NONE OF THE PROVIDED OPTIONS! Rather, add some four L2 missile turrets around the barracks in the maps. APCs are weak and expensive enough already.
I think Beerdude has hit the nail on the head with this post. There should be a chassis upgrade for the current APC, although this would most likely require new models (or at least new skins for the current ones). Short of this, I think the best option would be to increase their price.
Take away the ability for drivers with the defuse skill to safely move over mines. I guarantee 1/2 the apc rushes would end in epic fail just from a mine or 2.
I agree too! this is such a good plan good plan. "upgrade APC" could be an option in the first level of mechanical engineering. or even better, we could have "improved light vehicles" which then takes you to "upgrade APC" and "upgrade LRV's" (jeeps)
People would rush jeeps or AFVs then. It's not important to get a spawn point near enemy (as APC dies 90% of the time) but to get 4-8 grenadiers and destroy enemy barracks/VF. Defusal not affecting vehicles - big no. Research for APC - the same. RPG/mortar changes may be useful. I still don't know if starting resources from 1.07 were changed by commander choice menu.
i totally disagree... a spawn point is majorly useful... mainly because if you have an AFV, you have to have picked up everyone on the way, while if you have a spawn point you can just say "IM APPROACHING THE ENEMY BASE EVERYONE SPAWN GREN IN MY APC"
One or two people are in base at start. An entire team rushes into their base. Why is it fair that the one or two people should be able to stop the entire enemy team?
If your commander is competant as well as your team, a simple APC will just be a loss of res for the enemy team... HSM once rushed the BE base in Mvalley with 5 light tanks, thats more deadly then a signle APC any way you put it. What did BE do? We all went grenadier and chewed up the tanks so fast it wasnt funny; they never recovered after that... A good team will make an APC rush useless; 2 grens, thats it the APC is history; have a rifleman mop up the people that spawns with the commander painting everyone and thats it... done and done...
Because they other ran away and need to go back/suicide to defend the base. If they don't like it they may rebuild base somewhere else and move CV there. Question is completely different: why 2 people would be able to defend against 8 other people? There would be no problem if enemy would make ML is strategical places and put grenadiers 100-200m away from the base. Riflemen are also needed to kill grenadiers that survive APC explosion. Private Sandbag: I assume that team is coordinated. Bodrick: During most of those APC rushes (made yesterday by HSM) APC died in first 5-10 after reaching enemy base. Some people said that when enemy failed APC rush they can just build another. That's right but they didn't start any research, didn't build new refineries, didn't make turrets in base and so on and so on... Shinzon: thx for keeping histeria level down.
I'm guessing that partially the problem is that you have 8 grens with full ammo going against a minimally defended base. Jeep rushing would not have the same effect, as you still only have limited ammo. Increasing the cost of APC's, and maybe making them have to be researched could be a better solution in this case. The main issue isn't really that 8 grens against 2 teammates should win, its just that there is not really an effective counter to an APC rush. IMO, rushes of any kind suck, because they are so predictable, and hard to counter. It takes any strategy and fun out of the game, when it turns into "who can pull off a quicker/more effective rush" as supposed to building up research over time, getting map control, and having an epic battle. L3 turrets around the base to start with and a limit on RPG range could help as well.
Bodrick: good team can still take 4 jeeps, 1 engineer inside one of them and put ammo box near the target. You have 2 or more rockets at the start. 7 x 2 = 14 rockets and that's more than enough to destroy barracks. There is a good counter to APC rush and we all know it - grenadier (maybe 2) and riflemen to kill those who didn't die with APC. Even 10 cases when APC rush succeeded don't imply overpowering of APC. By the time of enemy APC reaching your base you can have LTs or AFVs. You're all talking about very specific cases where team was just too dumb to defend well. Then you try to rebalance whole game just looking at those very specfic cases. L3 turrets around the base? So great we need to wait for HE or artillery just to attack enemy base. Great idea. RPG could have lowered damage against building (the same against vehicles) and mortar should be the only anti-building weapon that grenadier has.
I think that increasing the price of apcs could slow down the rush, giving the other team some time to prepare. but the apc shouldnt be nerfed as its an incredibly usefull weapon in the endgame (as it were) when it does come weaker due to more powerfull weapons. I dont think that gving a requirement for it to be built is a good idea as it would take away the whole tactic of apc rush. And to make it clear, 2 people in an apc can take down the comm. 1 eng and 1 gren, or 2 gren's give the apc enough power to end the game before a ref is built.
[Decease HP doesn't work] Decreasing the APC health while maintaining its low cost, does very little to curb the APC rush. The APC just has to unload the group of grends within rocket sniping range. At this far range, its hard to mortar or direct your rocket at the APC. The distance allows the APC's driver to maneuver back and forth; out of harms way. Also its not a big lost if the rush fails, because its still cheap. [Increase cost] Increasing the cost of the APC would at least create an artificial barrier of when can the rush occur. Hopefully the other team would be more est. and better able to counter such a threat. There is also an opportunity cost for the rushing team. Building the APC would mean they have less res for research, refs, D, etc... [The pink elephant] I think we are not getting to the heart of the matter, which is rockets and their extreme range. In the scenario above, If the rocket range or dmg from that range is less effective, you make the APC rush less effective. They will either have to get closer with the APC, where its more vulnerable. or you force the grends close the gap on foot; before they can snipe. This lets the rifleman to chew them up. This has been an issue for a long time and it should be address before Empire's public release. Fixing it now would be easier, as you have more freedom to experiment and you have experience players who can give you feedback. [It's Bastard cousin, Fusion Camel !] :cry: NF rax needs a redo, for obvious reasons too. I sent duke about a PM about it but he never got back to me
I'm going to change my opinion. I think the problem isn't the APC after all because I read everyone's post and it seems that even 4 grenadiers are extremely deadly for a base. I think you should reduce the damage which mortar does for the buildings and also reduce the RPG's range a lot with the damage which it does for buildings even it is quite low now. That would make it very hard at single grenadier to take down buildings by mortar or RPG. Only effective way would be placing mines but if you get a miner in your base, you have failed to defend your base. Plus if you kill the miner quickly enough he can't pull his mortar, RPG nor pistol to kill you and you can always defuse mines when he has placed only few of them. Or when he has placed 8 mines you still have time to get defusal as grenadier to defuse those mines before he spawns. That would make vehicle best units against structures and it wouldn't be worth to use APC rush with grenadiers to take down base because you simply don't have enough effective weapons to take down buildings as grenadier.
I agree that gren needs to be made less anti-building. They should purely be an anti-vehicle class, but be able to damage buildings as well if the need arises. Scout -> Good damage to Infantry -> No damage to vehicles -> Poor damage to buildings Rifleman -> Excellent damage to Infantry -> Moderate damage to vehicles -> Moderate damage to buildings Engineer -> Good damage to Infantry -> No damage to vehicles -> Good damage to buildings Grenadier -> Poor damage to Infantry -> Good damage to vehicles -> Moderate damage to buildings Vehicles -> Poor damage to Infantry -> Excellent damage to vehicles -> Good damage to buildings Thoughts?
