120MM SOV mortar

I wonder if it's just a meta thing tbh. And probably Guard Motor in particular.

Yeah it's more like a meta itself is too preferable for Soviet ATM. (I'm ofc talking about 1v1)

Soviet is extremly mp cost efficient in defense scenario.

First they have pile of 3(or 4) 7-man cons that only costs 18 mp to reinforce behind sandbag.

The only problem with conscript is that they lack fire power, but that can be managed with guard rifle + 120mm + t34/85.

I'm also +1 for removing retreat ability to pal with USF Pack Howi or OKW ISG.

Yeah it's more like a meta itself is too preferable for Soviet ATM. (I'm ofc talking about 1v1)

Soviet is extremly mp cost efficient in defense scenario.

First they have pile of 3(or 4) 7-man cons that only costs 18 mp to reinforce behind sandbag.

The only problem with conscript is that they lack fire power, but that can be managed with guard rifle + 120mm + t34/85.

I'm also +1 for removing retreat ability to pal with USF Pack Howi or OKW ISG.

The retreat should stay. Soviets are quite lacking in forward healing and retreat points. Unlike the other factions. If we give soviets as much acces to those it can be removed as a trade off.

I'm also +1 for removing retreat ability to pal with USF Pack Howi or OKW ISG.

+1

The retreat should stay. Soviets are quite lacking in forward healing and retreat points. Unlike the other factions. If we give soviets as much acces to those it can be removed as a trade off.

I cannot imagine what thoughts go through your head writing this, or how long it is since you opened the game.

Soviets do not need FRP. They have the merge ability and dirt cheap reinforcement cons. You put more work setting up a FRP than actually reinforcing through merge.

That's their basic mechanism. To not need FRP and be flexible due to merge. That way, you can reinforce very expensive units (like shocks or guards) for 18mp.

Your argument is out of reality.

Merge reduces your frontline infantry count


it isn't a magical free reinforce button + mortars are cheaper to reinforce on their own

Merge reduces your frontline infantry count


it isn't a magical free reinforce button + mortars are cheaper to reinforce on their own

Tell me how exactly you are reducing your frontline presence by splitting a shitty Cons unit to fully reinforce a Shocks/Guard one I am really curious.

Tell me how exactly you are reducing your frontline presence by splitting a shitty Cons unit to fully reinforce a Shocks/Guard one I am really curious.

because...your cons aren't garbage and are needed at the frontline too?

get a halftrack if you want reinforcement, although having guards/shocks and mortars and cons...very manpower intensive

I cannot imagine what thoughts go through your head writing this, or how long it is since you opened the game.

Soviets do not need FRP. They have the merge ability and dirt cheap reinforcement cons. You put more work setting up a FRP than actually reinforcing through merge.

That's their basic mechanism. To not need FRP and be flexible due to merge. That way, you can reinforce very expensive units (like shocks or guards) for 18mp.

Your argument is out of reality.

That you directly compare merge to forward retreat point/healing and callin cons shitty inf is 100% out of touch. Seems you need to update your game.

Cons havent been shitty for a while, when cons merge evevntualy they need to retreat regardless or they get wiped/used up, a fwrd retreat/reinforce point doesnt need to retreat.

Your thinking isent very based atm.

120mm is not op, that's the rub.

120s hurt but they should. They're expensive and doctrinal.

Tell me how exactly you are reducing your frontline presence by splitting a shitty Cons unit to fully reinforce a Shocks/Guard one I am really curious.

Because not only do they keep their larger conscript base target size, they lose all their utility like sprint and snare.

Putting cons into shocks is like plugging a hole in the wall with peanut butter. Yeah it will stop the draft for a little bit, but it's freaking peanut butter what are you doing with your life.

Because not only do they keep their larger conscript base target size, they lose all their utility like sprint and snare.

Putting cons into shocks is like plugging a hole in the wall with peanut butter. Yeah it will stop the draft for a little bit, but it's freaking peanut butter what are you doing with your life.

Ok so you unironically tell the whole forum that it's better to retreat shock troops in order to reinforce them for x amount of manpower rather than using merge and retreating cons in order to reinforce them for x/2 amount of manpower.

