He even acknowledged that by saying that an afk kick feature and dropping yourself will yield the same result.
His original post made the point that leaving yourself is already a solution to the problem. His post wouldn't make any sense otherwise. Why should you drop the game if the player would get replaced by AI anyway?
It's a bad solution for sure, but for what we have everyone can fix the problem himself by simply leaving the game. There is no need to stick to the game apart from a small amount of lost rewards. I think your suggestion would fit better to CoH3 since CoH2 will likely not see an update anymore, I hope though that they implement it along with a lot of other QoL features for multiplayer.
See post #6 he quote my response to katokuv which said that there is not auto AFK kick mechanism to say something completely different.
I saw it. He suggested that you can drop yourself to find a new game sooner since CoH2 does not support afk recognition.
Katukov's opinion has nothing to do with Esxile's response, you're jumping to conclusions here.
Yes, if your partner is afk then just leave the game, the result will be the same. If you can process this info can't do more for you.
Do you agree that contrary to what Katukov claimed there is no afk kick mechanism or do you agree with him that there is? If it the if first I suggest you stop quoting and responding to irrelevant if it is the later I suggest you provide proof.
Now if you want to claim that there is no need for a surrender mechanism because people can quit feel free to explain why in your opinion there should not be one.
Now pls stop disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing.
You're the one disagreeing with Esxile for whatever reason. He just made the point that you can drop yourself if your Ally is afk, nothing else.
When entering mid game, you need the P4 to keep up the pressure and fight off the Allied medium. The Command P4 has a too glaring weakness in AT to be used as the first vehicle.
Later on, Ostheer can transition into a very efficient T4 build. In smaller modes the unit forces you to concentrate into a small area while the mode rewards flanking and spreading out.
In larger modes, I find the unit to be okay. But this was still before they switched a lot of abilities within commanders, can't remember using it in the "new" commander lineup.
One issue I had was that it was always a bit hard to fit into your build population wise. Yes, it helps infantry as well, but one issue might be that first you don't really see it so you don't realize, and second the bonusses to vehicles are effectively much larger than for infantry. Given that you have 40-50 POP for vehicles and the Command P4 takes 12, you have roughly ~33 left. Since you just built a unit for pure AI use, you'd need to follow up with a Panther (-18 POP, 15 left). Giving you one other vehicle of your choice. The most effective way in that regard is to spam mediums, which is not the most effective way to play larger modes.
The utility buffs back then were quite nice. I think it is still a bit hard to fit into builds, especially since it always needs quite some micro to be on the front line, but safe from enemy tanks as well as always needing to target enemy infantry.
Other smg troops have a number of perks like sprint/smoke/grenades/better defensive properties/more entities/far better DPS/camo.
Pioneer are probably the worse SMG troops when it comes to combat (as they should given they cost/role/weapon).
Pioneer are not that good in fighting as suggested by OP and that can be seen by the fact that usually end the game at lower vet levels.
Yes, and no other squad is as cheap.
No one said they compare to "actual" SMG assault squads that for the most part also come much, much later in the game and cost 50% more MP. But pioneers starting at mid range beat Allied main lines in the early game, and they do that until min 5-10 as I described earlier. Or do you seriously want to debate that and stick with your 1 minute?
Since they are an smgs unit that can not really charge vs most units their main fighting role is to defend vs flanks or ambush, thus as I have posted they are combat wise useful only in specific situations.
Rifle engineer units like CE and CE can contribute mediocre even from longer ranges.
The fishing capabilities of Pioneers are exaggerated by OP.
That's not really true though.
Yes, don't charge them from max range across an open field and expect them to win. But literally all maps allow for closer range combat and have plenty of areas where you can ambush or simply manage to charge in from lower range. These are not very specific circumstances, they just work how all SMG troops work.
Pioneer are SMG troops that can not attack past initial fighting and their best combat use is defending HMG from flanks, while having to fulfill a number of other roles including building base building.
From my experience it is rather rare to see a vet 3 pioneer.
Pioneers can decently vet up if they have a flame thrower, however usually only the ones that have been built early.
But my point was not about about pioneer veterancy. My point is that pioneers compare decently against enemy units at the start of the game. This dynamic does not change until the enemy units either get upgrades or combat bonusses from veterancy. And since vet1 is usually reserved for utility, vet2 is the first point at which the actual combat performance of pioneer vs XYZ is changed and pioneers become less effective.
Squads do not reach vet2 nor weapon upgrades within 2 minutes, that's why I said your point that they are "not useful in combat past minute 1" is an exaggeration. Pioneers are usable in combat for the first 5-10 minutes depending on various factors. Only afterwards they fall off.
His complain is about the first engagement not about building extra RE so even if a RE cost 100 manpower the first engagement results wouldn't change. Talking about cost in that situation does not really make sense.
As for pioneers they are not useful in combat past minute 1 unless under very specific conditions.
Purely for the first engagements I agree with you.
The last point though is quite a hyperbole. Vanilla pioneers can contribute until enemy mainlines get either upgrades or vet2, which makes them useful in combat for at least the first 5-10 minutes depending on the matchup. Especially in smaller modes where they are not focused out as much but can go more often into 1v1 situations.
OP seem to have trouble dealing with hmg and that has probably more to do with refusal to build mortars than the performance of RE.
Cost of RE is really irrelevant in what he describes as the issue since the unit comes for free.
Rear Echelons cost 200 MP, they are not "free".
His OP was about a comparison with pioneers. If that makes sense is another question, but Echelons are without a doubt the worst early game unit. Vanilla they are similar to Combat Engineers, but those at least get better utility, a flame thrower and are both cheaper in purchase and reinforcement.