My thoughts & ideas on Conscripts

Ok then how about with that HQ frontoviki upgrade that I suggested (keep in mind you would first have to unlock it from the HQ and then upgrade each squad individually and they would have to be vet 3), which would be a resource drain, as well as the increase to reinforce by 5) you also remove merge from the upgraded squad as these guys are meant to represent experienced Soviet soldiers and they are nor cannon fodder to be joined to a depleted weapons team?

1) How much exactly would:
-The HQ upgrade cost?
-The squad upgrade cost?

2) What exactly would the upgrade have in it?
What exact stats?
What exact weapons?
What exact abilities?

3) Removing Merge at that point, sure. But if you mean that as a kind of negative, cos theyve already had it since the very start for free anyways, so its already had value throughout the match. Know what I mean?

That is still yours(extremely flawed and based on knee jerk reactions) logic. Trying to enforce it onto me doesn't make it mine. Its also your opinion, not a fact based on what exactly? Nothing but paranoia.
k.

As I said, and you apparently conveniently ignored:

If Cons get a native weaopon upgrade option, in the same way that Grens have one, then it directly means Grens also would have to get 2 native starting abilities ewuivalent to Merge and Oorah, to keep asymmetric balance inline.

I suggest Sprint and Medikit, as they are sort of similar to Merg and Oorah and already have code.
Another Vet ability can be replaced into that slot.

Sorry if that is inconvenient for you, but you sort of have to remember other facrions when you are balancing, and not do it in a "i want this!" vaccuum way where you ignore how that changes balance for other factions too.

So yeah, Im ok with a Cons weapon upgrade, as long as its maintained in balance by compensating two native abilities for Grens too. Otherwise we end up with Cons simply being much much better thanks to not only also having a weapon upgrade, but also two native abilities, not to mention a 6man soak AND cheaper reinforce per man!

Not really rocket science to see that basic equivalence. Quite elementary, I think

And who said it should be in the same way?

Are you even reading what people suggest or just shooting artilerry barrages of denial from your festung bias bubble?

Last time I've checked there was more then raw weapon upgrade to make the conscripts scale better, also last time I've checked stats DP-28 was still only half as good as LMG and still, it wouldn't have to be LMG if it was weapon upgrade route.

And who said it should be in the same way?

Are you even reading what people suggest or just shooting artilerry barrages of denial from your festung bias bubble?

Last time I've checked there was more then raw weapon upgrade to make the conscripts scale better, also last time I've checked stats DP-28 was still only half as good as LMG and still, it wouldn't have to be LMG if it was weapon upgrade route.

You should read my posts instead of ranting.

These last posts have been specifically and only about a weapon upgrade option, as ontopic with suggestions of that. You falsely imply anyone has said they would be "as good" as LMG, and its irrelevant infact whether they worse, as good, or better, because it doesnt change the fact it leaves Grens hanging without 2 native abilities, for purposes of asymmetric balance.
Im discussing a Frontniki option with SilverSage, also ontopic, in that context.
I discussed reducing Cons reinforce/upkeep at T3/T4 with those who suggested those, in that context.
I discussed veterancy changes with Steel.

So yeah, I am actually reading what people are suggesting, and responding specific to those.

Tbh so far its pretty much just you who isn't actually discussing the topic, but just attacking posters.
Haven't seen you make any single actual suggestion anywhere, just harassing people from the sidelines.

1) How much exactly would:
-The HQ upgrade cost?
-The squad upgrade cost?

2) What exactly would the upgrade have in it?
What exact stats?
What exact weapons?
What exact abilities?

3) Removing Merge at that point, sure. But if you mean that as a kind of negative, cos theyve already had it since the very start for free anyways, so its already had value throughout the match. Know what I mean?

1) -The HQ upgrade would cost both MP and fuel and would become available to purchase after the construction of Tier 3/4. Perhaps 250 MP and 40-50 fuel but I am open to suggestions. That way if you wanted stronger conscripts right away it would slow your ability to produce armour. This would also encourage building tier 3/4 and lessen call-in spam.

-The squad upgrade would be 120 MP per squad (keep in mind the reinforcement cost of these squads would be 25 as opposed to 20 of normal cons), so in total you would be spending 360 on this ''frontoviki'' squad. Again I am open to suggestions if people feel a small (5) fuel cost should also be attached.

