Can upgrade an AT gun they’ve made to turn it into a later/stronger model AT gun. Which uses up a lot of resources and reloads at half the speed of the standard version.
Can build a tank resupply crate, which provides 5 extra rounds of both types. They can only be built within bounds, to prevent exploits
Can repair damaged (not destroyed) jeeps/transports
Allow the MG nest to aim all the way up so it can also be used as an AA gun
Allow them to use a flamethrower as a secondary weapon but with half as much fuel as flamer squads.
Please add your own suggestions. At the moment engineer squads only feel useful for AA guns and (very easily destroyed) MG nests.
I just finished a conquest game where I was the only player who built a rally point.
I know that there were other engineers on my team because they built sandbags around my rally beacon and on the leaderboard, 4 other had a couple of engineering points.
We lost…barely. Point being that the speed that RPs can be built won’t convince others to build them anymore than they do now.
Personally I think increasing the build speed AND being able to order an AI engineer to build them would help.
Having to manually switch to the engineer and slowly build it is annoying, even when you know it’s probably going to win the match.
Another thing that would help is to give more points for each time it’s used, so there is much more of an incentive to build one that will be used a lot.
If I could order an AI engineer to build one, I would use them even more than I already do. And I use them in every match.
There is also the issue of them being easily destroyed by art/bombs which is very irritating.
I think in order to make being an engineer more useful, they have to categorically increase the XP you earn for doing engineering things.
I hate that I see good engineers at the end of battle, whom maybe didn’t get all the kills but managed to turn a house into Fort Knox get shafted with their battle rewards.
If they want to make this more viable, they need to give them a reason to play and want to succeed at it. Period.
That, and they seriously need to add an Actual AA gun that can hard counter planes.
I believe that engineers are rewarded well for building fortifications that are actually USED by their teammates. Building a bunch of sand bags in the forest, which I see all the time in Normandy, will get you engineering points, but not much base XP.
Just the other day, I was curious about what would the rewards be if I really concentrated more on building USEFUL fortifications instead of concentrating on kills.
My base XP was triple what my score was on the leaderboard and even though I was in the middle of the pack as far as kills, the total XP earned with the multipliers for the victory and battle hero were very similar to a game where I would have had twice the number of kills.
That has to be an outlier situation then, getting as much XP as you are if you are killing, or there is some other aggregate number effecting the score. I’ll dig through all my screen shots, but you see people with 30-50 kills, 120+ engineering points, and basically 1900-2400 xp. Where I am sitting at 150+ kills, 10-30 Engineering points, and 7-8K approx (I’ll dig the screens for the actual numbers).
As well, sandbags, barbed wire, and Hedgehogs are just as valuable IMO. You should watch the two battles I did in Tunisia where the Allies turned every Damn building into a fortress. That should count for them, they should get FAR more XP than they were awarded. Those buildings are still indirectly helping the team and it should be something they are rewarded for doing.
You can only see another players leaderboard score, not the amount of base XP earned. And it’s easy to see how your own engineer fortifications are rewarded in the battle report. By mousing over each engineer it tells you exactly how much each was used.
Here are 3 screenshots with very similar BASE xp earned. The USEFUL engineering structures (defending the objective) make up for the fact that the other 2 matches had many more kills and vehicles destroyed. Again…engineers are rewarded well for building USEFULL fortifications.
I think your metric for what a good score from engineering is and mine are different, hence our opposing views. With you over 100 in that one match on Airfield you should have been in second place on the leaderboard with more XP than that.
Huh? The “score” on the leaderboard only determines who receives the “First Place in theTeam” Battle hero award.
The score on the leaderboard is totally unrelated to how much BASE XP is earned.
BASE XP is what matters not leaderboard score since that is the base number that the games formula relies on to calculate total campaign XP earned.
Check the difference in the 3 screenshots as far as BASE XP.
Okay so I obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding on some of the XP calculations they do.
It was explained to me wrong then by someone and I never got to see other players actual score because mine was off given my own play style. Thank you for the correction.
That makes me wonder, then actually, if I got it wrong, whom else might be looking at in the wrong way too since those numbers are, skewed. What a wierd way to work an XP display.
The important info is ALL in the “Battle Report” above the leaderboard. Not sure why so many concentrate on the leaderboard, it’s just for the bragging rights of being in 1st place.
The other thing that I notice a LOT. Players coming from other games seem to think that K/D ratio matters….it does NOT, except for fragile egos.
Review the full battle report and you will notice that there is NO deduction for number of squads lost, it shows on the leaderboard and you are limited in Conquest matches to 10 squads, but it has zero bearing on Base XP earned.
PLAY THE OBJECTIVE. Basically everything you do earns more base xp at the point. Playing it safe on the perimeter will result in fewer squads lost but much less base xp earned and you can’t cap from the perimeter.
That part I did know. I’ve never worried about (minus being more cautious on Conquest) using my squads to their fullest and in. I don’t care if I lose 20. If I get the objectives for the team, I know it was worth it.
More likely … they would PLAY THE POINT less. K/D ratio is for other games.
Speed, being aggressive and shrugging off deaths is what gains victories in this game.
To me “play more tactically” means playing it safe on the perimeter and not risking squads to defend or cap points.
