[US] The US "issue"

[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

[TheVolskinator]

For the sake of argument, let's discuss the US. It's been around forever and has remained, as far as I'm aware, functionally unchanged save for the addition of Marines to the non-doctrinal roster. It enjoys a favorable win:loss ratio and can even go positive on K:D in certain games. What, then, is the problem?

Truth be told, there isn't one. Like I just said, the US can win, and win by a landslide. The issue is that it's no damn fun to play. As Myst put it to me, "US has two speeds: aggressive and hyperagressive". The best, most cost-efficient way to play the US is to spam the crap out of grenade Riflemen and back them up with the odd ATG or M10/M18. You don't seek to win engagements outright (though doing so is always a nice bonus). Instead, you want to trade units. I might lose my 200 MP, 30 MU squad, but I've effectively rendered your 240+ MP, 40-170 MU Gren squad useless--thus, I'm winning. For every 5 Grenadiers you can buy as WM, I can purchase 6 Riflemen. If I manage to trade my units, then I win by virtue of simply having one Rifleman left standing at the end of the game, while you're out of infantry. This is effective; arguably the single best and most powerful strategy in the entire mod. But that's it, that's all you've got.

Alternatives include trying to shove a Pershing down the enemy's throat, but what usually follows that Pershing? Hordes of Riflemen armed with nades and stickies. We have the old classic of "Calliope w. tons of mines", but that's for killwhoring and usually loses you the game unless you're in at least a slight stack. Hamster's LV+RR/Zook company is about as wild and fresh as it gets for the US, but nobody else has bothered to adopt that strategy.

I myself have tried a thousand unit combinations over the past few months, and unless I was in a game that was already in the bag, it was an uphill struggle to make these non-spam strategies work. What about the units, then?

The ATG is, arguably, the best in the game for its price. It gets the job done without any frills or vices; it's the yardstick by which all other AT weapons are usually measured.

The .30 cal is right up there with the MG42 for the title of best MG, especially after its range was increased from 40 m to 45 m. It blasts Axis squads in two and, more importantly, Axis squads hate being suppressed.

The US mortar is underwhelming but is by no means bad. It's inferior to the Axis mortar, but it's also cheaper. For their prices, the two units are balanced.

The Shermans sit just below (non-upgun) and above (upgun) the point of being average among all of the mediums in the mod. They get the job done, full stop.

The new M18 is a massive improvement over the old Chaffee and when used in pairs is highly effective at ganking the crap out of P4s at the very least, and Panthers and Tigers with some luck. It's probably displaced the M10 in the role of jihad backfield hunting unit for the US.

Then we come to Riflemen. There are two kinds of Riflemen, just two. Those with grenades, and those without. Without grenades, Riflemen have the worst DPS of any infantry unit in the game (discounting Engies/Pios, and PzPios wreck them up close even with 5x Pio MP40s). They have the lowest per-model HP in the game, but sit just barely above Grens in terms of squad HP (330 HP for Rifles, 320 for Grens). Caught out in the open by upgraded Axis infantry, they're just free XP. They're hopeless in any firefight unless you land a skillshot--a grenade.

Grenade Riflemen don't give two shits about all of the negative crap that I just said about them. So what if they have the worst DPS in the game? It doesn't matter if they're finishing off 1-2 Gren models on less than half HP each. Crew weapon guards aren't exactly masters of ranged DPS, and Riflemen don't care anyway--DPS doesn't matter when the weapon's crew is dead. Cover doesn't matter to them; the grenade nukes the squad and then there's no more shooting. Garrisons can be tricky, but vigorous application of Grenades solves that problem too. Everything you do as the US should revolve around grenades and trading with enemy squads. Once grenades are expended, again, Grenade Riflemen don't care. Then they just go and cap, and if they get attacked then they find the nearest cover and go sit in it until they die. With any luck, they might drop an enemy model or two; they don't care about death--death in the name of the God-Emperor is the most glorious thing any Guardsman could hope for!

For those about to mention PGs--I don't subscribe to the claim that "Riflemen>PGs". It's simply not true; PGs are just as tough as Grens and have the same DPS (roughly) as Volks. Volks on their own put out slightly more than double the DPS of Riflemen at mid/long range, and up close their squad DPS values are basically identical. It's true that PGs get stomped by Tommies, but Tommies now cost 250 MP each--it's the same situation of Riflemen vs. Grens, but you have the benefit of being able to support your PGs with all manner of zaney PE shineys.

Winning like this is nice, but it's boring and predictable. A properly-equipped Axis company can blast the crap out of Riflespam by massing anti blob (arty) or ranged AI upgrades. KCH love Riflemen; they're wonderful snacks and offer little plausible threat unless they land a lucky grenade. LMG Grens and G.43 PGs also mop the floor with Riflemen; BARs only offer parity on a squad for squad basis, and parity isn't what you're looking for as the US. You don't care about matching, you care about trading. Thus, grenades are the superior option.

That's the "issue" right there. Every situation where you might consider buying BARs, Grease Guns, or AGs, you could just buy a grenade that's capable of countering any single enemy squad, attacking units in cover, attacking units in garrison, attacking through shot blockers, and attacking through smoke, all with zero penalty. Our doctrines are built to accommodate this reality. You get extra range and uses of Grenades in US Inf, as well as access to Frangibles which are nothing more than US grenades with PE incendiary nade burn wake. You get AB armor by default on the Riflemen that you *should* be using in US Mob. And Arm doesn't care because you should be relying on vehicles for 99% of all tasks except for recrew. Do you *truly* gain an advantage by shelling out 80 MP for Fightin' Spirit, Allied Grit, and Field Dressings in US Inf? Why bother; take the Field Dressings and a grenade--that's far more cost efficient. Paying for all those shiny upgrades degrades your trading ability--your 280 MP Rifleman needs to do more than simply maul a 240 MP nilla Gren squad with a grenade.

Why try and manfight the Axis anyway? Bring an M8, Croc, or Sherman and hoover up infantry kills that way. Hide with a sniper if you want to whore up kills. Have a Pershing and have it turn Grens and Volks into blood mist.

There are solutions, yes. We could buff their DPS. That's essentially what Marines are; the balanced, better-at-range version of Riflemen that would exist if Riflemen were buffed. But nobody takes them because they don't at all fit with the US trade mentality. In reality, they can often find themselves on the losing end of a fight with cheaper Axis infantry.

We could buff the units that support the Riflemen. But that just promotes using super OP support weapons to support your blob of cost-effective Riflemen.

Nerf the grenade? Well, without that nade, Riflemen aren't worth shit. BARs are OK, but by spamming them you deprive yourself the ability to bring enough ATGs to fend of tanks, doubly so now that you can't jihad rush with grenades and must thus play more conservatively. Conversely, shelling out MU for 5+ ATGs renders your ability to use a lot of BARs null (though you can afford to equip all of your Riflemen with just grenades...).

Buff the vehicles? US vehicles already run rings around the Axis unless they break out a literal wall of Paks and heavy tanks--the perfect target for nade Rifles. Buffing US vehicles would just lead to them hoovering up more kills per game; it would do nothing to break the cycle of "rush with grenades or regret it".

The sad truth is this: without a total faction overhaul, there's no quick and easy fix to make the US balanced to fight against, but fun to play. They were built from the earliest days of vCoH as a zergrushing, scumbaggy spam faction. Fun and balanced companies were nowhere on their list of requirements.

So what do you guys think? I want to hear suggestions on how to make the US great again.

EDIT: "Assymmetric Warfare" doesn't count, Shab. It's just grenades+ anyhow.

[Tachibana]

I think you may be missing the core issue that you are having. Its not a "US issue" but more an "EIR issue". Basically, you want to be able to play a balanced, non-optimized kind of company. In EIR, you can do that as long as all the players in the game are doing that. However, as soon as one player in the room decides to min-max, anyone who is not min-maxing will suffer. The situation is exacerbated the most in a 2v2 where A single individual has the most influence, and the lowest in a 4v4 where individual skill counts the least.

In that situation though, it does not matter whether you play US/CW/WM/PE, a balanced company will suffer against a min-max company. So, in a way you are correct when you say: "they were built from the earliest days of vCoH as a zergrushing, scumbaggy spam faction. Fun and balanced companies were nowhere on their list of requirements."

However, where you miss the point is that it applies to all companies, not just US. There are easy ways to force people to stop min maxing. However, they have almost always been voted down or at the very best heavily disparaged in the past. Hard caps, soft caps, weapons cache and pool being the major examples. That being said, If a large % of the new players coming in from steam are in favor or caps and similar ideas, then I think you would probably have leeway to explore those options again as the majority of old players who value company freedom would most likely become the minority.

There are also more complex solutions to the balanced company issue. Mainly, promoting the use of balanced companies rather than putting penalties on min-max companies. We've discussed this in the past, but in the end, proved beyond our coding abilities. Again, if you are lucky, the steam influx may bring in a person who would be able to code these incentives in a way we were incapable of.


So, that is the issue of balanced companies out of the way. The second core concern you seem to have is that the min-max strategies available to US are bland, or at least those available to Airborne and US Inf are (you seem to be fine with US armor's' situation). Again, the core min-max concepts used by US are the same basic concepts used by every other faction. US inf/AB riflerush is not very different in concept from WM volksturm, SE pgren/flamerpio spam, Luft nade/faust fallspam. Efficient platforms that get given efficient munitions upgrades that get you efficient performance. So, why do you see it as a US problem but not a problem for those other factions? I have a basic theory, but, I also would like to hear your reasoning so I can give you specific thoughts on the matter rather than broad ones.



Lastly, I have some concern in your thought process when I read this:

PGs get stomped by Tommies, but Tommies now cost 250 MP each--it's the same situation of Riflemen vs. Grens, but you have the benefit of being able to support your PGs with all manner of zaney PE shineys.

Which you then follow up with(paraphrasing)

There are solutions, yes. We could buff their DPS. That's essentially what Marines are; [reasons why it wouldnt work]
We could buff the units that support the Riflemen.[reasons why it wont work]

Nerf the grenade? [reasons it wont work]

Buff the vehicles? [reasons it wont work]

You correctly point out that Pgrens are, at a base, functionally in a similar situation to riflemen. You also point out that they are still fine, in spite of that, due to the support that they receive. You then go on to nix most of the ideas of increasing the value of the support rifles receive. So, I'd like to hear out your reasoning on why the solution set Pgrens receive is not applicable as a solution set to Riflemen and US as a whole?

Looking at it, it seems to me you are focused on changing riflemen/marines as a base or changing/adding to the equipment they have. As well as changing or adding to the heavier armor options they have. With the interactions I've had with you over the past 3 years, I know you already have solid outlines and are jsut playing footsie before you lay them out, so just lay them out and we can see what you already have boiling in your noodle.

Lastly, you are the sole designer of the mod right now. If you feel there is a flaw in design that needs to be addressed, do so. With the amount of work that you have put in, you at the very least have the liberty of trying what you want to try when it comes to the design of a faction. Design what makes you the most content with the product and assess the results on their merit from your initial design goals. Don't worry about how I or others react (unless there is a clear unified critique of course). Even then, neckbeards gonna neckbeard.

Remember, balance makes things fair, Design makes things fun. Don't mistake one thing for the other.

[TheVolskinator]

To reply in short.

I call it a US issue because failing to Riflerush puts you at a disadvantage save for a select few situations. The other factions aren't so cut and dry; there are other fun and viable options for each and every other company.

I find the US minmax strats bland because its a minmax strat. It is head and shoulders above other options in a way that's not quite equaled by the other factions. None of them possess a strat that is unilaterally superior to all others. I'm aware that minmax is and always has been the way to go in EiR, but I can minmax in several different ways as the other factions by using different combinations of units and upgrades. My (best) options as US Inf are Riflespam w. nades in smoke or Riflespam w. TR Zooks. In AB, I can spam RRs or Zook AB, or go Capborne with a mix of AB, ABR, and AB Engies. LVs can, on occasion, figure into that mix, but they're not dealmakers/breakers. Armor also spams Rifles; Myst has shown me that merely rushing garrison Shermans and nade/sticky Rifles works like a charm; we all know how dangerous a Pershing with a blob of Rifles supporting it is. But those all involve mass use of infantry sporting grenades and stickies.

I nix the support of Riflemen because riflerushing is more effective than fountains of PGrens. PGrens on their own aren't as successful in raw zergy-ness as Riflemen are. As I pointed out, on their own, the elements available to support Riflemen are perfectly effective as they are. Improving them even more and stacking that with Riflerush will push into OP territory. The problem isn't how good the US is in the mod. The problem is how bland they are to play.

I'm not playing footsie. I have zero concepts floating about on how to give the US something to strive for other than either Rifleman or HHAT spam. Marines are more or less what I envisioned Riflemen to be in Volskinator land, but they're disappointing outside of a vacuum.

