Stormtrooper change

[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

[Malgoroth]

"Non-playing". That's funny coming from you, Myst.

300 is expensive and terribly risky when, to take out half of a sherman's health, you risk losing those 300 munitions to the 80 munition BAR squad that should be hanging out in the immediate vicinity.

[Smokaz]

Isnt complaining about 2x schrecks being too good vs sherman the same as complaining rifleman BAR is too good vs 2xschrecked storm?

Yes im biased. 2x Storms are one the most awsm units in EIR. Removing them would make Blitz a lot more boring, atleast for me. But I dont even play anymore so I dont even know why Im replying.

I always thought that storms 2x schrecks were an expensive investment, but great unit in capable hands. The players micro is what makes them great. Thats how it should be so they are fine imo. If you lose them its a big blow, so if you are playing vs them you need to sacrifice something to get rid of the storms right away. As soon as you see them you need to rush them with a lot of your stuff, doesnt matter if you lose some of your units, its needed to get rid of them. Top priority should be to take them out.

its top priority to take them out for the allies -> yes

but its also 3 uses of blitzkrieg which can save them from almost anything, meaning that these bad boys can stay on the field LONG.

[Mysthalin]

2x Stormshreks are too good against everything - not just shermans. And, unlike stormtroopers, shermans can't just hide against every single thing in the world that can counter them in a reliable and efficient fashion.

Claiming that stormtroopers are "expensive" is as ludicrous as claiming shermans are "expensive". A double-shrek stormtrooper is literally 20% of your base munitions pool (used to be even less, but even then the argument for them being "expensive" was made) - while a sherman is 18.33% of your base fuel pool. Considering that shermans cost more base manpower and that their anti-infantry and survivability add-ons are more costly than their stormtrooper equivalents - it seriously makes no sense to claim that a stormtrooper with double shreks is expensive while at the same time stating shermans are cheap.

And that's ignoring the pool value and (far more important) firepower/popcap saturation factor that comes into place.

I still play more than you Mal, and I have continued playing for far longer after you effectively retired.

The gratuitous options that stormtroopers have on top of their already ludicrous cloak and health-per-man to run away, survive and live to alpha-strike another target don't even have to be mentioned to realise that the double-shrek stormtrooper is a ridiculously powerful unit. The only other thing that could even remotely come close in terms of such ability is the sniper - who:
*does not have any sort of efficient protection against it's hard counters (the jeep and the recon tommy)
*requires, at the very least, 2.8 times more pop-cap and 2.66 times more munitions to have the same instant-kill effect on the most vulnearable of it's targets (a grenadier squad) (with the comparison being made to the storms ability to take on a sherman - which is far more expensive than a grenadier. If assuming a fight with things like M10s and M8s - these required ratios becomes even more ridiculous). Although the range factor remains valid - it is more than off-set by the levels of popcap and resources effectively instantly-destroyed by both sorts of unit.

All of this could be fixed by merely removing the ability to buy dual-shreks on stormtoopers. Single shreks still allow for surprise supporting AT, or - with sufficient investment in popcap, alpha-strike capability, while not being ridiculous in the firepower saturation per popcap as is found today. Removing double-shreks could also shed far better light on the state of stormtroopers with StG44s - and it may well be that the quad-STG44 upgrade could be knocked down in price after understanding that, other than the ludicrous power of double-shreks, storms are actually an OK unit, and that with quad-STG44s they are actually overpriced for what they achieve.

Fix problems by starting at their source, people.

[Malgoroth]

I never claimed to have retired. I'm pretty sure when I stopped playing tons of EiR because of games like SWTOR I made it clear that EiR always brings me crawling back, and since the last month and a half-ish I've played about 60+ games across six companies (mainly AB and Blitz). Pulling the "I've played more than you" card between players like you and I who have been around for years just sounds really, really stupid. I also didn't claim that shermans were cheap. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

[TheVolskinator]

Maybe not directly from you, but I think its a general given that the Sherman is a 'cheap' unit relative to other armored units.

[Smokaz]

even if sherman wasnt that much of your % fuel I bet it would still come out short on a expected received hits comparison. there's just too much badass buffed AT around, only uncloaked paks at long range ever bounce it. the rest is penetrating and dealing sometimes buffed damage (defensive, tank hunters, blitz).

storm shreks w/blitzkrieg is when they become OP imo, not just the double shrek upgrade itself. i dont for example think stormies are very strong vs any of the british doctrines if they have the right doctrine choices.

