My thoughts & ideas on Conscripts

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.

Thats just false though.

Grens=Cons
LMG Grens>Cons
(Obviously, for 60Muni)

Both cost the same.
Both stats are optimised for small arms vs opposing factions model counts.
Both have the same Vet stats.
Both carry AT/AI ordnance options of asymmetric equivalency.
Cons have 6man and cheaper reinforce.
Cons have 2 native abilities.
Grens have weapon upgrade.

I have no idea where you have gotten it into your head that vanilla Grens > vanilla Cons.
I completely disagree.

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.

The fact that they don't scale well into mid-late game doesn't reinforce the point of their utility. IF cons did have much utility as you say they do then why is it that they don't scale well later into the game as opposed to grens?

Having utility means that they are still relevant at a certain point. At mid-late game the utility of conscript squads are extremely limited hence they don't scale well into the late game. This is what the thread is trying to address, the utility of conscripts in the mid-late game.

Oh so we're going back to where it favors germans, its asymmetrical balance, it favors allies, its bad balance? Cool beans.

Arguing you is futile because you're completely immune to any amounts of reason and logic and spin things around as much as you can so it suits your own arguments, so I'll just stop and try to ignore you in the future threads.

This is what the thread is trying to address, the utility of conscripts in the mid-late game.

They have a high level of utility THROUGHOUT the game, owing to the native factors of being 6man, cheap, and the 2 abilities, that no other baseline units have, right from the start.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Other units don't have these things.
Instead, they have DPS upgrade utility at Muni cost.

You seem to be asking that Cons have BOTH that high level of utility that they uniquely have, right from the start, that other units dont have, AND then also a DPS upgrade utility ONTOP of those for mid-lategame.

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

yeha this has actually been a very good thread. very happy it hasn't gone to hell

I wouldn't buff cons and penals simultaneously,after lmgs nerf i expect shocks to be so OP for a while that they'll get a short nerf.
With lmg nerf,give penal buff i would see how cons are doing.
Then consider if they need tweaking..any big change and ppsh-41 cons will become OP.Lmg nerf would indirectly buff all close range units.
All this is ofcourse assuming maxim gets nerfed.

Thats just false though.

Grens=Cons
LMG Grens>Cons
(Obviously, for 60Muni)

Both cost the same.
Both stats are optimised for small arms vs opposing factions model counts.
Both have the same Vet stats.
Both carry AT/AI ordnance options of asymmetric equivalency.
Cons have 6man and cheaper reinforce.
Cons have 2 native abilities.
Grens have weapon upgrade.

I have no idea where you have gotten it into your head that vanilla Grens > vanilla Cons.
I completely disagree.

Not quite as well.
AT nades/molotes both require research(125mp/15fuel each)
Rifle nades need battle phase 1 research(200mp/45fuel) while faust is available from the start. Battle phase 1 is a natural progression with the Ostheer while AT nade/molo isn't.
cons having 6 man and cheaper reinforcements is asymmetrical balance to grens having less but stronger man/squad.
merge+ooh rah<LMG upgrade

Frankly we aren't talking about the asymmetrical balance between gren vs. cons. This thread is about how the cons can still remain relevant mid-late game and as such this is my last post regarding asymmetrical balance between the two.

They have a high level of utility THROUGHOUT the game, owing to the native factors of being 6man, cheap, and the 2 abilities, that no other baseline units have, right from the start.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Other units don't have these things.
Instead, they have DPS upgrade utility at Muni cost.

You seem to be asking that Cons have BOTH that high level of utility that they uniquely have, right from the start, that other units dont have, AND then also a DPS upgrade utility ONTOP of those for mid-lategame.

My really final post about the asymmetrical balance, promise.
As a Soviet player who uses conscripts in all my builds I don't see the high level of utility they have mid-late game you keep trying to tell me. By all means do show us what you mean (and I want replays to boot) because as someone who has spent a considerable amount of time playing soviets I don't see the utility you keep telling me.

So show us with a replay just so we know that it truly is possible and not just some combat theory being used.

Cannonade, seriously, I'm having trouble understanding your reluctance to make Conscripts useful.

