Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

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
Walderschmidt
Posts: 514
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by Walderschmidt »

I'd like to give Engineers in the Infantry Doctrine Grease guns.

Pros:

It'd make Infantry Doctrine more flavorful

It'd boost Infantry Doctrine early game similar to Wehrmacht Blitz doctrine early game

I don't think it'd be OP because engineers just don't scale well past the early game.

What do you guys think?

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3842
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by Warhawks97 »

Do you read my minds or did you read one of my post in another topic where i mentioned it as a side note?:D


But yeah, i am totally up for that.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 514
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by Walderschmidt »

Warhawks97 wrote:
30 Jun 2020, 19:16
Do you read my minds or did you read one of my post in another topic where i mentioned it as a side note?:D


But yeah, i am totally up for that.
I read your post in another topic and I think it’s a great idea!

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1996
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by kwok »

There was a reason why assault engines were moved up a tier. This literally just makes assault engines available early again but cheaper


Oops misread. Thought this was for armor doc. Don’t riflemen do this already? Why don’t you just use those because they are tougher and scale better?

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 514
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by Walderschmidt »

kwok wrote:
30 Jun 2020, 21:05
Oops misread. Thought this was for armor doc. Don’t riflemen do this already? Why don’t you just use those because they are tougher and scale better?
No, it’s more worth it to get the bar for suppression and rifle grenade.

Plus, the grease gun doesn’t cost 10 muni like the mp40 does for pios.

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 352
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by CGarr »

I'd be fine with this on the condition of increasing their price for inf doc as well. At their current price they'd be stupidly good at super early game rushes, especially considering they'd have 50 cal jeeps available to cover them. SMG rushing with pioneers is already kinda ridiculous but it is countered pretty easily with vehicles and once elite inf hit the field, pioneers aren't going to be winning any head-on fights.

Rifles already fill this role well if you want to do that kind of flooding, they're not as ridiculously spammable as 180MP engineers would be but they can cover themselves from light vehicles so it's still worth it. Bar suppression is alright but expensive as hell to use liberally for that stage of the game, you're better off spamming rifle nades and rifle smoke followed up by SMG rushes. On the defensive, SMG's in cover are decent at discouraging rushes.

I should add that I would be a lot less against this idea if the elite inf availability proposition I was pushing ever went through, but with the devteam's more conservative approach to testing changes on the beta, I doubt it'll happen anytime soon even though I'm pretty sure most players would be on board with it.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3842
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by Warhawks97 »

BK doc gets pios with 10 ammo MP40 (which gives them three) early on which allows to keep Volks as ranged units. And the AT squad is quite nice in at least scaring enemie vehicles away.

So what works for BK doc can be an approach for US as well. Axis officers and pios became versatile in each doc with cool features. I dont see why US cant get its own doctrinal features. On Top of that axis pios kill a lot better with their standard Rifles than US enigs with Garands which are literally just for repair and building stuff.


The cal 50 jeep in HR games is also no real argument not to give Grease as option for inf doc engis because you can get 20 mm vehicles as axis early on as well. So The MP40 does not compensate for anything and is a pure doctrinal feature.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1996
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by kwok »

I'm in full agreement with CGAR here. Engineers are not meant to be assault soldiers in BK. The reason why WM Blitz doc got them is to give them an option to aggressive opening where they lacked before. We saw countless games where it was optimal to play blitz doc defensively and that's not in the vision of "blitzkrieg". The trade off for blitz doctrine is the fact that their super late game has less power (no 90mm immune tanks, no hyper accurate self propelled gun, no hyper scaled invincible infantry).

Giving inf doc the same power will essentially negate blitz doc's advantage, give it aggression options against other doctrines that it already has, and allow them to be good in all stages of the game instead of a more balanced powerspike curve.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 514
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by Walderschmidt »

kwok wrote:
01 Jul 2020, 15:31
I'm in full agreement with CGAR here. Engineers are not meant to be assault soldiers in BK. The reason why WM Blitz doc got them is to give them an option to aggressive opening where they lacked before. We saw countless games where it was optimal to play blitz doc defensively and that's not in the vision of "blitzkrieg". The trade off for blitz doctrine is the fact that their super late game has less power (no 90mm immune tanks, no hyper accurate self propelled gun, no hyper scaled invincible infantry).