[TheVolskinator]

Ah, but most players perceive this as perfectly balanced. You can have a whopping 6 Shermans without comprimising your company. To the contrary, being able to have triple double repair Panthers or two Tigers and an Ostwind is perfectly legitimate against the (relatively unbuffed) 57mm, or at worst, the big scary 17lbr that makes drying paint look quick.

[Smokaz]

Im not sure what to think. I can't remember voting for the panther price decrease, only the panther population reduction when doctrines didn't give it amazing accuracy vs infantry a long time back when I was on the balance team. If you look at sherman price vs marder price or sherman price vs panther price it's kinda stupid how many marders and panthers you can have to face shermans.

A sharp drop in the 75mm might make it more feasible, something just above the IST for instance. Nobody can argue that ISTs with buffs aren't complete rapesauce (at their job).

[Mister Schmidt]

Wehrmacht as a whole have become far too generalised, to the point that they now perform better than the US in their own specialization.

[NightRain]

http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=23269.0

Still relevant.

[FailHammer]

Think Jumbos armor. It was weird b/c it had i think Panther armor. After making it "correct" its like 1/2 of what it used to be. Any price change to it... nope.

Jumbo was broken and they fixed it, it was never intended to have super troll panther armor that only an 88 could pen. Completely not relevant.

As to the Stormies, use them before you sit here and paper rock scissors them.

You cant argue that stormies>sherman. thats dumb. this is not binary.
dual shreck storms can unleash major hurt on a sherman. but look at what goes into that. huge cost, huge micro sink, huge risk. storms cant must trollollololol right up to a sherman, you gotta dodge jeeps, inf, all kind of shit and hope there is no suppression around. then even if you kill the sherman, and you cant 1 volley it, you have to now gtfo. why the fuck would i want to do all that and risk all that if i cant get any results. 1 shreck would do a little damage then you lose your squad. not to mention the effort to get them there. give jeeps and inf a small buff in detection, dont cut off my dick

yours in love
Fail

[Mysthalin]

It was only a jibe, Mal, why you so serious?

And there we go again - I just said that it is not rational to claim stormtroopers are expensive unless you also claim shermans are expensive.

Because the EiRR meta-game always has like 4 jeeps driving around every single sherman in a large circle, right? Not to mention the fact jeeps will get instant-raped by a stormshrek volley if they actually get found by the jeep, at which point just legging it to the 15 popcap of high-firepower support like an MG42 and a P4 (begining of the game) is the easiest thing ever, assuming anything is even fast enough to catch up with the shreks before they cloak (only exception to this being calling-it-in T17s).

That is the main problem with stormshreks. They are not by any means expensive, considering other units - but them one-volleying units of similar price is somehow considered a GOOD thing by the community. Alpha strike is fun, yes - but it is not by any means balanced, and should be fixed.

[PonySlaystation]

And there we go again - I just said that it is not rational to claim stormtroopers are expensive unless you also claim shermans are expensive.

This is where your argument falls apart. Just because you can't have many of them does not mean that Shermans are expensive.

[DarkSoldierX]

This is where your argument falls apart. Just because you can't have many of them does not mean that Shermans are expensive.

I don't think you understand his argument at all.

[Mysthalin]

Read up on economic rationality to understand what I mean, Pony. Rationality implies transitive preferences. Thus, stating stormtroopers are expensive while shermans aren't is irrational.

And.. you do realise that "not being able to have many of something" is the very definition of something being expensive, right?

[PonySlaystation]

Not if they are limited by different means, then they are not eligible for that comparison.

What you're saying is that something that costs 100 pesos is more expensive than something that costs 99 dollars.

[tank130]

Storms and Shermans are purchased with the same currency.

Mp/Mu/Fu/Pop

[PonySlaystation]

I'm pretty sure Stormies don't cost fuel.

[tank130]

I'm pretty sure Stormies don't cost fuel.

sigh........

Did you actually really miss the point, or are you just trolling? There is no way anyone could be that fucking stupid, so please stop trolling.

[PonySlaystation]

Everyone gets fewer tanks than infantry, it's because they are based on fuel, that does not mean that tanks are more expensive. They use different resources.