Conscrits AT Package

This thread with volks MP 40 and situation in live with British Infantry Section remind me about unique upgrade for Conscripts from Tank Hunter Doctrine - PTRS-41 package.

This upgrade fully change the role and ability roaster of the unit, and in comparison with other weapon upgrades - overloaded with changes. Even if compare it with british AT and default IS, there is not so much differences in role on the field.

Here is the list of changes when squad gets this upgrade:
- Grants with 3 PTRS-41 AT rifles;
- Molotov replaced with Vehicle Tracking or so;
- RPG-43 replaced with RPG-43 grenade assault;
- Squad gets the ability to cloak in the cover.

I think this list of changes is big enough to propose separate it from conscripts into doctrinal squad and name it "Tank Hunter Riflemen" or so.

Though?

P.S. This thread also can be used to discuss the statement of the doctrine and what do you want to see changed here.

What if you decide to pick your doctrine 10 mins in the game, you are full of infantry squads and you want to have the PTRS Cons? I don't like the new trend of every squad being a call-in with a bit different weapon. It takes away the flexibility of modifying your build if you decide to pick the doctrine later. I would only reserve the call-in infantry for squads problematic to balance like Brits (Boys and SMG Sections) whose bolster is optional, or infantry squads that are too different to stretch it as a weapon upgrade (Pathfinders, Falls, JLI, Assgrens, Guards, etc.). If possible I would prefer to stick to infantry upgrades rather than forming a completely different squad.

I think thisbidea could cause huge issues with the power level of SOV T1 builds.

Conscripts are high utility units and also doctrines should reflect that you might be able to upgrade them later in the game.
Both specialized call in units or unlockable upgrades can be decently designed, but there is no reason to generally favor one of the other. It should depend on the faction and context of the upgrade.

Current way is fine as it is.

Cons are very flexible squad with various role changing upgrades in doctrines, but they never excel at anything they do, they are one true jack of all trades, considering all the different doctrinal options.

Having separate units for different AI roles help because one can custom tailor vet bonuses timing and cost for these units. For instance imo SMGs units should have a reinforcement discount.

For AT units its a bit different. Actually I would be tempted try the exact opposite and make Boys an upgrade for tommies.

As PTRS conscripts they an odd creation. What I had suggested was to move all the upgrade and all these bonus to PTRS Penals instead.

Ok, i see the point, but does it ok, that this upgraded has so much changes all together? Compared it with other doctrinal upgrades, and iirc none other doctrinal weapon upgrade changes the unit in so drastical way (except already discussed MP 40).

I don't say it's OP or UP, it just feels wrong to me in current situation.

Keep it as is. I second blueknights point about having a bunch of cons and then choosing the commander

Ok, i see the point, but does it ok, that this upgraded has so much changes all together? Compared it with other doctrinal upgrades, and iirc none other doctrinal weapon upgrade changes the unit in so drastical way (except already discussed MP 40).

I don't say it's OP or UP, it just feels wrong to me in current situation.

I agree and I had point out that at the time.

Think this is a simple case of how one create an avalanche by choosing the wrong path and continuing down that path instead of reversing.

It all started with Penal, after they got patches they where utterly broken, instead of correcting what broke them (they crazy DPS boost) they decided to keep them and replace the flamer with PTRS, by then the PTRS Penals overlapped with both guards and PTRS Conscripts so instead of removing PTRS from Penals they buffed both Guards and PTRS conscripts so that there would be a reason to build them...

What if you decide to pick your doctrine 10 mins in the game, you are full of infantry squads and you want to have the PTRS Cons? I don't like the new trend of every squad being a call-in with a bit different weapon. It takes away the flexibility of modifying your build if you decide to pick the doctrine later. I would only reserve the call-in infantry for squads problematic to balance like Brits (Boys and SMG Sections) whose bolster is optional, or infantry squads that are too different to stretch it as a weapon upgrade (Pathfinders, Falls, JLI, Assgrens, Guards, etc.). If possible I would prefer to stick to infantry upgrades rather than forming a completely different squad.

+1 - it wouldn't be an advantage in this case. The doctrine needs to be reworked but adding a different type of infantry isn't the problem.

It all started with Penal, after they got patches they where utterly broken, instead of correcting what broke them (they crazy DPS boost) they decided to keep them and replace the flamer with PTRS, by then the PTRS Penals overlapped with both guards and PTRS Conscripts so instead of removing PTRS from Penals they buffed both Guards and PTRS conscripts so that there would be a reason to build them...

I see that you like to keep this false story.

Guards were nerfed because Penals with flamers into transition into Guards were OP. Then they rollback the nerfs although the total sum of the changes was still a nerf because it was grouped up with removal across the board of cheese/QoL features.

There was never a reason to build PTRS conscripts EVER (unless you count when they used to destroy support weapons).

...

I don't think it's an issue at all. Conscripts design had always been around a "modular" approach. With commanders you give them different extra roles.

Whether it be repairs, assault (PPSH) or soft AT. The problem was that the upgrade was simply bad.

Yes, the unit get's plenty of changes, but i don't think those are changes which drastically change how you approach similar units or what you would expect from them.