[Batgirl]

Well we have the axis as the camping blob faction and we have the allies (usa) as the flanking, capping faction - this makes for asymmetric play which is great

Usually
1 the side with better players will win
2 the side with better communication will win
3 the side with a more favorable map will win

Now number 2 is a bit harder for allies since flanking needs more communication than blobbing

Failing to riflerush might come number 4, but with the current playerbase this is rather rare. Since riflemanouvering is harder for new players (and old) and since the salt of the game is veterancy I could live with some survivavility bonuses for retreating rifleunits - since you have to flank deep into enemy territory you will often fail your flank too and then you lose everyone as they retreat through enemy territories (this also affects airborne) - it can promote conservative rifleuse, which is not optimal I guess for the asymmetric play and can make playing with usa feel not so nice too.

What comes to the other units - well short of giving usa some supertanks there is nothing survivalable enough to last many games and as such it makes usa feel  more boring to play than axis where i can babysit my vet kt etc. However if we can get back to the days of hunting vet kt:s etc this will make up for some of it. Ill gladly throw up my 6 m10s to get shabs t.ace.

What comes to wehrmacht play though - 3 options - go full cheese, go blob defensive or go kt so its not like "many options". *cough storms so bad *cough However there are more units that can achieve veterancy reliably.

[Mysthalin]

The other factions aren't so cut and dry; there are other fun and viable options for each and every other company.

I think this is what hits the nail on the head more than anything volsky. The US's main issue is the lack of other plausible options that can be used in lieu of riflerush + x.

Marines, although powerful, serviceable and appropriately costed for what they achieve, have largely failed to break through as a mainline unit rivalling the greandier due to:
1) A lack of choice that would sufficiently differentiate them from riflemen.
2) A lack of appropriate units to use alongside the marines that would offer a better synergy than they would if used with Riflemen.

To expand on the two points:
1) Marines get the Johnson LMG and the same grenade as Rofls.. Useful tools, but nothing sufficiently new to the table compared to rofls. Just for now, let's compare this to Wehrmacht, which is the most different, but other factions all have at least some of the same "diversity" aspect:

Volks: Cheap Assault weapons; disposable, efficient AT option; no efficient burst-damage vs infantry unless via doctrine choice. Overall cheap and limited in options unless invested in.
Grens: Mid-priced support weapon; Expensive, non-disposable, but permanent AT option; efficient burst-damage vs infantry via grenade. Middling price, but good vet-gaining potential, upgrades diversely different from volks and noticeably greater staying power.
KCH: ridiculous survivability; expensive assault weapons; efficient AT option subdued by base price of the unit. Overall - costly, extremely specialised, with a small trump-card against vehicles that always comes as a surprise.

There is simply not such a clear distinction between riflemen and marines to make marines attractive. Something to differentiate them - like an AT rifle grenade shot with 2 uses for cheap (effectively a faust), or the only US unit to have access to medikits, or a number of other options that are not available to riflemen would do wonders to help.

2) Continuing on with comparisons to Wehrmacht, what are the options available to WM players, depending on the unit they chose?

Volks: Most cost effectively: Panthers, Tigers, King Tigers to retain manpower/muni in the company for more volks. If you want to go a different style: Stugspam for flavour and providing decent mid-range AT to prevent constant kiting of fausts, while retaining mobility and excellent pop-efficiency. You will get to see the ahnihilation message pop up more often than with the other options, however.
Grens: Stugspam works even better due to less of a need of spare manpower. P4s work a treat. Ostwinds can be used to take advantage of shreks providing lasting AT. Lastly, a versatile mix of tanks to complement a versatile mix of grens is also an option.
KCH: Stugspam/Geschutzspam shines through especially alongside these guys due to little constraint on manpower use. 50mm Pumas suddenly work much better as well.

Whatever mix you go for in Wehrmacht - there's something in there for everyone depending on your style of play, and liked units. The US simply does not have this range of options, and certainly no vehicle proves to mesh better with marines than it does with riflemen. Want to support LV spam with some AT disabling options? Rofls. Want to support your M10s with something that can clear paks quickly and act as scouts? Rofls. Want to support a Pershing with self-sufficient versatile capping infantry? Rofls. US vehicles being a bit boring and jihadi (unless it's a pershing) does not help the situation either. Who gets excited about vetting up a sherman, really? Other than for the e-peen of being able to say you've done it. M10s are certainly not panthers when it comes to sheer sexy.

