5129 replies to this topic

[Bernadiroe]

Hmm, probably better if it's not a name. Not sure what other kind of military class type that suits Soviet.

 

A sniper who can cover itself in a bush when deployed? (gotta make it abit unique somehow)

[Battle Bee]

How about, instead of a specialized anti-infantry unit, we have a soldier who specifically counters specialized anti-infantry units?

A person clad in extremely thick armour that also resists toxins, radiation, lack of air and sniper fire through efficient filters, environmental seals, oxygen tanks and sheer armour, respectively. Probably eqipped with an anti-infantry weapon that's still very effective, but lacks the range of Snipers.

Edited by Battle Bee, 03 March 2017 - 07:48 PM.

[DarkEmblem]

How about, instead of a specialized anti-infantry unit, we have a soldier who specifically counters specialized anti-infantry units?

A person clad in extremely thick armour that also resists toxins, radiation, lack of air and sniper fire through efficient filters, environmental seals, oxygen tanks and sheer armour, respectively. Probably eqipped with an anti-infantry weapon that's still very effective, but lacks the range of Snipers.

Sounds like something even more OP than the virus, just less range. 

[Battle Bee]

 

How about, instead of a specialized anti-infantry unit, we have a soldier who specifically counters specialized anti-infantry units?

A person clad in extremely thick armour that also resists toxins, radiation, lack of air and sniper fire through efficient filters, environmental seals, oxygen tanks and sheer armour, respectively. Probably eqipped with an anti-infantry weapon that's still very effective, but lacks the range of Snipers.

Sounds like something even more OP than the virus, just less range. 

 

Just a thought. Maybe he could be made more vulnerable to anti-armour weapons?

Edited by Battle Bee, 03 March 2017 - 07:53 PM.

[GuardianGI]

Now that I think about it... since we already have the cryocopter... could we have the Cyro Legionnaire as a PF-exclusive T3 support infantry? Since it fits their theme of freezing stuff a.k.a. bringing winter to their enemies

Edited by GuardianGI, 04 March 2017 - 07:28 PM.

[doctormedic]

We had the cryo legionnaire in 3.0,which was more or less the same as a chrono legionnaire but with the cryo effect.

[GuardianGI]

It was a stolen tech, i think

[Destroyencio]

It was a Stolen Tech and it was not very useful. In 3.0 most OP stolen techs were Virus, Cyborg Protos, Reapers, and Voltmortars. Chrono Adepts in chokepointy maps also, but rest were pretty meh. Even the Hoplite was not that useful (unless you could get them into someone's base, but appart from that, meh )

[Hardric62]

I guess that's rather OT, but I don't think I saw it adressed in this thread.

 

Speeder mentionned the need to retcon the Colossus and Basilisk armament now plasma is a Foehn's toy (mostly lorewise change if  I understand right) some time ago. Provided that's still something to do, what about equipping these vehicles with something equivalent to the Antares version of the Thermal Beam, like it was the case for the Reaper? It would give them something different to the Marauders' thermal beam, and still be a destructive weapon.

 

And the Irkalla's presentation is also a bit outdated now. Maybe designing it as a weapon created to breach and destroy the London Fortress?

 

Now that would let the Mantis tank's question. Is there another backstory to propose to fit its ability without referencing to nanomaterials?

[Solais]

Well, the Mantis Tank is cobbled together from spare parts, and easy to repair, maybe?

[Bernadiroe]

Mantis is maybe using magnetism to quickly 'repair' damaged parts by pulling it and covering the dented/holed parts from their tanks leftovers.

[Hardric62]

Well, the Mantis Tank is cobbled together from spare parts, and easy to repair, maybe?

Guess I should have thought about this, that's the most likely scenario .

 

I also had an idea about notherr addition to a description, linked to the Catastrophe Tank. Since it only appears during Act II, would it be a a good idea to say its ability to garrison an infantry unit was inspired by the allied IFVs? Or to say it's possible thanks to reverse-engineered/scavenged weapon systems from said vehicles.

[Damfoos]

IFV and fireports are completely different things, the former requites actual adaptive weapon system while the latter just means you make extra space in the turret and make a small hole in it so the passenger can fire. And it doesn't mean the system was inspired by Battle Tortoise either, it is just a simple and efficient idea.

