Post-Beta proposal: Kangaroo carrier ideas

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
Post Reply
User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 419
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Post-Beta proposal: Kangaroo carrier ideas

Post by CGarr »

Wasn't sure how to word it in the title, but this is a proposal for changes that would be better suited for after the beta reworks go live (replacing the current non-beta version). This is less of a straight proposal and more of a brainstorming post since I honestly don't know what to do with this dumpster-fire of a unit (that a majority would be ok with).


Preface
I'm curious to hear people's thoughts on the Kangaroo, as everyone I've talked to among my friend groups considers it a joke of a unit due to its lacking speed and vulnerability to anything bigger than a 37mm.

Personally, I love this unit even though it currently pretty useless for anything other than cheesy dives on players that forgot to build AT inf. As much as I'd love for it to be faster or something so those dives actually become a viable strat and not just a suicide rush, I can definitely understand people not liking that so I'm not going to bother trying to push a speed/armor buff. I do think it should get some other kind of improvement, as currently I just don't see the point in building this thing unless you're 100% sure you can win off of a single base rush with RE's or commandos mid-game since the thing is largely useless after tanks starts to hit the field (if you rush it, you've got enough safe time for one base rush before it becomes 75mm fodder). A frontal arc smoke drop (like the Pz3N) would make it useful late game in pushes while requiring munitions and micro input, so it wouldn't exactly be OP, but I don't know how others feel about that idea since I haven't been on enough recently to have an opportunity to ask around.


Example suggestion
Another option I can think of would be allowing it to upgrade into a mobile support specialist for a hefty muni price, making it a high risk / high reward investment. With specialization options, it could turn into a vital component of the CW arsenal. Some examples of specializations would be as follows:

1. Heavy repair / armor support platform: Loses troop transport capabilities, but can repair stuff under fire like the PE bergetiger. Some kind of buff would surrounding armor would be fair since it isn't nearly as formidable, although fire-rate or mobility buffs to itself and surrounding units would probably be the only 2 non-gamebreaking options as far as buffs go. It's not unrealistic to think that something that carried troops could also carry fuel or shells if needed, these things were literally converted SPG's/tanks.

2. Inf Support Platform: Makes surrounding inf extremely formidable. Big passive offensive buffs and slightly increased veterancy speed for all passengers and/or nearby inf. Alternatively, suppression and rifle grenades become free for surrounding inf. Gains hull-down, as its too slow/lightly armored to bounce common AT weapons and it'd need to sit on the front lines to be useful with this specialization.

3. Emergency Relief: Reinforcement, MG section deployment (the captain call-in squad), and a danger-close indirect-fire ability with limited range. Indirect options for said ability would be based on doctrine (cheaper frag bombs for RAF, victor target for RA, and a fat+concentrated smoke barrage for RE).

Specializations would only be available after the first command tank is built, and would cost 100 muni each. Those who like this thing as a cheap troop transport would be unaffected, and those who want it to be actually useful would now have the specialization options available if they are willing to save up a sizable amount of muni and risk it on what is basically a roided up bren carrier. Not saying I'm against different ideas, just saying if specializations are implemented, they should be a really valuable investment and not just a small upgrade to a unit that is otherwise pretty useless late game.


Summary
The specializations might not be perfect, but I would strongly advise against going with anything weaker than what I suggested, as the entire point of me making this post was that this vehicle is just not an attractive investment in the late game. For those who might argue that buffing the battle toaster would be unfair to axis players, I could make similar suggestions for the bergetiger and some halftracks. Additionally, a few of these ideas were just flat out ripped from axis unit designs (the repair one basically turns it into a shitty bergetiger with a buff aura, and the emergency relief one basically turns it into the CW equivalent of a stormtrooper HT that trades mobility and unit selection for an emergency indirect-fire support ability). Smoke is there if the specializations are too much, but honestly this unit is really under-utilized in terms of how it could be implemented within the CW arsenal, so I think this is one of the cases where bigger changes would be better.

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 560
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50
Location: Italy

Re: Post-Beta proposal: Kangaroo carrier ideas

Post by sgtToni95 »

I think it's fine, it's good for clearing trenches spam if you get an engies squad with flamethrower inside it, and when you're done, it's a good defensive unit. You can use it to keep your captain relatively safe and i usually put the 7 men mg squad you can call in to provide some mobile anti inf support. I think it's fine as it is

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4075
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Post-Beta proposal: Kangaroo carrier ideas

Post by Warhawks97 »

I have not enough experience with CW currently and didnt really take a look at this unit.

But potentially you can create a mobile fire base with HMG inside and a lieutnant also who can use its binoculars i think.


I wouldnt mind adding more utility like a medical supply upgrade or something. But it should closely be focused on infantry support i think bc thats what it was meant to do.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 419
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Post-Beta proposal: Kangaroo carrier ideas

Post by CGarr »

sgtToni95 wrote:
22 Jun 2020, 09:26
I think it's fine, it's good for clearing trenches spam if you get an engies squad with flamethrower inside it, and when you're done, it's a good defensive unit. You can use it to keep your captain relatively safe and i usually put the 7 men mg squad you can call in to provide some mobile anti inf support. I think it's fine as it is
I mean if you just want the protection and only use it in a defensive role, you might as well build trenches since they're free and don't die to AT in 2 hits. In an offensive role its objectively worse than spending the resources on another unit. The staghound is available to all docs now and it comes at the same time, and it's actually fast enough to defend itself. The kangaroo in an offensive role is extremely reliant on your opponent just not building any AT whatsoever, as it's too slow to run from anything. Once tanks hit the field, if you don't already have superiority in terms of armor it'll just get slapped in one hit with little risk to the axis player. Anyways, I'm not suggesting we buff it in it's un-upgraded state, I'm suggesting we provide additional upgrade options so that it's useful late game.
Warhawks97 wrote:
22 Jun 2020, 09:43
I have not enough experience with CW currently and didnt really take a look at this unit.

But potentially you can create a mobile fire base with HMG inside and a lieutnant also who can use its binoculars i think.


I wouldnt mind adding more utility like a medical supply upgrade or something. But it should closely be focused on infantry support i think bc thats what it was meant to do.
I've used the unit a lot, I'm aware that you can use it to clear trenches or create a mobile MG bunker, but both of those assume the enemy player just decided to not build any shreck equipped units, 50mm paks, or vehicles/tanks, which is a massive assumption that will almost never happen against a decent player unless they're messing around or trying something cheesy.

2 of my 3 suggestions were inf support related, and the repair one was just there because I saw an opportunity for allies to have an equivalent unit to the bergetiger in terms of utility, but as I said in my post, other suggestions are welcome and it doesn't have to have 3 upgrade options.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 631
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Post-Beta proposal: Kangaroo carrier ideas

Post by Walderschmidt »

It apparently has cromwell armor. That needs to go.
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 419
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Post-Beta proposal: Kangaroo carrier ideas

Post by CGarr »

Walderschmidt wrote:
29 Jun 2020, 02:57
It apparently has cromwell armor. That needs to go.
The model is a Ram tank, which is just a canadian sherman, so the armor makes sense.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 631
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Post-Beta proposal: Kangaroo carrier ideas

Post by Walderschmidt »

I really like the repair option, actually.

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

Post Reply