The Reinforcement Fallacy

Hey guys, been seeing a lot of threads recently saying that Grens are the most expensive to reinforce basic infantry at 30 MP, compared to 20 for Sovs for example. I think this isn't really that true if you think about it.

If you lose for example, half a conscript squad early game, it's 60 manpower; the same as losing half a gren squad. While the reinforcement cost per member is different, base cons and grens are supposed to have the same DPS/health across the entire squad so fighting each other early game they probably cause an identical level of bleed. You might say that health is spread out amongst 6 models in the cons rather than 4 in the grens, but the grens have lower RA (I think health is still 40 and armour is unchanged?). All in all I think we can agree survivability is basically identical.

This means when you safe retreat a middlingly damaged gren/con squad you're going to be paying 60 MP, if you late/time a retreat when they are low; you'll be paying 90 for the gren squad and 80-100 for the cons, so you may be paying +- 10 MP on them for the entire squads reinforce.

This is all well in the early game, once LMGs show up reinforcement cost is almost guaranteed to be higher among the cons on an aggregate squad level.

My point is though, that across the board reinforcement cost is basically identical for con vs grens (the most often raised) on an aggregate level. To say one has a higher reinforcement cost than the other is a fallacy born from the fact that one member costs more than another.
The people who should really be crying are USF at 28 MP, making them the highest costing basic infantry to reinforce from minimum members at 112 MP

As for squad wiping in terms of squad size, in my experience it is really not comparable. Both sides get their 'lucky' wipes from mortars etc just as often. Grens are also hundreds of times better at wiping retreating squads with the LMG.
You shouldn't have to replace your squads due to unlucky wipes any less than the opponent, so this aggregate reinforcement cost is still applicable.

Leave talk of LMGs and Rifle Nade compared to Moli bleed out of it though (which does favour gren efficiency massively) as I feel it's a problem with lacking Conscript global upgrades/the molotov itself rather than anything else.

What do you guys think? Is gren reinforce cost still the highest in the game, or can we agree on an aggregate level it is the same or even weighted towards the allies?

We all know this. The molotov is still bad, but thats a different matter. Late game its weighted towards soviets who keep their squads alive to vet 3. As they are pretty durable for what they're worth.

We all know this.

Yeah, that's what I thought, but I've seen people talking about Grens high reinforcement cost a lot recently so thought a summary might be useful.

Also Vet 3 for both cons and grens is identical, so it's till weighted towards LMG grens massively:
-23% RA, -20 CD, -25% AT Nade.
For cons that just about gets rid of their increased RA!

We all know this. The molotov is still bad, but thats a different matter. Late game its weighted towards soviets who keep their squads alive to vet 3. As they are pretty durable for what they're worth.

this is a headscratcher as the stock soviet units are across the board worse then lmg grens, regardless of vet.

cons literally have increased received accuracy and don't close well on stationary lmg grens. shocks and (probably? haven't had good luck with them) guards will beat grens but you're paying more for them.

grens are more costly per model and that is an issue vs say, snipers or things they can't fight back against because a couple of model losses costs more then the same on most other squads but it is supposed to balance out in infantry/infantry combat due to their increased power vs most other squads.

this is a headscratcher as the stock soviet units are across the board worse then lmg grens, regardless of vet.

cons literally have increased received accuracy and don't close well on stationary lmg grens. shocks and (probably? haven't had good luck with them) guards will beat grens but you're paying more for them.

grens are more costly per model and that is an issue vs say, snipers or things they can't fight back against because a couple of model losses costs more then the same on most other squads but it is supposed to balance out in infantry/infantry combat due to their increased power vs most other squads.

Yeah I know, but late game, I find myself having plenty of manpower to reinforce like my quad conscript wall. They exist to absorb damage for my guards and crew weapons. I find it easier to keep squads alive as soviets, but things like cons will lose models and not trade as well more vs lmg grens. But I am way more likely to retain the squad then the wehr player.

Not saying im against removing the 9% received acc on cons, but its not really hurting them that bad. So either at vet 1 or vet 2 it can go away.

Soviets are the best at squad wipes and maybe even MP bleed too. So even if Cons are costineffective you should be doing huge MP damage with demos, mines, early clown cars, Quad, barrages, snipers, so that your Cons can soak for your Guards that kill everything.

Yeah I know, but late game, I find myself having plenty of manpower to reinforce like my quad conscript wall. They exist to absorb damage for my guards and crew weapons. I find it easier to keep squads alive as soviets, but things like cons will lose models and not trade as well more vs lmg grens. But I am way more likely to retain the squad then the wehr player.

Not saying im against removing the 9% received acc on cons, but its not really hurting them that bad. So either at vet 1 or vet 2 it can go away.

i do tend to float more mp with soviets. probably because if you retreat after three models die with soviets you only lost half the squad but if you do the same with OKH you've lost 3/4. i also find it easier to keep soviet squads alive but i think that's because of their squad size/formation gives them increased resistance to aoe weapons. i really wish they would fix 4 man squads disappearing...

grens are more costly per model and that is an issue vs say, snipers or things they can't fight back against because a couple of model losses costs more then the same on most other squads but it is supposed to balance out in infantry/infantry combat due to their increased power vs most other squads.

The German sniper has an increased fire rate to cause equal bleed, despite it severely hurting rifles and the fact panzerfusiliers are 6 men squads. Again it doesn't equal out because as we saw their reinforcement is realistically the same as conscripts.

i do tend to float more mp with soviets. probably because if you retreat after three models die with soviets you only lost half the squad but if you do the same with OKH you've lost 3/4. i also find it easier to keep soviet squads alive but i think that's because of their squad size/formation gives them increased resistance to aoe weapons. i really wish they would fix 4 man squads disappearing...

If you retreat after 3 models on cons vs volks it's 60 vs 69 MP, but people don't tend to retreat on models lost but on general health of a unit which should come to the same thing - around 4 cons for 3 volks: 80 vs 69.