There are other "sub-optimal" unit call-ins similar to this. In Lend-lease, the only way to get Guards is by also getting an (unwanted) M5-HT. In German mechanized and Mech Assault, the only way to get a 250-HT is by getting an (unwanted) Gren/Pgren squad.
Since mainline infantries like Volks,cons, IS, riflemen (doctrinally) and grens (bunkers) are able to build their own cover the mechanic is kind of important to simply remove it.
Therefore instead of removing the ability i would like to prupose a change, into a more defensive theme.
Except for cons and grens, Instead of "building" sandbags (like engineers do) they now "spawn" a single, circular sandbag pile big enough to cover at least 3 or 4 models, like the ones in the capture points. This skill will have a big enough cooldown and will have a time to set up aswell.
Thoughs?
I wouldn't put bunkers in the same category as sandbags. One is free and can be put basically anywhere, the other is 150mp, can't be put in small places (and/or in certain directions) and can be easily targeted directly.
That said, I agree with the premise. Mainlines building cover never made sense to me, and should really be an "engineer" task (Engie/Pio/etc.).
The "low quality" cover mechanic on mainlines could be interesting, but I'd rather see it be a "make yellow cover" ability, rather than green. Perhaps a dirt pile or something?
One interesting way to balance buildable cover is to disallow building bags on capture points.
Then any cover position you build can potentially be taken over unless you wire it.
This really needs to happen. I've never understood why you can build cover inside a capture point. Combined with the point itself having collision, this just causes a ton of gimmicky issues.
How about removing sand bag from infatry (or greatly reduce speed) and leave that to engineer type units instead. Now one has a reason to use more units types.
I agree with this, but the only problem is UKF. Their engineer-type unit is locked behind tech, so they wouldn't get SBs early on. If SBs are left on Infantry Sections, then the problem hasn't really been addressed.
Maybe move UKF engineers to T0, but keep all the tech-locked stuff (emplacements, etc.) behind T1/T2? Their "heavy engineer" upgrade could also be locked behind T1, and since a repair source is now available in T0, the UC's self-repair ability could be removed.
Also, unlike others have suggested, I really see no problem giving SBs to SturmPios. Being able to build wire but not sandbags is incredibly frustrating, and it also essentially locks out sandbags when going for a PF build rather than Volks.
Better yet, turn capture point flags into no collision objects, that ways all sandbags can be used both other side and stops weird stuff happening with vehicles
I believe this was brought up ages ago, but it didn't work for some reason or another (or was veto'd?).
Grades/Racks could be removed, but the cost of teching would need to go up a lot to compensate. USF already has the cheapest T4 tech in the game (if rushed), so it needs those road-bumps to slow them down.
Current tech costs
Faction
Basic T4 MP
Basic T4 F
All T4 MP
All T4 F
OST
680
210
970
225
OKW
540
175
1310
265
USF
490
175
1290
270
Sov
640
185
1355
240
USF is the cheapest faction to 'rush' to T4, but also roughly tied (+5F, -20mp) for most expensive to get every tech. USF also starts with +10 fuel more than OKW (for some reason).
Puma has longer range, longer sight range, is at least as fast or faster (don’t know the numbers tbh), also has a disabling ability, and it still has smoke. I think Stuart smoke after major comes out would be fine.
The puma is also useless against infantry, whereas the Stuart is at least decent. That's the trouble with the Stuart, and to some degree the AEC: they're not quite AI-focused like the Luchs, T70 or 222, but they're also not quite AT focused like the Puma.
Compared to other AT-LVs, the Stuart also has a vehicle crew, which is a considerable bonus that (imo) offsets the lack of smoke.
Maybe it could be done through the crit system? IDK
I don't think the problem is related to crits. For example, the Scott does 100 damage, which means even with Vet 3 Grens -20% DR, it's still doing 80 damage, which is a full model's HP (80).
One solution might be, as I suggested before, adjusting the DR and RA together. For example, increasing the DR to -30%, but adding 15% increased RA at vet 3 should give grens the same amount of effective HP against small arms, but it would increase their effective HP against explosions (and all other non-direct hits) to 114.
That's just an example, and I think it might be a bit much (456hp effective), but the core idea might be viable.
I've suggested this before and said it could be a passive bonus at t4 or a vet bonus and call it "flak jackets" or something. I believe someone said that you can't set resistance to explosive weapons in general, only regular received damage modifiers
But they also thought call-in cooldowns starting on death was impossible and SneakEye (i think?) figured out a way around that
Yea, it's likely impossible to do it via damage type. I supposed the "flak jacket" upgrade (or however its implemented) could increase the DR much more, and then increase RA to compensate.
I'm aware of that change, however units like the Scott can still 1-shot multiple models from 80 range, with a reload of around 3.6 seconds.
The reason I suggested specifically "explosion resistance" is because ideally I'd like to add another 10% to 20% DR, but have it only affect explosions, and not small arms.
Well if you buff their near DPS it doesn’t synergies well with the mg42, and buffing their long range DPS leads to blobs
It has been suggested to let them fire the LMG on the move at 25% accuracy or something but allied players freak out because they think all moving LMGs are Obers, even though they aren’t.
Freaking out is understandable since the same will happen if anyone suggest Tommy fire bren on the move :v
Grens don't need their DPS increased; at vet 3, they're already incredibly powerful. The problem is that they're currently "glass cannons" in mid/late game, due to their squad size and awful spacing problems. Losing 2 models basically forces a retreat, and that's really easy to do when things like the Scott can do that in 2 shots (while moving).
Really, grens just need some form of Vet 3 "explosion resistance".
Similarly, firing on the move would be insanely overpowered, considering the LMG42's weapon profile. Right now, their main downside is that they have to stay still do really do anything (part of the problem above), but that also means that Allied units can easily escape their long-range DPS.
If adjustments are made to the LMG42, their setup and rotation speed needs to be drastically improved. Double-Bren Infantry sections are effective because while they can't fire on the move, they can stutter-step effectively. Grens simply can't do this, and they're also vulnerable to "flanking", since the LMG model takes ages to turn.
As far as i understand it, an LMG42 was kind of a relic back in ww2 and this is somehow emulated by its performance, conscripts with one could wreak havok at vet3 with it.
I don’t think it was a relic, the ‘42’ means it is a 1942 design. Unless I’m mistaken it was based on the mg34 (1934 design) but had a simplified mechanism (no burst shot option?) and was pressed rather than cast making it easier to make and more reliable. It’s design is the basis for many modern mg’s. Irrelevant to the topic I know
Yea, the MG42 was actually quite 'modern' for its time, and by no means a "relic". Array is also correct in noting that the '42 was designed to be the "budget" replacement for the '34, which was much more complicated and expensive. However, the '34 had a single-shot mode (not burst), which was removed on the '42 (fully automatic only).
Post war, a lot of its designs were copied into other MGs, and the original MG42 was adjusted to fit the standard NATO round, and remains in service today as the MG3 (although its being replaced by the MG4 and MG5).
Compared to the Scott, all it has is 80 more health and yet it has worse range, no turret, no smoke barrage, and no concealing smoke.
[...]Why not just convert it into a turretless Scott? [...]
I think this would be ideal. Copy the weapon profile of the Scott, and add about 10 range. It won't have the ability to fire on the move as well as the scott does (since it has no turret), but it'll still be decent without needing constant micro. The +10 range should compensate for the lower mobility, no turret and doc-locked status of the StuG-E compared to the scott.
Compared to the brummbar, it would do a lot less damage, but also require a lot less micro.
0
Doomlord52
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
