Suggestion: Sniper role change- anti-cover Thread - Red Alert 3 Paradox mod for C&C: Red Alert 3

There have been various discussions on how to balance Snipers in Paradox, but I think the core problem is in the role they play.

Currently, Snipers are more or less just another infantry counter; and they are probably doing the job too well and stepping on the toes of basic Infantry too much.

I propose that their role be shifted from "Long-ranged infantry counter" to "Anti-garrison and cover counter."

To do this, I propose these two changes:

1. Reduce the amount of damage that Snipers do so that they are outclassed by basic infantry in open field warfare.

2. Make Sniper damage ignore the effects of cover and garrisons.

These changes would shift the Sniper's role from another general infantry counter to a unit made to snuff enemy infantry out of heavy cover and garrisons where conventional warfare against them is difficult.

They would take awhile to kill the enemy infantry, but they would force them to retreat out of the Sniper's range or force them to fight: thus the slow kill rate would not impede this role.

As for a hand-wave for change #1, if an Infantryman can withstand a single Shotgun hit, why not a Sniper round?

Edited by: Galgus

To be truthful, it makes alot of sense to me, though I am doubting the codability, paticularly in reguards to garisons.

I think Conscript Molotovs damage infantry in garrisons- they don't just one-shot them.

Galgus wrote: I think Conscript Molotovs damage infantry in garrisons- they don't just one-shot them.

actually each molotov just have a chance to kill the garisoner.

i belive

I think I've had Infantry get out after one hit with damage.

Whenever a molotov is thrown into a building a unit inside gets damaged like they got hit with a molotov in open field. The question of snipers garrison clearing still overlaps with standard infantry (well some of them), and the confederates already have a long-range garrison clearing unit. I don't mind snipers having a garrison clearing role, but they would still clash with standard infantry. I could see a damage reduction, or a rate of fire reduction, but it might not change the fact that snipers are really just a tier 2 anti-infantry specialist.

indeed if they share anti garrison and anti infantry as a niche, they doesn't add much.

Clearing garrisons with the ability to avoid attrition warfare would make them better at it than basic Infantry in a way, while not completely requiring them against garrisons.

Anyway, there is also the anti-cover role, which will likely become much more important when the system is working as intended.

One goal of this change would be to make Snipers kind of trash at standard open-field warfare, so that it is reserved for Basic Infantry.

Snipers are basically infantry control. They're all higher tier than basic infantry, and aren't all super effective. If they don't all one shot kill infantry(they reload slow anyways, so this isn't a huge deal imo) then they basically become basic infantry. It's what makes a sniper a sniper.

Currently, they are super-effective.

They are basically a better basic infantry you get at level two in most situations: making a needlessly hard Infantry counter while stepping on the toes of basic infantry.

With this change, they would be utility units meant to force enemy infantry out of cover and garrisons- not just a better version of basic Infantry.

They don't need to be very cost-effective in open field warfare to fill this role and to be an important part of an army.

(Every balance problem Snipers have is amplified when they are in a fireport transport or a garrison because they are an easy way to remove their natural weaknesses.)

If you're fighting against Tier 2 infantry, use vehicles.

Are you admitting that the Sniper is an infantry invalidator?

If so, what game-play value does a long-ranged infantry invalidator add to the game?

Infantry being phased out as the game goes on is a problem in normal RA3: something to be fixed, not increased.

(Although Cover is a step to fixing that, Snipers seem to be two steps back.)

Anything invalidating a unit type to the point where one cannot use them is never a positive thing, in my mind. However, shifting them into the role of forcing Infantry out of cover and garrisons as well as countering fireport transports would make them a legitimate counter to a tactic, but not an invalidator.

You would think that instead of forcing infantry out of cover a sniper would actually force them into cover, as infantry would scramble to hit the dirt after the first guy dies. Perhaps snipers should suppress infantry, and then have a problem killing infantry on who are suppressed. If it would be possible and not incredibly hard to do I think making snipers easily kill non-suppressed infantry, but have trouble with suppressed infantry might help. One could then make basic infantry slowly move up and overwhelm a smaller group of snipers, with a delay since they (basic infantry) would be suppressed. Of course this would need to be tried, and I'm not sure of code ability, but that may solve the problem.

Edited by: norm0616

Suppressed infantry against a Sniper are dead infantry though, since the Sniper has loads of range and all the time in the world to kill them.

Suppressed infantry get a defense boost. What I'm trying to propose is that since it's harder to take a shot with infantry in cover the Sniper gets a large damage reduction on suppressed infantry, so they can move up with taking relatively few losses. For instance normally a sniper bullet is one-shot one kill, but against a suppressed infantry unit it takes several shots (at least 4 on one unit), so the sniper becomes more of an infantry control and support unit. Making a sniper remove cover would be like making them fight with normal Red Alert physics, which I doubt will have much actual application in the field (at least with current cover system).

