2 mines for pios nondoctrinal?

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Smokaz]

If you reduce the amount of mines possible to field, you sure as hell downplay the player's perceived need of having mineflails or minesweepers, thus reducing overall options. You can't avoid that arguement, PQ.

As for your fail analogy to the officer thing its a comparison completely out of proportion. That shit had seriously balance reprecussions and there was never any agreement upon its implementation or the way it was implemented at all. 2 mines on a pio squad already exists on defensive pioneers, engineers, sappers etc without anyone crying foul.

I do appreicate the minespam concern but as Ive now just recently pointed out Wind's teller mine is possible because PG supply is 1, and that might be flawed.

For a person who's also supposedly going to law school, you sure are good at nitpicking at details without seeing the larger picture. You'll make great judge potential bro

[Baine]

Think of crab mine flails that aren't mainly used for infantry hack&slay but for their original purpose! Madness!


Furthermore what smokaz is trying to say is that you can't base your opinion of normal mine"spam" on a tellermine spam company.

And to be honest why shouldn't Pios get two mines, all the time the allied engineers had 2, did you hear anyone complain about mine spam?

Your view is blinded by the shadow of Wind's tellermine gimmick my friend.

[pqumsieh]

first off, do not assume that my view is blinded by wind's teller mine spam. I was simply citing it as ONE example to illustrate the psychological effect on players and game play. That is, it made game play both tedious and slow.

Second, unlike your arguments (smokaz and baine) mine is rationally connected. I'm suggesting 1 mine all around in order to reduce that negative psychological effect. I have yet to hear any discussion in regards to that discussion. Why is that not a valid compromise? It seems to me if you truly were concerned with balance, you would at least be open to that. However, neither of you have even regarded it which tends to make me think there is an ulterior motive.

PQ

[Smokaz]

No I have the most idealistic motive of us two, because I think mineflails and sweepers promote smart and broad gameplay. If they are ineffective like you have pointed out, perhaps this could be looked at? I've just not seen any complaints about the new minesweepers before this thread.  Everyone I've talked to have described them as extremely pop-effective, spotting units.

[Tymathee]

pio's get goliaths and bunkers and demo charges. engies and sappers only get mines and demo's. I fear pio's more than i do engineers because every pio is a potential mine AND goliath. I've seen some goliath spam that is just absolutely nasty. Now that's walking on tippy toes cuz u know walking into enemy territory you may get a mine or get blown up by a goliath it's insane.

I think it's just fine, i can't imagine what it'd be like going up against a 4 pio start (8 mines 4 goliaths) + p4 + hmg + officer

and if u want mine spam, go tank hunters, for god sakes, all their pzgrens get teller's, so every infantry fielded is a potential tank destroyer. the axis have their mine spam, it's just in another doc. Brits don't get mines, heck i rarely see people use them.

Oh and then we forget about volks mines for wehr, they get two of them, and imo they can be nastier than stickies because of the higher rof of paks. Stick a pak near a volks mine, tank comes, runs into it and its basically deadmeat. at least w/ engine damage you can still move and get away from an at gun, with a volks mine, forget it, you're stuck.

sure the m-18 gets the hawks but whos going to keep laying down those mines or m8's mines. having them on infantry is much easier to drop than using vehicles. IMO, the Axis have a much better invisible war system than the allies do, in mobile and in ambush so to add any more to do is stupid, leave it alone smokaz, the axis are fine.

[nugnugx]

Are we back to 2007 again? back then pios had 2 mines and 3 with terror ability.

it was nerfed to 1 mine and 2 with terror ability for a reason , leave as it is , no need for change here

[TheWindCriesMary]

 Pioneers with 2 mines and goliaths would be absolutely absurd.

 The argument that "allies get it, so should axis" (vice versa) is a method of balance reasoning that has time and time again proved to be ineffective and illogical. And yet as many times as it is used, I'm still surprised to see it used here.

 Axis pioneers get goliaths, so should americans? Hell no.

