15 Man Shock Pricing

[KattiValk]

Marines (and their special snowflake light infantry brothers) have always been the unwanted child in the RD meta. Having the extra HP is certainly useful, but in the end, it's usually still not viable. Why is this the case? Two important issues really hold these squads back: low damage and high price. Now, there's been talk about remedying both these issues, but I think the safe thing to do is really quite clear and should be discussed (I was unable to find nor remember a topic actually specifically talking about this so here we go).

Unfortunately, unlike morpher, I'm a little lazy for pictures and hot videos of flakpanzers failing to kill helicopters so you'll have to deal with this wall of text.

Base pricing for infantry:

• Reservist: 5
• Line: 10
• Shock (10 man): 15
• Shock (15 man): 25
• Elite (10 man): 25
• Elite 15 man squads are a hard call as none actually have +0 AT weapons and only receive +5 even if the weapon is actually a +10 (or should be one, a la AT12) like line infantry (looking at you, Fusiliers), however, a safe guess based off all other pricing will place them at 30 pts for the base squad.

This pricing scheme is fairly linear save for one glaring outlier: 15 man shock.

I believe that regardless of what happens to 15 man shock squads, currently, the safe decision will be to buff them to a 20 pt base.

The new 15 man pricing:

• Givati (RPG-7V): 25
• Haebyung '75 (M72): 20
• Haebyung '90 (Pzf 3): 30
• Jeogockdae '75 (RPG-7): 20
• Jeogockdae '90 (Type 63-III): 25 (based off Yuckjeondae, though this is probably a +10 weapon)
• Morskaya Pekhota '75 (RPG-7): 20
• Morskaya Pekhota '90 (RPG-7V): 25
• Niebieskie Berety '75: see Morskaya
• Niebieskie Berety '90: see Morskaya
• US Marines '75 (M72): 20
• US Marines '90 (AT4): 25
• Fallskjermjeger '75 (CG M2): 25
• Fallskjermjeger '90 (Eryx): 30
• Gurkhas '75 (CG M2): 25
• Gurkhas '90 (LAW 80): 30
• Norrlandsjagare (Pvpj 1110 m/77): 25 (IMO, unless RRs get AP buffs to match LAWs, they should not be +5, but I'll keep it 25 for consistency)
• Wachregiment (RPG-18): 20
  Upcoming DLC
• Kaartinjääkäri (M72): 20

Spoiler : Old Prices :

• Givati (RPG-7V): 25
• Haebyung '75 (M72): 25
• Haebyung '90 (Pzf 3): 30
• Jeogockdae '75 (RPG-7): 25
• Jeogockdae '90 (Type 63-III): 30
• Morskaya Pekhota '75 (RPG-7): 25
• Morskaya Pekhota '90 (RPG-7V): 25
• Niebieskie Berety '75: see Morskaya
• Niebieskie Berety '90: see Morskaya
• US Marines '75 (M72): 25
• US Marines '90 (AT4): 30
• Fallskjermjeger '75 (CG M2): 30
• Fallskjermjeger '90 (Eryx): 30
• Gurkhas '75 (CG M2): 30
• Gurkhas '90 (LAW 80): 30
• Norrlandsjagare (Pvpj 1110 m/77): 30
• Wachregiment (RPG-18): 25
  Upcoming DLC
• Kaartinjääkäri (M72): 25

You know what the remarkable thing is? All the squads whose price did not change are currently somewhat viable, and I could totally imagine using a lot of the squads that would be price buffed with this change.

Please discuss.



Another thing, Mako has an excellent thread detailing possible buffs to give to the RPG-7 line that I support wholeheartedly. Changing the AT on some of the Redfor marines would be fantastic. Just apply whatever change you desire with the appropriate price change using the problem solving skills primary school gave you to see whatever you like!

However, we have a little bit of an issue here. The current RPG-7V is somewhat bad for a +5 weapons and somewhat too good for a +0. It gets away with being an issue by being "+0" to arguably already overpriced infantry, but with this buff to marine prices, I'm not sure if the RPG-7V will have much of a place. If it is possible to buff further (we have had previous talks of making it more akin to the CG M2) to really feel securely like a +5 weapon then that would be great.

[Mister Maf]

Alternative option is to just boost the DPS on these squads by 25% or so. That way their current cost would be justified and they wouldn't just be an outright beefier normally-priced shock squad.

[XanderTuron]

I posted this in a different thread, but this seems like a more suitable place for it:

Could it be possible to rebalance 15 men shock units by giving them the same price as ten men, but giving them less units per card. Would this make them a viable alternate choice by making them more price efficient, but less card efficient, or am I completely missing some important factor?

[urogard]

I posted this in a different thread, but this seems like a more suitable place for it:

Could it be possible to rebalance 15 men shock units by giving them the same price as ten men, but giving them less units per card. Would this make them a viable alternate choice by making them more price efficient, but less card efficient, or am I completely missing some important factor?

Yes, there's no other unit which has unbalanced price but weirdly adjusted availability in return
Also people wouldn't like it, unless you give like half the availability so instead of 12 you get only 6, to prevent complete abuse.
But even then it would degenerate into everyone being forced to take it otherwise you will lose the initial engagement vs the person who did take them.

So I don't think it's a good idea.

[morpher]

Unfortunately, unlike morpher, I'm a little lazy for pictures and hot videos of flakpanzers failing to kill helicopters so you'll have to deal with this wall of text.

I am sorry for setting unreachable quality standards.

[morpher]

But yeah the +5 men is pretty useless.

[throwaway]

there's no other unit which has unbalanced price but weirdly adjusted availability in return

Trading availability for efficiency is the premise of the veterancy system in deckbuilding. Further, a bunch of transports, half of all line infantry, and most of the recon tab trade price for availability.

[Ultimaratio]

Marine Troops are barly seen on the battlefield anyway (except US and Phechota).

[urogard]

there's no other unit which has unbalanced price but weirdly adjusted availability in return

Trading availability for efficiency is the premise of the veterancy system in deckbuilding.

Since every unit in the game can be taken as upvetted, then no particular unit is receiving unbalanced price => your argument is invalid

Further, a bunch of transports

All transports have been declared intentionally cheaper than they should be, there's no transport that has received an exceptional price for an exceptional reduction in availability => your argument is invalid

half of all line infantry

It's a general rule that 90's infantry be it line or shock, receive lower availability by default, at least that used to be the idea. Exceptions exist where change in armament results in neither price change nor availability. But overall I'd say the system with respect to 85'/90'/95' infantry is not so much inconsistent as a reflection of the 5 point pricing reality => your argument is invalid

and most of the recon tab trade price for availability.

If an entire TAB follows a single rule, then you can hardly say that a particular unit isn't => your argument is invalid
Also you're wrong that the recon tab trade price for availability, because except in 3 cases (longbow, mistral, bradley) the availability is determined by optics level alone. In all other cases units trade optics for availability, not price.

[JohnDaBarr]

Real problem here is the pricing system that is simply too cumbersome and unwieldy with +/-5 adjustments for small units and therefore most of the time such units will have wrong values.
It is a fundamental problem and nothing will change that.

Example J: Jaegers for 10 are too cheap and for 15 are too expensive. And making them cost 12 points is simply UNACCEPTABLE! (for some reason everyone here writes this in caps )

But ultimately that's a WG4 problem.