2) -As Steel and I discussed I believe that the conscripts should stick to being best at close range, so a pps43 would be my weapon of choice. It would cost 40 muni to purchase and perform worse than the ppsh so that the doctrinal weapon is still an advantage (ppsh does not require the HQ upgrade investment and performs better for the same muni cost). While not as good as the ppsh it would still give Cons a boost in close range combat.

- In terms of stats a slight increase to accuracy is the way I would be going, this way even though they lose some long range dps (due to losing rifles for smgs) the remaining Cons equipped with rifles would be more accurate and more consistent in dps. That way they don't become completely ineffective at ranges further than 15 etc. This would represent their experience with their weapons having fought on the front lines. As they already get a survivabilty bonus at vet 3 (at least I believe so) I don't think they would need any received acc buffs.

- No new abilities, the only change in abilities would be loss of merge. I can see your point about them having it from the start but once they lose it it shows they are more of a combat focused squad rather than being used in a primarily utility role. If you want to continue using merge then you will need a normal con squad to do this.

EDIT: Also normal cons cannot merge with frontoviki as this would lead to unintended results.

1) -The HQ upgrade would cost both MP and fuel and would become available to purchase after the construction of Tier 3/4. Perhaps 250 MP and 40-50 fuel but I am open to suggestions. That way if you wanted stronger conscripts right away it would slow your ability to produce armour. This would also encourage building tier 3/4 and lessen call-in spam.

-The squad upgrade would be 120 MP per squad (keep in mind the reinforcement cost of these squads would be 25 as opposed to 20 of normal cons), so in total you would be spending 360 on this ''frontoviki'' squad. Again I am open to suggestions if people feel a small (5) fuel cost should also be attached.

2) -As Steel and I discussed I believe that the conscripts should stick to being best at close range, so a pps43 would be my weapon of choice. It would cost 40 muni to purchase and perform worse than the ppsh so that the doctrinal weapon is still an advantage (ppsh does not require the HQ upgrade investment and performs better for the same muni cost). While not as good as the ppsh it would still give Cons a boost in close range combat.

- In terms of stats a slight increase to accuracy is the way I would be going, this way even though they lose some long range dps (due to losing rifles for smgs) the remaining Cons equipped with rifles would be more accurate and more consistent in dps. That way they don't become completely ineffective at ranges further than 15 etc. This would represent their experience with their weapons having fought on the front lines. As they already get a survivabilty bonus at vet 3 (at least I believe so) I don't think they would need any received acc buffs.

- No new abilities, the only change in abilities would be loss of merge. I can see your point about them having it from the start but once they lose it it shows they are more of a combat focused squad rather than being used in a primarily utility role. If you want to continue using merge then you will need a normal con squad to do this.

360 manpower and 40-50 fuel seem quite expensive for a squad that is very short range focused. You would probably lose a model when you reach the target if there is no cover around to use. So I think it should be more like 150-175 manpower and 30-35 fuel for the HQ upgrade and 120 manpower for the squad upgrade.

I think that giving cons have a PPSH upgrade after T3/T4 is built is the way to go. The ability should be weaker than the doctrinal counterpart and as such it would be something similar to 60 muni for 3 PPSH. The doctrinal version would still be an improvement in the sense that no T3/T4 is needed and you get 4 PPSH for 40 muni.

360 manpower and 40-50 fuel seem quite expensive for a squad that is very short range focused. You would probably lose a model when you reach the target if there is no cover around to use.

Yup as I said it is open to discussion, the initial HQ upgrade is a once off so once you do that the fuel cost is spread between the squads you upgrade so it would only be worth your time if you had at least 2-3 vet 3 cons hanging about (promoting squad conservation). So 40 fuel for the HQ upgrade and then 60 MP and 5 fuel per squad.

That would be a total of 300 MP and 5 fuel per squad (not including the HQ upgrade). How does that sound, any input is welcome.

EDIT: Just saw your suggestion, yes 120 MP per upgrade could work if you didn't want to attach a fuel cost to it. Whichever worked better in terms of balance I would support.

As I said, and you apparently conveniently ignored:

If Cons get a native weaopon upgrade option, in the same way that Grens have one, then it directly means Grens also would have to get 2 native starting abilities ewuivalent to Merge and Oorah, to keep asymmetric balance inline.

I suggest Sprint and Medikit, as they are sort of similar to Merg and Oorah and already have code.
Another Vet ability can be replaced into that slot.

Sorry if that is inconvenient for you, but you sort of have to remember other facrions when you are balancing, and not do it in a "i want this!" vaccuum way where you ignore how that changes balance for other factions too.

