Conscripts - when being a looser is your fate

My point is simple - conscrips have too much weaknesses for "mainline infantry" squad, specially compared with other mainlines. They have absolutley awful "fighting" stats, such as:

a.) Very low rate of fire with basic Mosins. Grenadeer or Tommy with same bolt-rifles can shoot 2-3 times in time, which needed for Conscript to do only 1 shot;

b.) Very low accuracy. It's actually pretty random. Sometimes 4 or 5 soldiers can hit a target at once, sometimes they all missing, last happens more often. Uncompareable with really sniping accuracy of same Grenadeers, which missing rarely. US Riflemans also have pretty low accuracy, but, it compensated with high firerate. Here - low firerate and low accuracy together.

Add to those stats fact, that you can't upgrade Conscripts with additional weapon and give them more firepower without doctrines. All, (again) ALL factions, except USSR can equip their mainline infantry with additional weapons without any doctrines at all! And their mainlines don't really suffer of lack of firepower even without those guns, so - I don't understand logic here. Buff with weapon already good damage dealing squads = normal, buff low damaging squads with additional weapon = bad. It breaks my mind.

You can say: "lack of power is balance of their high survivability, so everything is fine". Ok, they have 6 men in squad, it really makes their survivability higher, I agree. But... here is another point, which I would like you to explain me.

Conscripts main strength is supoused to be "high survivability", but... for some reason, they have worst "Target size" stat of all mainlines in game, and that's important for your infantries survivability. Let's see:

Target sizes of mainlines (source: http://www.stat.coh2.hu/)
Conscripts - 1.087;
Volks - 1;
Riflemans - 0.97;
Grenadeers - 0.91;
Tommy Riflemans - 0.8 (!!!) (Seriously?!!??!).

So, as we can see... conscripts are worst survivable infantry in game, cos that's most easiest target to hit for enemy, unlike "everytime wiped poor grenadeers" with really nice target size stat, lol. Those 2 additional guys in squad really "gone missing" and nerfed with such high target size, cos they will die pretty fast under fire.

From that point I see 2 problems:

1.) Firepower of conscripts is low, because no non-doc additional weapon and basic weapon is shit. Basic combat stats are also pretty poor.

2.) Survivability of conscripts is also pretty low, cos they just can't stay long in hot combat - high target size causing their fast dying under any kind of fire, from rifles to tanks.

Both of them making Conscripts really weak, useless and because of that - entire faction suffers, because they suppoused to be your core unit for entire game. But they just can't be effective, cos they don't have powerful sides. Damage dealing suck, damage taking suck... How am I suppoused to use them as my main unit?

I think we have here 2 possible solutions:

Either

1.) Make something, that will increase Conscripts firepower during the game, and I don't mean veterancy, cos not only Coscripts getting firepower bonuses from it. USSR must have some kind of non-doc boost for them, maybe non-doc weapon upgrades, maybe upgrade, which will increase their stats somehow. Just something, that will make them reliable as damage dealers in mid-late game.

Or

2.) Fix their survivability stats, and first of all - target size. Guess designed to be "most survivable" mainline infantry unit in game deserve to have better target size, then "überfragile" grenadeers or "superman-tommies". Make it 0.8 - like for tommies and it will be real "survivable infantry", cos right now they just dying under fire like flys, with no chanses to hold on frontline long and do something really dangerous for enemy.

P.S. Forgot to say - Cons equiped with worst grenades in game, which you also have to unlock for high price. Moltov is awful - with such high target size Cons sometimes dying way before they throw hell bottle, because it throws in some kind of "drunk slow-mo", it also don't deal "impact damage" and range of throwing is again - low. AT-nade is more or less fine... but still worth too much fuel and MP for unlock.

If you want to use them as rifles then you need 4 units at least with both nades. Their upgrade is also great, and underpriced too.




I agree that their base RA needs to be 'slightly' lower. Howerver their vet 3 bonus needs to be toned down significantly. Having a RA of 0.8 would be broken and I would argue that it is broken for tommies as well if we consider their reinforce cost. It is too much of a boost for a baseline unit. Tommies however, are in no way spammable, unlike the cons.


The SU is a combined strat faction. I would reduce the build time and cost of their Tier 1 and 2 buildings.

I guess i shouldn't reply to troll threads.

Since game launch cons have been patched constantly and are finally fine now.They do not need lmgs or superior firepower to win fights,they have durability and versatility.Cons win my games.

If you cant win with them i highly recommend you the guides section or ask a strategist if you have a specific problem.

I guess i shouldn't reply to troll threads.

Since game launch cons have been patched constantly and are finally fine now.They do not need lmgs or superior firepower to win fights,they have durability and versatility.Cons win my games.

If you cant win with them i highly recommend you the guides section or ask a strategist if you have a specific problem.

+1
/Thread

If you want to use them as rifles then you need 4 units at least with both nades. Their upgrade is also great, and underpriced too.




I agree that their base RA needs to be 'slightly' lower. Howerver their vet 3 bonus needs to be toned down significantly. Having a RA of 0.8 would be broken and I would argue that it is broken for tommies as well if we consider their reinforce cost. It is too much of a boost for a baseline unit. Tommies however, are in no way spammable, unlike the cons.


The SU is a combined strat faction. I would reduce the build time and cost of their Tier 1 and 2 buildings.

So... if Tommies cost just 40 MP more and "less spammable", that's allowable for them to have nice survivability and deadly firepower + additional weapons in stock? And Cons should suffer both in damage and in survivability because they are more spammable?

Here is a problem of CoH 2. Quantity is not that better than quality here. Veterancy system makes quantity less worth, becuase - you can spam a lot of fast dying and low damaging Cons, which will be free farm-feed for same Grens or Volks or whoever else. They will rise up on them fast, and then they will deal with spam even faster, while you will lose more and more "spammable" cons at vet 1 with low chanses of rising them to 3 because... veterancy come from damage, and damage dealing of cons is very low.

Anyway, high spammability is not excuse of making unit such bad, Im sure. Something should be powerful in Cons, damage or survivability. Now they suck in both.

SOVs conscripts are not meant to handle other frontline infantry. Their role is utility. That utility is supplemented by Maxims, Penals, Guards, Shock Troops, which together with conscripts form a very formidable, durable and versatile army.

Sovs definitely have the most rewarding combined arms design, and its a real joy to play with

I guess i shouldn't reply to troll threads.

Since game launch cons have been patched constantly and are finally fine now.They do not need lmgs or superior firepower to win fights,they have durability and versatility.Cons win my games.

Can you explain better - how are they fine? What's fine in them? Damage dealing - suck, damage resistance - suck. And don't forget, they are not "support infantry", like Osttrupens of Ostheer - they are your mainline, you core.

So, what's fine in them, actually? And keep in mind - that's your skill wins games, not Cons.

I guess i shouldn't reply to troll threads.

Since game launch cons have been patched constantly and are finally fine now.They do not need lmgs or superior firepower to win fights,they have durability and versatility.Cons win my games.

I agree. Conscripts are fine within the context of the Soviet army, even more so now that Penals are getting a buff. They are excellent support for the rest of the army and fight well enough behind green cover, which they can build. They may be more difficult to use because you generally need to be microing a greater number of them compared to other factions, but I don't think this is a problem.

I agree. Conscripts are fine within the context of the Soviet army, even more so now that Penals are getting a buff. They are excellent support for the rest of the army and fight well enough behind green cover, which they can build.

"They are fine in context of the Soviet army". For me it sounds like "Soviet army sux so hard, that bad Conscripts unit alone looks better, than entire faction in general". Well, +1 to that.

But for real - they are excellent support? I thought, that support job is for support units, like HMGs, like AT-guns or speciallized support infantry... you know. And mainlines infantry job is not support, but fight and capture and doing most imoprtant job in field. Not support.

And good news - not only Cons can build good green covers and fight nice behind them. Volks can do it, Tommies can do it, and also build non-doc trenches, lol. That's not "strength" side of Cons, try something else.

In my opinion, conscripts are really fine at the moment. A cheap HQ buildable unit ( instead of the 240Mp grenadiers which require T1 ) with polyvalent and not really expensive upgrades.

I like the way they currently are.

They also have a lot of doctrinal upgrades.

Can you explain better - how are they fine? What's fine in them? Damage dealing - suck, damage resistance - suck. And don't forget, they are not "support infantry", like Osttrupens of Ostheer - they are your mainline, you core.

So, what's fine in them, actually? And keep in mind - that's your skill wins games, not Cons.

That was obvious...
Without being rude i cant spend my time on every fanboy who is asking for attention.

Cons win close range ,grens long range if both have the same cover.
They are a 6 man squad that can build green cover anywhere on the map,do i need to say more ?

Number 1# mistake with cons and rifles is to charge in,did you do that ?
Did you take unnecessary casualties ?
99% of the time its the players fault

I won't lie that I don't find Conscripts annoying to use in the early game at times (particularly against Volks spam) but they aren't nearly as bad as you make them out to be.

A) Rate of Rife - You don't take into account that 6 man squads necessitate lower RoF and Accuracy - otherwise full health Cons are too good. It balances out because they do the same damage as Grens, who have less models firing but more accurately. They also do more damage per shot than Volks or Rifleman. Yes the lower accuracy is more RNG-y but its the only way to balance 6 models. 6 Models also means they get a lot more out of Vet bonuses.


B) You don't take into account Total Received Accuracy with Vet when talking about survivability. Combined with 6 models they are way more survivable at Vet 3 compared to Axis, nevermind their ability to use Sandbags vs. Ostheer. .80 Target size with 6 models is sheer madness.

Scipt 40%
Gren 23%
Volks 20%

C) Firepower - You ignore the sheer utility of conscripts - Green Cover, Merge, Oorah, Garrison/Cover denial w/ Molotov, Best AT Nade of Allies if not game (after Preview Buff). PPSHs are quite good, even if doctrinal and often synergize well with the doctrine they are in for heavy conscript play. Molotovs are hardly expensive when you consider the cost of BP1 or OKW Truck - they are also cheaper to use once unlocked.


If you aren't using Conscipts effectively consider

1. Using Sandbags to fight from more advantageous positions
2. Using Oorah to get into cover or closer distance where they beat Grens
3. Don't use Molotovs to win infantry engagements unless
a. Garrison denial
b. Cover denial (i.e. Grens making a B-line for obvious cover)
c. It's a support weapon/opponent is obviously not paying attention to squad
4. Just use combined arms in general - if you're trying to use brute force with Cons you're setting yourself up for failure they are better used meatshields with utility

That was obvious...
Without being rude i cant spend my time on every fanboy who is asking for attention.

Cons win close range ,grens long range if both have the same cover.
They are a 6 man squad that can build green cover anywhere on the map,do i need to say more ?

Number 1# mistake with cons and rifles is to charge in,did you do that ?
Did you take unnecessary casualties ?
99% of the time its the players fault

Em... Since I play mostly now as Ostheers on "LeFH only mode", I can't be called "USSR fanboy". I didn't play as them pretty long.

Cons win close range? Yea, with such great firerate (1 shot per 6-7 sec) they do, really. Grens are effective at range, at least. Cons suck in both without PPSHs.

6 man squad is "empty" bonus. 2 additional guys in squad instantly disappears because of highest for mainlines Target Size, so that's not real bonus, it's spoiled.

Build green cover anywhere is "cool"? Well, if it would be exclusive for USSR only, then yea, agree. But, OKW can build green covers, UKF can build green covers. USF may use as green cover for infantry tank traps, if they need them so much... I don't see anything specific for Cons in that, that's common ability right now.

And problem of cons is not in "charging in". Problem is - they are useless as combat unit, which they suppoused to be by their role - mainline infantry. They don't deal enough damage because of low stats and no additional weapon, they get too much damage because of high target size... They can't do their job good, they can't do it at all. That causes such disgusting thing, like "maxim spams", because - maxims (even if they are support guns) are better as combat units, than Conscripts, that's ridiculous. Imagine, that Ostheer would use MG-42 as mainline infantry, instead of Grens. Or UKF use Vikkers instead of Tommies for same. That doesn't happen because HMG is support and Mainline is combat - not visa versa, like it is in USSR! That's not right at all!

"They are fine in context of the Soviet army". For me it sounds like "Soviet army sux so hard, that bad Conscripts unit alone looks better, than entire faction in general". Well, +1 to that.

But for real - they are excellent support? I thought, that support job is for support units, like HMGs, like AT-guns or speciallized support infantry... you know. And mainlines infantry job is not support, but fight and capture and doing most imoprtant job in field. Not support.

And good news - not only Cons can build good green covers and fight nice behind them. Volks can do it, Tommies can do it, and also build non-doc trenches, lol. That's not "strength" side of Cons, try something else.

I disagree about the army sucking, but I won't convince you, so let's leave that.

Units 'support' each other. I don't mean support in the sense of team weapons.

A six man squad behind green cover is much, much more durable than a four or even five man ones, and the target size difference is negligible compared to cover bonuses.

1. Burst Damage. Cons only need 5 shots to drop a model and against Grenadiers it's far more punishing as that's 25% of their DPS being dropped. 16 damage vs the 12 of Volks or 8 of Rifles. It's RNG, but it can also allow Conscripts to suddenly catch up in a DPS race at short.

2. Overstating the 1.087 when you consider most Axis early ranged infantry already have good accuracy and the fact Cons are 20 to reinforce per model vs a Grenadiers 30 or a Volks 25. You make it sound like it's the weapon team 25% which is very noticeable compared to the Conscripts 1.087. They also still have 80hp per model.

3.And? Tank Traps are harder to fit squads behind and are exclusive to Rear Echelon. Volk Sandbags also aren't exactly large while the USF needs specific docs for sandbags.

4. Conscripts are not mainline damage dealers and never have been. Doctrinal troops or the upcoming Penals are the ones who deal damage, while Conscripts take damage/draw fire and be the utility belt they are. It's how they've been for awhile.

The only thing Conscripts should possibly get is lower reinforcement costs with veterancy to maybe at 16-17 to emphasize their role as support/screening troops for the other Soviet units and possibly adjustments to their grenade packages in costs.

If we're really bored, give them a squad leader like in my mod just to mess things up

Em... Since I play mostly now as Ostheers on "LeFH only mode", I can't be called "USSR fanboy". I didn't play as them pretty long.

Cons win close range? Yea, with such great firerate (1 shot per 6-7 sec) they do, really. Grens are effective at range, at least. Cons suck in both without PPSHs.

6 man squad is "empty" bonus. 2 additional guys in squad instantly disappears because of highest for mainlines Target Size, so that's not real bonus, it's spoiled.

Build green cover anywhere is "cool"? Well, if it would be exclusive for USSR only, then yea, agree. But, OKW can build green covers, UKF can build green covers. USF may use as green cover for infantry tank traps, if they need them so much... I don't see anything specific for Cons in that, that's common ability right now.

And problem of cons is not in "charging in". Problem is - they are useless as combat unit, which they suppoused to be by their role - mainline infantry. They don't deal enough damage because of low stats and no additional weapon, they get too much damage because of high target size... They can't do their job good, they can't do it at all. That causes such disgusting thing, like "maxim spams", because - maxims (even if they are support guns) are better as combat units, than Conscripts, that's ridiculous. Imagine, that Ostheer would use MG-42 as mainline infantry, instead of Grens. Or UKF use Vikkers instead of Tommies for same. That doesn't happen because HMG is support and Mainline is combat - not visa versa, like it is in USSR! That's not right at all!

1)You dont show us your playercard,how can i even believe you ?
2)1 shot * 6 / 6-7 sec . Do you believe or do you know ? I know,that whatever you say doesnt change the fact that cons do well close and mid range.
3)Okay enough said.
4)Why are you still arguing although so many people told you the opposite ? It is not like i am new to the game or so.

I disagree about the army sucking, but I won't convince you, so let's leave that.

Units 'support' each other. I don't mean support in the sense of team weapons.

A six man squad behind green cover is much, much more durable than a four or even five man ones, and the target size difference is negligible compared to cover bonuses.

Ok, but we can say that all units of all factions in game "support" each other fine. That's again - not specific plus of Conscritps, like building greenwalls. Grens support bad to Ostheer units? Or maybe Riflemans supporting bad? They are all good in such kind of "support", because it's general mechanic of that game - using combined arms and units. Cons are not uniqe here in that.

6 man squad is much more durable in cover than 4 or 5. Yea, thanks K.O. But... you can't and you won't always hold your infantry in greencover. Mortars or other arty forcing you to move, when you attack your enemy you usually also move and fight out of cover... And besides, even if they are more survivable in greencover as 6 man squad - they still do way less damage from that cover, because... you know, firerate, accuracy... They don't die, but they don't kill. Great, unit became much more useful, specially if we keep in mind, that it is your main combatunit of faction.

keep in mind, that it is your main combatunit of faction.

Here's your problem. You're using them wrong.

Y'know, kinda like how your using speech marks to "highlight" random "words" from peoples' "sentences" instead of making valid "points"

/ "thread"

I just want conscripts to have non-doctrinal upgrades. Either the PPSh package or 1-2 DP-28s would be rather reasonable. I'm not sure why Soviets are the only faction out of five whose core infantry unit don't have access to stock upgrades. They're just fine in the early to mid game but become utterly outclassed as the match goes on, thereby cultivating a reliance on certain commanders for effective infantry.

1)You dont show us your playercard,how can i even believe you ?
2)1 shot * 6 / 6-7 sec . Do you believe or do you know ? I know,that whatever you say doesnt change the fact that cons do well close and mid range.
3)Okay enough said.
4)Why are you still arguing although so many people told you the opposite ? It is not like i am new to the game or so.

Here we go https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198062472736