[US] Ways to Improve Assault Teams (T3 US Infantry Unlock)

[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

[lionel23]

I have to say that I cannot justify this T3 unlock for US infantry.  The squads are fragile as heck and end up being too expensive in costs compared to their regular brethren in the US faction.

Let's look at the pro's and con's of the units, shall we?

Assault Riflemen - 5 man squad with assault options
Pro's:

• Can equip flamers, 3x SMGs Thompsons, or 5x Greaseguns
• Have unique access to satchel charges
• Have better 'assault' veteran bonus at Vet 1 and 2

Con's:

• The squad is exceptionally fragile, being 5 men instead of the usual 6
• The squad still takes the EXACT pop as a regular rifle squad even though it has one less man
• The pool cost is exceptionally high for a riflemen army, being double that of basic infantry(on par with engineers)
• Satchels, while nice, take way too long to explode.  And for their price and with certain doctrine abilities, it's just better to use bazookas or sticky bombs to take out ATGs while at the same time being a threat to tanks, while a satchel is a single use and is hard to nail anything unless its a immobilized tank or infantry blobs that aren't being micro'ed well
• Being they are riflemen and not engineers, they suffer from the old Flamerthrower man critical issue... if the man with the flamethrower has his flame tank exploded, the entire squad is killed outright.  It's safer and thus more reliable to use the engineer variants over this.

Ideas for Improvement: They either need to come down to 1 pool cost like volks to make it cost-efficient to field in enough numbers to take on the tougher axis assault infantry, OR they need to have access to sticky bombs so they become a more expensive riflesquad with weapons and AT of some sort.  If they're meant to replace riflemen, they never will with their current options and I can only see them being a replacement for engineers teamed up with riflemen with stickes... so let's move onto the next issue at hand.

Assault Engineers - 4 man squad with assault options
Pro's

• The squad costs the exact same amount as a regular engineer, with negligible MP increase to make up for the 4th man, same with pool costs
• The squad has a 4th man, increasing battlefield survivability
• Squad has access to free vet, making it not so bad to lose them as you do not have to pay SP until Vet 3, unlike assault riflemen who have expensive vet and are weaker than regular riflemen
• Have access to the unique satchel charge and smoke grenades (though they have to pay 15 MU for them)

Con's:

• Lose access to triage, MG bunkers, and mines - This I think is the biggest reason I do not field them as running with flamers and mines and demo charges is way more effective than the satchel and flamer combo, with demos being excellent LOS tools and remote bombs that the enemy can't see, while a satchel gives the enemy a whole 3 second to dodge easily (as opposed to hand grenades which can be dodged if the opponent is paying attention). The use of triage is offset if your company has at least one 3-man engineer team with it, then any assault engineer can build it
• The squad has increased pop size (being 4 instead of the usual 3). Makes it a bit tougher to field with a paired off infantry squad

Ideas for Improvement: It seems these guys make the perfect replacement for engineers, but they lose access to what makes them engineers and instead get a more expensive flamethrower and satchel charges.  Now a satchel charge assault team IN COMBINATION with mines would be ideal.  Lay a mine, enemy tank or infantry hits it, then you can run up and satchel them while they are damaged engine/suppressed from the explosion, I could justify their use.  But losing access to both mines and demo charges is just not acceptable, as well as their higher pop cost I would rather field many 3-man squads with access to many options than a tougher squad that loses its options while at the same time still not having an improvement on armor.  They need to either come down in pool cost (to 1, since they lose access to mines and can replace 'riflemen' to team with engineers) OR be given access to engineer options in addition to what they have.  For a T3 Unlock, it seems you pay way too much to have less options in your army.

In summary, the assault engineers need only minor tweaking while the role for assault infantry needs to be seriously looked at, as being a pure AI unit with fewer guys and less effective weapons and range means that BAR riflemen (which you CAN spam two squads for the pool of an assault squad) is still the hands down better squad to use grenades and weapons and suppression, as well as having an additional guy and access to AT, while the assault squad version loses AT capabilities, loses the 6th guy (meaning lower health), pays JUST AS MUCH MU for its weapons but are shorter ranged, defensive in nature (due to fewer guys and weak armor) and lack the suppression BARs provide for just 10 more MU.  It's just not a cost effective option when given a T1 choice of RANGERs who are infinitely better than riflemen at killing infantry with tougher armor, fire-up, and good basic weapons OR SMGs, as well as better access to AT weapons without having to waste a T2 unlock for them.

[Tymathee]

but they're supposed to be used as assault infantry, not to replace anything but to supplement. what you currently have. SMG,s have better acc vs suppress and pinned infantry than any other infantry gun, so here's what u do with assault rifle.

