8. Infantry Division

[LeutnantK]

So what's the deal with the upcoming changes that were presented in the devblog this morning?
I'm browsing the discussion board on Steam a few times a week and did not see the argument about too many german units in the 8. and being honest, this sounds more like a meme to me.

Despite this, i agree with the argument that the american uints should get a buff in said division but removing all german units isn't the way to do this because of the following:

Infantry-Tab: if you build the division like I do, the Heimatschützen and Jäger serve as your basic frontline infantry while the americans bring specialized soldiers like pioneers, Aero-Rifles, Rangers and superior ATGM on the field. I wouldn't call this grey or shapeless but a pretty interesting combination that in my case required time to figure out. Adding more Rangers will give you a better infantry but that comes with a high price, while removing the Jäger and Heimatschützen drains a cheap and effective infantry unit from the division.

Tank-Tab: not the biggest deal but I really don't like the removal of the Kanonjagdpanzer cause this unit get's overlooked too many times and fits pretty well in this division. If done correctly you can even endanger T-80 with a combination of KaJaPa and american tanks but this unit really shines in fighting infantry duo to their low price and availability. There is simply no reason to send a M-60 or let alone an Abrams out there if you can call a KaJaPa to deal with some infantry in open fields or on your flank.

Like I said before, I would not call the inclusion of german units in this division boring but interesting, especially duo to the fact, that this is one of the few muti-national divisions that we have on the side of BLUEFOR. Giving the Rangers a bite more love is great but removing all the german units from said departments goes too far in my opinion.
The recon tab for example is a tab where the exclusion of the Jäger would be bearable duo to the fact, that this really is a field where Rangers would thrive. Same goes for the anti-air-tab where you only get the cheap Fliegerfaust which you do not necessarily need and so doesn't bring much to the table.

[Vovin]

The part I don't get is why they would nerf the Rangers. I only have like 4 of their units in my entire deck and they are supposed to be the heavy infantry that I call if a line is collapsing, but now they have their AT4s taken away. What is the point of that? Rangers with Dragon ATGMs make as much sense as Spetsnaz with Metis ATGMs. I don't get it.

It's like the guys making these decisions are still playing Steel Division and are used to tanks not being able to just traverse through dense forest like they insisted with WARNO. ATGMs would be a whole different beast if they kept this fundamental feature of SD2.

[aaron.petty]

I'm not inherently against this decision. i like the idea of 8th being more dedicated to specialised infantry rather than having both general and cheap and specialised and expensive. I do agree the loss of the cheap infantry support tank is sad and weakens the deck but I'm looking forward to testing ranger squads now that they have a few more men and bit more survivability, hopefully this combined with the dragon version will enable them to operate behind enemy lines better

[Sneaky_Beaky]

They said the German removal was because they only used 8th to showcase the German addition when it was new. That because Germany has its own divisions now, it's outdated.

The only problem I have with this update overall is the Rangers.

Mech. Rifles have Dragon, and they get "Gunners" as a pair up.

I was using Rangers + Aero Rifles as a pair. Removing AT-4 and adding a Dragon variant basically interrupts my swagger, and doesn't benefit the deck. Now Rangers boil down to weaker versions of the same infantry (Aero Rifles and Mech Rifles). Prior, their AT-4 role was specialized and important.

[LeutnantK]

Originally posted by Sneaky_Beaky:

They said the German removal was because they only used 8th to showcase the German addition when it was new. That because Germany has its own divisions now, it's outdated.

The only problem I have with this update overall is the Rangers.

Mech. Rifles have Dragon, and they get "Gunners" as a pair up.

I was using Rangers + Aero Rifles as a pair. Removing AT-4 and adding a Dragon variant basically interrupts my swagger, and doesn't benefit the deck. Now Rangers boil down to weaker versions of the same infantry (Aero Rifles and Mech Rifles). Prior, their AT-4 role was specialized and important.

That was exactly the reason why the idea of using Jäger and Heimatschützen came to my mind, duo to the fact, that they have a better AT weapon. As long as the LAW doesn't get a stats rework too, the Rangers are only getting a buff on the paper and in conclustion the whole division get's a nerv. Fire Teams with AT-4 seem to be still available but from my experience they are dying extremly fast and are usually not worth the points.

So if those changes are really that necessary at least give the Rangers one unit with AT-4 that has a certain weak point, for example no access to airborne transport.

