stinger infantry?, in short: why it? Options

[Jam Hacker]

I'm sure many of you find this to be a huge deal which i do not feel like that. I feel that if a feature is there, it should have (at least) one clear purpose, otherwise it has no reason being there. so i want to get a bit more clear about the latest addition of stinger -- they already had stinger sites, ural truck troops, i'm fine with RPG hitting a jet because it had been in the continuum since day 1 in the base game. the russians have this igla sure, that's a bit variety which is not bad. and also reflects russian's independent branch of AA troops as i recall in one of the russian unit lores.
but do we really need another basically the same unit for GLA? correct me if i'm wrong, jarman kell had half of his hand blown off and he's carrying a stinger with a sniper rifle!
even though i still prefer the traditional AA/AT dual-role missile troopers over igla and felin. felin is good with rifle too, but igla is just dreadful. in ZH, missile troops might be going a bit too far on the DPS side, which this mod attempts to fix and quite nicely done indeed, but here comes the part with igla and stinger compare to felin,tank hunter and missile defender: instead of getting one unit which is competent aircraft and vehicle (in felin's case, infantry) fighter, you get potentially more expensive AA specialized unit which threats neither infantry nor vehicle, sure you can get a somewhat better AT missile troop, but what's the point at all? it's not fun to me playing with the units that should not have been there in the first place. how many of you actually build lots of igla when it comes to air defense because of its superior AA capability? i imagine you would prefer Tunguska and in the late game, grumble. not saying infantry AA could not be useful, but they aren't meant to to take the burden the way tier 2 heavy AA's do, and there are tier 1 AA to supplement the effort with better all-round capabilities. so I ask: aren't we making too big a deal with infantry AA in the quest of encouraging infantry usage?

[Zarax]

IMHO the issue is on the other side... Tiering could use some slowing down and vehicle production some bottlenecking.
Specialized infantry should be effective and a PITA for most game, however it could use some specialization.
What if we specialize AAA into anti aircraft and anti-helo types?

For example, Tunguska should be great against helicopters but not very effective VS fast airplanes, so you need to complement them with Igla troopers to deal with air strikes, something similar could be applied to other factions.

[Knjaz.]

GLA had issues with providing sufficient AA cover when on offense, in certain conditions.

This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 28 Aug 2015, 9:35

[Mizo]

IMHO the issue is on the other side... Tiering could use some slowing down and vehicle production some bottlenecking.
Specialized infantry should be effective and a PITA for most game, however it could use some specialization.
What if we specialize AAA into anti aircraft and anti-helo types?

For example, Tunguska should be great against helicopters but not very effective VS fast airplanes, so you need to complement them with Igla troopers to deal with air strikes, something similar could be applied to other factions.

Tiering got a nerf in the test build, not to the extent you are expecting but atleast all factions tech up at the same speed ( instead of having GLA be the fastest or some factions getting tier 1/2 slower/faster).

[Zarax]

Tiering got a nerf in the test build, not to the extent you are expecting but atleast all factions tech up at the same speed ( instead of having GLA be the fastest or some factions getting tier 1/2 slower/faster).

That's good.
I went to less restrictive values myself in my attempts, though I still raised radically superweapon cost and production time, restricted nimber of factories that can be built and made most vehicles slower/more expensive.

I may try releasing something when I manage to make a stable result...

[Serialkillerwhal...]

If anything's the problem, it's the inabilty to actually gain a meaningful edge by turtling and tech rushing, so every strat involves an aggressive opening to some degree.

You just can't devote resources to gaining a tech edge because a tier 0 rush is too effective in comparison.

[Baneblade]

IMHO the issue is on the other side... Tiering could use some slowing down and vehicle production some bottlenecking.
Specialized infantry should be effective and a PITA for most game, however it could use some specialization.
What if we specialize AAA into anti aircraft and anti-helo types?

For example, Tunguska should be great against helicopters but not very effective VS fast airplanes, so you need to complement them with Igla troopers to deal with air strikes, something similar could be applied to other factions.

I like AA specialized infantry because they cannot be distracted by ground targets, same advantage as T3 AA. More precisely, if you make an all-inf early rush with infantry and troop transport, and this little rushing party meets a combo of infantry and copters, ennemy infantry and copters will take roughly equal damage with hardly any micro on your part. Then your infantry, not focusing on ground targets while they're being decimated by copters, can perhaps go deeper into opponent base and do a little damage.

GLA had issues with providing sufficient AA cover when on offense, in certain conditions.

I'm quite satisfied of the "guard air" mode for that particular matter.

What if we specialize AAA into anti aircraft and anti-helo types?

Perhaps not go too deep in specialization, not even sure it is achievable. I'm already enough pissed my toxin tractors and dragon tanks focus on tanks while they're supposed to decimate infantry .

IMHO the issue is on the other side... Tiering could use some slowing down and vehicle production some bottlenecking.
Specialized infantry should be effective and a PITA for most game, however it could use some specialization.

If anything's the problem, it's the inabilty to actually gain a meaningful edge by turtling and tech rushing, so every strat involves an aggressive opening to some degree.

You just can't devote resources to gaining a tech edge because a tier 0 rush is too effective in comparison.

Dunno, at the beginning, ROTR seemed to encourage some turtling and early game focus on base building (more Starcraft like), as you can see from the numerous base defence improvements as compared to oiginal ZH.
On the other side, CCG is for sure the series of those RTS players who want some early game action.