So yeah, Im ok with a Cons weapon upgrade, as long as its maintained in balance by compensating two native abilities for Grens too. Otherwise we end up with Cons simply being much much better thanks to not only also having a weapon upgrade, but also two native abilities, not to mention a 6man soak AND cheaper reinforce per man!

Not really rocket science to see that basic equivalence. Quite elementary, I think

That's not how balance works. You don't buff a fine unit because an underperforming unit of the same type is buffed too. As Katitof said, Relic didn't upgrade P4 damage to 240 when T-34 damage went to 160. Because that's not how they do things, thankfully.

The problem is, the assymetric balance between grens and cons is not fine at the moment. Even accounting for conscript's abilities, they still scale worse than LMG grens because their DPS is so much smaller. Apart from Merge which is a poor man's (200 mp 30 fuel oh my) halftrack, the very only thing cons are better at than grens is Ooorah + AT nade, and conscripts have to pay for their AT nade, not to mention even with Ooorah this is pretty useless against a supported or properly microed tank. Meanwhile, LMG grens have a vast dps and range advantage over conscripts, which easily allows the Ostheer player to use no other infantry all game and still have them perform very solidly while only a-moving them. I should know, I do it. Conscripts are more micro-intensive than grens for much less return on investment and time.

Does that mean conscripts should match grens? No, because Soviets have other infantry options while Ostheer only has PGrens (and well, Ostttruppen if you wanna count them). A prospective weapon upgrade for conscripts (which I don't even favor anymore, a reinforce cost decrease at T3 like Siberian proposed would be OK) would not be the equivalent in dps increase of the LMG42, but a gap closer between the two units. Grens would still win, just not by the ridiculous margin they do now, and conscripts would be able to actually properly support the rest of the army as something else than punching bags, due to not having peashooters anymore.

It is also a good reminder for all that we want changes for vetted cons (I hope I am capturing the general tone of this thread). Having them at vet 3/2 and around all game long should be rewarded/incentivized.

early/midgame con squads are ok and I don't think anyone wants to change that. Also, no one is suggesting that conscript squads just roll over all other infantry late game, just a modest upgrade/stat boost for vetted infantry

The_Courier: As I said, a weapon upgrade option, no matter how it compares to LMG, would still necessitate adding native ability equivalents to Grens in compensation.

Cons:
-Weapon Upgrade
-2 native abilities
-6man and cheaper reinforce

Grens:
-Weapon Upgrade

See the disparity?

Anyways, as you clearly said, you no longer favor a weapon upgrade option anyways, so we might as well drop that element of the discussion between us.

Ninja: If Vet stats are changed, it would mean vanilla V2-3 Cons would outright beat vanilla V2-3 Grens, and also be very effective vs Support Teams.
I dont think touching the vet stats is a good approach to this.

The_Courier: As I said, a weapon upgrade option, no matter how it compares to LMG, would still necessitate adding native ability equivalents to Grens in compensation.

Cons:
-Weapon Upgrade
-2 native abilities
-6man and cheaper reinforce

Grens:
-Weapon Upgrade

See the disparity?

Ninja: If Vet stats are changed, it would mean vanilla V2-3 Cons would outright beat vanilla V2-3 Grens, and also be very effective vs Support Teams.
I dont think touching the vet stats is a good approach to this.

Did you read my post further up in response to your questions? I'd like to hear your opinion on it.

The frontoviki would have
-An smg upgrade (close range, grens would still win at long range due to LMG)
-1 native ability with the loss of merge
-6 man with 25 per reinforce making 5x25 = 125 to get back to full strength, grens in comparison are 30x3 = 90. A more direct comparison at 50% (3/6 men left) it would be 75 mp for these upgraded cons while at 50% (2/4 men left) it would be 60 for grens.

I am looking to make them better in close range, grens would still beat them at long range.

The_Courier: As I said, a weapon upgrade option, no matter how it compares to LMG, would still necessitate adding native ability equivalents to Grens in compensation.

Cons:
-Weapon Upgrade
-2 native abilities
-6man and cheaper reinforce

Grens:
-Weapon Upgrade

See the disparity?

Anyways, as you clearly said, you no longer favor a weapon upgrade option anyways, so we might as well drop that element of the discussion between us.

Ninja: If Vet stats are changed, it would mean vanilla V2-3 Cons would outright beat vanilla V2-3 Grens, and also be very effective vs Support Teams.
I dont think touching the vet stats is a good approach to this.

