My thoughts & ideas on Conscripts

Then i think we should remove the lmg42 from grenadiers.

I can also create a situation. 3 vet 0 conscripts vs 3 vet 0 grens with LMG. The conscripts get stomped. Or 3 vet 3 conscripts with the new vet vs 3 vet 3 LMG grens. Conscripts get stomped slightly less. Over the course of a game, 180 ammo is not a lot, certainly easier to accumulate than 3 vet 3 conscripts squads that have piss poor damage. that's for damn sure.

Vet is not free, you earn it in battle and with unit preservation.

Besides, unless you dominate your oppononent, vet 2 conscripts just don't happen before LMGs start hitting the field. Grens will still have the initiative, it's just that conscripts have a bit more of a fighting chance if they reach higher veterancy.

And, as several people have said time and again, the matchup is currently not balanced. There is no requirement to buff grens if we buff conscripts, just like there is, say, no requirement to buff the Easy Eight if we buff the Panther. It's not a convincing argument.

Why are you so fixated on fighting Grens with Cons on equal terms? By the time Grens get LMGs and some vet you should have your Guards, Shocks running and fighting.
Imagine situation when Cons and Grens are equal. German player have 5 squads of Grens, while Soviet player have 3 squads of Cons + 2 squads of Guards or Shocks. Right now Cons are worse than LMG Grens but Elite infantry tips the scale. Now, by making Cons equal to Grens we put German player in disadvantage as on top of equally good Conscripts he has access to Elite infantry as well. I don't think this would be fair.

No

The same weapon on different squads already perform differently, IE: Rifleman m1919s are slightly worse than Paratrooper's m1919s

Also, giving them a Dp-28 does by no stretch "turn them into guards". They have significantly weaker rifle dps, would only have 1 dp, and don't have those good grenades.

Since the removal of armour Guards are basically Cons with DP-28 upgrade and PTRS rifles.

If you're not going to freaking support the idea of better Conscripts, then give us an additional man at Vet2 and Vet3, and reduce the reinforce cost per man by five at each of those respective levels.

Mid/late game when you'll get vetted squads like that, all of the cover has been blasted away and is comprised of craters that will hold 8 men. Sheesh.

Vet1 - blabla whatever we get now
Vet2 - blabla whatever we get now, squad size +1, reinforce cost per man from 20 to 15
Vet3 - blabla whatever we get now, squad size +1, reinforce cost per man from 15 to 10.

Is this drastic and slightly ridiculous? Yeah, sure. But how often do we see hordes of vetted Cons skittering across the map? Now they're weak infantry with which you can vet up all of your precious Axis squads, and Soviet players will now actually be able to drown said units in the blood and entrails of our fine Conscripts.

Before you go off and get your panties in a knot, Cannonade, remember that this is 2 additional utterly garbage Conscript rifles. Like, Cons vs. CE--not the end of the earth, shall we say?

Vet1 - blabla whatever we get now
Vet2 - blabla whatever we get now, squad size +1, reinforce cost per man from 20 to 15
Vet3 - blabla whatever we get now, squad size +1, reinforce cost per man from 15 to 10.

So just to be completely clear.
The above is your personally preferred proposal, yes?

So you want V2 Cons to be a 7man unit that costs only 15 MP to reinforce per man, and V3 Cons to be a 8man unit that costs only 10MP to reinforce per man?

You do realise that 2 extra men also adds 33% more total DPS as compared to now?
That at 10MP that would be fully half of the current cost to reinforce per man?
That this with Merge means Cons can reinforce Guard/Shock/Penal and Support Teams for 10MP?
That a naturally V2 Con would beat a naturally V2 Gren unless it pays an additional 60Muni for LMG?
That basically this would result in Cons scaling 33% in both soak and DPS, for free?

Infact therafter costing 50% less, though they are now infact 33% better?

The_Courier instead proposed a 5MP decrease in reinforce at T3/T4.
What do you think of that?

Dont you think you are starting the scaling a little early already at V2, when the issue was lategame Cons (V3)?

So just to be completely clear the above is your proposal, yes?

So you want V2 Cons to be a 7man unit that costs only 15 MP to reinforce per man, and V3 Cons to be a 8man unit that costs only 10MP to reinforce per man?

You do realise that 2 extra men also adds 33% more total DPS as compared to now?
And that at 10MP that would be fully half of the current cost to reinforce per man?

The thing is we are trying to find a way to help improve how cons perform mid-late game. All these are simply suggestions on how to improve them. What you keep telling us is that if con gets buffed grens should get buffed also(BTW thats not how buffing/nerfing works) which is NOT what this thread is about. Frankly we don't give a sh*t about grens in the thread(thats just you) what we just care about is how to give cons longevity/better cost efficiency in the mid-late game.

Back on topic, I still say giving them a weapon upgrade like PPSH that is weaker and costs more than the doctrinal counterpart(3 PPSH for 75-60 muni) which requires T3/T4 is a good option since it still gives the doctrine several key advantages over the non doctrinal counterpart.

Another good option is the lower reinforcement costs later into the game since it allows cons to be more cost effective as the game goes on.

The thing is we are trying to find a way to help improve how cons perform mid-late game. All these are simply suggestions on how to improve them. What you keep telling us is that if con gets buffed grens should get buffed also(BTW thats not how buffing/nerfing works) which is NOT what this thread is about. Frankly we don't give a sh*t about grens in the thread(thats just you) what we just care about is how to give con longevity/better cost efficiency in the mid-late game.

First of all, I was asking for clarification from Volsky on his personal proposal, not you.
Second of all, Indidnt mention any Gren buffs at all there.
Third of all, you are one person, so its a bit odd you refer to yourself repeatedly as "we".
Fourth of all, this thread is about lategame. Not midgame.
Fifth of all, although you dont give a shit about anything except getting Cons something you personally want, that doesnt mean you can ignore the effect on balance overall, just to get it. I doubt very much Relic balances according to the logic you use that "Well, I dont give a shit about anything or anyone else except buffing this unit". This is referred to as "balancing in a vaccum" and is considered a bad thing.

Back on topic, I still say giving them a weapon upgrade like PPSH that is weaker and costs more than the doctrinal counterpart(3 PPSH for 75-60 muni) which requires T3/T4 is a good option since it still gives the doctrine several key advantages over the non doctrinal counterpart.

This still carries the problem of Cons having had the advantage of Oorah/Merge right from the start, as utility other units simply dont have, and instead of which other units only have a DPS upgrade option for Muni cost. This would result in Cons basically having it all. Utility throughout the match, AND a DPS upgrade.This in addition to the already 6man soak and cheaper reinforce per man cost throughout also.

Another good option is the lower reinforcement costs later into the game since it allows cons to be more cost effective as the game goes on.

Yep, I agree The_Couriers proposal of a reduction in reinforce cost by 5MP at T3/4 is worth considering.

maybe give conscrips a chance to choose between offensive or defensive vet like in VCoH PE Pgrenst would be a good idea.

First of all, I was asking for clarification from Volsky on his personal proposal, not you.
Second of all, Indidnt mention any Gren buffs at all there.
Third of all, you are one person, so its a bit odd you refer to yourself repeatedly as "we".
Fourth of all, this thread is about lategame. Not midgame.
Fifth of all, although you dont give a shit about anything except getting Cons something you personally want, that doesnt mean you can ignore the effect on balance overall, just to get it. I doubt very much Relic balances according to the logic you use that "Well, I dont give a shit about anything or anyone else except buffing this unit". This is referred to as "balancing in a vaccum" and is considered a bad thing.

We could go on with all this but I won't so I'll leave it as this:
What we're looking at isn't cons vs. grens but on how cons interact mid-late game not just with grens but also with other units hence why I reject the comparison with grens.
Yes I will say mid-late because mid game is when cons start losing their effectivity.
All other posts with regards to this I will ignore which I should have probably done sooner but whatever.

This still carries the problem of Cons having had the advantage of Oorah/Merge right from the start, as utility other units simply dont have, and instead of which other units only have a DPS upgrade option for Muni cost. This would result in Cons basically having it all. Utility throughout the match, AND a DPS upgrade.This in addition to the already 6man soak and cheaper reinforce per man cost throughout also.

And as I said before oorah+merge =/= LMG upgrade. Another thing is that grens also have utility from the start that cons don't have(faust). Each unit has its distinct role, cons being a backbone infantry BUT the fact that they don't scale well into mid-late game doesn't help their role of being a backbone infantry.

To help get my point that oorah+merge =/= LMG upgrade I'll use your logic of this.
Lets say combat engies have 50 different abilities that have a whole lot of use but don't exactly give you a serious advantage. Pios on the other hand only have 1 ability which arty strikes the opponents sectors non stop until the game ends. The total costs of using the 50 abilities equals to 120 muni and the pio's 1 ability also costs 120 muni.
Question: Which of the 2 would you choose?
Chances are more people would choose pio because cost for cost the pio's ability would be better than the 50 abilities that the combat engineer has.

The scenario above uses the logic you're using to defend oorah+merge is asymmetrically balance with the LMG upgrade. It just isn't and although the example I've given is extremely exaggerated the logic used is still the same with yours.

Imho, cons must be buffed with non doctrinal weapons for better playing at mid and early game. But I think, Relic will not do it.

exactly, the soviet have few choices and that makes them boring(AKA chessy from axis-only player perspective)

I agree to give cons' DP28

exactly, the soviet have few choices and that makes them boring(AKA chessy from axis-only player perspective)

I agree to give cons' DP28

I demand PPS43 for conscripts instead.

I demand PPS43 for conscripts instead.

anything make them can kill something will be helpful. Of course non-doctrinal, as Allied side already have less viable unit to play with, why so much uber love for axis?

PPS-43 isn't good choice. What would make it different from PPSH?

anything make them can kill something will be helpful. Of course non-doctrinal, as Allied side already have less viable unit to play with, why so much uber love for axis?

It will be non-doctrinal and worse than PPSH but the doctrinal PPSH will replace this upgrade.

PPS-43 isn't good choice. What would make it different from PPSH?

Weaker and cheaper version of PPSH.

The scenario above uses the logic you're using to defend oorah+merge is asymmetrically balance with the LMG upgrade. It just isn't and although the example I've given is extremely exaggerated the logic used is still the same with yours.

Yes, Im glad you recognise it is an extreme example. So extreme, that it infact becomes ridiculous because you have amplified only those elements which suit you, while neglecting to realise the same logic actually refutes your point in the first place.

First of all, in the previous xomment you had already said you dont give a shit about other units, or comparative balance, you just want a buff. But then you go on to present a contrived example that is comparative.
Second of all, though you make it clear this is about backbone infantry, you make your example be about builders for some inexplicable reason.
Third of all, you create an example that would have absolutely gamebreaking results.
Fourth of all, you use abilities only in your example, not actually weapon upgrades. Though the point was about both.
Fifth of all, you present that the "50 abilities" dont exactly give you a serious advantage, presenting that as is Oorah or Merge neither are a serious advantage.

In total, this results in what is known as argumentum ad absurdum.
______________________________________________________________________

Anyways, back to topic:

Yes, I get what you want.

You want everything Cons already have AND a weapons upgrade ontop of that.
Regardless of the fact no other backbone unit has anything evennremotely similar to the 2 native abilities from the get go that Cons do, and instead rely on a weapons upgrade, solely, to scale.
You seem to completely disregard Oorah and Merge as anything of value, or consideration, yet at the same time, in contradiction, you still want to hold onto them, therefore actually ascribing them value, because youndo infact want to keep them AS WELL as having the weapons upgrade which is the sole scaling option available tonother units which simply dont have native abilities with this kind of utility likenthis right out of the box.

If you truly think Merge and Oorah are so valueless, and not anykind of asymmetric balance arrangement that compensates for a weapons uograde, which isnthe sole method of scaling on other units, then lets move move Oorah and Merge to to be purchaseable at cost at HQ (or on individual Cons), as paid upgrades, alongside a unit based PPSH upgrade that becomes available at T1-T4.

This way, you can get the mid-late scalingbthat you desire, by buying one or all of them, same as everyone else, separately and at cost, like everyone else.

If you truly think Oorah and Merge have no asymmetric significance at all in terms of the value and utility of Cons (especially as free from start), you shouldnt have a problem with this.

