I think we all can agree, that this unit is current out of balance when it comes to cost/effectiveness and also timing.
Its wired that armor doc which should get super powerful in the later stages with tanks, have arguebly the strongest openings with this unit.
I like combat engineers and they fit good into this doc, so it shouldnt be a super stomp into their face.
They can get absurd when a Ranger Captain is nearby and the 1CP upgrade is unlocked.
We were discussing in the Discord already over this unit in voice chat and normal chat.
What to do:
1.
Give Combat Engineers 2x shotguns and 4x garands with the possibility to get Thompsons after the CP unlock is purchased.
Thompsons will replace the garands. 2x Thompsons for the same price as now.
2.
Put Combat Engineers behind the CP upgrade. So you cannot pump them out right in the beginning.
They start with vet 1, as the CP upgrade gives them now the bonuses.
Combat Engineers
Combat Engineers
Nerf Mencius
-
tarakancheg
- Posts: 263
- Joined: 26 Aug 2020, 22:19
Re: Combat Engineers
TBH i havent seen any impact from shotguns in CQB squad. but i would like to try 4 shotguns+2 grease guns.
Re: Combat Engineers
Shotguns are up close basically per shot one kill. But before that, they are terrible.
They can get really good if used as a flanking tool or in urban areas.
I think giving them 4 shotguns, would be too much and they would most likely just die on the way getting up close.
I would rather stick with 2x Shotguns and 4x Garands/M1A1 carbines/M3 Grease guns.
Tbh, i would like to put them in general behind CP, so we have more room to work with.
They can get really good if used as a flanking tool or in urban areas.
I think giving them 4 shotguns, would be too much and they would most likely just die on the way getting up close.
I would rather stick with 2x Shotguns and 4x Garands/M1A1 carbines/M3 Grease guns.
Tbh, i would like to put them in general behind CP, so we have more room to work with.
Nerf Mencius
-
Krieger Blitzer
- Posts: 5037
- Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
- Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
- Contact:
Re: Combat Engineers
Shotguns have range of 40, and nearly always one-shots when hits.. it works like a short range sniper rifle in-game.
Regarding Combat Engineeers;
Currently they are counter-able.. but yes, i agree that if used aggressively, they would then provide such a very strong opening. I would be fine if Shot-guns were given to Combat Engineers.. i also suggested 1 or 2 Shot-guns for SAS before, along with BARs or something, but that's a different subject.
Yet, i would be also fine if Combat Engineers remain unchanged as well.. generally, it's fine both ways.
The suggestion is good though.
Regarding Combat Engineeers;
Currently they are counter-able.. but yes, i agree that if used aggressively, they would then provide such a very strong opening. I would be fine if Shot-guns were given to Combat Engineers.. i also suggested 1 or 2 Shot-guns for SAS before, along with BARs or something, but that's a different subject.
Yet, i would be also fine if Combat Engineers remain unchanged as well.. generally, it's fine both ways.
The suggestion is good though.
Re: Combat Engineers
I'd need to see it in practice since I just don't see shotguns in action very often (I prefer rangers over the CQB squad). That being said, combat engineers should definitely either have a more tame kit, or cost CP.
If we take the former approach, I think the squad should just start with elite garands instead of grease guns, with the option to equip up to 4 thompsons (packages of 2) or maybe 2 BARs. Grease guns are sort of ridiculous when you get that many for free on a squad that also has some of the best grenades in the game, as well as construction/repair capabilities.
It could be argued that assault pios on PE are just as cheesy, but MP bleed is a bigger issue on PE than it is on US since US has the supply yard and its units are generally pretty cheap. This means that US isn't really punished for just throwing combat engineers at an axis player's inf across open ground, as they only need like 3 models to close the gap in order to have a decent chance of wiping the axis squad if it doesn't have a CQB loadout of its own.
They're surprisingly effective against squads equipped with LMGs, as they either close the gap or get suppressed and chuck a concussion grenade at the axis unit, which forces it to reposition (thus allowing the assault engineers to keep pushing) or wipes it. For an engineer unit on a doc that is supposed to primarily focus on tanks, this seems unreasonable. I don't see how people are ok with this but shit their pants at the thought of 101st with flame nades, both are cheesy as fuck. Cheesy combos like this aren't inherently bad, but they should at least be more consistently regulated/allowed.
