Proposal: Viable line infantry for CMW, BD, US, RD and USSR

User avatar
RoadkillRodger
Lieutenant
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri 9 May 2014 07:24
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Viable line infantry for CMW, BD, US, RD and USSR

Postby RoadkillRodger » Sun 10 Apr 2016 22:12

morpher wrote:It was a joke, so you really don't see problems in base moto at 5pt with access to transports or moto '90 buffed with access to bmp-3s and btr-90s?


I'd encourage you to re-read the proposal, as I wasn't suggesting mototrelki 90 buffs. Personally I don't really consider the baseline motostrelki 75 transports to be that good, the vast majority are never used anyways with the possible exception of the obr86.

animalmother wrote:


Sorry, missed this before.

Ran your numbers, here's what I got:

1) Agree with jager/gav, not so much dragoner. Base law is really that bad, regardless of the M60 comparison to riflemen.
2) Agreed if the LR get a 5 pt transport, otherwise they'd still be inefficient vis a vis other lines. Also, the +5 point (30%) price increase eliminates the benefit of the ~10% performance bonus from veterancy.
3) I'm not against it.
4) That is a buff, but it doesn't go far enough if we're using current mg3 lines/base motoshutzen as the comparison
5) See above. Brings cost/HE down to ~66, which is still significantly short of the ~50 benchmark, esp. given the base LAW they carry.
6) I like it, but see above (~69 cost/HE this time). I still prefer the KAFV nerf reversion. It's more flavorful, and avoids more statclones.

Overall: even if people stopped using mg3 squads overnight, with the changes you've proposed there'd be little incentive not to just take shock squads instead of line squads.

User avatar
triumph
Major
Posts: 1830
Joined: Sun 31 Jul 2011 20:12
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Viable line infantry for CMW, BD, US, RD and USSR

Postby triumph » Sun 10 Apr 2016 22:15

The inf that really need a look for buffing are Zanshi85, light rifle 75/90, highlander, and the japanese LMG. All of these require something different from one another.


The light infantry mostly are polarized, they have small issues crossed the board, germans light shutzen are broken but a handful are amazing standouts.
Image
Transcend Excellence

User avatar
RoadkillRodger
Lieutenant
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri 9 May 2014 07:24
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Viable line infantry for CMW, BD, US, RD and USSR

Postby RoadkillRodger » Sun 10 Apr 2016 22:17

Razzmann wrote:Forest line inf comparison by nande: https://i.gyazo.com/2da01d0ef5f90c41781 ... a89e0a.png


Thanks for posting that, haven't seen it before. It doesn't take into account unit cost though, which is somewhat misleading.

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Viable line infantry for CMW, BD, US, RD and USSR

Postby Razzmann » Sun 10 Apr 2016 22:19

RoadkillRodger wrote:
Razzmann wrote:Forest line inf comparison by nande: https://i.gyazo.com/2da01d0ef5f90c41781 ... a89e0a.png


Thanks for posting that, haven't seen it before. It doesn't take into account unit cost though, which is somewhat misleading.

Well, not exactly. Only if you take it as an overall tier list for infantry. It is ordered by DPS, that's it.

It also shows why MG3s are so powerful: The infantry using it has by far the highes DPS AND sDPS. And then the MG3s burst length is pretty high too.

User avatar
frostypooky
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4334
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 14:12
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Viable line infantry for CMW, BD, US, RD and USSR

Postby frostypooky » Sun 10 Apr 2016 22:40

didnt read thread because im an asshole but i still go with the condensing infantry to two tiers instead of four, differentiated by veterancy levels. eg current militia and SOF tiers are wiped out, with line/marine/light infantry condensed into existing regular and SOF/elite reputation light inf units condensed into current shock tier. lower tiers are already generally punished with worse MGs or launchers, and higher tiers are already rewarded with god mode weaponry, so why double stack the numbers with the current tier system?

Using US, USSR, ROK, and NK as reference:
Militia and Reserves, Regular @ Rookie: Yebigun, Jeokwidae
Infantry, Regular @ Trained/Hardened: Riflemen, Motostrelki, Sochongsu, Bochongsu, Morskaya Pekhota, Cav Scouts, Light Riflemen
Distinguished/shock line infantry, Regular @ Hardened/Veteran: US Marines, Haebyung, VDV, Jeogyokdae, Ryukjeondae

"Frontline SOF", Shock @ Hardened/Veteran: Spetsnaz, Rangers, Gyongbobyong
Operator, Shock @ Veteran/Elite: Spetsnaz GRU, Delta Force, SEALs, Teukjeonsa, UDT/SEAL. Jeongchaldae

plus it is easier to implement that constantly tweaking weapons.

User avatar
RoadkillRodger
Lieutenant
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri 9 May 2014 07:24
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Viable line infantry for CMW, BD, US, RD and USSR

Postby RoadkillRodger » Sun 10 Apr 2016 22:52

frostypooky wrote:didnt read thread because im an asshole but i still go with the condensing infantry to two tiers instead of four, differentiated by veterancy levels.


