Login

russian armor

Buff Conscript PPSh-41 long range to match Mosin DPS

28 Aug 2015, 22:32 PM
#1
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

The reason for this suggestion is simple, there are 2 squad upgrades in the game that reduce DPS: Panzergrenadiers with G43's (not actually bad, their Sturmgewehrs are just better), and Conscripts with PPSh's. Although it's not their niche, other weapon upgrades never drop below the DPS of the weapon they've replaced. Long range Guard DP's and Grenadier MG 42's don't drop below Mosin or Kar DPS at close range, Close-mid range Grenadier G43's do not drop below Kar DPS at long range. So why does the PPSh drop way below Conscript DPS at mid-long range? It shouldn't, it should be brought up to par with other weapon upgrades.
28 Aug 2015, 22:43 PM
#2
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

I'm here to play contrarian again by saying I'd much prefer infantry upgrades be differentiated by range weakness much like the PPSh-41 upgrade! Make players not auto-upgrade LMGs when it makes infantry trash as close-range!

But what's the point, I know that's not going to happen...
28 Aug 2015, 22:44 PM
#3
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

I'd much rather have ppsh actually do damage and if its deemed to shoot pea for eternity, at least let the upgrade provide some rec acc bonus that will actually let cons mid/late game to close in without losing 4 models on approach even if that would mean cost increase.
28 Aug 2015, 23:06 PM
#4
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

I'd rather they buffed the close range dps to at least make up for the loss in long range dps. The upgrade should make them like squishy shocks, right now the shock ppsh does 50% more damage than the con version. Of course they also get 6 of them instead of 3.

If they don't want to do that maybe they could do something like what katitov said. Maybe a rec acc bonus that only works when they are using Oorah? That would be cool and really help them move in without taking model loss.
28 Aug 2015, 23:20 PM
#5
avatar of FichtenMoped
Editor in Chief Badge
Patrion 310

Posts: 4785 | Subs: 3

I still think making it a Schock upgrade with some kind of incoming damage reduction it would be worth it
28 Aug 2015, 23:21 PM
#6
avatar of DAKgasm

Posts: 37

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Aug 2015, 23:06 PMTobis
I'd rather they buffed the close range dps to at least make up for the loss in long range dps. The upgrade should make them like squishy shocks, right now the shock ppsh does 50% more damage than the con version. Of course they also get 6 of them instead of 3.

If they don't want to do that maybe they could do something like what katitov said. Maybe a rec acc bonus that only works when they are using Oorah? That would be cool and really help them move in without taking model loss.


Perhaps include an ability similar to the Paratrooper's thompson ability?
29 Aug 2015, 00:42 AM
#7
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

I still think making it a Schock upgrade with some kind of incoming damage reduction it would be worth it


You realise you could just get Shock Troops :P
29 Aug 2015, 00:44 AM
#8
avatar of FichtenMoped
Editor in Chief Badge
Patrion 310

Posts: 4785 | Subs: 3



You realise you could just buy Shock Troops :P


Yes but as someone stated, make them "Poor-Peoples-Schocks". Having the option to built a flanking squad without being forced to choose a Schock-doctrine
29 Aug 2015, 00:45 AM
#9
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Aug 2015, 22:43 PMVuther
I'm here to play contrarian again by saying I'd much prefer infantry upgrades be differentiated by range weakness much like the PPSh-41 upgrade! Make players not auto-upgrade LMGs when it makes infantry trash as close-range!

But what's the point, I know that's not going to happen...


+1
29 Aug 2015, 00:47 AM
#10
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Aug 2015, 22:43 PMVuther
I'm here to play contrarian again by saying I'd much prefer infantry upgrades be differentiated by range weakness much like the PPSh-41 upgrade! Make players not auto-upgrade LMGs when it makes infantry trash as close-range!


But then nobody would buy weapon upgrades for the same reason they don't buy the PPSh, it just makes your troops decent at one range and terrible at the rest.
29 Aug 2015, 00:55 AM
#11
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

The PPSh-41 should just "level up" your cons, and change their roll a bit. They lose the ability to make sandbags and use molotovs but gain regular grenades and like -13% received accuracy.

