They're different character templates so you can have both classes, but they use the same name and icon.

Is this backwards compatibile with the previous version of the Combat engi?

@Povuh that's down to how lw2 secondaries is setup, nothing i can do here. @ironboy32 I still use the original so can't say with 100% certainty, but as long as stuff like perk template names are the same it 'should' work fine.

does this work with the elronhir fork of prof classes? Shire isn't updating the original anymore

It even happens if I aim the flamethrower the other way, so I was sure I wasn't damaging my cover in any way with that. All surrounding cover blows up when the smoke pops. Even cars instantly explode.

Hi, I've noticed on two occassions that the smoke cloud triggered after using the flamethrower is destroying the cover the combat engineer was standing behind. Is that supposed to happen?

Thanks for the prompt response. I'll have to check it out after this run then

There's not a version balanced for lwotc, but this'll work in lwotc if you're using proficiency with it (but bare in mind these are 7 rank not 8 rank soldiers so would be a lot weaker in that environment)

Looks cool. Is there a version of this compatible with LWotC anywhere?

@MrCloista

I mean CE is a useable class and definitely far better than the FA in terms of being able to contribute something positive every turn since its primary weapon is a Cannon so it still can do shooty things at base. And like I said, it has a niche with the long range Rockets. But in most situations I'd still rather have a base PCP class or PCP hero class over either the CE or FA.

The COMBAT ENGINEER 2.0 is my favorite Proficiency Class hands down. It's versatility makes it valuable in many situations, suppression, close encounters with the Flamer, Rockets for groups and it's ability to tank with suppression has many valuable applications including distracting the enemy. Not to mention it's ability to provide Cloistered Shielding .

I recommend pairing it with the mod Remove Scatter and Configure Tile Snap. I personally also use Improved Rocket Targeting with some config edits.

Dude, I play with Requiem Legion on hard mode. And this class does absolutely fine ;)

(Continued)

Maybe the difference in opinion is due to difference in mods aside from PCP. Everyone plays with different modlists, so I understand that what is OP for one player can easily seem UP for another player. I play with ABA + A Stronger Advent + larger pod sizes, and the enemy strength + density just makes close-range combat not that viable aside from flanking with Assaults/Templar, finishing something off, and getting out if I believe the remaining enemies will survive until next turn. SPARK punches are worth it too with Mechatronic Warfare.

Sorry for splitting up all my comment by the way. I had to due to a 1000 char limit.

(Continued)

Vanilla Ranger/PCP Assault/Templar all have stuff like Run and Gun, Implacable/Breaching Maneuver, Momentum, Exchange to help them get in and out as well as Untouchable or Parry to guarantee 1 enemy shot will miss (imo guaranteed miss/parry is better than taking hits and counting on armor/shields to save the soldier). A bunch of the vanilla PCP classes even have Implacable/Reposition on not-necessarily-close range classes (Sapper, Field Medic). I haven't really seen enough action economy so far on the Combat Engineer or Field Alchemist or guarantees for enemy misses where I feel like Chemthrower/Flamethrower builds are good, let alone OP.

(Continued)

I believe what is extraordinary about the Combat Engineer is the ability to fire rockets at a long distance albeit this is limited by number of rockets and the clunkiness of rocket targeting as well as high scatter values. Cannon Combat Engineer overlaps with Marine. And Flamethrower Combat Engineer is a cool idea but I don't really believe in close combat builds that don't have a lot of built-in action economy.

@MrCloista

Hi. Thanks for the reply. I guess I just don't see that much value in tanking in XCOM, which is why I didn't mention it. I believe in alpha striking and not pulling too many enemy pods at once. In situations where things go south and it looks like the battle will be protracted, I prefer to have SPARKs do the tanking because they don't mind getting wounded as much, have a bunch of immunities including can't panic, can't get mind controlled, can't get possessed by Spectres, flame/poison/etc. immune, can't get flanked (albeit they also can't take cover unless you equip them with a SPARK shield), can jump to high ground easily to maneuver and get defense bonus, have Sustain if they do die (they have to die twice), and can be rebuilt in the Proving Grounds if they really do die.

The Combat Engineer 2.0 is arguably stronger and more focused than the old version, which most considered to be overpowered. With the ordering of the trees you can focus it down whichever line but it is designed to be very 'jack of all trades' and you are missing the core of it's power in your comments - it's proficiency perk. CE2 is an absolute tank.

(Continued)

The Cannon tree in particular borrows too heavily imo from the base classes. I'm not sure if there's any point to going full Cannon tree when the Marine exists. I guess you get Demolition, but anyone who plays with the Combat Engineer also plays with base PCP and probably already has enough Sappers with Demolition. I think it's fine that this class uses a Cannon as not many classes share this weapon compared to weapons like Assault Rifles and Bullpups. But I just wish it had its own unique perks.

The Explosives tree seems to be the most useful aside from long missions. However, a problem I noticed with rockets is they can have very high scatter (as high as +-4 tiles or so). When coupled with the fact you only get 1 use of each type of rocket per mission and rockets' weird targeting/getting blocked by all kind of obstacles, I've found that the Sapper still performs much more reliably in the explosives role.

(Continued)

For the Flamethrower tree, I see cool perks like Quickburn and Roust, which maybe rightfully belongs with the Field Alchemist imo, seeing as it's the chemthrower specialist class. It would really help the Alchemist with it's lack of range and poor action economy. I don't know how to make both the Field Alchemist and Combat Engineer good at the *thrower niche while both having their unique perks. It's pretty challenging given that *throwers means you have get in close combat and deal with the weird targeting.

@MrCloista

Hi. I left a comment as well on your Field Alchemist class, which I've tried in conjunction with the Combat Engineer 2.0 and a couple other classes.

I think the Combat Engineer is overall stronger in power level than the Field Alchemist, but is weaker still than the the base PCP classes/other classes I've tried in the early and midgame.

The Combat Engineer seems to have an identity crisis. As another comment pointed out, maybe it is too "Jack of All Tradesy".

Subscribed. I'm really excited to try this out!

I always avoided the original Combat Engineer because it seemed a little too "Jack of All Tradesy," borrowing a lot from the other Proficiency Classes and just mashing it all together into one class. This release seems much more focused, and much more balanced. The class really seems to specialize in all aspects of their gauntlet weapons now, with the Protective Equipment proficiency allowing them to push in close so they can deliver that sweet, sweet gauntlet goodness.

I love it that rockets are no longer an afterthought, and that the class seems to lay claim to a unique identity among the Proficiency Classes as a walking tank/shock trooper.

I can't wait to give this new version of the Combat Engineer a shot in my upcoming Covert Infiltration campaign. Thanks to @MrCloista for taking the time to revisit and revise this project several years after the initial release. The modding community for this game really is special.

Outstanding release! I've thoroughly enjoyed testing this version and now we have the official release!

They'll work together fine but you'll have some confusing localisation ;)

Just wondering,seeing in files its called MrC_APA_CombatEngineer2,its fine to use that and the other one which is MrC_APA_CombatEngineer? Kinda like having 2 variants of the class.
Or is there still a chance of some conflict?

Always loved this class and now the changes that were made look very good, all of the basically mandatory perks were moved to Proficiency which will make variety much better for this class. Can't wait to run it in my next campaign.