So those would be my two cents. Add more options by redesigning the marines to be sufficiently different from Rofls. Not more powerful than they are as a base - but to have some options rifles simply don't. To go along with that - think about what units could be brought onto the US roster that would work well with the re-designed marines, and were more synergetic with them than with rofls.

[Dauntless07]

Interesting. I know I'm not an authority on balance, but I think it's well known by now that I prefer US INF COs. I think it's a valid criticism that Marines lack something to make them more attractive than Rifles. For me, it's because Rangers/Paratroopers/Assault Engineers all fill a niche the Rifles can't. IIRC, Marines' original niche was essentially being a 5 man Gren squad with the option to equip an LMG and zook. For balance reasons, this was determined to be too OP once Marines became mainstream, since they were a terror to infantry and light vehicles alike. (Did that have something to do with Zooks being put on Rifles instead?) But Marines lost their purpose with that upgrade removed IMO. Yes, they could still kill things with their LMG, but a HMG recrewed by Rifles can do just as well.

I'm not suggesting that specific upgrade is the solution to their perceived pointlessness, I don't have any easy answer, but I do think empowering them with something unique could help. The elite infantry all had superior forms of Marine upgrades, so I used them instead in practice. Maybe we could try them with M1903 rifles again. I know they were OP as Gren K98, but if they were less powerful, like Volks K98 maybe, then they'd be fine I think. Yes, I know I was always saying it makes no sense the Garand is weaker than bolt-actions, but I don't really care anymore, it's just a game. Airborne have high ROF carbines by default, so it's just taking that concept in the opposite direction.

And now I realize I've babbled on about Marines without suggesting a "fix" for the Rifle-grenade-trade strategy; oops....

[TheVolskinator]

@ Myst

Will redesigning Marines really drive the US into a less jihad-ey playstyle? The faction's units are designed around helping Rifles riflerush--Marines are already okish at fighting at range and rarely see use because they don't mesh well with the other units in the US--all of which (from M10s to Crocs to, tbh, Shermans) rely on getting into barrel-stuffing range to 1) have a good chance of hitting/penning armored targets and 2) forcing off Axis squads which would rather be sitting back in a lounge chair firing shrecks and LMGs.

I have considered moving Bazookas to Marines to mirror the WM methodology (Volks get a MU DPS upgrade and a disposable HHAT option, Grens get the ranged LMG or a reloadable HHAT option). That would be easy and I have zero qualms about making that change. Other than that, I'm at a loss about what to do with Marines. They were meh as basically Tommy clones, they're okayish now with great close range DPS, acceptable mid, and dissapointing long range DPS (nothing new for US), and they were OP as fuck back in their days as a reward unit.

I'm honestly of the opinion that Marines might not be the solution we're looking for. Their inclusion or removal does little to effect the US as the faction stands now. That fact leads me to believe that our solution lies somewhere else (where exactly I do not know).

One point has been mentioned more than once: US tanks are disappointing to use. I'd put that down to a lack of lolGTFO overdrive ability like the Sherman V/Cromlel has. I don't want to give the Shermans an ability like that, but alternatives would be welcome. Suggestions?

In terms of overall use, the Shermans are fine, but I find them useless outside of Armor company for one reason: they eat up 11 pop that I could be spending on an extra pair of Riflemen to bolster the Red Horde. That's a really big thing for me, as a longtime US player: when in doubt, deploy more infantry and ATGs. Literally any and all other units are a secondary consideration, because none of them match the utility and pushing power of Riflemen backed up by ATGs to make vehicles fuck off.

[Shabtajus]

Riflemens totally need asymetric warfare to be back again. Plus landing smoke for AB riflemens as well

[skaffa]

The answer to the issue is to create more viable options by:
- adding new GOOD units
- GOOD doctrines

The standard US faction is indeed quite bland. Its the job of doctrines and extra units to spice things up. In order to have that effect its very important the docs n extra units are actually good. If they arent people will ignore them and eventually feel like 'meh, rifles with nades still best way to go'. In my opinion its a result of constantly nerfing the good strats.

For me this is not just a 'US issue' tho. I think it applies to every faction (#ripstorms). Its just more noticable with the US army.
The trend thruout history in EIR seems to have always been: make new doctrines, remove all the good strats till we are left with mediocre vs mediocre builds, people get bored, make new doctrines again.

Breakthetrendmyfrend. Create GOOD vs GOOD to make US and the mod GREAT again.

[TheVolskinator]

Storms will be spiced up with a patch very soontm. As for other doctrines: we're not returning to '09 era docs, full stop.

I've been cramming new units into various doctrines for the last two or three patches as well.

Regardless, "additional powerful doctrines for vets to create viable spam strats around" isn't the solution that I think we're looking for.

[Smokaz]

Making snipers less effective and more expensive makes the game worse imo, noticed they are "standardized" now with 250 muni cost, and from 500mp to 600mp?

Take price down to 500/200 again, and 7 pop.

[Dauntless07]

I’m still at a loss for what sort of unit Rifles are supposed to be besides an effective squad for recrewing heavy weapons. Upgrading them with more health and assault Garands doesn’t help them slug it out with Axis infantry, the zooks are limited to an anti-light vehicle role, the stickies are limited as dedicated AT compared to ATGs/TDs, the Grease Guns are only good up close, and that leaves the BAR as pretty much the only acceptable AI upgrade besides ordinary grenades given its suppression ability. The trouble is, grenades can take down multiple enemies instantly, while guns all take substantial time to deal the same damage. So, what we get is as you describe; the most effective use of Rifles is as suicide bombers.

Perhaps the upgrades available to Rifles should be made more attractive. If we need to pay to give them better Garands, then make those rifles worth buying, and not feel like something they could have had for free; a suppressing fire ability like the Panzer Gren G43s for example. Maybe don’t nerf grenades, but universally buff their cost to 35 since they’re so powerful. It might not prevent rifle nade spam, but at least I’d consider equipping heavy infantry like Rangers with them. Instead of just giving Rifles more health, maybe up their armor too. Just throwing ideas out there.

[TheVolskinator]

Making snipers less effective and more expensive makes the game worse imo

That's just like, your opinion, man.

1) pls make a "buff snoiporz" thread to make your case
2) actually make a case--how does them being more expensive make the game as a whole worse?

[Smokaz]

Well, I come from a time where snipers was less nerf on those statistics I mention, and other than extremely high risk high reward strategies, the snipers are facing more jeeps/bikes for less pop today and never were that invincible to begin with. So I pop the question right back at you, why did snipers get changed negatively? They promote delicate and combined-arms gameplay. Good combined arms and defended retreats could make them last forever, but that cant be solely quantified into the sniper being op.

Seems like a change that flat out nerfed the snipers, yet being able to manage a sniper was a telltale between a good and a really good player, and if you didnt know how to use one and act against one then you lacked a player skill that the game suggested that you have.

Keep the statistic change, I cant be bothered to open that can of worms, but the price and the pop should be reverted to 500/200 imo

[Smokaz]

Plus if you want to improve US, snipers should be viable and fun to play with. It helps keep the game interesting against axis infantry and support builds, while axis sniper play in the history of eirr has never been integral to win, since they have such a powerful mortar and other things to take out ATGS, and local atg superiority in games where a 88 covers a part of the map.

Heroic critical grens, KCH, officers, 2 pop bikes... what a easy world for the sniper.. every wehrmacht doctrine has something to help them resist the american sniper. Storms, kch, elite critical grens

Even if its "fair" now, since US has less numerous amounts of strategies and more bland gameplay, it hurts them more than wehrmacht that snipers are made harder to pay off

[shockcoil]

Well, I come from a time where snipers was less nerf on those statistics I mention, and other than extremely high risk high reward strategies, the snipers are facing more jeeps/bikes for less pop today and never were that invincible to begin with. So I pop the question right back at you, why did snipers get changed negatively? They promote delicate and combined-arms gameplay. Good combined arms and defended retreats could make them last forever, but that cant be solely quantified into the sniper being op.

Seems like a change that flat out nerfed the snipers, yet being able to manage a sniper was a telltale between a good and a really good player, and if you didnt know how to use one and act against one then you lacked a player skill that the game suggested that you have.

Keep the statistic change, I cant be bothered to open that can of worms, but the price and the pop should be reverted to 500/200 imo

Not just snipers but I feel EIR has nerfed a lot of the more skill intensive units in favour of faction mirroring. For instance, there is absolutely no reason the puma should be 140 fuel when I can buy a P4 for 200. For 60 more fuel you get a vastly superior unit. Faction mirroring makes the game more balanced between factions but the end result of making factions more similar is they start to feel more bland. The allies being already more bland to begin with suffer more and hence, this thread.