This way there is an incentive to upgrade a certain number of squads for more direct combat, rather than something you just always do ala gren LMG42.
29 Aug 2015, 01:33 AM
#12
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1



But then nobody would buy weapon upgrades for the same reason they don't buy the PPSh, it just makes your troops decent at one range and terrible at the rest.

Combined arms. Seriously though, that's what I'd hope for - upgrades having a sufficient advantage in their good ranges to make them worth getting (almost certainly coupled with a universal cost reduction to make it work), but enough of a weakness to make not putting them on everyone be the desirable outcome. In my mind, much like the Gren-PG combo, it should feel worthwhile for upgraded Guards to have a few Scripts covering their flanks so an enemy vanilla rifle squad won't break even with it if it surprises the Guard up close...compared to now when it's like "Well, my Scripts have AT grenades".

But let's be honest, rebalancing around that would be rather close to making a new game...especially if, as mentioned, upgrade costs go down because of newfound drawbacks to them, 'cause then all the other muni sinks gotta get balanced around how some major muni sinks became not major muni sinks.
nee
29 Aug 2015, 07:41 AM
#13
avatar of nee

Posts: 1216

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Aug 2015, 22:43 PMVuther
I'm here to play contrarian again by saying I'd much prefer infantry upgrades be differentiated by range weakness much like the PPSh-41 upgrade! Make players not auto-upgrade LMGs when it makes infantry trash as close-range!

But what's the point, I know that's not going to happen...

I agree, if there are upgrades it needs to have a tactical trade-off, luckily many already do, but some are just clearly must-have upgrades that do nothing but trade munitions for permanent benefit/ improvement; right now it's a no-brainer to upgun Grenadiers with LMG42, even if the penalty is one guy doesn't fire on the move as a result. I believe back in CoH1, Grenadiers moved slower when they upgraded to this weapon, the same should apply to Grenadiers. Would at the very least encourage half-track transportation, though I'm not suggesting the movement penalty be that drastic.

Which leads me to suggest that the Conscript Ppsh-1 upgrade should also make the Conscripts move a bit faster, not enough where Urrah! is redundant, but maybe perhaps some sort of passive 5-second sprint bonus when they are attacking to encourage being used in the assault role that they are made for. Shocks have armour and grenades, Conscripts when they upgrade should boast economy and speed.

I mean by comparison, G43 upgrade also allows Interrogation on top of better weapons. Conscripts intead get SMGs and a slap in the face. Hell if anything, Penals should have been the ones to get the SMG upgrade, their satchel bomb would be more useful in the assault role.
29 Aug 2015, 07:48 AM
#14
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Aug 2015, 07:41 AMnee
if there are upgrades it needs to have a tactical trade-off


Technically it's not an upgrade then, but a sidegrade.
29 Aug 2015, 07:59 AM
#15
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

In current state? Yes.
But I rather upgrade my Cons with 5-6 PPSH for massive close range damage while long range would be useless.
29 Aug 2015, 18:14 PM
#16
avatar of Basilone

Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Aug 2015, 07:41 AMnee

if there are upgrades it needs to have a tactical trade-off

What stone tablet did you find that etched in to? Upgrading tank MGs has no tradeoff. Upgrading DPS has no tradeoff. Upgrading Shrek on a Volks practically has no tradeoff, the small loss of firepower is more than made up for by a good AT weapon that also fast tracks your veterancy. CoH1 Riflemen had no tactical tradeoff far BARs. What CoH1 did have was a higher opportunity cost because there were other things to spend fuel on besides a vehicle, and the few global upgrades in CoH2 are negligibly cheap and pretty underwhelming from a shock upgrade perspective.
29 Aug 2015, 18:49 PM
#17
avatar of Jaedrik

Posts: 446 | Subs: 2

Upgrading tank MGs has no tradeoff.

Opportunity cost.
29 Aug 2015, 18:53 PM
#18
avatar of Carlos Danger

Posts: 362

Give them six guns.
29 Aug 2015, 18:55 PM
#19
29 Aug 2015, 20:29 PM
#20
avatar of Basilone

Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Aug 2015, 18:49 PMJaedrik

Opportunity cost.

Zero tactical tradeoff, like everything else I listed.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Netherlands 27
Sweden 17

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

936 users are online: 1 member and 935 guests
lukei
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48780
Welcome our newest member, Corfcdne
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM