Basic improvements to OOBs

[Clux]

Greetings,

Right now there are several units than are barely used, and its not because they don't fit in the game or aren't useful, but rather because they lack OOBs and you must make your own custom OOBs in order to use them, which I think could be improved.

The basis for the following suggestions its than foot quad mgs can be interchanged with regular mgs, while they're two different unit types, you can use both of them in the same kind of OOBs.

Therefore, here are my suggestions:

• Light Walkers as Light Tanks

• Heavy Walkers as Tank Destroyers

• Jetpack and Shield Infantry as Infantry

[Behrooz]

In my experience, the units that aren't part of normal OOBs are most effectively employed as independent attachments to an existing operational HQ. Most OOBs can include two same-size or smaller units by changing the HQ of the independent unit from its SHQ to the OHQ of the unit on the frontlines -- adding a unit of walkers or heavy tanks or shields to a mechanized infantry or mechanized assault infantry makes a big difference in assaulting prepared position, and the added unit gets the benefits of the OHQ commander's rolls.

If you haven't tried adding independent specialist units to an existing OOB, it makes a huge difference -- try it!

[Clux]

The main issue its than some OOBs get obsolete by the end game.

Light tanks can't held up due having at best a light laser/plasma gun, which its simply not enough, if you give them howitzers then you have assault guns which are better and cheaper.

Heavy Walkers work mostly as anti tank units, but not being able to make a brigade (instead of just independent battalions) severely hurts their performance, as by that point you want to have several brigades, not a couple of independent battalions.

Jetpack and shield infantry are self explanatory, they're straight upgrades from regular infantry, but they aren't very useful as independent units, as you would be better using walkers.

[Vic]

OOB customization should help a lot here, no?

I am relooking at ammo consumption again. And have to say it seems a bit low for non-air and indeed high for air. I'll get back to this topic later. But I am taking note.

Best wishes,
Vic

[Thrake]

I am relooking at ammo consumption again. And have to say it seems a bit low for non-air and indeed high for air. I'll get back to this topic later. But I am taking note.

Is a rebalance still planned?

Players tend to agree over the fact that precision bombs and bomb hatches consume too much ammo to be worth it. Bomb hatches are particularly avoided as they are intended to kill mostly cheap units while precision bombs are favoured for bombing assets. Precision bombs also suffer from targeting hit point versus hard unlike rockets while having lower penetration. One last issue is that there is no linear tech to improve any of the air weapons, except for the air-air missiles that benefit from payload.