My thoughts & ideas on Conscripts
- This thread is locked
Posts: 665
Posts: 971
A role change for Penals seems more urgent than a Conscript buff, yes. Penals need to either be effective short ranged or long ranged infantry. This crap of putting SVT40s alongside flamethrower makes no sense.
Penals are needed at the early game. As conscripts do fine at short-range, penals should be useful at mid-long range. If needed, remove the flamethrower and give them any other cheap ability.
That should fix soviet early game infantry issues.
But still there should be a reason to keep conscripts alive at midgame and onwards. I think that decreasing their reinforce cost once T3/T4 has been built will make them still useful as cannonfodder, reinforcing units and AT support.
I don't think that this could break the game balance, as conscripst's stats will keep being the same and their AI/AT capabilities so late in the game are not to be afraid even if spammed.
Posts: 752
But still there should be a reason to keep conscripts alive at midgame and onřwards. I think that decreasing their reinforce cost once T3/T4 has been built will make them still useful as cannonfodder, reinforcing units and AT support.
I don't think that this could break the game balance, as conscripst's stats will keep being the same and their AI/AT capabilities so late in the game are not to be afraid even if spammed.
Bit of a contradiction there, saying you think they should have a reason to "be kept alive", but then you propose a cannonfodder role, which is pretty much exactly the opposite of keeping them alive...
They infact already fulfill that role due to 6man nature and a 1/3 lower per man reinforce cost than for example Grens. They carry a full two mens worth more soak, and each of them cheaper to replace.
Furthermore they already fulfill the reinforce units role throughout with Merge, and AT support with AT-Nade, especially with Oorah speed which makes it that much more possible to land the ordnance.
Therefore I dont see any actual justification, based on the reasons you give, for the change you propose.
Some people seem to operate off an assumption that Cons "should" scale to lategame, but are ignoring the fact that Cons actually carry their scaling capacity from the start. One means to demonstrate that, is imagine if Cons only got Oorah/Merge once you built T3/4. That would constitute scaling, but instead, as is, Cons already actually get this native advantage right from the start, at no additional cost.
Cons are fine.
Penals are the missing link.
Posts: 1705
Penals on the other hand for almost same cost as rifles are total shit-especially past the early game.
Posts: 875 | Subs: 6
Posts: 2819
They should be a longrange unit with a certain upgrade to make them a viable good, longrange unit that can compete with other late gameunits.
Now its just overlap with cons.
Posts: 110
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I think the idea relic had for penals was that of suicide squads handling dangerous weapons like flamers and satchel charges, that's why they keep SVTs short range.
Initial cost of penals used to be 360mp.
They were as much intended suicide squad as pgrens.
When will people stop trying to balance unit around what it looks or sounds like?
Posts: 110
Initial cost of penals used to be 360mp.
They were as much intended suicide squad as pgrens.
When will people stop trying to balance unit around what it looks or sounds like?
What, I never said anything on how they should be balanced.
Wanna know what I think about balance? I think they need a huge buff because as it is they suck shit.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Posts: 2070
I didn't specifically adressed you here, just in general the people who hear "penal" and are "OMG SICID ZQUAD" or the ones who believe JLI should be 4 man sniper squad that works like german sniper(yes, there are people believing that, stuck in total denial of stats).
I think they should be inspired by their historical usage. Obviously balance comes first but characteristics should be taken from how the unit was utilized in WW2
Posts: 8
Posts: 752
At cost, if for example Penals cameout with roughly G43 equivalent SVTs (that I hope and suggest), they sort of should be better than LMG Grens, when further upgraded with DPs. But Im ok with risking that for starters, it can be tuned as needed thereafter.
First of all, because in a long range engagement, Grens still have the RNade advantage, whereas I see it that Penals would keep the Satchel (which is operable only much closer in) and the lack of a direct armor disabler. Otherwise I would be tempted to suggest a MP increase to 400. But seeing as they lack an ATNade, and Satchel is out of their optimum, I think the 360 cost is reciprocated.
Though Penals, perhaps, have been designed as a "suicide unit", its not consistent with the rest of Sov infantry optimum ranges. Cons and Shocks already have a close optimum. Guards try to fill the longer range gap, but are natively saddled with 2xPTRS. Sov needs Penals to work like a G43 Gren in terms of mid-long and also somewhat in regards to moving accuracy to fill the gap other Sov infantry simply cant.
Second, as Ive said before, I propose a full spectrum upgrade option to allow Penals to diversify into the "gap" roles left outside of Cons, around Doctrinal Guard/Shock, and to bolster the vanilla unit variety for non-callin Commanders.