Bar squad = pop suppression
infantry suppressed
rush in smg squad - infantry toast

flamer - pop smoke, rush in squad.

altho i do agree about the flame rifles, that guy always seems to die first and when he goes, he can take out a lot and its really annoying, which is why i just dont bother, although i do love the assault riflemen, they give a different dynamic to my company and are cheaper to field than smg rangers (70 vs 180 mu) and give the same firepower pretty much (minus one garand)

the engineers are good, they're supposed to mainly be used to assault stuff, hence the smoke nades, they're not meant to replace your engineers...

but i do agree that satchels are worthless and aren't even worth having in the new eir environment, nothing really to blow up. They need to be cheaper, i say 35 mu.

flame rifles need crit removed just like flame engineers. lower pool cost to 4 (current rifles are 3) 6 is just too much imo. flamen engies, i dunno, i know reg engies have high pop to curtail mine spam but you dont have that issue with flame engies, maybe change the pool lower as well.

[Sharpshooter824]

I'm sorry man, but I have to disagree with every bit of this. If you play with nothing but elite infantry (Rangers) then you're going to start to feel that other units need buffed because they seem so weak in comparison to rangers. I've felt like this in every balance thread you've posted. Assault rifles are simply a more specialized version of a rifle squad, they aren't meant to replace your riflemen, but instead support them, through the use of close combat weapons like SMGs and building clearing flamethrowers. Whereas assault engineers give you a sturdier platform for flamethrowers (These are supposed to be used more in combat instead of building, thats why they can't make triages).

To sum it up, these units are just there to supplement your infantry force and give you more options.

[lionel23]

But when the supposed effect of support can't last long enough compared to your 'body' riflemen and require getting in much closer to be effective than either BARs or Rangers, then we have a problem.

As a T3 unlock, the units add nothing really new to any company build and instead make you pay more for less, which I don't think is the right dynamic for an upgrade.  You don't see people buying Stormtroopers who lose access to shreks and MP44s, do ya?

Assault riflemen are fragile, 5 men and costing DOUBLE I can just throw 12 riflemen at you for the cost of the 5 man squad and do MORE dmg and have MORE staying power than the assaults.  That's the biggest issue with them.  Assault engineers are not sturdier from what I've been told, and have less HP than riflemen who have the flamer crit issue.

At two pool each, I cannot justify them when you have much better, cheaper options.  Engineers with mines and demo > engineer with 4th man and more expensive flamer.  Riflemen with vet 2 sticky buff is way more useful than assault teams, as if you read my US Arty company guide has ZERO issue with infantry when it can deal with tanks.  I take 12+ sticky bombs and field no BARs and can rape the floor with infantry and not worry about tanks.  Frek and some others have expanded on that by adding BARs which not only act as SMGs at short and medium range (they actually do more dmg), but can nullify axis blobs or squads very effective and have way, way more men and thus staying power to be useful.  If you're using riflemen of course they're not elites and you're relying on strength of numbers and not strength of armor/superiority.  Triage is pretty much wasted on riflemen while its more effective healing brits and rangers/airborne.  You have to take the platform into account.

Now if the five man squad had tommy armor, I would not have an issue but since they don't and probably will stay just as riflemen, they need to have lowered pop/pool or have that 6th guy back to justify their use.

[winisez]

But when the supposed effect of support can't last long enough compared to your 'body' riflemen and require getting in much closer to be effective than either BARs or Rangers, then we have a problem.

As a T3 unlock, the units add nothing really new to any company build and instead make you pay more for less, which I don't think is the right dynamic for an upgrade.  You don't see people buying Stormtroopers who lose access to shreks and MP44s, do ya?

Assault riflemen are fragile, 5 men and costing DOUBLE I can just throw 12 riflemen at you for the cost of the 5 man squad and do MORE dmg and have MORE staying power than the assaults.  That's the biggest issue with them.  Assault engineers are not sturdier from what I've been told, and have less HP than riflemen who have the flamer crit issue.

At two pool each, I cannot justify them when you have much better, cheaper options.  Engineers with mines and demo > engineer with 4th man and more expensive flamer.  Riflemen with vet 2 sticky buff is way more useful than assault teams, as if you read my US Arty company guide has ZERO issue with infantry when it can deal with tanks.  I take 12+ sticky bombs and field no BARs and can rape the floor with infantry and not worry about tanks.  Frek and some others have expanded on that by adding BARs which not only act as SMGs at short and medium range (they actually do more dmg), but can nullify axis blobs or squads very effective and have way, way more men and thus staying power to be useful.  If you're using riflemen of course they're not elites and you're relying on strength of numbers and not strength of armor/superiority.  Triage is pretty much wasted on riflemen while its more effective healing brits and rangers/airborne.  You have to take the platform into account.

