Honestly. Sandbags cover to cover fight between late game units is silly. Extremely silly. I can't remember when was the last time I fought green to green cover with vet3 paras/rifles against obers, grens....
The only realistic scenarios are:
Late game vet3+ units: Yellow crater cover
Starting engagements: Yellow map cover and green cover
Sandbags cover is only realistic in early game and MAYBE 1v1s mid to late game. Pure late game, it's quite silly to test sandbags as they won't survive for long.
While I do agree that it is silly to test sand bags for late game, all testing is done under ideal situations that are not 100% replicable in game. Fire fights are started at the same time for both squads which hardly ever happens, one unit usually needs to get in position before it starts firing so that one will most likely lose if units are fairly evenly matched. Using only light cover will most likely just show Obers dominating all the LR squads as the other units have worse EHP compared to guards. I will not pretend to understand the RNG system but I would assume using green cover allows the fight to take longer so that RNG can smooth out compared to testing several light cover battles were a lot of the fight depends on if Guards get favorable RNG with PTRS.
Guard motor is a complete doctrine. It has gaurds, 120mm, t34 85, self repair, mark target. This is the reason its picked, all options bring something valuable to the table.
So if you disagree please explain how just having guards makes a doctrine viable, as their as doc with gaurds wich arent so good or even bad depending on the game mode.
Shocks are as good but in different situations. Always map dependend. But since we only have laney and open maps wich are picked or used in tournies shocks or any other cqc squad have next to no use.
Gaurds in all their forms are the only long range squad soviets have. And with only open and laney maps they work excelently.
Again they need to be immobile to do anything, force them to move and you already stopped them. they drop weapons almost like bread crums. If the ptrs is bugged it should be fixed, but i never noticed it.
I do stand corrected on the cost of the upgrade. Would have sworn it was 100 at least.
If they are so OP why isent every wiped penal or cons squad replaced by guards in many games?
If they cant or rather shoudnt be allowed to stand up to obers in even a few situations should we buff their at power? Wich in the late game is limited at best imo. As button is more valuable then the ptrs in the late game imo. But axis magic escape card ptact hard counters it.
So for Guard motor if your replace Guards with Shocks/AssG/Airborne Guards do you think it is better or worse?
The maps have favored long range squads for a while now, and as you said most maps are lany and open so it is fairly unimportant when Shocks are good because it ain't happening often enough for it to pay off.
You are still making wrong statements about "Guards". AssGuards are not long range so they do not come LR in all their forms. Airborne Guards do not need to be immobile to fire their LMG. While they do drop weapons their weapon drop rate was reduced significantly. I do not mean to come off as snarky but you seem to talk about "Guards" as if they aren't completely different from each other.
What is many games? Are you talking about games you play or games you watch? I would place more emphasis on higher ranked players as they know how to handle in game situations best. So using tightrope as an example when he lost a squad(Guards) he replaced it with more Guards. Hell he even titled the video "Guards make Soviets easy mode" where he uses the team focused Guards commander with howi and bomb drop which is probably the worst one for 1v1.
It is pure foolishness to replace Penals with more Penals in the lategame. You should be replacing them with either cons or Guards where cons can merge and damage engine while Guards help create the chance to snare the vehicle due to PTRS and button. Point being that there is more to Guards performance than just commander abilities or raw DPS. |
If regular gaurds are so good or even op why dont we see them in every game?
I dont see them every game. I havent seen them deciding games on their own. They are good no doubt but far from op. They are just the best elite generalist imo.
They are 2cp 360 mp and need a 100 or 120 muni upgrade for 2 weaker lmg's and to use their snare. Wich in turn is the easiest to break out off. Ptact or smoke in others ways.
Gaurds cant fire their lmg's or pts on the move. In short to do anything they need to be stationary unlike obers and other elite inf. Making them easier targets for arty and forcing them to move punishes them more.
What do obers cost nowadays? It isent 400 mp anymore as i recall. 360 or 380? Their lmg when fully teched is a 100 muni.
Their cost difference isnet so great that gaurds should auto loose every engagement vs obers. In most scenario's obers will win wich is fine.
I do agree the synergie in doctrines is where the issue lies. Not with guards them selfes.
Guard Motor Coordination is the most picked doctrine in 1v1. They are a staple in most elite players load out for a reason. If you watch any cast you can hear audible groans or complaints that soviet is going with the same old thing.
Yes, Guards are 2CP 360MP but their upgrade is only 75 muni.
Airborne are also 360Mp with 100 muni upgrade for similar or worse long range performance while also lacking any AT capabilities.
Paratroopers are the 360MP squad with the 120 muni upgrade.
The issue isn't that Guards can compete with Obers, it is that they do a better job of competing with Obers while also providing AT support as a Generalist unit vs the aforementioned dedicated long range squad.
Button isn't a problem in and of itself, the issue arises when you have an overperforming squad that also has this ability which then synergizes well with Mark Target and T3485/ISU152.
You said Guards aren't the issue, tell me which Soviet Elite is better than them. The Guards version of a commander is always better than the shocks version and if you replace Assault/Airborne Guards with Reg Guards the entire commander gets better.
|
Perhaps prone position should be removed from guards then and given to airborne guards only? Idk if that solves everything, but I think it directly addresses the point your making here
I think USF paras can do okay vs obers with their abilities. The suppressing fire is pretty good, will at least force the obers to cancel it out with their smoke
I agree with both statements.
I have tried to think of different solutions such as giving them the same camo as PPSH, better vet, or better DP base stats. I think your right in giving Airborne firing positions would solidify them as the LR soviet squad, maybe make Button a VET1 ability for Guards to smooth out their utility.
As both squads can perform suppressing fire that would be hilarious to see. |
The video shows that guards need heavy cover AND prone position to beat the Obers. And even then it's still a close fight. They would clearly lose in almost every other situation
If that's really a problem then get rid of the prone position ability. Or give it more drawbacks besides being stationary
Like others have said, I think the main issue with guards is the doctrines they are on. Guard motor is unquestionably OP and Mechanized support is still really strong even after getting nerfed
I think we are coming close but missing each other. In any situation the Guards lose so should the other Elites, however they have a situation as you described that has a 50% chance of winning. The generalist should not be able to outperform the dedicated squad especially in a easily replicable situation as both VG and cons can lay down coverage.
The doctrines themselves are a separate issue, they overperform due to how well the Abilities synergize with each other. Mark Target>Button>ISU152 is a nightmare to go against. But none of the abilities buff Guards in AI performance so not only do you have a unit that can pressure all infantry up to Obers you also have a Unit that can apply some sort of pressure to every enemy vehicle.
To show what I mean, lets replace long range squad for Long range Squad. If you place Airborne Guards for Regular Guards in Airborne Tactic it literally becomes even more powerful than Guards Motor. AT Strafe is back on the menu due to AT Strafe, while mid game is buffed even further due to additional INF presence instead of having to get a AT gun.
OR we can look at Terror Tactics which is already another great commander but more for team games. Button plus heavy bomb drop is now available against tanks. Little to no AI is lost due to Guards performance.
But if we look at it from the opposite and place Airborne into ANY of the Guards commanders it is an immediate downgrade.(Would probably actually help with balance) |
And how did the obers do in light cover? And in no cover? Pretty confident they spank guards in both of those situations, the guards would need their prone position every time
Not to mention, obers literally have a doctrinal upgrade that let's them ignore cover bonuses
Exactly, if Guards ain't winning neither are the other LR squads as they all have very worst RA except for commandos. And even that is about the same, Guards have a Target size of .66 while having 6men while Commandos are 5 man with .65 target size. The point I am making is that Guards will perform the best regardless of no cover/light cover/heavy cover. Why is the generalist better at the LR job instead of the dedicated specialist.
And since you mentioned IR STG, they at least have to move in for maximum damage vs any of these squads, at max range they will lose despite the cover bonus.
But lets take that example and look at it from a different perspective. Lets compare IR STG vs any of the allied Elite short range squads. Out of Paras/Airborne/Shocks/Rangers/Commandos/AssGuards they will most likely lose to Shocks/Rangers due to durability and Paras if Tactical Assault is used. The others are gonna lose due to camo detection and AssG being a bit weaker overall. I would assume most would consider this fair trade off as they hit the field earlier and are cheaper overall. Yet since they are all short range they all have the great equalizer in the lucky nade.
To sum up what I am saying is Guards long range Performance is BS as they have utility, EHP, DPS, along with the potential to merge with conscripts. Guards should be toned down.
The performance between the other LR squads should be looked at as they aren't quite as balanced as the short range squads.