 I disagree with this idea completely.

 -Wind

[Baine]

sure the m-18 gets the hawks but whos going to keep laying down those mines or m8's mines. having them on infantry is much easier to drop than using vehicles.

Ehm yeah, planting a mine that is more effective than a normal mine with an m8, that can't be killed as easily as normal engineers and that can rush into the middle in ME mode and plant it before the enemies arrive is definately not as good as on infantry...

[CafeMilani]

pios with 2 mines wouldnt be absurd, it would be a viable counter to light vehicle spam

[TheWindCriesMary]

pios with 2 mines wouldnt be absurd, it would be a viable counter to light vehicle spam

 Grenaiders that could purchase RR's would be a viable counter to light vehicle spam.

 See the problem?

 This format of logic is fundamentally flawed when applied to an EiR CoH balance topic.

 -Wind

[EliteGren]

Grenadiers with RRs would be absurd. Double mines are not, they are already in the game.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Grenadiers with RRs would be absurd. Double mines are not, they are already in the game.

 The line of reasoning here was that the argument "allies have it, so should axis" (or vice versa) is fundamentally a flawed approach. The example is not meant to be taken literally.

 As to double mines, yes it is already in the game and yes it is a suitable perk for the Defensive doctrine. This means that if someone is willing to pick that doctrine, and pay the pps for the abillity, then they can have the option to have pioneers with 2 mines that also have the option to use goliaths while still being only 2 pop. Not to mention health kits.

 But why does this need to be stolen from Defensive's uniqueness and given to all Wehr?

 To counter light vehicle spam?

 Nonsense, because there are many ways to counter light vehicle spam effectively as WM. The only people who have problems doing so are those who are unable or unwilling to alter their company to counter it. Like any spam, you have to adapt or die. Most people unfortunately decide what they believe a proper company should be, and get very upset if they come into contact with an opposing player who's company does not allow them to win with it.

 Because allies have it?

 Weve already seen why this isn't a valid argument.

 -Wind

 

[Tymathee]

sure the m-18 gets the hawks but whos going to keep laying down those mines or m8's mines. having them on infantry is much easier to drop than using vehicles.

Ehm yeah, planting a mine that is more effective than a normal mine with an m8, that can't be killed as easily as normal engineers and that can rush into the middle in ME mode and plant it before the enemies arrive is definately not as good as on infantry...

IHT = faster than m8, drive 2 pz grens into middle of map, plant, run. I've seen it done several times. Play against a real good teller spammer it's the most annoying tactic and  you just dont want ot use vehicles lol

[LeoPhone]

what id like to see is mines that are more used like barbed wire and tank traps instead of nasty little things that annoy you and lie on unexpected places.

i am thinking about making the minesweeper unit 4 or 5 man in size (not pop). other than detecting the mines they will get an upgrade ability that costs quite much munitions. you will place it like you would activate a butterfly bomb strike, but instead of the mines falling out the sky the engineers will walk to the spot and place mines in that area, the area is a bit bigger than the butterfly strike area and the mines are quite spreaded out. also the mines do less damage and have less chanse to damage engines.

these mines can be easally countered becouse when you run one squad in it, you instantly know youve ran in a minefield. so you bring out the mineflail or minesweepers to clear all the mines. ofcourse this will take some time and slow you down. and this is exactly what the other player wanted, and how minefields should work.

[Baine]

People can jsut shoot into the minefield. No need for sweepers if you know they are there. Sweepers are for mines that you don't know are there.

[LeoPhone]

that would take much longer than minesweepers, since there are alot of mines. mineflail can be used to quickly break through.

[Baine]

One shot of a tank and boom, Kettenexplosion mein Freund!

[LeoPhone]

One shot of a tank and boom, Kettenexplosion mein Freund!

i said they need to be spreaded out >.>

[Falcon333]

Since we're on the topic of mines, if a mine is detected (by minesweeper) can you just walk over it?

[EliteGren]

Yes