______________________________________________________________________


So how about this:

-Merge and Oorah removed as native from Cons.
-PPSH Upgrade at T1-T4. According to your figures, 3xPPSH for 60-75 Muni (weaker than doctrinal).
-Merge Upgrade either from HQ as a universal for MP/Fuel or individually for Muni.
-Oorah Upgrade either from HQ as a universal for MP/Fuel or individually for Muni.
-Molotov/ATNade Upgrade from HQ would possibly need to be made cheaper.

This way Cons would and can scale, at cost, in the same way as everything else, and still retain Oorah and Merge as options

If you truly believe, as you say, that Merge and Oorah have no inherent assymetric balance value as currently free native utility abilities, as compared to the sole weapon upgrade option for scaling on other units, then you shouldnt have a problem with the principle of this, and the costs ofc are just a simple matter of tuning.

LOL, it's nice to see merge=everything bull crap theory again, let's pretend OST don't have HT at tier 2 which give them mobile reinforce platform. And forward bunker to let ost to lock down the territory.

LOL, it's nice to see merge=everything bull crap theory again, let's pretend OST don't have HT at tier 2 which give them mobile reinforce platform. And forward bunker to let ost to lock down the territory.

Oh yes, they certainly do. You are correct.

But they actually have to pay for them

Its unfortunate that some people dont seem to understand the value of something free.
They take it for granted.

Its only when you actually start demanding a price for it, that they realise "hey, wait a minute, free was pretty good!"

I'd suggest you start using Guards if you want your Cons to have DP-28 upgrade and Shocks or PPSH commander if you want PPSH.
Be reasonable guys.
Cons are definitely not as bad as you're trying to make them look.

If you're not going to freaking support the idea of better Conscripts, then give us an additional man at Vet2 and Vet3, and reduce the reinforce cost per man by five at each of those respective levels.

Mid/late game when you'll get vetted squads like that, all of the cover has been blasted away and is comprised of craters that will hold 8 men. Sheesh.

Vet1 - blabla whatever we get now
Vet2 - blabla whatever we get now, squad size +1, reinforce cost per man from 20 to 15
Vet3 - blabla whatever we get now, squad size +1, reinforce cost per man from 15 to 10.

Is this drastic and slightly ridiculous? Yeah, sure. But how often do we see hordes of vetted Cons skittering across the map? Now they're weak infantry with which you can vet up all of your precious Axis squads, and Soviet players will now actually be able to drown said units in the blood and entrails of our fine Conscripts.

Before you go off and get your panties in a knot, Cannonade, remember that this is 2 additional utterly garbage Conscript rifles. Like, Cons vs. CE--not the end of the earth, shall we say?

This is just hilarious.

abit of things that i have opinions that i want to share.

1) rifle nades/panzerfaust is the free equivalent of merge/oorah
2) lmg is the king of infantry weapons. smg conscripts will do nothing to help in the late game against vetted and upgraded grens, but they will murder volks.
3) grenadiers are infact, still superior to guards. guards DO NOT tip the scales into soviet's favour. lmg42 and rifle nades shits on guards hard.

problem with grens are by design, they are backbone infantry. however, lmg42 turns them into dps machines rivaling elite infantry. which makes conscripts quite obsolete and proper elite infantry difficulty in countering them in direct combat.

abit of things that i have opinions that i want to share.

1) rifle nades/panzerfaust is the free equivalent of merge/oorah
2) lmg is the king of infantry weapons. smg conscripts will do nothing to help in the late game against vetted and upgraded grens, but they will murder volks.
3) grenadiers are infact, still superior to guards. guards DO NOT tip the scales into soviet's favour. lmg42 and rifle nades shits on guards hard.

problem with grens are by design, they are backbone infantry. however, lmg42 turns them into dps machines rivaling elite infantry. which makes conscripts quite obsolete and proper elite infantry difficulty in countering them in direct combat.

AD.1. I don't get the logic behind this sorry. I know you need to research Molotov and AT nade but to be able to use Rifle nade and Panzerfaust you need to research Battle fase 1 as well so no, these are not coming free. It's about timing rather then anything else.

AD.2. PPSH Conscripts are countering LMG Grens in close range.

AD.3. DK-28 Guards are equal to LMG Grens.