Now if the five man squad had tommy armor, I would not have an issue but since they don't and probably will stay just as riflemen, they need to have lowered pop/pool or have that 6th guy back to justify their use.

You have some valid points I suppose, maybe talk to sheffer, he seems to get very good use out the support teams. He uses smoke well to cover them ( mortar or officer), and then rapes face with flame throwers and 2.5s Satchel charges.

[lionel23]

True the exception being the smoke company for a mass flamer build, and in that case you'd rather take say an officer and 2 mortars (making that 10 pop) and then filling out the rest of your pop with cheap engineers with plentiful flamers (30 pop of 3man engineers equals 10 flamerthrowers, while 4man engineers is 7). Also on top of that, since you're in smoke the 4th man really isn't going to help you and you just hurt yourself by taking 3 fewer flamethrower weapons to shoot through the smoke.

As an axis player, I'm more concerned about the amount of flamerthrowers attacking me, not how many men in the squad.  LMGs at short range can pretty much instant liquidate 3-4 man engineer squads, while a riflesquad will last a little longer being tough and having a 2 man advantage over engineers, but if I crit the flame squad I win and kill the entire squad instantly, no survivors.  By having multiple smaller squads, you force the enemy to spread their fire out and they are unable to focus fire.  3 man is, for me, reasonable for a squad (I can't stand 2 man pioneers, just too few men for a 55 MU upgrade but hey I've seen a 2 man pio with flame rape 2 of my 4-man engineers and not lose a guy, both being in no cover... argh, damn dice rolls lol).

[salan]

Ultimately there are different ways they could balance the squads and make them useful...

pricing, stats and or infantry numbers.

The pool value is only part of the price of the units, how are the units actual resource values comparably?

the flamethrower varient should have the same bonus that the assault grenadiers did when they removed their flame-criticals again... (last patch wasn't it?)

...........

also is the satchel on par with the bundle nades for damage?  or no? (i haven't looked at rgds yet.. lol)

[Mysthalin]

There is no, single, assault infantry in the game that costs 1 pool, lionel. Well, volks with MP40s MAY count as assault infantry, but that's going out on a stretch...

[lionel23]

True Mys, well Volks in huge numbers can do that. And I do want to see MP44 grens sometime, heh.

But also most assault units either have really good armor OR high hitpoints.  Stormtroopers, rangers, KCH.

The problem with riflemen assault teams is they have no advantage of HP or armor and are weaker than normal riflemen due to losing a guy while being the exact same pop as a 6 man rifle squad, which limits other options you can bring to support your support assault squads... the irony of it all, right?  And on top of that it would be actually more effective to take two vanilla squads for the pool costs of these lesser 'assault' squads.

And as I've talked to Bobsmith about these guys, and they're better at defending than attacking with their weapons and guarding things like ATGs where, ironically, their SMGs and Greaseguns do more damage at long range than their M1 garands... if anything they should be a support team but its weird for me to buy SMG teams for long range support.  Give them no suppression BARs like 3 or 4 of them in a five-man squad and I could be happy with them being a two pool 'support' infantry squad designed to support the mainline 'rifle' squads.

[Mysthalin]

There are other assault squads you forget to mention : Assault Panzer Grenadiers, Assault-Flammen Grenadiers, Commandos, Fallschirmjagers. All of them are equipped with assault weaponry, they're all 2 pool or above, and they all have pretty bad health. Soldier armour is decent against some things, but it's nowhere nearly as versatile as ranger armour.

[lionel23]

Take a 5 man SMG or Greasegun squad against one of those, and watch all the riflemen die without inflicting a single loss on the squad.  And those squads are still pretty effective, being as they have soldier armor while riflemen have riflemen-type armor (is that Infantry?).

I wanted to have Body Armor upgrades for riflemen when I proposed the US Infantry Doctrine, but was told it's way too powerful... and all that is was was the exact same armor as British tommies get, so obviously it is way more than decent.  And I'm not asking for Elite armor, nor am I asking for tommy armor now, I just want the squad to either have its original squad size back OR have its pool cost reduced so it can run with riflemen or engineers.  Obviously you'd be crazy to use these guys AND rangers (5 pool!) together.  I don't care if they cost more MP and MU, the biggest issue I have is that in order to take enough to be effective, the pool cost is the most contributing factor to their suckness.  And with the new pool system going into place, it's going to punish you harder for going over than the old system.