__________________________________________________________________
1) Change Penals to have SVTs which roughly equal G43s, but accounting for normal infantry small arms equations in regards to the size of opposing units (which now also are mostly unarmored).
2) Implement a variety of upgrades from which to choose ONE, at fair Muni costs (especially so as to not step on Guards as another natively diverse and upgradeable option):
-2x DPs: (which should tbh be improved for both Guards and for purposes of this Penal proposal) so that Penals with DPs perform slightly better overall than LMG Grens at all respective ranges. An increase in DP setup time might be necessary to offset this. This so that Penals can upgrade to face LMG units for raw dps, especially in scaling towards lategame. Button presents a problem here. If Penals have Button too, it marginalises Guards. Personally, I would move Button to PTRS for Guard and Penals.
-2xPTRS: Primarily to support non-Guard Commanders as a light AT option. As above, I suggest moving Button to PTRS, because frankly the dual role of DPs as both a Buttoner and an infantry weapon is a weird split, that I think is limiting the DPs infantry firepower element, AND limiting PTRS AT function as dedicated weapons for those specific purposes.
-1xFlamer + Full PPHSs: Primarily to support non-Shock Commanders. I dunno how used this would be, as it completely reverses the otherwise SVT/G43 style optimum, but I think it would find uses often enough to fill the gap if you need more close assault potential, especially in conjunction with Satchel. Depending on Muni cost and how this variant pans out, a small armor upgrade might also be conducive in this option.
Point being to change Penals into a very diversifiable core unit that can, at cost, handle long range combat in a way Cons cannot, fill the gap in all directions for Shock/Guard/Non-callin Commanders (and why not Partisan ones too), and provide a vanilla backbone to the ubiquitous Cons, that is good at whichever specific function it is upgraded to (though not as good as the true dedicated Callins).
Know what I mean?
__________________________________________________________________
I know some will respond with historical accuracy comments, and suggestions that they be changed to Strelky, and such. Fsct of the matter though, is Penals where often given the most dangerous tasks, and usually equipped appropriately to perform them.
Their "expendable" nature was not rooted in wanting to just kill them off, but in the fact they could be directly ordered and forced to take the missions nobody else would. The kinds of missions that the rate of attrition would have been unnacceptable to order especially conscripts to die for. Its an ambiguous line, and Penal legions are an enormous area of ethical and military controversy, but pragmatically they simply where more expendable than others, as punishment for their perceived crimes. Nonetheless, especially in the cold mathematics of war, it is pointless to send men to die on an impossible mission. Even Penal men (and especially these men) are too valuable to waste with no useful outcome. So when they where given these dangerous missions, they where supported with equipment and backup, as much as possible, so that they could atleast have a chance of success, despite rates of attrition unconscionable for other units.
__________________________________________________________________
Important note: Another reason why Penals really stand out as the missing link in Sov infantry structure, is how well Cons synch with them. Especially thanks to one extremely crucial and almost as underused ability as Penals are, which is Merge.
A Con build can indefinately continue to Merge into and support Penals, at very equitable cost, for much greater combat efficiency, than Cons themselves carry. As interesting as Merge is with Support Teams and Shocks/Guards, it can really stand to shine in terms of constantly reinforcing and keeping Penal units (with the options and diverse effectiveness Ive tried to suggest above) as a unit that really never leaves the field. Hell, they even have Oorah to help them relocate between fronts!
Its a synergy made in gaming heaven, and such a sorely missing element in Sov play, specifically because right now, Penals just arent worth it, so this synergy rarely if ever can be capitalised on. And again, another crucial reason why Penals really are the missing link. Everything else is there just waiting to support for Penals to be improved/changed to take the role that belongs to them.
TLDR: Penals, if changed as I propose, stand to synergise with Cons (due to Cons ATNade and Merge especially) in such a way that it takes the pressure off of all Commanders and allows for more baseline diversity. This unit really is the one that can stand to be the binding glue between Cons/Guards/Shocks and even Partisans that works togetger with them, filling the gaps the others cannot, whilst also synergising with them in a way that together they are greater than their parts.
Posts: 1439
How can you use Volksgrenadiers as a comparison with a straight face? Volks scale into late game and Conscripts don't. That's the entire point of this thread.
They provide utility due to Shrecks.
Posts: 665
Bit of a contradiction there, saying you think they should have a reason to "be kept alive", but then you propose a cannonfodder role, which is pretty much exactly the opposite of keeping them alive...