On a related note, I don't know if it was fixed yet, but last I checked, combat engineers were unable to cut barbed wire. That seemed really out of place considering that would presumably be of one of their main jobs, but maybe there is a reason for it.
If we take the former approach, I think the squad should just start with elite garands instead of grease guns, with the option to equip up to 4 thompsons (packages of 2) or maybe 2 BARs. Grease guns are sort of ridiculous when you get that many for free on a squad that also has some of the best grenades in the game, as well as construction/repair capabilities.
It could be argued that assault pios on PE are just as cheesy, but MP bleed is a bigger issue on PE than it is on US since US has the supply yard and its units are generally pretty cheap. This means that US isn't really punished for just throwing combat engineers at an axis player's inf across open ground, as they only need like 3 models to close the gap in order to have a decent chance of wiping the axis squad if it doesn't have a CQB loadout of its own.
They're surprisingly effective against squads equipped with LMGs, as they either close the gap or get suppressed and chuck a concussion grenade at the axis unit, which forces it to reposition (thus allowing the assault engineers to keep pushing) or wipes it. For an engineer unit on a doc that is supposed to primarily focus on tanks, this seems unreasonable. I don't see how people are ok with this but shit their pants at the thought of 101st with flame nades, both are cheesy as fuck. Cheesy combos like this aren't inherently bad, but they should at least be more consistently regulated/allowed.
On a related note, I don't know if it was fixed yet, but last I checked, combat engineers were unable to cut barbed wire. That seemed really out of place considering that would presumably be of one of their main jobs, but maybe there is a reason for it.
Re: Combat Engineers
Assault Pios arent close as good when it comes to scaling/cost effectiveness.
The 1CP upgrade makes the Combat Engis pretty tanky and also give you a free vet, which kicks in when you loose one sqaud and makes recovering more easy.
Their starting loadout is also better, since Assault pios get Kar98 and the Stgs, and transforming them into a CQB cost ammo everytime, while combat engis can work with the standard loadout if ammo is spare.
They are a cheesy unit in an overall tank/vehicle focused doc.
The 1CP upgrade makes the Combat Engis pretty tanky and also give you a free vet, which kicks in when you loose one sqaud and makes recovering more easy.
Their starting loadout is also better, since Assault pios get Kar98 and the Stgs, and transforming them into a CQB cost ammo everytime, while combat engis can work with the standard loadout if ammo is spare.
They are a cheesy unit in an overall tank/vehicle focused doc.
Nerf Mencius
Re: Combat Engineers
You mentioned several times that the unlock makes them strong:
The unlock currently gives them:
- 1 free vet level
- 20% more XP gain from kills
- -25% damage taken
- point capture speed increased by 20%
The unlock provides a LOT for just 1CP, so why not remove the free vet and the lower the damage reduction from -25% to -10%. They will still take less damage from all sources but won't be as tanky as they are now and they will actually need to kill something to gain veterancy bonuses, yet still vet up faster than without the unlock.
But your suggestions revolve around their loadout.
The unlock currently gives them:
- 1 free vet level
- 20% more XP gain from kills
- -25% damage taken
- point capture speed increased by 20%
The unlock provides a LOT for just 1CP, so why not remove the free vet and the lower the damage reduction from -25% to -10%. They will still take less damage from all sources but won't be as tanky as they are now and they will actually need to kill something to gain veterancy bonuses, yet still vet up faster than without the unlock.
Re: Combat Engineers
I like the overall unlock for them and i think its fine as it is. Also, free vet is right now pretty much a must have meta since the vet changes.
I would like a general limitation for the loadout when they are used without ammo and some weapons locked behind that unlock.
So their overall early cheese gets elimitated, but their later stage impact doesnt suffer that hard. I dont want a another SE doc that never recovers in infantry gameplay after you loose ur vet sqaud.
So maybe give them M3s and 2 shotguns and lock thompsons behind the CP unlock. Garands do also work, but the shotguns would be more fitting.
I would like a general limitation for the loadout when they are used without ammo and some weapons locked behind that unlock.
So their overall early cheese gets elimitated, but their later stage impact doesnt suffer that hard. I dont want a another SE doc that never recovers in infantry gameplay after you loose ur vet sqaud.
So maybe give them M3s and 2 shotguns and lock thompsons behind the CP unlock. Garands do also work, but the shotguns would be more fitting.
Nerf Mencius