[Nevermore2790]

I do not know why Kirovs DO NOT fully use their quotes when attacking. One of their attacking quotes is one of their moving quotes.

[doctormedic]

WIll ifv flashbangs clear garrisons in the future or do they simply use the same projectile as the bulldog tank?

[Hardric62]

Dunno if it's the good thread, but still... Could it be possible to remove the Desperate Driver at the very start in Killing Fields? If we get unlucky during the deployment, the dirty little ducker cripple half of our Initiate squad.

[BlackAbsence]

Issues regarding Engineers traversing over water:

- There is no way to traverse engineers over water in "Infantry Only" mode. It's a shame because those cool tech structures on islands become pointless and impossible to capture within said mode.

- Foehn get the early game advantage when traversing Engineers over water because of their T1 Jackal Racer. It's overpowered because other sides do not have this luxury, which has imbalanced games with tech islands. 

 

Suggested solutions:

- Simply, make engineers amphibious. They could use a flotation board, or sea-glider, when within water.

(or)

- More complexly, add Naval Yards to "Infantry Only" mode but have them only able to construct miniature transport boats that look like this. The build range of the Naval Yard would have to be shortened a lot in "Infantry Only" mode too, so you don't end up with one Naval Yard way out in the water that troops can't shoot at. These miniature transport boats would be able to pick up / drop off 4 infantry along shorelines.

 

Side suggestion:

Add these miniature transport boats to "Standard" mode as replacement T1 naval transports, and have the current T1 transports (Voyager / Zubr / Mandjet / Warturtle) moved up to T2.

[SPCell]

1. I think Conscripts should be buffed. They are really weak in MO. Deployed GIs and Initiates destroy them pretty badly and don't get me started on Knightframes, but at least Initiates and GIs can actually defend themselves from other infantry while Conscripts need MASSIVE numerical advantage just to stand a chance of surviving. I suggest making their health and damage higher than they are now. Atm they are only used either as a meat shield or a flavor for bunkers and buildings.

 

2. Will stolen infantry from 3.0 make an appearance in campaign? They were pretty cool units, so they should make an appearance just so voice acting and animation done on them won't be wasted. I actually think that returning them in the skirmish would be great. If a player builds a wall around his lab then infiltrating it will be pretty hard. In multiplayer games one doesn't infiltrate in labs too often, so I think getting both stolen infantry and vehicles as a reward will make sense, but I doubt developing staff will approve this and I can see why.

Edited by SPCell, 05 March 2017 - 07:45 PM.

[Damfoos]

Agree on Conscripts. The biggest issue with them is their build time which is too long for such a weak unit and can't be reduced any further. We tested their deployment time compared to Knightframes and Initiates, and the results are: cost-wise Conscripts are way better than Knighframes, 80 of them will nuke 10 Knightframes and there will be some Conscripts left standing, however, by the time your enemy gets those 10 Knightframes you won't build more than ~26 Conscripts, and those will be shredded with no effort because 26 of them is a sufficient force against 3-4 Knigtframes, but not against 10 of them. In case of Initiates build times are almost identical, you can't even produce twice as much conscripts as he has Initiates (while cost difference is 3x), unless you have a lot of time and don't have to train other infantry - for 15 Initiates you can deploy ~22 Conscripts for the same time, which isn't an equal force. Conscripts are good against infantry if there's a huge blob of them, but the more of them you have, the less concentrated their firepower is, and additional Conscripts also take up space. Not to mention it just look pathetic when a single guy with an automatic rifle doesn't even deal visible damage to other infantry, even unarmed ones like Engineers. I'd suggest to increase their cost from 50 to at least 75 and do a 1.5x buff to their damage, to reduce the amount of Conscripts required to make a somewhat effective anti-infantry team. This will not solve the buildtime problem, but at least the already produced units will worth slighlty more on their own.

[BlackAbsence]

Can we change the cost of Conscripts to $100 and have them come out in twos?

As soon as they spawn, they could be programmed to deploy another conscript, or?

Edited by BlackAbsence, 05 March 2017 - 10:18 PM.