I would really hate to play with you as team.

Ok so you unironically tell the whole forum that it's better to retreat shock troops in order to reinforce them for x amount of manpower rather than using merge and retreating cons in order to reinforce them for x/2 amount of manpower.

I would really hate to play with you as team.

There is benefit of merging into Guards in my opinion, but not into Shock troops. Shocks are balanced around having their 1.5 armor to close in. If they don't have that, they will just drop before coming properly close to deal damage. At this point, you'd really be better of with a Conscript rifle that can do at least some damage mid to long range.

And even if we look at the pure MP cost: vs small arms, the MP cost is almost completely offset by missing armor and higher base RA.

Ok so you unironically tell the whole forum that it's better to retreat shock troops in order to reinforce them for x amount of manpower rather than using merge and retreating cons in order to reinforce them for x/2 amount of manpower.

Yes.

I would really hate to play with you as team.

Dear god, the basedsecretary is coping. What has the world come to?

Because not only do they keep their larger conscript base target size, they lose all their utility like sprint and snare.

Putting cons into shocks is like plugging a hole in the wall with peanut butter. Yeah it will stop the draft for a little bit, but it's freaking peanut butter what are you doing with your life.

This is laughably wrong. You lose a bit of RA (armour is glorified RA anyway) for half the reinforce cost. No brainer.

This is laughably wrong. You lose a bit of RA (armour is glorified RA anyway) for half the reinforce cost. No brainer.

shouldve gone x4 ppsh cons if one wanted cheap infantry

shouldve gone x4 ppsh cons if one wanted cheap infantry

Brainlet and purposely misguiding reply.

My original (and correct) point was that Soviets do not actually need FRP because their stock merge mechanism is way cheaper and more efficient than a commander or a halftrack to use, and also that's their core ability by the very game's design.

Now some people for some reason think that it's better to have a battlefield presence with mainly guards/shocks and retreat them in order to reinforce them while pushing with cons. We also discussed how incredibly stupid that is because it's both manpower-heavy and also cons are suddenly becoming an alpha male elite infantry that should not be spared for anything (<- sarcasm).

You make the most stupid strawman of all: you claim that all this time what our discussion was for cheap infantry. No, it was not. It was for a cheap and reliable way to reinforce elite troops for the cost of some shitty cons models, that only SOV can do. But no, let's forget all that and give them FRP because "Wehrmacht, OKW hab them! Plz lelic gib me ef ar pee!".

120mm has been fine since the auto-attack range nerf imo

If there's any issue it's the commanders that its on

Guard motor is one of the best commanders in the entire game, and shock army is pretty strong now too. Both of them have the 120mm and they'd both still be very strong even if they didn't

text

nonsensical and schizophrenic response.

you are arguing with yourself

This is laughably wrong. You lose a bit of RA (armour is glorified RA anyway) for half the reinforce cost. No brainer.

So Shocks have 1 Target Size and 1.5 armor, while cons have 1.09 TS and 0 armor. If my understanding of the penetration calculation is correct, then the chance for dealing damage against armor is (penetration/armor x 100).

Now, I'm not an information digger, so I might be wrong, but the only infantry weapon I know of that goes above 1 penetration is (besides the MG42 teamweapon) the LMG42 which ramps up to a whopping 1.2 penetration at close range.

So, against just about any small arms fire (G43, STG44, Kar98k, etc.) shocks have a 66% chance to be dealt damage. (1/1.5 x 100) Unless they are face to face with an LMG42, where it is an 80% chance.

That is effectively .66 target size. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Shocks gain a buff to target size with vet, but it's nowhere close to the base amount.

So you're trying to tell me that reinforcing a .66 base target size CQC squad (where it really matters!) with any amount of 1.09 target size models, is worth the nominal amount of MP gained and higher risk of losing DPS fast from model drops.

I can definitely see this not being an issue in close quarters maps with a whole lot of sightblockers so you can strong-arm infantry off the field with shocks ppsh before they get a chance to retaliate. But anywhere else? I don't think it's "laughably wrong".