Is ppsh negative equivalent to grens G43?
Is molotov?
Is AT nade?

And stop saying cons are cheaper to reinforce.
5x20 is not less then 3x90.

6 men squads are balanced by incomparably better dps of german squads, its already factored in the balance, so it is no argument at all.

Also, there is no such thing as vanila vet3 grens, LMG is too effective not to have it, so its not an argument as well.

Just admit already that you give no shit about buffing cons so they are actually useful after 8 minute and leave the thread instead of zealously defend your grenadiers right to walk over them in any circumstances.

Did you read my post further up in response to your questions? I'd like to hear your opinion on it.

I did read it, and think its good in theory.

I'd be alright with implementing it as you propose.

However I have a very bad feeling its not at all what some of the "others" here actually want, if you know what I mean. I fear you are going to get a lot of poopoo from some of them on it.

I am not sure about the numbers so vet changes may or may not be a good idea. But this is for highly vetted squads only so I think we would not see a huge game changer, just a small one. The player would have to build more conscripts during the game, and need the tools and skills to keep them alive til late game in order for these benefits to kick in.


but Cannonade, I think what you are saying about grens getting upgraded because cons get upgraded is unreasonable. the whole point of helping cons late game is that they retain their usefulness. Molotov and AT nade drop off once the high dps infantry and high armor vehicles roll out. All the work that the player puts in keeping their cons squad alive quickly evaporates. Grens get the LMG upgrade which increases their damage a lot. I would say their usefulness significantly goes up, while cons squads flat line around mid game

Is ppsh negative equivalent to grens G43?
Is molotov?
Is AT nade?

Doctrinal. Irrelevant.
Asymmetric equivalent
Asymmetric equivalent

And stop saying cons are cheaper to reinforce.
5x20 is not less then 3x90.

Cheaper PER MAN. Learn to read.
Deliberate misrepresentation. Dishonest.

6 men squads are balanced by incomparably better dps of german squads, its already factored in the balance, so it is no argument at all.

Implying small arms are the only weapons/ordnance on the battlefield.
Deliberate omission. Dishonest.

Also, there is no such thing as vanila vet3 grens, LMG is too effective not to have it, so its not an argument as well.

There is such a thing, and the LMG comes at a 60muni cost, which therefore was not spent elsewhere, which qualifies the unit having better DPS.
Deliberately ignoring the economic cost. Dishonest.

Just admit already that you give no shit about buffing cons so they are actually useful after 8 minute and leave the thread instead of zealously defend your grenadiers right to walk over them in any circumstances.

Deliberate personal attacks. Disregarded.

The_Courier: As I said, a weapon upgrade option, no matter how it compares to LMG, would still necessitate adding native ability equivalents to Grens in compensation.

Cons:
-Weapon Upgrade
-2 native abilities
-6man and cheaper reinforce

Grens:
-Weapon Upgrade

See the disparity?

Anyways, as you clearly said, you no longer favor a weapon upgrade option anyways, so we might as well drop that element of the discussion between us.

Ninja: If Vet stats are changed, it would mean vanilla V2-3 Cons would outright beat vanilla V2-3 Grens, and also be very effective vs Support Teams.
I dont think touching the vet stats is a good approach to this.

I don't think you understand how things are at the moment.
To simplify it:
grens>cons
grens w/ lmg>>>>cons

That's taking into consideration all their stats. See the disparity? However you look at it gren are just a lot more cost effective than cons are, what this thread is trying to do is bring cons closer to the cost effectiveness of grens. This isn't about asymmetrical balance because in the first place comparing both of them will lead you to the conclusion that grens outperform cons.

Didn't know We were playing a symmetrical game. You are turning this forum like the official ones with this kind of post :/

cons squads flat line around mid game

Part of the problem is that Cons come out of the box as a 6man, cheap reinforce unit with 2 native abilities.
They appear "flat" in terms of progression because they already have so much utility right from the get go.

The only "advantage" Grens have over Cons, is their weapon upgrade option (subject to Muni investment)
Whereas Cons have the "advantages" of 2 abilities, 6man and cheaper per man reinforce.
See what I mean?

Molotov and ATNade dont drop off anymore substantially than RNade or Faust towards lategame.
I dunno what you mean by this.

And the thread about conscripts has finally reached 200 posts. Congratulations and thank you to everyone for making this thread a success.