Iron Ranger Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Can we have the AD of the engineer unit raised in 1.05? Germany was able to build huge forts along the coast under constat bombing, USSR had huge entrenchments around citys that the german air force was unable to destroy. AD of 1, seams too low (same on all units). These special units would have had extra protection and in the process of building these huge concert/dirt forts would have given themselfs more defence then a std unit in the field. Say AD or 3 give or take one would seam right. Since these units are unlikely to build alot of xp there is little chance of them becomeing 'anti air' units. [ October 03, 2006, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Iron Ranger ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BioWizard Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I support Iron Ranger's idea. p.s. Are you referring to me killing your axis engineer 3 times in a row with with my aircrafts in England by any chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Excellent point Iron Ranger. In fact, I would like to see Engineers able to do more in SC2. Perhaps build fortified Air Fields where Air Units on the ground would get AD+2 against air attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 yes bio, though in the end they did thier job I found that ugly... plus my timing was poor... and the weather didnt help at all... clear in Dec and Jan 2 years in a row... bla! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n0kn0k Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Excellent idea Edwin P. Airfields combined with rebasing would be nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Better yet, let's allow AAR to be assigned to all units but at an increased cost 100 MPPs per level of research. And while we're at it, let's lose this amphib tech. Set the amphib movement as historical and make a new tech to balance out the AAR research. CAS...combat air support technology, weapons, tactics, and ground-air controller communication advancements just like it happened in WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 SeaMonkey!: Again and again, you are full of surprises!,YES!, your point is well taken as it does make very good sense!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Iron Ranger, a proposed change for v1.05 is that Engineers that are Fortifying and Paratroops that are Preparing will remain Hidden under FoW unless there is an adjacent enemy unit next to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Well, so much for the Atlantic Wall. I suppose it will give some room for fortifying. AntiAir research is primarily for Heavy Bombers. Forts cannot be upgraded either. Were 88s and field guns equipped to kill Air? Fighters looking for supremacy in air-to-air, now. Though a mile of flak can be a Wall that fighters themselves cannot penetrate. I wouldn't mind to see AntiAir being AntiFighter, since we throw in "some" strategic power to the Fighter and at 5 bars, my Lord it is a capable one! P.S. what of upgraded Forts with AntiAir? Also giving ones the ability to return fire on Ships? Perhaps weak though people will not bombard a Fortifying Unit with a 2 strength BB with the possability of losing it, Paratroopers aren't very strong in combined effort with Amphibious attacks because a fort on the coast is not practical unless against a meek foe. Why not place an added value to reinforce our coastlines? Historically a foe would not destroy a fortifying unit because they'd be destroyed in the attempt, focused FirePower in SC2 is unique and doesn't allow this sort of defensive actions. You will find that if you keep Engineers you'll need a value for them to fortify from a hex where 10 BBs cannot fire on them. Trust me on this, you put a Engineer in Normandy I will kill it every time as British if it's near the Coast.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted October 11, 2006 Author Share Posted October 11, 2006 Not sure I like that idea HC, if these 'special' units have a 'anti detection' ablity then why not HQs as well. Or subs running in silent mode ect ect If we are going to mess with our 100% spoting ability within your range then why now make it a % over distance. 100% spotting at range 1, 90% at range 2, 80% at range 3, ect.. so a L5 long range bomber would have spoting of 10 but only 10% at that max range. Give the above shot but I think a straight forward incress in AD for that unit work out best. KISS at work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I think the attempt here is to make these units, which have so far been pretty much non-essential, slightly more attractive whereas HQs are already essential to game play. If Engineers and Paratroops are to be used in regular combat then they are treated just as any other unit under FoW. I think the idea of adding in an AD bonus is a good one but if I understand correctly it was to make them a bit less vulnerable when either in Fortification or Preparation mode respectively... the problem as I see it is that they then have an AD bonus applied when they are also in non-Fortification/Preparation mode and perhaps this is not desirable. On the other hand when Engineers and Paratroops were used for Fortification/Preparation both sides went to great lengths to conceal their full intentions and I think that the proposed FoW changes for these units under their *special* mode loosely addresses that as well as hopefully addresses the issue of their exposure as sitting ducks... but again only in their special mode. Note, there is also a propsed reduction in price for Engineers, Paratroops and Rockets (to make them more attractive) as well as an updated framework for handling FoW wrt land units spotting units at sea... essentially land units will now only spot naval units at 1/2 their current spotting range in order to increase the "cat and mouse" naval aspect of SC2 Mind you nothing is set in stone just yet and we'll be testing some more just to see how this all works out before the next patch is released Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Looking forward to these changes, thanks Mr. C for your considerations and those of the beta team also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted October 11, 2006 Author Share Posted October 11, 2006 Well I'm sure others who have been playing alot more then me have ideas on this. Perhaps they will post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 HC, we're all happy to hear that you've come up with some ideas with reducing prices for these units that do not get employed. It may not mean they're employed still. You're right about Paras being secret OPs. Amphibious OPs were also secret, and Paras usually went on the same coin. The cost reduction may give a player with excess MPPs the desire to use at least Rockets, the downfall of Rockets as I've used them is they're not much different than Fighters, except they fire in any weather and they're a WHOLE seperate TECH to research No advantage to that. I'd also purpose that you decrease the cost to research them to say 75 Also rockets will be killed by 3 experienced Fighters or hampered from operating. Rockets are concealed weapons. Being that they're really just artillery, they should be mobile from Trains and from Trucks. Plus give Bombers an advantage to striking Rockets Historically it would take them to destroy their bunkers. As Russians will not build Bombers, Allies will.. Historically the Germans were known to Bury them and the Allies invented new and interesting methods of destroying these bunkers. All that is very involved but you get it, ideas Lastly, before I go, I love the idea of hiding Engineers, they suffer greatly being picked off like HQs with precision airstrikes. They're not practical at the level of Airpower and Long Range employed in SC2. It's rare a player will bother to station 2 fighters, perhaps 3 to defend a unit fortifying..and some Majors, simply cannot nor would expend the resources to do so. I like your idea, it makes them cheaper, and semi-effective. The next step would be to allow them to fortify adjacent hexes up to a certian range, so they can do it in a sector and not be exposed to the enemy. Not really a bad idea aye? If possible of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Look, I like these new ideas, but reading about engineers, paras, and rockets getting picked off by AFs just makes me want to scream out, the thing I do when employing these type units. Cover them with a couple of HQ supported advanced AFs! I'm sorry, but building the kind of fortifications that SC2 engineers build, for army sized units, and concentrating enough transport planes to lift a corps of paratroopers is not going to go unnoticed by the enemy, especially if that enemy has decent air recon. Ok, maybe airborne operations have a chance, but your going to build the westwall unnoticed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted October 12, 2006 Author Share Posted October 12, 2006 Ok, maybe airborne operations have a chance, but your going to build the westwall unnoticed? nope they will get noted IF as you said above you have air recon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts