BGForums

I think that engineers are waaaay too powerful too. Their soft and hard attack values are off balance in my opinion. As an example if you compare the J-106 unit of Asia (which is level 110) to the engineer, the engineer is so much better than a unit that was built in 2010??? I think you need to lower the values for the engineer because right know they are like super-units in less developed parts of the world (before tanks and advanced infantry). They can act as a bridge, speed up construction, and have very powerful attack values. When we come to its defence values, I would understand why engineers would have better defence values than SOME of the units since they can organize a better defence with better equipment and can dig in better etc. But this still should be lowered a little, (33 close defence???) since it makes them the 5th best infantry unit (according to the military handbook on the mainpage) in the WHOLE game which doesn't make sense since the game's tech goes up to 2025 (if I'm not mistaken, never been there )

So I think there should be a discussion on this to see what people think.

_________________
"Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?"-Juvenal

I pitted a engineer aganist a LAV-5A once. It got ugly for the engineer. Their good I admit but I have destroyed 100's of them by now. (seems the AI loves the units). I haven't even built an engineer in awhile. Just I got my favorite units now and the enginners aren't one of them.

_________________
In war destroy everything even the livestock.

The engineers are excellent close combat units. If I don't have any other units to use for CC, I'll use engineers. Otherwise, I keep them confined to non-combat operations (bridging, construction, etc).

I'm going to take my own advice and start a new thread for this. I'll move the related posts...

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Yes indeed, the AI has a love affair with engineers... They a well all around amphibious , demolition capable unit... There is no surprise that AI loves them...

But I think that their stats against soft and hard tagets should be lowered because they right now there are better than some APC/IFV equiped infantry!

Soft_Attack: 21 (18 in the Eastern block version)
Hard_Attack:26

I think that the Goats uses WWII knowledge were satchel chargers were used as AT weapons...



From:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/uni ... 15L000.htm

Other links:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/uni ... 35L300.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/uni ... 25L000.htm


In my opinion lowering the Engineers stats to a point similar to a Garrison battallion, will cause that the AI builds and uses other units, and this reason by itself is enough to do it.

ETA:
I found here a list of the equipment that an engineers company has (US Army) and there aren't any AT weapons system (I least I couldn't find them)

Im running off memory here but didnt someone say once that Light Infantry were the best bang for the buck because since they were so cheap, and fast building you could double there strength.

Then they would have more attack vs soft/hard targets than most anything else for the price.?

im pretty sure it was a dev that reported on that one...

No, that was Baloogan

but it has never been confirmed...

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

It might be the best bang for the buck, but even if it is, a country with low manpower cannot use only light inf., they will run out of manpower quick. That's why you would need other (more high-tech) divisions that require less manpower.
When we come back to the discussion on engineers, I think so far most people think that they should be scaled down (no comments from developers yet). I think bringing them down do a garrison level would be too much scaling down, I think they can be slightly better off than a garrison, but definitely not as good as many infantry models.

_________________
"Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?"-Juvenal

I'm going to let this one run its course for a bit before voicing my opinion...

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

I do think that this one is important so: BUMP!

Come on people, let's heard opinions on engineers balance!

I dont have an issue with the engineers.While they are good units overall, they are eclipsed by the newer tech units i think.

I as a player almost never use them for anything but bridging and building, if i have a choice.

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

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. The tank in front of the column actually was pushed back from the explosion. Now if u get 350 engineers with 3 bombs each and set them all up for an ambush aganist a tank battalion I imagine either the tanks will be disabled or damaged beyond fighting. Then if the tankers are stupid enough to try and get out of their tanks they be cut down by the engineers shooting at them. that's not saying the entire battalion be wiped out but will be missing a few tanks.


Off topic here I know.
And as far as Light Infantry goes they are the best bang for their buck except in the US scenarios. I found the lowly National Guard actually could fight better. their cheaper and faster to produce good at entrenching just not a bigger hitter. i beat South America once with nothing but Ng's.

_________________
In war destroy everything even the livestock.

I couldn't find any specialized AT weapons in the TO&E I posted but they do have explosives, so, they can probably make IED capables of disable/destroy tanks.

Sure, they can even mount an ambush with those IED and perhaps they can knock off a couple of tanks.

Just to clarify my position regarding engineers in the game: I used them for bridging/repairing/construction and, if required, to provide rear area security not for actual combat. My issue with them is the way the AI loves them. It seems to like them so much, that it only produces them....

I'll try to do a controled test on this next weekend and I'll be back with the results.

That's interesting because explosives would only be good in close combat, so their normal, open-ground AT should probably be down then, right?



I think there's a separate category for engineers in the parameters file that controls what the AI builds.

I think so. Short range ambushes against tanks on open terrain probably won't work. And roadside IED are more an insurgent modus operandi than a regular army tactic.



Really? Goats could you comfirm that? How does the AI choose what to build?

Just an idea, what would happen if the engineers are moved from the infantry class to transport class AI-building-wise? After all bridging equipment is already there...