Giving inf doc the same power will essentially negate blitz doc's advantage, give it aggression options against other doctrines that it already has, and allow them to be good in all stages of the game instead of a more balanced powerspike curve.
Which US doc is allowed to have an agressive opening?

I mean, inf doc I don't even use Rangers because at 4 CPs for their unlocks, I have more improtant things to get in terms of arty or AT. It just seems like it should be renamed artillery doctrine instead of inf because aside from their rifles becoming cheaper and able to build defenses and get slightly cheaper weapons it doesn't hardly change things for me infantrywise at all. I admit, making rifles as spammable as volksturm is kinda cool, but again, that get passed over in favor of other, more pressing CP unlocks.

I don't think this would completely negate blitz doctrine's advantage. It just would mean that there's one American doctrine that can match Blitz doctrine for an agressive early game push with gimmicky engineers.

Wald
Last edited by Walderschmidt on 01 Jul 2020, 16:43, edited 1 time in total.
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3842
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by Warhawks97 »

I was about to ask the same question. Up to this point i couldnt really find any US doc that can be played aggressively by purpose early on.
Good players can do so with rifle squads but those can do the same with volks and their MP40´s basically.


Aside from this WH pios do have two advantages already. The first is the better damage output and usage as a defensive unit. The second is that they can get ammo out of wrecks which is quite helpfull. And in BK and def doc they become even more usefull with weapon upgrades, training and advanced repair stuff.


BK docs advantage wont be negated bc you can still play aggressive against pretty much every other doctrine i would say.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 585
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by mofetagalactica »

Well, you guys true atm CW is more agressive than US.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 352
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by CGarr »

Warhawks97 wrote:
01 Jul 2020, 16:39
I was about to ask the same question. Up to this point i couldnt really find any US doc that can be played aggressively by purpose early on.
Good players can do so with rifle squads but those can do the same with volks and their MP40´s basically.


Aside from this WH pios do have two advantages already. The first is the better damage output and usage as a defensive unit. The second is that they can get ammo out of wrecks which is quite helpfull. And in BK and def doc they become even more usefull with weapon upgrades, training and advanced repair stuff.


BK docs advantage wont be negated bc you can still play aggressive against pretty much every other doctrine i would say.
This isn't a problem with weapon availability though, this is a problem with riflemen being squishy and bugged (the latter issue sounds like itll be addressed since it was an oversight). I've suggested making elite inf available (with some of their abilities/weapons still behind a paywall) in another thread, as their sheer base durability is enough to make early game aggression a much more common/viable thing. This would also be across a lot of doctrines for all the factions, so it's not like one side is getting special treatment or being left behind. Making engineers a combat unit is not the answer to allowing for better early game aggression, allowing more doctrines have elite inf from the start is. It's not like this idea is even that radical of a change. CW field support truck inf, grenadiers, heavy assault grens on PE, and combat engineers on US are all already 0CP, yet ironically some of the doctrines that are meant to have good early game aggression don't even have limited access to their equivalent units (limited abilities/upgrades and no parachute/infiltration until CP unlock).

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 514
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by Walderschmidt »

I think you misunderstand me, CGar.

I am only suggesting giving US builder engies grease guns like the Blitz pios get MP40s. I am not suggesting taking the combat engies in armor doc, which are locked behind motorpool against my wishes, to every US doctrine.

It’d give the US a little flavor and aggressive ability in the first 5 minutes of the game similar to blitz without making Americans blatantly overpowered.

Elite inf availability is a separate issue and I’ve already said I agree with it.

Why do you disagree with US engies having grease guns and not with German pios getting MP40s?

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1996
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by kwok »

[/quote]

Which US doc is allowed to have an aggressive opening?

Wald
[/quote]

I dunno. Is none an option. It's not like US doesn't have aggressive options. Like I said, it can literally put grease guns on rifles and access to support weapons for cheaper including a mortar which no axis doctrine can get right away unless you play high resource. But if you play high resource, then you have the 50cal car that costs no fuel which no axis doc has an equivalent of except for the terror doc 20mm car which delays teching.