Suppression kind of takes away the attack of light infantry, and if the Sniper can kite them almost indefinitely, it may not matter if it takes awhile to kill them.

Game-play wise, I think it makes more sense for the Sniper to be the cover counter- meaning their attacks ignore the effects of cover, forcing infantry to leave fortified positions against them.

(It actually wouldn't make much difference whether or not they ignored the effects of cover as far as forcing enemy Infantry out goes. The biggest thing it would change would be difficulty against counter-snipers.)

A simple response to kiting could be 1) give the sniper a long set up time, 2) give the sniper a rate of fire so they cannot indefinitely suppress infantry between shots, 3) make the sniper have to reload after some number of shots so infantry have a time they can get up and charge the sniper. Regardless I think snipers should be a way to pin infantry down, not a way to flush them out.

The central problem is that the Sniper is an unneeded extra infantry counter on open ground.

By making them anti-cover and garrison experts, they retain a central role without being invalidators. Removing their ability to one-shot Infantry might break away from an old theme, but that kind of Sniper is not well balanced.

The big problem with making them experts at pinning Infantry down is that they themselves are well equipped to kill pinned Infantry. Allowing them to force Infantry out of places where they can bunker down against traditional attack is still a very helpful role.

Edited by: Galgus

I'd rather have snipers removed from the game, since the beginning of their introduction I've always said that it'll be a pain in the arse to balance and there are many other substitutes that fit well into an infantry invalidator/controller(riot agent, chemical trooper,dustrunner, Hospitaller, Firework mistress, scouts and etc). There's also a garrison clearer in almost every cheap basic infantry or specialized vehicles you can obtain...

They fill roles that any other infantry can fill and takes away the Syndicate niche of being the only ones who field long range units in all spectrums of their war machine. All in all the pain they give is not worth implementing into the gameplay(however I do believe they give a healthy degree of tactics and that it'll work if only implemented in the Confeds and Synd).

Galgus wrote: Are you admitting that the Sniper is an infantry invalidator?

Not necessarily, it's called a hard counter for a reason and I'm saying you should use a hard counter to kill snipers, which are hard counters to infantry.

snipers are weak and easily illusable in large battles. a loose gun form wither side can bring a whole squad to death. a lone chopper does the thing by accident. the only sniper with sufficient momentum is the confederate marksman, with his beamrifle.

R3ven wrote:

Galgus wrote: Are you admitting that the Sniper is an infantry invalidator?

Not necessarily, it's called a hard counter for a reason and I'm saying you should use a hard counter to kill snipers, which are hard counters to infantry.

Its more of a diamond counter in the sense that it hard counters them without giving them a chance to fight back.

A Sickle vs a group of Tankbusters is more a case of hard counters fighting hard counters.

And except for the Marksman and Rifleman, who still can't damage them any, vehicles diamond counter snipers - the sniper's cant even attack them.

I don't really see the problem with them - they're a niche unit best suited towards taking out high profile infantry targets. Play a game versus GriffonZ and his fifty Spetsnaz and see how many infantry your snipers invalidate before they're overrun. Basic infantry aren't invalidated because they're workhorse units easy to mass in numbers and capable of rolling against higher tier infantry three or four versus one, while snipers are more ambush units designed to take out support or other specialized units like engineers, infiltrators, Commissars, Tunnel Rats, etc. One Sniper versus four Imperial Warriors should not a Sniper win create.

If anything, increase reload time between shots so they can't fire indefinitely over and over, and slightly increasing set up time seems honestly the best way to go: One shot, one kill, now get out before their snipers, animal scouts, etc. flush you out or kill you.

Thats like stating that a unit that instantly kills aircraft is fine because ground can hit it and it can't hit ground. Theres a difference between a Sickle countering a peace-keeper and a MBT somehow invalidating another MBT.

It is quite easy to fortify an area against basic infantry rushing a Sniper- a single MBT to run them over would probably do the trick. Snipers currently excel at open field warfare, and can replace basic Infantry in their role later on easily. If anything, RA3 needs more incentive to train underused Infantry, not some kind of invalidator.

Snipers being effective in open field warfare turns them into anti-infantry diamond counters that can easily invalidate Infantry based tactics. I disagree with Ifork's proposal to remove them from the game, but I believe that shifting their role into forcing enemy infantry out of safe positions would be better for the game- and solve the problem of Snipers in fireport transports.

(I wouldn't mind if they one-shot enemy infantry in a garrison or fireport transport- just not in the open field.)

erm, what? a sniper costs much, can be ineffectualized by it's own cost in basic infantry (depending on the enemy's faction), and is less effective then a MBT, which can run over the enemy infantry, sometimes even ignoring 3 javelin troopers, basicly invalidating 1900 with it's cost of +-800, how's that unbalanced when compared to a sniper, who can with it's same tier and 500 bucks only kill about 3/4 infantry before they get too close. that's a 1:1/1:1.2 effectivenes.