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

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

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

Postby Steamfunk » Wed 13 Apr 2016 17:55

I figure that if you buffed infantry with junk AT like M72 LAWs, basic RPG-7s, and junk MGs with a speed bonus, they would become more viable and make them useful for operating on the flanks, raid cheaply, and scout quickly.


Maybe, but then you could just make them really cheap and give the serious AT weapons (like the Gustav), to a slightly more expensive unit. Militia could be 5 points but with slightly better stats and we could just get rid of the marines and other 15 man squads to compensate. 5/10/15 point units of line infantry could afford to specialise, and we can relegate special training bonuses to a few units like the SAS and other elite branches or formations. The infantry tab is bloated and needs some sort of radical change.

Something like this -

Infantry (LAW, LMG) - 5 points
Inf (AT, GPMG) - 10 points
Inf (ATGM) -15 points (10 man squad with two launchers).

User avatar
kvasius
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue 22 Sep 2015 22:38
Location: Kiev, Ukraine
Contact:

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

Postby kvasius » Wed 13 Apr 2016 22:32

DeckCheney wrote:I grow tired of strawman arguments against the BEST solution for Infantry balance.

STANDARDISE TO PKM.


No. Standartise to the most balanced MG in the game (middle DPS of all MG's).
Standartise to the L86 LSW.... while giving MS'90 extra +10 accuracy just because you know.... national flavour. :>

delor
Lieutenant
Posts: 1231
Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2014 23:39
Contact:

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

Postby delor » Thu 14 Apr 2016 00:19

Personally, I kind of like the default infantry pricing scheme of 10 for line, 15 for shock (although everyone but Bloc pays 20, it seems), +5 for an advanced AT, +5 for a 15-man squad. That puts it at something like '75 shock > 75' line or 90s shock > 90s line for anti-infantry cost effectiveness and the reverse for anti-vehicle cost effectiveness, crudely, assuming decent MGs and access to an armed 5-point transport.
(with 15-man shock biasing towards anti-infantry more strongly)

The main problem comes from the fact that MG quality can vary- often by a lot- and it isn't priced for. This gets especially bad when paired with a unit that has an RPG that just barely doesn't make the cut for the +5 price increase.

I think you can pretty easily fix this up without needing to get nitpicky beyond the 5-point bins that seem to be here to stay for RD, and get a 90% solution for line and shock riflemen. Five easy steps, with most of the fixing coming in step #1:

1) The biggest thing to fix is the MG balance, which I'd suggest simply normalizing into five categories:

980m, non-CQ: As current M60, but with +10% accuracy.
875m non-CQ: As current C6.
875m, CQ: As the current AA-52
770m, CQ: As the Minimi, but with 55 suppression.
Bren L4: As Bren L4, but with 2.4s delay between shots instead of 2.8.

2) Find a 5-point transport with an MG for all line and shock riflemen. Having a 5-point MG transport is pretty important to being cost effective against infantry because increasing your price by 5 makes you a cost loser in a meatgrinder.

3) The Zhanshi '85 are in a terrible place because they've got an '85-quality RPG they pay +5 points. Either give them the 69-III, or drop them to 10 points.

4) Line infantry with an '85 launcher that they aren't paying +5 points for (LAW A4, faust '44, maybe 69-I depending on how you handle #2) and line infantry with incredibly good 90s RPGs (LAW 80, frex) get 16 availability, everyone else gets 20. It's not really an equalizer, but it's a nice little nod to the discrepancies within each pricing bin. (+0 and +5)

5) Probably most controversially, get rid of the shock tax that everyone but Poland and E. Germany pays on shock troops and normalize it at 15 points, +5 for an advanced RPG, an +5 for 15-man size, and drop shock availability back down to 10 instead of 12. Now that everyone's got line infantry with a decent MG available in a 5-point transport, and MG-standardized shock infantry also available in a 5-point transport, everyone has something that can reasonably fight back.

And, that's it. It's not perfect, but it's probably a much happier place and with much less wiggle room for broken infantry than what we have now without MG standardization. Jager and Gavaermann lose their super gun, but don't have to go up to 15 points and still have an above-average RPG, and shock troopers that aren't Motoshutzen get a chance to return to the field but without as many rubbish-MG punching bags to kick around or the PZG MG3 ubercorps.

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 » Thu 14 Apr 2016 00:49

DeckCheney wrote:If infantry LMGs are standardised there's still loads of variation between Battle/Assault Rifles/SMGs- each with their own situational uses. The biggest differences being that you'd no longer be able to exclusively force somebody's infantry out by simply spamming flat superior LMGs. Instead army composition, positioning and tactics would play a larger role.


If you standardize infantry MGs it'll just shift over to SMG line infantry spam. In my experience the vast majority of infantry engagements occur at close range(forests and cities), as a result SMG inf will be the most cost effective.

