[1.04] Changes to the MG Dugout

[Polo]

I was thinking that since there have been complaints of the Soviet's MG nest being too expensive, there shud be a buff for it as soon as it's vickers is replaced with a Soviet alternative. In a previous thread I was told by a dev that the DShK was a likely candidate for replacement. This would suit the buff well since the DShK was a heavy anti-aircraft machine gun that was as well used as  a heavy infantry machine gun, and should of been capable of penetrating light armour. Therefore if the dugout was buffed to be significantly more powerful against infantry and light vehicles then the other faction's MG nests, I think the extra resources would have felt like they have gone somwhere.

[Josiah666]

Don't quite get whose extra resources you are talking about. The players' in-game or the development team's?

Well this building is a doctrinal addition, and the 1st doctrinal general purpose defensive building (I only have the original CoH), or something that makes USSR unique at the very least. So I think it (and the command tree) deserves a little more attention if a player really wants to play defensively, and to make Soviet defensive play more unique.

P.S. Guess which faction I play before this mod? 

[hgghg4]

playing defensive with soviets = dead soviet....

[Polo]

Don't quite get whose extra resources you are talking about. The players' in-game or the development team's?

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

Difference between the two: nothing other than all brits can build theres while the Soviets are limited to the Propaganda doctrine.

It's a similar story with the other 2 factions:
US (240MP,10F) and Wehr (150MP,50MU)
(Leaving out PE of course)

What I would like to know is where those extra resources going? Is there some balancing issue Im missing if the Soviets MG emplacement costed the same as say the Brits? (or at very least the US) I mean it costs 20MP more than the Bofors for christ's sake. And provided around the time you've built your dugout the first light vehicles are starting to seep in, which building would you prefer?

Well this building is a doctrinal addition, and the 1st doctrinal general purpose defensive building (I only have the original CoH), or something that makes USSR unique at the very least. So I think it (and the command tree) deserves a little more attention if a player really wants to play defensively, and to make Soviet defensive play more unique.

I agree, I think the Propaganda doctrine does need some tweaks. Maybe its just me, but I find that when playing vs an equally skilled player, the Propaganda doctine just doesn't cut it. I usually go for the Urban Combat doctine, which never fails me. 
   

[redknight021]

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.

[Polo]

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.

A good point raised, that just doesn't make any sense to me, I'm sure they're gonna change that somewhere down the road though, if theres enough complaints.

[Loupblanc]

 I think axis can reman russian dugouts

[hgghg4]

why recrew an MG that is weaker then the bunker, costs more population then the bunker and is almost always pointing the wrong way for Axis?

[Polo]

why recrew an MG that is weaker then the bunker, costs more population then the bunker and is almost always pointing the wrong way for Axis?

even still, the principal just seems wrong that the enemy still can and they can't. I know they having problems with recrewing but there's gotta be somthing they can do to fix this, like having the MG being more like the US/Wehr one with no pop cap perhaps?

[Narizna]

what it seems to come down to is that the price for the dugout is too expensive and therefore no one uses it.

as hgghg4 said, why would German players want to re crew it anyway?

-Narizna

[Polo]

the price for the dugout is too expensive and therefore no one uses it.

thats the problem, what the dev's are going to do about it is what it comes down to.

as hgghg4 said, why would German players want to re crew it anyway?

I guess Axis players recrewing it isn't much of an issue, the problem is what redknight said of how easily the crew can die with no option of recrewing, with it's extra cost making matters only worse.

[redknight021]

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

[xenotype]

The US nest costs only 220MP.  The nest is too expensive because it hits you in three areas instead of just two like the others.  Brit is pop + mp cost.  Wehr is mp + muni cost.  US is mp + fuel.  The soviet nest is pop + mp + fuel.  It also costs the MOST fuel and the MOST mp.  Especially since it cannot be recrewed, there is just no point to using it right now.  A bit like the hotchkiss only significantly worse.

[Polo]

I've noticed the dev's have been pretty quiet here. Is there any flaws in our arguments, or are there plans for change?

[Paciat]

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.