They don't win engagements. I've tried to make 4 con T2 -> Zis -> Maxim/PM-42 -> ZiS -> ZiS -> T3 -> HT (field presence) -> whatever type strats work since the beginning of whenever. Conscripts possess no ability to hold off Axis infantry pushes or to initiate any of their own without exuberant levels of support--we're talking at least a pair of ZiS guns (one alone will be eaten by anything on treads that has a Balkenkreuz painted on it), a mortar (smoke is a must to enable closing the distance without being torn apart), at minimum three, at best, 4, Conscript squads, usually a tag-along Maxim to enable your troops to fend off derprushes, and if you're feeling fancy, an M5 HT and a T-34. Disregarding teching costs, youre looking at

320 MP x2
240 MP x6
270 MP x1 (optional)
30 FU.
----
2350 MP, 30 FU total.

To defend a single location on the map, I'd usually put my bet on a pair of Grenadier squads, an MG42, a Mortar, and a PaK. If you're being super fancy, you'd throw up a bunker for reinforcing and have a pioneer shit out a patch of Shu mines. We'll assume your Grenadiers have LMGs, because really, who wouldn't?

240 MP x4
200 MP x1
320 MP x1
160 MP x1
60 MU x4
-----
1640 Manpower, 240 Munitions.

See the cost difference? This is for one spot on the map; the rest of the Ostheer players' army is elsewhere doing blitzkriegy, "Fur das Vaterland"-y stuff.

The costs, as have been shown, are almost equal (on a per squad basis), with the Soviet player needing to shell out MORE manpower after heavy losses in engagements--and let's not kid ourselves, more often than not, the Soviet player will suffer more casualties in your average engagement. So the Soviets are shelling out more manpower (on reinforcements), or a dead even amount (new squads) for a unit that doesn't perform as well as the opposition, and who's only advantages are the ability to construct free heavy cover, sprint for a very short duration, and make use of a marginally useful reinforcing ability that will still bleed you vs. axis players if, say, you use it to reinforce a one-man Guards squad. YOU STILL DO NOT COME OUT ON TOP.

Even PPSh Cons are blech, especially in team games--where I usually play (take the ZOMG 1v1 bullshit and shove it, this isn't the place). You need to close the range--just like Shock troops--except youre invariably squishier and will have to retreat at least one squad before you can close the distance ("flanking" is far more limited in chokepointy 3v3/4v4 maps).

If trying to defend, holding ground, you still lose--those same Grenadiers can shit out rifle grenades and alpha your squads before they even need to close to ranges where your Mosins can lay the hurt on. If I build Maxims I risk losing the gun and the whole crew if I don't baby it and repair the gun--not a rare thing in the hail of mortar and rifle nade shells in your average team game. Even if you don't lose the squad, you still need to retreat or risk losing the survivors to the high DPS of long-ranged Axis squads.

Cons never come out on top, ever. I have yet to see them carry engagements; only if they hide behind a literal wall of (soon-to-be-rendered-toothless) Maxims and constantly reinforce them via merge (that costs more than simply reinforcing the crew at a HT or at base) do they count towards the fight.

If we go off and spam Penals to try and stay in the fight, then I'm paying MORE than you (the Axis player) are to get a squad that can kinda, sorta stand toe to toe if I micro the living hell out of it--you must make no such efforts because your raw DPS more than compensates.

What option do you have for us Soviet players, this being leveled at Cannonade who has let forth a spout of fairly ridiculous advice; we're supposed to rely on elite infantry (that costs more than yours) that can just manage to stand even to yours? Oh, and we can use team weapons too-sadly, those will be nerfed in the near future. Oh, we have tanks! Wait, no, those are inferior to yours unless we count doctrines, and the Axis community wants doctrinal Soviet tanks nerfed too. So, assuming all of these changes go through, what the hell are we supposed to do when playing Soviets? Drown your grenadiers in a sheer tidal wave of blood and entrails? Force your troops to fire until their barrels burst, weapons jam, and we can then leap up, charge them, and bash their brains in with our sharpened entrenching tools?

Throw us a bone man; I played a couple team games as the Axis and couldn't stand it anymore because it was no fun--it was too easy!

so buff cons and penals, nerf maxim and sniper?

Bad_vader and Volsky:

Fine.

Then remove Oorah/Merge, and make PPSH a native upgrade at T1+.

That's not my goal. I don't like the PPSh; having to close into spear range with a unit that gets shredded by longer-ranged DPS is worse than standing some sort of chance with just rifles.

Also, I still fail to see how merge (that still leaves you high and dry, cost wise) vs. Ostheer players, or Oorah that at least lets your Conscripts be marginally more mobile (bearing in mind that they still go tits up against Axis infantry) need to go if Conscripts become useful ish in face of Axis DPS.

I've no personal issue with going with a PPSh doctrine; I try to make the best use of Soviet non-doctrinal units as I can. What ticks me off is that that's the ONLY weapon upgrade I can get my hands on. Guards are still weapon piñatas, and Penals cost more than Grenadiers and can just manage to stand toe to toe on the inside edge of mid-range against LMG'd Grenadiers.

That's not my goal.

Fine.

Then lets get real here.

What exactly, and specifically, is the change to Cons you personally propose?

So far Ive only seen whining, contrived theoretical scenarios, "i dont like this and that", hyperbole, an apprent degree of faction bias and a good deal of personal attacks from you.

What EXACTLY is it you would suggest be the SPECIFIC changes made to Cons?

So far Ive only seen whining, contrived theoretical scenarios, "i dont like this and that", hyperbole, an apprent degree of faction bias

Dude... that like describes 100% of your posts in this thread.

In case you have missed the memo for the last 10 or so pages, the goal is to help cons scale in any way into late game unless you love seeing sniper and maxim spams until the end of times.

Anything will go, from weapon upgrade, to better vet scaling/late tier upgrades/oorah additional effects at vet3, basically anything that isn't doctrinal.

I'll just stop and try to ignore you in the future threads.

Well, that sadly didn't last long.

Also, you seem to have difficulty in reading again:

What exactly, and specifically, is the change to Cons you personally propose?

I PERSONALLY asked Volsky for HIS personal specific proposal.
Him, personally. Not you.

So unless you are accidentally posting on the wrong account, you have no business answering for him. I asked him for his personal proposal. Not you.

Anything will go, from weapon upgrade, to better vet scaling/late tier upgrades/oorah additional effects at vet3, basically anything that isn't doctrinal.

Notice the use of the words EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY in my question that was addressed PERSONALLY to another poster?

So there again, you misread as there is nothing exact or specific in your answer anyways (to a personally addressed post that wasn't even directed at you in the first place.)

When I want your opinion, I will ask for it. (And no, that will never happen).

Now stop it, you are destroying the thread in more ways than one.

You've asked good question, I gave general answer, not answer to you. I acknowledged your denial and unwillingness to have a reasonable conversation based on facts, units performance and better then you players feedback(Sib), but if the question is good, I will answer it for general reader as there might be ones who are willing to have a constructive conversation instead of taking on "Festung Never Buff non axis" doctrine.

You've asked good question, I gave general answer

The question was for a specific and exact proposal.
(and addressed personally to another poster, so as to understand their personal proposal on the issue)

So no, your "general" answer failed there again.

General is sort of the exact opposite of specific and exact, fyi.

You said you would ignore my posts, well, do so then.
I know you don't like me, but stop trying to destroy the thread.

Now stop it, you are destroying the thread in more ways than one.

No, you and Katitof are going on and on about your bickering while other posters are actually contributing.

Siberian and Cruzz have both come into this thread and said conscripts need some love. Along with the overwhelming lack of evidence that they are used competitively (bar one good player who relies more on penals and 120mm mortars from what I saw), this indicates they do need love. We can elaborate as to how they can be given some scaling, or we can stand there declaring Merge to be God's very gift to the dirty commies and nitpick over every single line the guys on the other side of the football stadium type.

No, you and Katitof are going on and on about your bickering while other posters are actually contributing

Guy keeps attacking me. Thats hardly my fault or responsibility.

I've had civil and constructive discussions with numerous posters here on various proposals, as well as myself contributing a very lengthy and considered Penal proposal too here as a means to help alleviate the gap left in Sov infantry structure around Cons.

We can elaborate as to how they can be given some scaling

Back to topic and ignoring the hyperbole:

What is your specific and exact proposal for how you would change Cons?

Conscripts can keep being shit if their upkeep or reinforce cost decreases at mid/late game. That way they won't be an annoyance to keep them alive and reinforced.

Penals are the ones who need some buff or change of role to make sniper/maxim spam unnecesary.

That change will be the less intrusive of all the ones proposed, and it won't affect balance as conscripts will be as effective as they have been till now.