DeckCheney wrote:This isn't just an MG3 issue. It's the entire LMG food chain; where PKM/M60 troops suffer against French/DPRK troops too.

That's why so many people call for M60 and PKM buffs. There are still infantry that are effective, but PKM and M60 infantry lag way behind and represent US, ROK, USSR, POLAND. If you buff the m60 and PKM at least to the level of the AA52 or m240 you'll help make rifleman and motostrelki cost effective.

DeckCheney wrote:While static Anti-Tank defenses is the primary role of Infatry; there's room for variation between Disposable, low AP/High ROF and High AP/Low ROF RPGs. IFVs already suffer to AT- LMG standardisation won't change that- RPG standardisation will help level the playing field, as would a reassessment of IFV prices (Marder 1/Bradley/BMP/D-2).


There's a problem with infantry AT variation? I think you could make pretty solid and logical changes in the distribution of AT(High end to line, very light AT to elite, etc), but imo it seems like the diversity in AT adds alot to the game. wg whats USSR airborne w/o Vampyrs, Brits w/o LAW 80s, Swedes w/o carl g's and BILLs.



DeckCheney wrote:I grow tired of strawman arguments against the BEST solution for Infantry balance.

STANDARDISE TO PKM.


With how bad the PKM is, it seems like your plan will just recreate the ALB flame inf meta. Standardization sounds pretty boring. It would basically gut the infantry tab, and fill it with a small variety of infantry types. Currently most nations have pretty clear strengths and weaknesses in the Infantry tab. USSR has strong SF and Airborne Infantry, Scandinavia and Germany has strong mechanized infantry, etc. These strengths and weakness make infantry combat somewhat fun and removing it would kill it for me. There is also alot of room to expand these strength's and weakness to underrepresented nations such as China, US, ROK.
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"

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 » Thu 14 Apr 2016 02:41

delor wrote: [A good idea]


A little more complex as far as overhauling infantry goes, but it's a good way to compress infantry performance ranges while still leaving in a lot of variables with which to balance. You should ctrl+v that into a thread of its own.

User avatar
morpher
Major-General
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sun 17 May 2015 21:03

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

Postby morpher » Thu 14 Apr 2016 15:53

RoadkillRodger wrote:
delor wrote: [A very bad idea]


A little more complex as far as overhauling infantry goes, but it's a good way to compress infantry performance ranges while still leaving in a lot of variables with which to balance. You should ctrl+v that into a thread of its own.


So, you want every factions to have access to the same cost effective infantry (MG, 5pt transports, ecc) but also that some factions have access to advanced transports while others are stuck with the 5pt one.

Don't you see a problem?

User avatar
Shrike
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4515
Joined: Sun 22 Sep 2013 04:30
Location: Central California, US
Contact:

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

Postby Shrike » Thu 14 Apr 2016 17:21

remilia019 wrote:How about nerfing Jagers instead?

Nerf all MG3s by introducing a barrel overheating and barrel changing mechanic in the next game. That'll teach the wehraboos for firing in a long continuous burst with their chainsaw.

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 » Thu 14 Apr 2016 19:03

morpher wrote:So, you want every factions to have access to the same cost effective infantry (MG, 5pt transports, ecc) but also that some factions have access to advanced transports while others are stuck with the 5pt one.

Don't you see a problem?


Obviously I don't, hence my comment. 'Advanced transports' have very little to do with cheap infantry in cheap transports. It's a moot point anyways, as most competitive decks get both.

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12406
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

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

Postby Mike » Thu 14 Apr 2016 19:56

Shrike wrote:
remilia019 wrote:How about nerfing Jagers instead?

Nerf all MG3s by introducing a barrel overheating and barrel changing mechanic in the next game. That'll teach the wehraboos for firing in a long continuous burst with their chainsaw.


I don't get why they won't nerf just the MG3 only line infantry use it. Shock and Elite use the I.MG3. People keep taking about Jägers but never about Geværmenn '90 who have a M72A4 along with their chainsaw and can come in the XA-186NO or a ten point AC armed transport.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
morpher
Major-General
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sun 17 May 2015 21:03

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

Postby morpher » Thu 14 Apr 2016 20:09

RoadkillRodger wrote:
morpher wrote:So, you want every factions to have access to the same cost effective infantry (MG, 5pt transports, ecc) but also that some factions have access to advanced transports while others are stuck with the 5pt one.

Don't you see a problem?


Obviously I don't, hence my comment. 'Advanced transports' have very little to do with cheap infantry in cheap transports. It's a moot point anyways, as most competitive decks get both.


Let us start simple. You have two decks, one with jagers in 5pt transport, the other with jagers in 5pt transport, two gl transports, one with 2,8km atgm and 2,4km HE gun, ecc. The rest of the deck is equal.

Why would you choose the first deck?

Now extent the example. The second deck has better AIR, VEH, HEL, REC tabs and an somehow equal TANK tab.

Why would you choose the first deck?

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests