[1.04] Changes to the MG Dugout

I was thinking that since there have been complaints of the Soviet's MG nest being too expensive, there shud be a buff for it as soon as it's vickers is replaced with a Soviet alternative. In a previous thread I was told by a dev that the DShK was a likely candidate for replacement. This would suit the buff well since the DShK was a heavy anti-aircraft machine gun that was as well used as  a heavy infantry machine gun, and should of been capable of penetrating light armour. Therefore if the dugout was buffed to be significantly more powerful against infantry and light vehicles then the other faction's MG nests, I think the extra resources would have felt like they have gone somwhere.

Last edited February 22, 2010 at 9:10 PM by Polo

Don't quite get whose extra resources you are talking about. The players' in-game or the development team's?

Well this building is a doctrinal addition, and the 1st doctrinal general purpose defensive building (I only have the original CoH), or something that makes USSR unique at the very least. So I think it (and the command tree) deserves a little more attention if a player really wants to play defensively, and to make Soviet defensive play more unique.

P.S. Guess which faction I play before this mod?  ;)

playing defensive with soviets = dead soviet....

Josiah666 wrote:
Don't quite get whose extra resources you are talking about. The players' in-game or the development team's?

The ones im referring to is the additional amount paid compared to the other factions counterparts. For instance:

British MG Emplacement Cost: 280MP
Soviet MG Emplacement Cost: 300MP, 15 Fuel

Difference between the two: nothing other than all brits can build theres while the Soviets are limited to the Propaganda doctrine.

It's a similar story with the other 2 factions:
US (240MP,10F) and Wehr (150MP,50MU)
(Leaving out PE of course)

What I would like to know is where those extra resources going? Is there some balancing issue Im missing if the Soviets MG emplacement costed the same as say the Brits? (or at very least the US) I mean it costs 20MP more than the Bofors for christ's sake. And provided around the time you've built your dugout the first light vehicles are starting to seep in, which building would you prefer?

QuoteWell this building is a doctrinal addition, and the 1st doctrinal general purpose defensive building (I only have the original CoH), or something that makes USSR unique at the very least. So I think it (and the command tree) deserves a little more attention if a player really wants to play defensively, and to make Soviet defensive play more unique.

I agree, I think the Propaganda doctrine does need some tweaks. Maybe its just me, but I find that when playing vs an equally skilled player, the Propaganda doctine just doesn't cut it. I usually go for the Urban Combat doctine, which never fails me. 
 

Last edited February 23, 2010 at 6:50 AM by Polo

i totally agree in regards to the MG dugout being to expensive.  I find also, that it's extremely easy to kill the gunners inside (easier than say, killing the british gunners in a british dugout) so sometimes you end up with a building that you can't even scuttle and as we all know, can't reman.

i like the idea mentioning the new MG type, with a change like that, i think playing defensively as a soviet could be feasible.

Quote link=topic=2932.msg28492#msg28492 date=1266797944]
i totally agree in regards to the MG dugout being to expensive.  I find also, that it's extremely easy to kill the gunners inside (easier than say, killing the british gunners in a british dugout) so sometimes you end up with a building that you can't even scuttle and as we all know, can't reman.

A good point raised, that just doesn't make any sense to me, I'm sure they're gonna change that somewhere down the road though, if theres enough complaints.

I think axis can reman russian dugouts :D

why recrew an MG that is weaker then the bunker, costs more population then the bunker and is almost always pointing the wrong way for Axis?

hgghg4 wrote:
why recrew an MG that is weaker then the bunker, costs more population then the bunker and is almost always pointing the wrong way for Axis?

even still, the principal just seems wrong that the enemy still can and they can't. I know they having problems with recrewing but there's gotta be somthing they can do to fix this, like having the MG being more like the US/Wehr one with no pop cap perhaps?

what it seems to come down to is that the price for the dugout is too expensive and therefore no one uses it.

as hgghg4 said, why would German players want to re crew it anyway?

-Narizna

Narizna wrote:the price for the dugout is too expensive and therefore no one uses it.

thats the problem, what the dev's are going to do about it is what it comes down to.

Quoteas hgghg4 said, why would German players want to re crew it anyway?

I guess Axis players recrewing it isn't much of an issue, the problem is what redknight said of how easily the crew can die with no option of recrewing, with it's extra cost making matters only worse.

Last edited February 22, 2010 at 10:46 PM by Polo

i understand the original reasoning behind not allowing soviet players to reman weapon teams (besides a flaw in the name of game balance, it makes sense to me at least that the soldiers are specialized and have no knowledge of using other weapons)

my problem is that, in the end, the nest is genuinely ineffective once you account for it's cost, and how easy it is to empty it.

the original suggestion to use the dshk is perfect. because it's a doctrine power and costs more than any other stationary defense, it should be better than other varieties. in this case, effective against light vehicles.

moreover, it (or the crew) needs to be tougher...it's awfully sad how quickly the crew gets killed

The US nest costs only 220MP.  The nest is too expensive because it hits you in three areas instead of just two like the others.  Brit is pop + mp cost.  Wehr is mp + muni cost.  US is mp + fuel.  The soviet nest is pop + mp + fuel.  It also costs the MOST fuel and the MOST mp.  Especially since it cannot be recrewed, there is just no point to using it right now.  A bit like the hotchkiss only significantly worse.

I've noticed the dev's have been pretty quiet here. Is there any flaws in our arguments, or are there plans for change?

Polo wrote:
The ones im referring to is the additional amount paid compared to the other factions counterparts. For instance:

British MG Emplacement Cost: 280MP
Soviet MG Emplacement Cost: 300MP, 15 Fuel

There is one more difference between these 2. Soviet Ingenery cost 150 while Tommies 450. Every UK unit is needed to fight/cap while its not hard to save 150MP when plaing Soviets. Thats why MG Dugout should cost some fuel like the US MG. It just needs a lower (240) MP cost.

Its not too difficult to save 150MP.  240MP is more than half again that amount.  Soviet ingenery do not compare to tommies in any way.  The MG dugout needs a severe reduction in cost.  If the fuel and pop costs are going to stay, MP cost needs to be <200.

Paciat wrote:

Polo wrote:
The ones im referring to is the additional amount paid compared to the other factions counterparts. For instance:

British MG Emplacement Cost: 280MP
Soviet MG Emplacement Cost: 300MP, 15 Fuel

There is one more difference between these 2. Soviet Ingenery cost 150 while Tommies 450. Every UK unit is needed to fight/cap while its not hard to save 150MP when plaing Soviets. Thats why MG Dugout should cost some fuel like the US MG. It just needs a lower (240) MP cost.

I was more on the lines of just focusing on the comparison of the 2 buildings and not looking at both factions as a whole. I think it's main problem is its pop cap since its such a waste of resources if say a incindenary grenade takes out the units inside leaving a useless uncrewable building then if it had no pop cost and was just a building it could have lasted much longer. That should be tended to first, while the expense problem can be dealt with either by giving it that buff i mentioned or lowering it to more of the price of the US MG nest, if not lower. I for one would prefer the buff, since it would make the Soviets more unique and not just have the same basic MG nest as most of the other factions have.

Last edited February 24, 2010 at 4:15 PM by Polo

Polo wrote:

Paciat wrote:

Polo wrote:
The ones im referring to is the additional amount paid compared to the other factions counterparts. For instance:

British MG Emplacement Cost: 280MP
Soviet MG Emplacement Cost: 300MP, 15 Fuel

There is one more difference between these 2. Soviet Ingenery cost 150 while Tommies 450. Every UK unit is needed to fight/cap while its not hard to save 150MP when plaing Soviets. Thats why MG Dugout should cost some fuel like the US MG. It just needs a lower (240) MP cost.

I was more on the lines of just focusing on the comparison of the 2 buildings and not looking at both factions as a whole. I think it's main problem is its pop cap since its such a waste of resources if say a incindenary grenade takes out the units inside leaving a useless uncrewable building then if it had no pop cost and was just a building it could have lasted much longer. That should be tended to first, while the expense problem can be dealt with either by giving it that buff i mentioned or lowering it to more of the price of the US MG nest, if not lower. I for one would prefer the buff, since it would make the Soviets more unique and not just have the same basic MG nest as most of the other factions have.

i'm totally with you on that's polo, buff the gun leave the extra cost (and make it so you can re-man it)

2 commander points is nothing to sneeze at, but the extra man power cost, fuel cost, pop cap cost, and commander point cost would all be worth a unique structure for the soviets without being too OP. 

i think it is also worth noting that it's the only stationary defense that comes as a doctrine choice, it should be unique

Last edited February 25, 2010 at 10:19 AM by redknight021

Right now its a copy paste of the vickers except significantly more expensive, more easily decrewed, and cannot be remanned.  Unacceptable.

xenotype wrote:
Right now its a copy paste of the vickers except significantly more expensive, more easily decrewed, and cannot be remanned.  Unacceptable.

Exactly. what are the dev's thoughts on this? I know there will be change but how much and how soon?

There will be no changes to the Propaganda MG Dugout in 1.05. Some good points have been raised, so we may look into this in the future.

WartyX wrote:
There will be no changes to the Propaganda MG Dugout in 1.05. Some good points have been raised, so we may look into this in the future.

:( Too bad.
Everyone agreed on this one.
Its urban and breakthru doctrines for me then.

Oh well. At least nothing has been written off. Im sure there will be changes made eventually. They've got quite a lot on they're hands right now, and this is not game breaking. Like Paciat said, theres always Urban Combat.  ;)

Last edited February 25, 2010 at 8:26 PM by Polo

Well, I guess theres still two useful doctrines.  This also means that you guys must be very close to 1.05 release :).

I wish the russians could have the concrete bunkers that the germans have :P

I don't understand why these changes can't be incorporated into 1.05. You guys are already taking your time, you might as well throw in some MG Dugout changes...

+1

unless it is something big going in this patch.

I guess its been almost a week since my last post and no patch.  Seems reasonable you guys could make the changes if you are not releasing the patch tomorrow.

xenotype wrote:
I guess its been almost a week since my last post and no patch.  Seems reasonable you guys could make the changes if you are not releasing the patch tomorrow.

Yeah, for now you don't have to replace the whole dugout. We're just asking for at least a temporary resource change.

yeah or the damage buff which if I didnt know any better is just as simple as editing some code right?

Perhaps the reason for the delay might be a temporary lull in manpower - more work is not a good idea.

Perhaps lowering the pop from 3 to 1, then at least ppl could try using MG`s to guard OP`s...

WartyX wrote:
Perhaps the reason for the delay might be a temporary lull in manpower - more work is not a good idea.

"Lull" of MP? In game or dev`team? Seams you need to recruit some coders for the cause  ;D

I'd think people would die to be part of this mod. I'm to busy; for I have started a clan for the source mod "battle grounds 2" were the 21st Regiment of Foot (type in my name if you want to join  :)) sorry off topic but as I was saying I would think people would love to join this. Some advertisement does wonders by the way  ;)

I think I heard their wallets scream from here.....Anyway I've had no problems with the dugout, I always give it AT support and put it in a nice long stretch of land with closed sides, often boobytrapped with mines. :)

[/quote]
There is one more difference between these 2. Soviet Ingenery cost 150 while Tommies 450. Every UK unit is needed to fight/cap while its not hard to save 150MP when plaing Soviets. Thats why MG Dugout should cost some fuel like the US MG. It just needs a lower (240) MP cost.
[/quote]

This argument is flawed since Brit always will have Tommies out. I think that it should be cheaper.

SavageWorld wrote:
This argument is flawed since Brit always will have Tommies out. I think that it should be cheaper.

And a Russian will not have ingenery? That argument is also invalid.

I think that the vickers nest is critical for Brits to hold far off territories due to their slow movement speed and lack of separate squads. This is not true for Soviets, they will easily have enough troops spare to send. If they could gain a massive capping advantage, and cheaply lock it down, they would be very op. I would prefer for the soviet mg to cost alot but have an interesting effect. Maybe reinforce from them, upgrade with flamers, upgrade to AT rifle/gun etc. This way it could be used to hold a critical point effectively without being spammed all over the map, and also give a nice difference between the others' mgs.

After re-reading my post, I personally like the flamer idea. Soviets lack an effective way to deal with their own trenches until they get guards.

Wouldnt a Maxim be way cooler though , in like a slightly smaller bunker and maybe different range , damage , fire rate to even it out

I think there is a problem the mg crews getting killed to fast

To be Honest I've never had that happen to me, even in vCoh

Yeah i think the dhsk , or maxim would make a good mg , but they really need to fix the problem where , the people in the dugout can die and then your left with an empty bunker and cant recrew it.

The crew is easily killed by fire. Then all that is left is a bunker, that isnt even that damaged.

GodlikeDennis wrote:

SavageWorld wrote:
This argument is flawed since Brit always will have Tommies out. I think that it should be cheaper.

And a Russian will not have ingenery? That argument is also invalid.

I think that the vickers nest is critical for Brits to hold far off territories due to their slow movement speed and lack of separate squads. This is not true for Soviets, they will easily have enough troops spare to send. If they could gain a massive capping advantage, and cheaply lock it down, they would be very op. I would prefer for the soviet mg to cost alot but have an interesting effect. Maybe reinforce from them, upgrade with flamers, upgrade to AT rifle/gun etc. This way it could be used to hold a critical point effectively without being spammed all over the map, and also give a nice difference between the others' mgs.

After re-reading my post, I personally like the flamer idea. Soviets lack an effective way to deal with their own trenches until they get guards.

Having an AT rifle would be nice, also so I don't have to build trenches for an AT hunter squad, and not having to build the squad at all.