</3

Looking at the proposal there I'd say that I need to see more before I know what to think of it. Downgrading training on a lot of SF/shock doesn't necessarily seem like the way to break the hold jager/gev/motoshut have on the current meta.

tl;dr
I focused on giving all coalitions something to fill the high HE/low AT role, and avoided buffs to any units with more than 14 AP. I tried to give every noncompetitive coalition an answer to mg3 lines etc, without giving them a swiss army knife that could be used to take forests single-handedly. Although the new units all have similar cost/dps as jager, a better comparison would be to motoshutzen 75, which require supporting units to be effective.

User avatar
frostypooky
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4334
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 14:12
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Viable line infantry for CMW, BD, US, RD and USSR

Postby frostypooky » Sun 10 Apr 2016 22:59

RoadkillRodger wrote:Downgrading training on a lot of SF/shock doesn't necessarily seem like the way to break the hold jager/gev/motoshut have on the current meta..


sure, the MG/cost effectiveness issues can be tackled too, i just think we would see alot more line infantry if the only advantages for paying more were an 8% performance difference (rather than 50% with all variables considered) and different RPG/faster move speed. it kind of ties into what you say, there would ideally be no swiss army knife under this (with obvious MG and RPG tweaks as well) as you would be economically rewarded for sticking to the lower tiers whether you are fighting inf or armor defensively, which higher tiers meant more for maneuver or fast breakthroughs.
Last edited by frostypooky on Sun 10 Apr 2016 23:06, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
animalmother
Corporal
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri 7 Feb 2014 05:08
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Viable line infantry for CMW, BD, US, RD and USSR

Postby animalmother » Sun 10 Apr 2016 23:01

RoadkillRodger wrote:Overall: even if people stopped using mg3 squads overnight, with the changes you've proposed there'd be little incentive not to just take shock squads instead of line squads.

yeah this is already the case for most nations other than Norway, Denmark, and Germany who have cost efficient MG3 hordes. IMO that's why restructuring the Inf tab would really be the only way to make these infantry types useful....

Line infantry excel in being defensive(superior AT, much larger ammo supply).

Assault troops such as marines, paratroopers, etc are dual purpose but better suited for out maneuvering and dislodging line infantry to fill this role they have a very low supply of light AT to keep themselves light.

Elite troops have very good reconnaissance and perform anti-infantry better than shock troops, but fall victim to vehicles due to a lack of AT.

Light infantry would be better equipped yet slower line infantry which are balanced based of their lack effective transports.
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"

User avatar
frostypooky
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4334
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 14:12
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Viable line infantry for CMW, BD, US, RD and USSR

Postby frostypooky » Sun 10 Apr 2016 23:09

animalmother wrote:
RoadkillRodger wrote:Overall: even if people stopped using mg3 squads overnight, with the changes you've proposed there'd be little incentive not to just take shock squads instead of line squads.

yeah this is already the case for most nations other than Norway, Denmark, and Germany who have cost efficient MG3 hordes. IMO that's why restructuring the Inf tab would really be the only way to make these infantry types useful....

Line infantry excel in being defensive(superior AT, much larger ammo supply).

Assault troops such as marines, paratroopers, etc are dual purpose but better suited for out maneuvering and dislodging line infantry to fill this role they have a very low supply of light AT to keep themselves light.

Elite troops have very good reconnaissance and perform anti-infantry better than shock troops, but fall victim to vehicles due to a lack of AT.

Light infantry would be better equipped yet slower line infantry which are balanced based of their lack effective transports.


yes this falls exactly in line with how i usually present the model, i dont understand how after three iterations it still hasnt followed this.

User avatar
RoadkillRodger
Lieutenant
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri 9 May 2014 07:24
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Viable line infantry for CMW, BD, US, RD and USSR

Postby RoadkillRodger » Sun 10 Apr 2016 23:17

frostypooky wrote:
animalmother wrote:

:oops:
yes this falls exactly in line with how i usually present the model, i dont understand how after three iterations it still hasnt followed this.


That's basically uralgraznomod in a nutshell iirc, and I'll admit I haven't played it so I don't know what it's like in practice. :oops:

I think that we're all looking at the same thing, which is separating the good infantry-killers from the high AT squads. The difference is in execution, as your changes would also represent an inversion of the current system. I don't disagree with the that system, but I do believe that my changes are a somewhat simpler method of accomplishing the same goal.

I think it'd be okay for jagers and gav to keep their current 16 AP functionality/advantage, so long as other coalitions have some kind of answer to the HE dps they represent. The current meta already trends towards the use of high-HE/low-AT squads for forest combat, and I think my proposed changes are the fastest way to realize the clear separation of high HE infantry and high AT infantry.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 38 guests