Messages

1

Balance Discussion / Re: [1.04] Changes to the MG Dugout

« on: February 25, 2010, 07:54:58 AM »

The ones im referring to is the additional amount paid compared to the other factions counterparts. For instance:

British MG Emplacement Cost: 280MP
Soviet MG Emplacement Cost: 300MP, 15 Fuel

There is one more difference between these 2. Soviet Ingenery cost 150 while Tommies 450. Every UK unit is needed to fight/cap while its not hard to save 150MP when plaing Soviets. Thats why MG Dugout should cost some fuel like the US MG. It just needs a lower (240) MP cost.

I was more on the lines of just focusing on the comparison of the 2 buildings and not looking at both factions as a whole. I think it's main problem is its pop cap since its such a waste of resources if say a incindenary grenade takes out the units inside leaving a useless uncrewable building then if it had no pop cost and was just a building it could have lasted much longer. That should be tended to first, while the expense problem can be dealt with either by giving it that buff i mentioned or lowering it to more of the price of the US MG nest, if not lower. I for one would prefer the buff, since it would make the Soviets more unique and not just have the same basic MG nest as most of the other factions have.

i'm totally with you on that's polo, buff the gun leave the extra cost (and make it so you can re-man it)

2 commander points is nothing to sneeze at, but the extra man power cost, fuel cost, pop cap cost, and commander point cost would all be worth a unique structure for the soviets without being too OP. 

i think it is also worth noting that it's the only stationary defense that comes as a doctrine choice, it should be unique

2

Balance Discussion / Re: [1.04] Changes to the MG Dugout

« on: February 23, 2010, 05:07:06 AM »

i understand the original reasoning behind not allowing soviet players to reman weapon teams (besides a flaw in the name of game balance, it makes sense to me at least that the soldiers are specialized and have no knowledge of using other weapons)

my problem is that, in the end, the nest is genuinely ineffective once you account for it's cost, and how easy it is to empty it.

the original suggestion to use the dshk is perfect. because it's a doctrine power and costs more than any other stationary defense, it should be better than other varieties. in this case, effective against light vehicles.

moreover, it (or the crew) needs to be tougher...it's awfully sad how quickly the crew gets killed

3

Balance Discussion / Re: Changes to the MG Dugout

« on: February 22, 2010, 01:19:04 AM »

i totally agree in regards to the MG dugout being to expensive.  I find also, that it's extremely easy to kill the gunners inside (easier than say, killing the british gunners in a british dugout) so sometimes you end up with a building that you can't even scuttle and as we all know, can't reman.

i like the idea mentioning the new MG type, with a change like that, i think playing defensively as a soviet could be feasible.