If infantry doctrine was themed off "aggression doctrine" then maybe but it's called inf doc not aggressive doc. How a doctrine "should be played" is super subjective. But there are some general themes we TRY to cater to for each doctrine. Luckily there are some really easy ones to try to fit like "defense doctrine" or "blitzkrieg doctrine". Does it make sense that just because one faction has something doesn't mean another faction SHOULD have it. For example, US has airborne, should WM have it especially when PE fallsj exist?

The reason why we gave it to blitz doc is because we noticed a pattern of defensive playstyle for a doctrine that was meant to be offensive. Meanwhile we noticed US armor and former US inf were hyper offensive BECAUSE of the assault engineers. This is why discounted mp40s were given to pios but not the scaling. Giving US inf the same capability would just turn the balance into: WM must play defensive just incase US goes inf doc UNLESS they go blitz then play even and no longer aggressive.

I get it was FUN for us inf doc to stomp early game with assault engineers before. But, it was NOT fun for axis to ALWAYS play defensive in the early game in fear of inf doc. I don't think it's the same inverse because US frankly does NOT fear mp40s as much as axis because garands (especially after the magazine size fix) excel close range and the mp40s have a limited effect while grease guns against a mostly k98 composition would have a lot to fear.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 514
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by Walderschmidt »

kwok wrote:
02 Jul 2020, 04:47
The reason why we gave it to blitz doc is because we noticed a pattern of defensive playstyle for a doctrine that was meant to be offensive. Meanwhile we noticed US armor and former US inf were hyper offensive BECAUSE of the assault engineers. This is why discounted mp40s were given to pios but not the scaling. Giving US inf the same capability would just turn the balance into: WM must play defensive just incase US goes inf doc UNLESS they go blitz then play even and no longer aggressive.
Can we just get it straight that I'm not trying to turn US engineers into assault engineers like the specific assault engineer unit in armor doctrine?

I am talking about giving regular engineers grease guns. Not changing any other stat. If you want to disagree with that, that's all well and good.

But stop talking about assault engineers. They are NOT the same thing as what I am proposing. Only Armor Doctrine has assault engineers. And they are behind the motorpool. I disagree with that but yet you don't see me drumming up posts, polls, and walls of text to lobby against that.

I'm stealing your words:
kwok wrote:
30 Jun 2020, 21:10
Can we stop talking about ASSAULT ENGINEERS on a thread about normal engineers getting grease guns?

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1996
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by kwok »

But they are? Assault engineers are literally engineers with grease guns. The only thing different is at tier 2 they get grenades and can upgrade to Thompson’s. Otherwise they are literally tier 1 available right away assault engineers but cost 180mp and whatever munition. Just because they’re not called assault engineers doesn’t mean they aren’t basically the same thing. It’s assault engineers with a different price and the word “assault” removed from their name. The only difference comes at tier 2 where we literally moved the entire availabilty of assault engineers (Not just it’s abilities like available formerly) to because they were hyper strong at tier 1. In what way would tier 1 assault engineers be any different than engineers with grease guns?

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3842
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by Warhawks97 »

How the early games ends up usually depends on players skills and unit choice. You can fight off players that go straight for SMG´s without using any by your own. You for example always start with grease on all your rifle squads and i never use MP40´s and still i could hold my ground somehow.

There are 20 mm cars and even cheap bikes that can turn any charge attempt into a massaker as it got proved over and over again. (or jeeps on the other side)


You make it sound like "SMG´s always give you an advantage" when it fact its a choice with pro and cons. Giving MP40 to Pios just because they can upgrade them doesnt give you an advantage. Personally i never gave smgs to my pios at all and had them staying back for repairs and light fire support.

Its also a heavily dependend on the map. SMGs play out when you have houses and hedgrows to use. And since inf is the doc to go for when fighting in urban combat, i dont see why we shouldnt give engis the ability to use grease guns. It adds utility but doesnt makes a unit better just because they have got SMG´s. It makes them different in their role.