We have other units with similar combinations of abilities or other upgrades which provide multiple bonus (although not as heavy as the PTRS/M40). For example Veteran squad leader (+1 man, G43, RA, cd, free medkit), Support package for PG or Pio "demolition package" (whatever is called)

There was never a reason to build PTRS conscripts EVER (unless you count when they used to destroy support weapons).

I think they're really strong tbh. Camo + AT grenade assault is really effective. You also keep oorah which helps for the snare a lot

I think they're really strong tbh. Camo + AT grenade assault is really effective. You also keep oorah which helps for the snare a lot

Talking about pre Tank Hunter rework. The 2 times i remember seeing the commander in action was either when PTRS cons were destroying MG42 and support weapons AND some meme strats with the extinct salvage kits for engineers (talking about lenny T34 spam and recovering the wreckages).


The PTRS + AT grenade assault had to be fused in a single option, cause on it's own it was bad. It's the same that happen with several other commanders across factions.

We have other units with similar combinations of abilities or other upgrades which provide multiple bonus (although not as heavy as the PTRS/M40). For example Veteran squad leader (+1 man, G43, RA, cd, free medkit), Support package for PG or Pio "demolition package" (whatever is called)

VSL doesn't change the grens role on the field, you save all your abilities and get additional member squad. Moreover, you use grens in the same way against same units with and without VSL.
With PTRS-41 upgrade, you lose several abilities and almost all AI efficiency.
In the end, VSL is not an weapon upgrade. G43 here is addition, not the main element.

I see that you like to keep this false story.

Guards were nerfed because Penals with flamers into transition into Guards were OP. Then they rollback the nerfs although the total sum of the changes was still a nerf because it was grouped up with removal across the board of cheese/QoL features.

There was never a reason to build PTRS conscripts EVER (unless you count when they used to destroy support weapons).

There is nothing false in the story.

Guards where in higher power level because the "dance" bug was fixed. There was a time that spamming Guards was quite popular.

There was also a time when PTRS conscripts spam was also a thing, you can even find video of PTRS conscripts blobs. There was always also reason to use them if one goes T1 and wants protection from vehicles but there is little reason blob them, there simply better commander out there and I do not think that the rework was very successful.

But my point was different. By making PTRS available stock we ended up with increased power level of Guards and PTRS conscripts because of overlap. Changes to Penal created ripple effect that ended up to many changes across the board.

VSL doesn't change the grens role on the field, you save all your abilities and get additional member squad. Moreover, you use grens in the same way against same units with and without VSL.
With PTRS-41 upgrade, you lose several abilities and almost all AI efficiency.
In the end, VSL is not an weapon upgrade. G43 here is addition, not the main element.

The role is changed. Grens by default are not "Assault" units, only when they play with G43 or VSL they are effective to be played in that way.
Indeed they don't lose what they already have. For me, the only issue if there is one, is the clarity of what you should expect from a unit when you see it on the field.
And in the case of Cons with PTRS, i think it's fine.

There is nothing false in the story.

Guards where in higher power level because the "dance" bug was fixed. There was a time that spamming Guards was quite popular.

There was also a time when PTRS conscripts spam was also a thing, you can even find video of PTRS conscripts blobs. There was always also reason to use them if one goes T1 and wants protection from vehicles but there is little reason blob them, there simply better commander out there and I do not think that the rework was very successful.

But my point was different. By making PTRS available stock we ended up with increased power level of Guards and PTRS conscripts because of overlap. Changes to Penal created ripple effect that ended up to many changes across the board.

I've address both points already. Tank Hunter doctrine saw use when PTRS were destroying support weapons and in meme games (using salvage to recoup mp and fuel through T34 spam).

The "increased power level" of Guards is your own fictitious narrative.

List of nerfs:

-More expensive (30mp), 1/3 of xp gained through PTRS, less deflection dmg, worse vet 2 by moving half of the value to vet 3, worse total RA by 0.02 at vet 3, grenade nerf (on top of been less wipy it's less effective against garrison), pop increase, tripwire removed

List of buffs:
-0.03 RA at vet 0, fixing/QOL of rebuying weapons, hit the dirt ability

List of buffs:
-0.03 RA at vet 0, fixing/QOL of rebuying weapons, hit the dirt ability

Most importantly fixing the "dance" bug...
So they went from not being used very little to being blobbed for a while.

(edited to make some people happy)

Most importantly fixing the "dance" bug...
So they went from not being used at all to being blobbed for a while.

Keep believing that lie.

Keep believing that lie.

I edited original post and fixed it for you.

Now it your opinion that "dancing" guards where anywhere near the power level of normal guards?

I edited original post and fixed it for you.

Now it your opinion that "dancing" guards where anywhere near the power level of normal guards?

Yes, because Guard Motor and other Guards commander were extremely meta and used through 2013 to end of 2015 (around the time i think the Penal and dance fix) was implemented.

The effect was NOT detrimental to their performance to the point that i would consider current Guards been stronger than their old version.

Yes, because Guard Motor and other Guards commander were extremely meta and used through 2013 to end of 2015 (around the time i think the Penal and dance fix) was implemented.

The effect was detrimental to their performance to the point that i would consider current Guards been stronger than their old version.

Thanks you. That was my point.