Video
Guards win 50%, Airborne 0%, Commandos with camo 25%, Paras 25% |
Yeah but that's an intended effect of the ptrs. The part about them doing full damage on a hit ignoring heavy cover isn't, but at least the chance of that is still low, since the RA bonus still applies
There's lots of ways to destroy cover. Especially in late engagements. Indirect fire, AT guns, etc
But, as you said earlier it requires a lot of RNG for the PTRS shots to hit. Yet even with that RNG, the testing done by GONK showed that they won 50% of the time under probably the best conditions for Obers as they are behind indestructible green cover. To put it another way, a Generalist elite with the cheapest muni cost performs the best against arguably the best LR AI infantry in the game.
Airborne 3DPS get soundly beat, LMG Paras perform ok despite arriving at 3CP and 120muni while LMG Commandos needed to fire out of camo to perform ok. All these units are AI only with limited utility, they should be rewarded with better performance in their intended role.
Gonk only ran a handful of tests but a pattern was clearly seen. |
I mean, it's still a lot of RNG. The chance to hit Obers with ptrs is extremely low, especially in heavy cover
It's about a 18% chance of hitting Ober models at long range, and that's without heavy cover
The problem is you are only taking into account if the PTRS hit the Ober squad. Even if the shot hits the sand bag that is a successful shot as enough shots will make it a cover vs no cover situation. In most late engagements the sandbags/green cover will already be damaged so alot of these matches will favor Guards fairly quickly.
Going back to Airborne vs Guards part of the reason DPs were made so weak was due to Guards vet and PTRS performance. Airborne Guards should have received a slightly stronger variant or had better ACC/cool down VET to show that they were the LMG specialist. |
|
Well that is rather sad, I personally tend to avoid Guards because their AT+button just seemed to make everything to easy. I didn't know they were performing so well. Gonk made another comparing different LMG squads vs Obers and Airborne LMG performed the worse. That just seems absurd for the price and muni cost along with lack of utility. The fact that guards were able to win seems to be a really big miss from the balance team, them winning 50% of the time was asinine.
Things like this really do reinforce the perception that specific builds and commanders were favored when balancing the game.
Sorry for rant. |
|
I saw a recent video by Gonk where he compared these units and found the Reg Guards to be stronger at long range despite the fact that Airborne on paper have better weapons. (3 SVT/3 DP vs 2 Mosin/2 PTRS/2 DP)
I understand that Guards PTRS are different from penals but in the video he made a statement that their PTRS do full damage behind cover instead of half. Is that true and is that a bug?
It would help explain as to why Guards seem to do so well against everything especially as their PTRS when they miss can still destroy cover.
I know it is to late for balance but it could be easily fixed in a bug patch along with the bren movement bug for UKF. |
I am not talking about specific doctrine with Panzer Tactician (I do not even remember the ones that DO have it).
I am merely defending my philosophical ground on this: it's not fair to consider something "overperforming" and in order to tone it down you decide to selectively and arrogantly increase its muni tax "just bcz omg its so op".
Because, and I say it again, this is a double edged sword. The same case could be made for the Mark Vehicle mechanic (the ONLY reason Guards Coordination is no1 DOCTRINE FOR SOVIETS ACROSS ALL GAME MODES). If you want to go down that route, I propose making Mark Target 240muni against Heavies, 150muni against Mediums and the default 80muni for everything else.
How does that sound? Huh? How about them apples?
I think you need to work on reading comprehension as you are talking about a specific doctrine when it comes to soviet repairs.
Panzer Tactician is available with heavies which opens it up to the cost scaling argument.
I also made the case for Mark Target being another overly cost efficient ability that should be subject to scaling so I like them apples I guess.
Definitely there are some downsides to it.
There will be concessions to make as in the example of the button ability. However, the button ability is definitely not an analogous form of things like Panzer Tactitian or Vehicle Repairs. It only exists on one single unit and the ability is integral to the design of Guards. The cost of Guards can reflect how useful they should be against heavies. It doesn't cover all the bases, but you can tune a couple of knobs very specifically.
That's not the case for abilities that are handed out generally to a wide variety of different units.
While what your saying is true, Button + Mark Target are great in 1v1 but they scale incredibly in larger game modes. Button! cost the same and last the same amount of time no matter what is on the receiving end. It is a great ability from the moment it is available as it allows any mistake to be amplified unless some type of smoke is available. It should cost more vs Heavies or have a shorter active time. None of this is taking into account the performance of guards which I actually want to make a thread about and would like to hear your thoughts. |
marine king
rumartinez89
RiverDancer
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
