6 replies to this topic

[Soviet Reaper Dragon]

Flak Troopers can garrison Battle Bunkers, but cannot fire at air units from them. This is unlike Generals, where Tankhunter Soldiers can garrison bunkers and also fire at air units along with ground units alongside Red Guard Soldiers.

 

Is there any chance that this can be fixed in a future mod update along with allowing a wider range of Soldiers to garrison Battle Bunkers like Tesla Troopers?

[LIama Del Rey]

Flak Troopers can garrison Battle Bunkers, but cannot fire at air units from them. This is unlike Generals, where Tankhunter Soldiers can garrison bunkers and also fire at air units along with ground units alongside Red Guard Soldiers.

 

Is there any chance that this can be fixed in a future mod update along with allowing a wider range of Soldiers to garrison Battle Bunkers like Tesla Troopers?

They work as intended, all of this will most likely remain the same.
 

[Handepsilon]

 

Is there any chance that this can be fixed in a future mod update along with allowing a wider range of Soldiers to garrison Battle Bunkers like Tesla Troopers?

Unless Ares somehow can do it, no. See, garrisons are like true communists. If one of the type inside has more range, everyone gets more range. If one can fire faster than the rest, then everyone will copy the same rate of fire. If one can shoot air, then everybody inside can also shoot air, and then you'll have problems where conscripts and flak troopers can shoot air despite Conscripts not being able to.

This is all good until you realize if you apply this to.... say, Foehn, you'll have lancers who'll be shooting air down. That'll be broken as all hell

Edited by Handepsilon, 29 November 2021 - 06:16 AM.

[Soviet Reaper Dragon]

 

 

Is there any chance that this can be fixed in a future mod update along with allowing a wider range of Soldiers to garrison Battle Bunkers like Tesla Troopers?

Unless Ares somehow can do it, no. See, garrisons are like true communists. If one of the type inside has more range, everyone gets more range. If one can fire faster than the rest, then everyone will copy the same rate of fire. If one can shoot air, then everybody inside can also shoot air, and then you'll have problems where conscripts and flak troopers can shoot air despite Conscripts not being able to.

This is all good until you realize if you apply this to.... say, Foehn, you'll have lancers who'll be shooting air down. That'll be broken as all hell

 

 

 

That depends upon your definition of Communism. Lenin's New Economic Policy which needed to be scrapped considering the circumstances in place of Stalinist Leadership in taking The Soviet Union in the direction of unified collectivism due to the rise of adolf hitler was the right formulation of Communism during peacetime in that it rewarded the gifted for their abilities which is what Capitalism is all about while at the same time keeping them in line with the Soviet State.

 

To address your Battle Bunker point though, the logic you are using in that Conscripts will also be able to shoot down air is incorrect because currently the ratio of Flak Troopers to Conscripts determines how powerful Battle Bunkers are against enemy armored units versus enemy infantry units. If for example you garrison four Flak Troopers and two Conscripts inside one bunker (because Mental Omega Battle Bunkers house six Soldiers), then that Battle Bunker will be more powerful against enemy armored units and vehicles but less powerful against enemy infantry. The same logic can be applied to Flak Troopers still being able to shoot down air targets, but their power will depend upon the ratio of Flak Troopers to Conscripts which that particular bunker houses. And this here eliminates the falsehood that conscripts can also shoot down air targets.

 

This same logic can apply to Foehn but they don't use Battle Bunkers, nor is a Lancer an anti-air unit. The Foehn's anti-air counterpart to the Soviet Flak Trooper is the Knightframe.

 

To highlight the disparity here, The Allied Battle Fortress is basically a Battle Bunker on wheels but unlike The Soviet Battle Bunker, The Allied Battle Fortress can garrison GI's, Guardian GI's, Seals, Chrono-Legionnaires etc and as a result of that not only can they simultaneously engage both ground and air units but they can be incredibly hard to kill, basically they are like what a Soviet Apocalypse Tank used to be. And on the topic of The Soviet Apocalypse Tank, I do not understand why they removed it and put their version of a Rhino Tank in for Mental Omega. It is like they are weakening The Soviet Faction and strengthening The Allied Faction.

 

And as for Ares being able to do it, this tweak is as easy as making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich considering the fact that Ares engineered the whole Mental Omega Mod itself.

Edited by Soviet Reaper Dragon, 12 December 2021 - 11:47 PM.

[Soviet Reaper Dragon]

 

Flak Troopers can garrison Battle Bunkers, but cannot fire at air units from them. This is unlike Generals, where Tankhunter Soldiers can garrison bunkers and also fire at air units along with ground units alongside Red Guard Soldiers.

 

Is there any chance that this can be fixed in a future mod update along with allowing a wider range of Soldiers to garrison Battle Bunkers like Tesla Troopers?

They work as intended, all of this will most likely remain the same.
 

 

 

Refer to the post in which I addressed Handepsilon's concerns regarding this matter as I do believe that this improvement can be implemented in Mental Omega.

[Handepsilon]

 

This same logic can apply to Foehn but they don't use Battle Bunkers, nor is a Lancer an anti-air unit. The Foehn's anti-air counterpart to the Soviet Flak Trooper is the Knightframe.

That is of course, ignoring the fact that :

A : Battle bunkers are one of many buildings that are garrisonable. We haven't gotten into the tech bunkers and concrete fortress, which are far better than Soviet battle bunkers

B : Lancers are at least good against landed aircrafts due to the latter having similar armor to vehicles, and it gaining anti air capability because the knightframe inside the same building can fire in the air will make it a REALLY good anti air compared to knightframe, because of the quirk explained earlier.

C : Soviets can steal Lancers from Foehn via Drakuv + Field Bureau

 

As for your comparison on Battle Fortress and the bunkers, they're the same in terms of functionality... but in the technical background, they have different logic. Garrisoned infantries use entirely different weapon exclusive to the case, while infantries in Battle Fortress uses the exact same weapon it uses while on foot

 

I think if Ares can separate garrison weapons, it would've done so already. The thing about Ares is that it can only inject dll into the preexisting logic, or so I was told. It can't really completely rework everything

 

As for the rest of the infantries, I don't think anything else other than Malver will be garrisonable. That's more of game balance philosophy than anything

Edited by Handepsilon, 30 November 2021 - 06:11 AM.

[Soviet Reaper Dragon]

 

 

This same logic can apply to Foehn but they don't use Battle Bunkers, nor is a Lancer an anti-air unit. The Foehn's anti-air counterpart to the Soviet Flak Trooper is the Knightframe.

That is of course, ignoring the fact that :

A : Battle bunkers are one of many buildings that are garrisonable. We haven't gotten into the tech bunkers and concrete fortress, which are far better than Soviet battle bunkers

B : Lancers are at least good against landed aircrafts due to the latter having similar armor to vehicles, and it gaining anti air capability because the knightframe inside the same building can fire in the air will make it a REALLY good anti air compared to knightframe, because of the quirk explained earlier.

C : Soviets can steal Lancers from Foehn via Drakuv + Field Bureau

 

As for your comparison on Battle Fortress and the bunkers, they're the same in terms of functionality... but in the technical background, they have different logic. Garrisoned infantries use entirely different weapon exclusive to the case, while infantries in Battle Fortress uses the exact same weapon it uses while on foot

 

I think if Ares can separate garrison weapons, it would've done so already. The thing about Ares is that it can only inject dll into the preexisting logic, or so I was told. It can't really completely rework everything

 

As for the rest of the infantries, I don't think anything else other than Malver will be garrisonable. That's more of game balance philosophy than anything

 

 

 

The same logic applied to Allied Battle Fortresses should also equally apply to Soviet Battle Bunkers and all other garrisonable structures. A Foehn Lancer wouldn't gain anti-air capability just because it shares the same garrisonable structure as a Foehn Knightframe, in exactly the same manner as an Allied Navy Seal doesn't gain the capability of an Allied Chrono-Legionnaire just because it shares the same Allied Battle Fortress with it. The ratio of Allied GIs / Allied Navy Seals to Allied Guardian GIs inevitably determines how powerful the Allied Battle Fortress is against enemy ground units and enemy air units.

 

If Ares can inject this many different units and a completely new faction into Yuri's Revenge, then this would be considered as being a minor adjustment.

 

On the topic of game balance, this was turned completely in favor of the Allied and Foehn Factions after they retired The Soviet Apocalypse Tank, especially with The Soviet Battle Bunker not being only able to garrison Soviet Conscripts & Soviet Flak Troopers in it but the Soviet Flak Trooper not be able to fire upon enemy air units, while The Allied Battle Fortress is able to garrison a wide range of units like the Allied Chrono-Legionnaire which can phase a structure out of existence while Allied Guardian GIs can fend off tanks and Allied Navy Seals can fend off infantry simultaneously.