It's like my guide on US Arty company says about mines.  One mine isn't enough to be useful unless you're lucky.  Having 20-30 mines (depending if you're US infantry or airborne with their T2 unlock) is a much different ballpark.  Same goes for my Ranger company (pure rangers, used to run 20 squads of them when I could really oversupply to take advantage of TR) or my currenty arty company (no need for ATGs, 5 M10s, 4 howies, 20 mines, plenty of ammo for triage, and over 14+ vet 2 sticky bombs).  It's having the numbers to make an effective impact on the game.  Oh another good example is Panda's 4-man KCH blobs.  One squad I can easily handle with SMGs.  But when he brings out all four squads at vet 3, the only reasonable way for me to counter it via infantry is if I brought out every SMG ranger in my army on the field at the same time then maybe I could fight that.  Or just use a single M10 but you get my point  

EDIT: Oh and didn't ignore your post Salan, but basically he sums it up best... ultimately there are different ways to could be balanced.  *steals Salan's "cool" shades*

[CommanderHolt]

Well, calling Fallschirmjagers "Assault" troops is kind of a stretch, sure they got FG42s of doom and despair, but those are best used at long range and they don't have any kind "get out of jail" card like their Elite infantry compatriots when attacking (Ok so they get sprint at Vet2 but that doesn't break suppression.) Their vet doesn't give them any suppression resistance to boot.

They are pretty much suited as a "defensive" Elite Infantry with their stationary camouflage in cover ability and long range auto rifles.

Not to mention that they come at a prohibitive 9 supply towards infantry means that you can't use alot of them like airborne unless you oversupply alot.

[lionel23]

Well their doctrines aren't in yet either, which sucks for them too Commander.

I used to run a pure Falls company before the wipe.  It consisted entirely of:

• Falls with FG42s
• Falls with Shreks
• Fall Veteran Leader squads
• Luft Infantry
• 88mm flak

That's all my army had and it was pretty nasty.  A single Luft squad could destroy two BAR rifle squads in cover, and the falls with the "Kurt's finest" and the other doctrine ability had crazy life and dodge to do the deed and then get out of their.  They were my favorite assault infantry and still are, for PE anyway (Grens with MP44 options would be my favorite for Wehr, but the closest I can get to that is Stormtroopers).

Of course they don't get a FIRE UP or SPRINT, but they can be hidden and are very effective ambush troops or its great for hiding from say a chasing tank and spreading your men out and hiding or using the luft to 'run away' from the more expensive Falls.  Man I miss that company.

[Mysthalin]

Holt - Assault Grenadiers don't get fire-up or smoke either. Yet - they are technically assault troops.

I do get where lionel is coming from - the assault riflemen are flat out silly. But making them 1 pool value would cause more problems than it would solve, as it would only encourage some pretty silly flamethrower spam(I'd be the first to do it with US officers in support).

The problem is that they are indeed somewhat flawed by nature : assault squads with barely no survivability to be able to deliver the punch of their weapons. They should probably lose another man and gain some health and/or perhaps fire-up/sprint, to be able to close the gap faster. Because right now, they are indeed only suited for defensive duty.


Fixing the flamethrower critical should be done pretty soon, I would believe - it's not intended to be there.

[lionel23]

What about removing the flamer off them?  Would then assault riflemen with ONLY SMG options (Grease or Thomps) be a bit more balanced then?  I mean hell, we got Engineers and Assault engineers to carry all those flamethrowers (I'm more a fan of SMGs over silly amounts of fire-spouting death, heh)!  What do you think of that Mys?  At least in regards to the 'problems' thing which I totally agree with to prevent flamer spam with a smoke company.

And thanks for seeing what I'm trying to say Mys, summed it up nicely for me there.

[Mysthalin]

Well, with the removal of the flamethrower a change to 1 pool could actually have some merit.
I personally agree.

[CommanderHolt]

Mysthalin- Well MP44s they have are more or less made for closing in with the enemy and they have anti-infantry nades (Yes they are incindery, but at least alot better then Anti-building grenades).

Falls FG42s don't exactly warrant the need of closing in with the enemy.

[Mysthalin]

How are MP44s made at all any more for closing in with the enemy than fallschirmjagers? They have the same armour type, and I would believe actually LESS health, with sprint being available to them at the same vet level as fallschirmjagers.

Falls have an easier time approaching the enemy, if anything - they simply don't need to.

[bbsmith]

They aren't supposed to have the grease guns at all. I just never got around to removing them. Probably do it next patch actually.

[Tymathee]

seriously lol the grease guns fail anyway.

why not just change it to Rifle Reinforcements and have a 4 man bar squad and 4 man smg squad and the ability to buy an extra man for the engineer.