Engineers

In this thread you can discuss any thoughts you have about balance within the game. Does a particular unit need a specification changed? Is a stealth plane not stealthy enough? Do "Belli Bar" levels need to be changed? Let us know and discuss it all here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Message
Author
Draken
General
Posts: 1208
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

#46 Post by Draken » Apr 06 2006

Balthagor wrote:If we did reduce thier values, their cost/build time would need to be reviewed. It was set according to their current combat values...
I wouldn't mind keeping the current times, because, after all, they are a special kind of unit, just not a direct combat one. But that's just my opinion...

User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2246
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

#47 Post by bergsjaeger » Apr 06 2006

i know this been said so just make them like garrison except having the defence stats they have now. That way they be toned down but still good a defence like the RL engineers.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.

User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 11943
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

#48 Post by tkobo » Apr 06 2006

The one thing that keeps going thru my mind is that such units dont exist in the size the game presents in, in real life.

And the areguments of they shouldnt be the strength they are in game,becuase in real life the closest thing to them doesnt look like it would /should have those strengths that the game gives it in game.

Now since the unit doesnt exist in real life, we cant really say in my opinion "the closest real life unit doesnt have the such and such equipment that would support the game units str numbers", "so the game unit shouldnt have those numbers".

For all we know, in game, the designer of the expanded enginner unit decided that since so many engineers would be in this unit and since it would be expected ,as such a large manpower unit to be in combat far more often, the such and such of the additional men will be equiped with equipment not normally assigned to an engineer unit of a smaller size.

Was that confusing enough ? :P

I guess the simple form of what im trying to say is, we cant really hold a game unit that doesnt fit the description of a real life unit to the stats that the real life unit closest to it would qaulify for in game.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

Draken
General
Posts: 1208
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

#49 Post by Draken » Apr 06 2006

Was that confusing enough ?
Yes! So much that I read it twice! .... Err.... Wait... That was a double post!! :lol: :lol:

(J/k and having fun at expenses of the forum :) )
[EDIT:Moderator removed duplicate post]

Why do you say the do not exists on real life?

http://www.lewis.army.mil/14theng/

Sure, the generic Engineer Btn probably was not modeled after the US TO&E but anyways, the problem is that the AI seem to like them a little bit too much. :)

Edit: this is the TO&E of the 14th Eng:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/uni ... 25L000.htm
and
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/uni ... 27L000.htm

If I'm reading it correctly, it is composed of 1 HQ Co and 3 Eng Co. Each Eng Co has 9 Eng squads. Couldnt find anything about the HQ Co.

So far it has 27 Squads... If you assign 8 to the HQ Co you have the 35 the goats says it has 8)

dust off
General
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sep 23 2003
Location: UK

#50 Post by dust off » Apr 06 2006

Just in case, I was being sarcastic ... Or... Perhaps you are supporting my comment ... Geez!!! Don't you love internet!
Yeah, I know! I took your comment to mean that's why many others see engineers as super-units.

User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2246
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

#51 Post by bergsjaeger » Apr 06 2006

:lol: I wonder if they realized just hitting the submit button actually post the reply. They might not have way it looks. but anyways I know its off topic.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.

Inkub
Corporal
Posts: 5
Joined: Apr 15 2006

#52 Post by Inkub » Apr 15 2006

Hello, my first post here, so please don't shoot all your heavy artillery at me...;)
I can speak about engineering units from the former Eastern Block perspective. Generally speaking, engineering units as they are now in game are way too strong - both offensive and defensive. In Eastern Block doctrine engineering units were of two kinds. First was a small unit (batallion) structurally inherent to the armored or mechanical division. Its primary task was bridging. They were used (or I should say they were supposed to be used) on tactical level. Of course this unit could be used as a ordinary fightning unit, but generally ONLY when there would be a STRONG neccessity. This unit lacked both specialised training and equipment necessary for infantry battles.
Second type of engineering units were brigades. They have had two tasks. First was additional help for divisional engineering units when necessery. Second and PRIMARY task was doing infrastructure - repairng railroads, preparing defenses, etc. Again - soldiers lacked any specialised training and equipment qualifying them for land battle in any role different then cannon fodder.
Engineering units in game should - IMHO - have very low basic defense and offence capabilities and they should retain all other functions - making constructions faster, bridging, repairing, etc.
And to the Goats - basing some units in game on other games, especially such "light" and historically unacurate as "General" series is a serious... hmmm... let me just say that this is controversial:).
Inkub

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20786
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#53 Post by Balthagor » Apr 15 2006

Welcome to the boards, and a very good post!

There two different engineering units in the game (three if you count the air droppable version) one that is intended for "western" armies and one for "eastern" armies. This does mean we could balance them differently.

If we do decrease the attack/defense values, I would certainly want to see their build times reduced somewhat. Not too much however, since assisting with construction is a heavy benefit.

As for basing things on other sources, we've often had to "make do" with what is around. Janes' is a little pricy ;)
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2246
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

#54 Post by bergsjaeger » Apr 15 2006

What about the build time of medium infantry or a few days more. Something tells me u will do a lot more researching for future games. :lol: Well researching is fun to me anyways.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.