[Sneaky_Beaky]

Originally posted by LeutnantK:

Originally posted by Sneaky_Beaky:

They said the German removal was because they only used 8th to showcase the German addition when it was new. That because Germany has its own divisions now, it's outdated.

The only problem I have with this update overall is the Rangers.

Mech. Rifles have Dragon, and they get "Gunners" as a pair up.

I was using Rangers + Aero Rifles as a pair. Removing AT-4 and adding a Dragon variant basically interrupts my swagger, and doesn't benefit the deck. Now Rangers boil down to weaker versions of the same infantry (Aero Rifles and Mech Rifles). Prior, their AT-4 role was specialized and important.

That was exactly the reason why the idea of using Jäger and Heimatschützen came to my mind, duo to the fact, that they have a better AT weapon. As long as the LAW doesn't get a stats rework too, the Rangers are only getting a buff on the paper and in conclustion the whole division get's a nerv. Fire Teams with AT-4 seem to be still available but from my experience they are dying extremly fast and are usually not worth the points.

So if those changes are really that necessary at least give the Rangers one unit with AT-4 that has a certain weak point, for example no access to airborne transport.

Agreed. Like 1x card of Fireteam AT-4, is sufficient to protect engineers from BMP's, but not much else. Without the Germans, and only fielding LAW units, 8th is gonna feel kinda "light."

[Abacus]

Remember this is an overall update, so it will be comparison to other divisions changing.

Also the game itself will have various changes to the core system.

Meaning we can't really compare with just the information given, because we are missing much of the data.

[Vovin]

Originally posted by Simply G:

Remember this is an overall update, so it will be comparison to other divisions changing.

Also the game itself will have various changes to the core system.

Meaning we can't really compare with just the information given, because we are missing much of the data.

Are they going to suddenly add two types of forests where tanks cannot enter dense forest? If not then replacing the AT4 with the LAW is a stupid idea. People don't seem to remember that there was a whole movement among players just to get the AT4 into the game after it was released, and now they are taking it away.

[Ahriman]

Originally posted by Vovin:

Are they going to suddenly add two types of forests where tanks cannot enter dense forest? If not then replacing the AT4 with the LAW is a stupid idea. People don't seem to remember that there was a whole movement among players just to get the AT4 into the game after it was released, and now they are taking it away.

What stops them from adding more AT-4 Fireteams?

[Vovin]

Originally posted by Ahriman:

Originally posted by Vovin:

Are they going to suddenly add two types of forests where tanks cannot enter dense forest? If not then replacing the AT4 with the LAW is a stupid idea. People don't seem to remember that there was a whole movement among players just to get the AT4 into the game after it was released, and now they are taking it away.

What stops them from adding more AT-4 Fireteams?

An AT4 Fireteam isn't a Ranger unit, now is it? Rangers have SF traits and have special means of deployment (ie., helo). They are also airborne (not sure if this is reflected in game or not off the top of my head). Why would they nerf their ability to deal with armor? It makes no sense.

The only reason why I even care about this is that, when I do play NATO, it is usually as the 8th. I like the idea of removing the cheap German infantry and replacing them with more Rangers. but why nerf the Rangers?

[Ahriman]

Originally posted by Vovin:

Originally posted by Ahriman:

What stops them from adding more AT-4 Fireteams?

An AT4 Fireteam isn't a Ranger unit, now is it? Rangers have SF traits and have special means of deployment (ie., helo). They are also airborne (not sure if this is reflected in game or not off the top of my head). Why would they nerf their ability to deal with armor? It makes no sense.

Balancing act mostly, assuming the per card count stays, aka 6, you would have an incredibly strong lineholding unit that can only really be countered by artillery, as two units with AT-4s is enough to take on any Soviet tank without problems, and this combined with their SF and Shock traits will make them mulch any Pact Infantry that isn't Spets, and they will follow right behind if there is even a single Flash unit nearby.

With the current iteration, you have units that are good at dealing with Infantry at close range, can fend off IFVs in CQC, can take on heavier things at a distance, but can get overwhelmed if enemy tanks get too close, such as in a forest. The same problem lies with Spets, incredible killing power against Infantry, but the moment the first tank rolls up, they are worthless unless you have supporting units with them. A 9-man SF squad with AT-4s that also have Shock will be nigh impossible to dislodge if used by a player that has at least one brain cell. The only solution is to arty them to death, and even then, being SF and Infantry, they can easily just move out of the way the moment they know the enemy has spotted them, after mulching whichever unit was unfortunate enough to get too close to spot them in that forest or town.

Personally I like the change a lot. It gives them their own distinct flavour among Nato units, and makes them not be just Nato Spets unit, you can deal with IFVs that tend to be more abundant among Pact forces compared to Nato, but you can't deal with the same threat in CQC as the Spets can't, actual tanks.

[Vovin]

Originally posted by Ahriman:

Balancing act mostly, assuming the per card count stays, aka 6, you would have an incredibly strong lineholding unit that can only really be countered by artillery

Yes, that would be the whole point: less but stronger infantry. And you can destroy infantry in many different ways regardless of how strong they are.

It gives them their own distinct flavour among Nato units, and makes them not be just Nato Spets unit

Have you never used Spetsnaz OP units? They carry RPG-29s and are far cheaper and more numerous than regular Spesnaz squads.

[Sneaky_Beaky]

Originally posted by Ahriman:

only really be countered by artillery.

Originally posted by Ahriman:

The only solution is to arty them to death

This entire post is nonsense btw.

A. 9-strength Rangers aren't a counter to Spetsnaz.

B. 8th already has the game's top counter to Spetsnaz -- and it's not artillery. It's Engineer(Flash) + MP(M67) because 2x stun weapon.

C. The entire point/use of Rangers currently, is a fast way of deploying AT-4, for dealing with tanks CQC -- because the Fireteam (AT-4) units simply get disheartened, miss 2 shots, and die for nothing. Giving them the LAW is a nerf only.

[Ahriman]

Originally posted by Vovin:

Yes, that would be the whole point: less but stronger infantry. And you can destroy infantry in many different ways regardless of how strong they are.

Have you never used Spetsnaz OP units? They carry RPG-29s and are far cheaper and more numerous than regular Spesnaz squads.

I have, but as a 4-man squad that you get 6 per card, they are incredibly easy to take out. It's a fire support team, not a frontline fighter unit, that is the job of the regular Spets. Very easy to take out with even regular Nato infantry, no need to bring in even SF units to stop those. They mulch tanks, but that's their shtick, they need another unit to guard them from Infantry, same as the regular Spets require something to guard them from anything with an armor value.

While you can destroy infantry with many means doesn't mean that it can be balanced with just that logic in mind. How many resources might you need to take out a unit of Rangers with AT-4s and even a single unit of Flash Engineers right next to them? Not like you can send the same things you'd counter Spets in CQC with, since the Rangers can just tap just about all vehicles you could send their way if they had the AT-4, because you just need one unit to act as a distraction for half a second to turn the enemy tank to expose the side and it is gone, to a unit that would probably cost around 75pts (Using the 85pts of the Spets as a reference point.

I am mainly just saying what the reason would most likely be, not that it is the factual, undeniable truth of why Eugen chose to remove the AT-4 from those units. From a gameplay point of view, giving them such a solid AT weapon in addition to having another version of them with the Dragon would make them rather terrifying unit, because do remember that all you would be replacing with the Rangers would most likely be the German units that now are getting removed, so you still have the boatload of regular US infantry around, which ain't bad either. In other words, there is logic and sense behind their decision, and we still don't know what other changes they will do as well. Will we see increases in units per card, how big of an effect will the Veterancy rework have on especially SF units, etc. We have an incredible amount of unknown factors that simply can't be ignored, so stating that the decision to remove the AT-4 without knowing everything is a bit hasty in my eyes.

I will be reserving my judgement of Eugen's decision post update, after I have seen the whole thing. It's the same reason I am not going entirely livid about the changes done to AB Divisions, pushing with them if the changes they stated would be implemented as is without any of the mentioned reworks and the like would gimp those divisions heavily. However, once the dust has settled, then I can form a proper opinion on the matter.

[Sneaky_Beaky]

Why do you take so many words just to write wrong things?

The Dragon AT launcher is far from terrifying, and besides 8th already has like 16x cards of it.

Basic Motostrelki RPG-7vr has 20AP. Motostrelki (BMP) RPG-7vl has 18AP.

AT-4 has 18AP. LAW has 13AP.

[Switchinzski]

Suck it up NATO fanboys 35th Ya is coppin it too