They infact already fulfill that role due to 6man nature and a 1/3 lower per man reinforce cost than for example Grens. They carry a full two mens worth more soak, and each of them cheaper to replace.
Furthermore they already fulfill the reinforce units role throughout with Merge, and AT support with AT-Nade, especially with Oorah speed which makes it that much more possible to land the ordnance.
Therefore I dont see any actual justification, based on the reasons you give, for the change you propose.
Some people seem to operate off an assumption that Cons "should" scale to lategame, but are ignoring the fact that Cons actually carry their scaling capacity from the start. One means to demonstrate that, is imagine if Cons only got Oorah/Merge once you built T3/4. That would constitute scaling, but instead, as is, Cons already actually get this native advantage right from the start, at no additional cost.
Cons are fine.
Penals are the missing link.
Conscripts do not break any reinforce rules, stop trying to pretend they do. Half the cost of the squads, same as almost every single infantry unit in the game. Hell it costs 100 mp to bring them back from 1 man, and 90 to bring grens back. Conscripts have nothing particularily meat shield-y considering their 6 men go down just as fast to Axis weapons fire than german 4 men squads from allies's generally lower dps weapons.
Ooorah and AT nades (that you pay for with fuel unlike any other faction) are not useful scaling, not anywhere near as effective as shrecks, LMG42s or BARs/1919s. The former allows you to punish an opponent's micro mistakes if you spend ammo and roll the RNG dice if your conscripts happen to be in the area. The latter means your infantry can either reliably damage vehicles for the rest of the game, or gets a big boost to anti-infantry damage. AT nades are in fact nothing special, and everyone save OKW (who have very strong non-doctrinal AT nevertheless) gets them for free, but somehow it's supposed to be a holy grail for Soviets because it's the one thing conscripts are semi good at after the 10 minute mark?
Penals need fixing more urgently, but that doesn't make conscripts fine.
Posts: 1439
I don't understand why it's so hard to realize for you guys. I never build more than 2 squads of Cons because, unless I pick PPSH doctrine (then I'd go full on Cons), I will rely on Elite infantry late game.
You are also wrong on 6 men getting killed as fast as four men squad. Sorry but no and the difference is noticeable. Not to mention all these squad wipes that plagues OH.
Posts: 752
Conscripts do not break any reinforce rules, stop trying to pretend they do. .
Wtf are you even talking about?
Have you even read the thread or the context?
Nothing you have said many makes any sense to me.
Im here for constructive discussion, thats why I take effort with long and detailed posts, not weird disconnected garbage like this.
Stop trying to troll. Im not interested in that at all, nor is anyone else.
Please dont post to me, and I wont post to you either.
Posts: 2070
Posts: 665
Wtf are you even talking about?
Have you even read the thread or the context?
Nothing you have said many makes any sense to me.
Im here for constructive discussion, thats why I take effort with long and detailed posts, not weird disconnected garbage like this.
Stop trying to troll. Im not interested in that at all, nor is anyone else.
Please dont post to me, and I wont post to you either.
You act as if conscript's renforce cost is something special or a perk of the unit, when it's not. You act is if conscripts are tough meat shields, when they are not and drop just as fast as anyone else past the 5 minute mark. I don't how that is nonsense.
It'a also highly ironic to claim that you want discussion, then snip part of a sentence from an entire post and slap an accusation of trolling on top of it. Very credible.
@ Oz: the point is not that conscripts should be very good all game, just that they should be given an extra scaling mechanism to make them more in line with other basic infantry which scale far better than them. I mean, the existence of paras doesn't stop riflemen from scaling, PGrens don't stop grens from scaling, OKW's bevy of elite infantry doesn't stop Volks from scaling, why should Shocks and Guards stop conscripts from scaling?
Maybe the problem is that other basic infantry scale too well (which leads to problems like LMG42 blobs, rifle spam and Volks blobs) but I don't see Relic nerfing those three down to conscript level.
Also, if upgrades for conscripts are bad for balance as some (like Milka) claim, I'm not sure what putting them on Penals instead would accomplish. Methinks Penals need a role change more than upgrades.
Posts: 142
Buff Penals so that they become good late game close range unit (with Flamethrower).
Buff Conscript so that they can vet up faster and stronger and have some use in late game.
LMG42 should be nerfed, rifle spam and obers should be nerfed so that they can't one-two shot snipers from 40 range.
Livestreams
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.615222.735-2
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.918405.694+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, tik2video
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM