly, underwhelming firepower AND vet. Durability is its whole shtick. |
I agree, but;
Why do you always complain when people throw out ideas, and yet never offer your own?
Most of us (at least I don’t) think our ideas are perfect, or even good. But maybe one of my ideas can be improved upon by more experienced players so that it’s actually good.
Also, your feed back is always very true, so I’m not complaining about that
I frequently offer my own changes. This is a topic that has been brought up a good many times and I have linked my suggestion each of those times. This is a touchy topic an I'd like to see other players suggestions instead of constantly plugging my own. If you would like to see it I'll get a link but again, I don't want to crowd this discussion I have in the past. |
Yep… the great misstake of Jagdtiger...
*does literally ANYTHING at all to support the JT*
*JT continues to invalidate all enemy armour*
|
I'd also be against units that efficiently serve two distinct roles at the same time. I never liked how with the ZiS going for heavy anti-tank also gives good AI (or anti support weapons) and by now it's clear that giving the M-42 a dual role was a mistake as well. The game is about strategic unit choices with limited resources and dual purpose units are bad for balance.
i dont think dual role units are inherently bad, it just needs proper execution. the zis for example is the right way to do it, it requires munitions, it an area effect ability thats counter is simply moving (it could probably use a bit more scatter on that first shot though) and when its done its done. over use will obliterate your muni economy meaning its a matter of managing risk/reward. |
Getting AT is supposed to reduce AI. it's a choice thing. If you get it too soon it reduces your capacity to combat infantry, too late and you are over run by infantry. It's not a design error it's intended. |