Unit - Combat Engineer - Role: Battlefield Defense & Assitance

[Alex06]

Subject:
A type of unit that can repair civilian structures, de-mine areas, deploy bridges and build small defenses.

Description:
This unit wouldn't be the kind of Engineer of old C&Cs, but rather, more of support unit. A unit that can repair civilian structures to allow players to re-garrison them, like it is possible in Red Alert 2. This unit could also remove mines from areas, deploy bridges to cross small rivers and chasms and build a small battlefield defense or two.

This is not specific to a faction. For example, one faction's combat engineer, called a Sapper, could only repair civilian structures, whereas their dozer de-mines areas and builds bridges, and they would get a third small unit, a drone of sorts, that can repair vehicles on the battlefield and build a small defense.

This idea is merely a bridge for the possibilities of repairing extremely damaged civilian structures, removing mines, building small front-line bridges and defenses.

Positive Effect:
- The ability to repair structures or build bunkers to still allow the possibility of urban combat, even after all the garrison-able structures on the map have been damaged severely. (If they have been destroyed, then they can't be repaired)
- Allows for a more realistic, more dynamic, more interesting battlefield
- Can add strategy and remove the risk of every game degrading into a "tank spam".

Negative Effect:
- Hard to balance
- Issues with faction identity and uniqueness
- Might make the game too complex, especially for a C&C
- Hard to make possible with destructibility of Frostbite 2.

[Commander32]

I like!!! Give it to the EU. :P

[Victimizer]

Absolutely, combat engineering should be explored ingame: it is actually a very important, often totally overlooked factor of modern warfare. I don't want the typical CNC engineer with a yellow hard hat and a suitcase. I want a engineer grunt squad that drags around landmines, huge backpacks of equipment and still armed with assault rifles. :)

A combat engineering vehicle would also make sense: a tank armed with a stubby high caliber mortar and a dozer blade (http://media.photobucket.com/image/m60a3%20engineering%20vehicle/49th_2007/CEVsideshot.jpg). It would blast through walls and obstacles, and it would shred civilian buildings into pieces, but it would have a very short range. Once it has chopped the obstacles into manageable pieces, it would push the smoldering ruins aside with its dozer blade, making the ground passable again.

[Commander32]

I rethink that, give it to ALL factions. Just different Names like the Sapper for GLA.

[=LEVIATHEN=]

I like this idea a lot. This could do very well, and it would be a fun unit to use.

[CnC_Fin]

Sure why not. Bridge constructing sounds very interesting.

[Generals2]

I like it bro!

[Elearen]

I rethink that, give it to ALL factions. Just different Names like the Sapper for GLA.

This idea is just plain bad.
If it's the same unit, give it the same name.
The copout of faction diversity is renaming units.

[Alex06]

This idea is just plain bad.
If it's the same unit, give it the same name.
The copout of faction diversity is renaming units.
That's why I suggested giving different roles to different units across different factions, but still keeping most of these mechanics for all 3 factions.

[Commander32]

That's why I suggested giving different roles to different units across different factions, but still keeping most of these mechanics for all 3 factions.

Yeah, and it would be needed for all factions as it would be important. And it should be the only other unit besides workers that have about the same roles in every faction.