User avatar
Leafgreen
Colonel
Posts: 326
Joined: Apr 06 2006
Location: Emerald City
Contact:

#55 Post by Leafgreen » Apr 19 2006

margab wrote:I don't believe that a WWII sapper/engineer could stand against a modern tank battalion, no chance. Their AT guns wouldn't even penetrate the modern armor.
You don't have to penetrate armor to disable a vehicle - and a disable is as good as a kill usually.

The eggheads may spend lots of time on nice new armor designs and compositions, but the tracks themselves...

margab
Captain
Posts: 110
Joined: May 08 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO (nationality--Turkey)

#56 Post by margab » Apr 19 2006

Leafgreen wrote:
margab wrote:I don't believe that a WWII sapper/engineer could stand against a modern tank battalion, no chance. Their AT guns wouldn't even penetrate the modern armor.
You don't have to penetrate armor to disable a vehicle - and a disable is as good as a kill usually.

The eggheads may spend lots of time on nice new armor designs and compositions, but the tracks themselves...
When I said "stand against" i meant open field battle. If an enginnering battalion is dug in, then they might be more prepared; mines etc. But in open battle, by the time engineers tried to "disable" a tank, however that is going to be in open field, they would be mowed down by the turrets and machine guns of the tanks.
In SR 2010, when a unit is dug in, be it an engineer or another unit, it already receives bonuses. That is why engineers shouldn't have that high hard attack values imo.
"Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?"-Juvenal

User avatar
Leafgreen
Colonel
Posts: 326
Joined: Apr 06 2006
Location: Emerald City
Contact:

#57 Post by Leafgreen » Apr 19 2006

Engineers get all sorts of neat toys that grunts can't even requisition. Det cord, explosives, vehicle mines, bangalores, REAL shovels, integral digging equipment, etc. =)

The concept of firing a missile and sitting still in the heat bloom until it reaches it's target while a trail of smoke follows it never seemed to enhance life expectancy to me. Never mind that it blasts you in the face with exhaust when you fire it so that the user tends to tilt back (thereby making the pretty missile spiral into the sky) before (or if) gaining control back.

Pretty new here, but i'm thinking it's based on what the type of unit can do in theory. In theory, every infantry soldier carries an AT weapon on their back. Fat chance of that in reality, they're bulky and single-shot. In theory engineers have all of their neat toys. In theory all hummers have their snorkels with them letting them swim, and they don't sink on average. In theory there are no deadlined vehicles, M-1 turbine exhaust doesn't sandblast and start fires.

There are fire and forget AT manportable missles with dual engines (first is a soft fire 'boost' just to push it 30 feet out of the tube, so it doesn't blind the firer before main engages) that gives a smaller heat/smoke signature upon firing (so you don't raise as big a flag saying 'here i am') that autoseeks the top of the turret and defeats reactive/chobham armor with dual warhead system, almost guaranteeing a kill of any armor made, but they are bulky and probably only used by AT teams - not integral to infantry.

Lost track of whatever I was trying to point out, but grunt sees tank and isn't dug in (takes a while with the tinker toy shovels) then grunt is running, hiding or dead. Engineers just seem to have more options available to them. I don't understand why they have a range of 2 km when the other foot units have 1 km though.

'Course, that's comparing foot to foot - engineering vehicles vs bradleys or even 113's is no comparison, and all just my opinion.
"That's O'neill, with two l's"
(Holds up 3 fingers)

tonystowe
Colonel
Posts: 462
Joined: Apr 10 2006
Location: Tennessee

#58 Post by tonystowe » May 18 2006

bergsjaeger wrote:Well U were talking about Engineers not having anti-tank weapons. I seen something on the military channel a minute ago. An engineer in the 1st Us armor battalion in the latest Iraq war blew up a mine field with just 3 bombs.
Berg, what you seen was a tank chassis with a MICLIC (no idea what the letters mean) missile/rocket attached. This missile isn't capable of AT purposes because it isn't built with offensive/defensive capabilities. Regardless, the vehicle moves to within the missile/rocket operating distance (of which I do not know but have seen personally) and fires the missile lazily over the obstacle whether its a minefield, wire, whatever. Attached to the missile/rocket is a fire hose looking line that is packed with explosives that is detonated after the missile/rocket runs out of fuel and lands haphazardly on the other side of the obstacle. The resulting explosion from the detonation clears a path throught the obstacle wide enough for at least three-five tanks abreast to roll through.

I hope that helps.

Tony

User avatar
Uriens
Colonel
Posts: 453
Joined: Oct 05 2005

#59 Post by Uriens » May 19 2006

MICLIC = MIne Clearing LIne Charge

User avatar
Noble713
Captain
Posts: 109
Joined: Nov 27 2005

#60 Post by Noble713 » Jul 21 2006

So did the Goats make any changes? I'm guessing not. I'm playing the WW3 scenario as China and my mechanized and motorized infantry are getting curb-stomped by hordes of Islamic States engineers.


What about the issue of controlling how many the AI produces? How does it determine this?


And to further reinforce what has been said: engineers are basically light infantry + explosives + mines + construction equipment + bridging equipment. Construction and bridging equipment is not a combat asset, and already accurately modelled. Mines I think were removed from the game (yes? no? I haven't seen any yet). Explosives would help in close combat, but they are no good when a tank flips on its thermal imagers and lights you up from 500-1000m away.

So basically they should be light infantry with high close combat ratings and bridging/construction abilities.
Black Metal IST KRIEG!
http://tinyurl.com/ctyrj7

Post Reply

Return to “Balance”