Vise versa i would go with BK doc when fighting in the urban and the last thing i would go is def doc due to lack of close range weapons (or Tank support doc for PE). On open maps i would choose def more likely as close range weapons are that usefull there (or going Armor doc or Tank support doc).

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 352
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Give Infantry Doctrine Engineers Grease Guns

Post by CGarr »

Walderschmidt wrote:
02 Jul 2020, 00:34
I think you misunderstand me, CGar.

I am only suggesting giving US builder engies grease guns like the Blitz pios get MP40s. I am not suggesting taking the combat engies in armor doc, which are locked behind motorpool against my wishes, to every US doctrine.

It’d give the US a little flavor and aggressive ability in the first 5 minutes of the game similar to blitz without making Americans blatantly overpowered.

Elite inf availability is a separate issue and I’ve already said I agree with it.

Why do you disagree with US engies having grease guns and not with German pios getting MP40s?

Wald
I knew what you were talking about. I disagree because I'm saying making rangers and other stuff available makes more sense than giving engineers grease guns. You can already put grease guns on rifles, which are cheap and can protect themselves from vehicles. Meanwhile, WH has to get a separate squad for that role and their support vehicle options are either garbage at killing anything on wheels or cost a consider amount of fuel.

If you want "a little flavor and aggressive ability in the first 5 mins", do what I suggested and throw grease guns on your riflemen. They don't really need AT support the same way volks do since they have the nade launcher, they're not going to be hunting down pumas easily but they can hold their own and they'll fuck up inf quite badly. They also have nades and just generally scale better.

If you want the early game to just be more mobile/aggressive in general for both sides, SMG's on squishy inf isn't the answer. Make actual "elite" inf available at 0CP for all docs, not just some arbitrary ones. They're the units you should be using for aggressive moves, riflemen and their axis counterparts should be holding and creeping up slowly, covering support weapons from flanks. Having elite units cost CP just makes people sit and wait until they're available. Worse, they do stupid aggressive moves with units that realistically shouldn't be used in this manner and then complain because they either lost their squishy unit or got creamed by a cheap squishy unit.

For those that'd argue that the early game would be shorter, I'd say you're looking at it wrong. These units shouldn't be considered mid game units if they're available for 0CP, you can already get some of them early on anyways. Likewise, the light inf (rifles, volks, etc) who are currently filling in as shitty versions of them shouldn't be considered just early game units, they should be considered more agile support units.

Think about heavy and light troops in something like Total War: The heavies don't replace the lights and they aren't the natural progression of light inf, they fill different roles. Heavy inf are your core, they're the ones doing the work. Light inf are there to screen for said core infantry, harass the enemy, and cover less agile support units like artillery. This same exact army layout can and should be used in CoH. Let's use US inf doc infantry as an example since thats what this post is about:

Rangers (heavy infantry): Durable, strong generalists. Not necessarily the strongest units in your comp in terms of damage, but they're tough and agile enough to make aggressive moves that would be very risky for other units.

Riflemen, engineers, AT inf (light infantry): Cheaper but less durable inf. Ideal support for your rangers, rifles can deploy smoke/nades at long range and screen against light vehicles. Also cheap enough that you can afford to leave them back a bit to cover your less agile support units long enough to react accordingly when the enemy tries to flank. Engineers are pure support units but are mobile enough that they don't really need protection. AT inf are a good option for covering from vehicles from tanks while making aggressive moves, as they're mobile enough to not need protection since they can just run away from fights they wont win.

MG's, mortars, AT guns (Heavy support weapons): These are the hard hitters of your unit comp. They'll have the greatest effect on their intended targets out of all your inf, but they need to be covered as they can be easily flanked.

None of these units replace eachother, they all serve different roles. As such, restricting their availability on a "tier" system like BK currently does is just dumb. They should all be available at the same time, and teching up or spending CP should only unlock more abilities and upgrades for them. Tanks/vehicles are different because they can be considered a direct upgrade to their respective inf counterparts (main tanks are like better elite inf, vehicles and TD's are like better light inf and heavy support weapons).

I'm making this comparison to try and show you why I think that giving engineers an upgrade is not the answer, and why elite inf availability is.

Post Reply