Login

russian armor

Conscripts need to be balanced

PAGES (7)down
11 Aug 2017, 22:24 PM
#81
avatar of karolllus

Posts: 172



Yeah, turns out I enjoy playing some factions more than others. Anyway, time for you to conveniently act like rank doesn't matter whatsoever now.

For reference, 11 of 27 those games were within the last few days. I really find myself taking an increased liking to brits.


Good for you, maybe I can teach you something about brits if you want. But as I stated before in other topics too, rank does matter but also faction games dispersion. If you play one faction only, then yeah your opinions are skewed a bit and maybe you shouldnt talk. High rank should be an opening requirement for discussion. And since OKW has been the most retard friendly and op faction in the game for a long time its normal that most people will spam that faction and defend it at all cost. At least you are ^^
11 Aug 2017, 22:27 PM
#82
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2



Good for you, maybe I can teach you something about brits if you want. But as I stated before in other topics too, rank does matter but also faction games dispersion. If you play one faction only, then yeah your opinions are skewed a bit and maybe you shouldnt talk. High rank should be an opening requirement for discussion. And since OKW has been the most retard friendly and op faction in the game for a long time its normal that most people will spam that faction and defend it at all cost. At least you are ^^


Rank 6 with USF.

Oh also, "a long time" being since stuart stun shot got changed, guard motor got nerfed, and brits comet/cromwell nerfs. So basically 1-2 patch cycles where okw is still not as dominant as allies were in previous patches.
11 Aug 2017, 22:50 PM
#85
avatar of insaneHoshi

Posts: 911


Holy fuck sorry my bad its not 44 its 41. I admit that was a mistake on my part. ITS STILL HIGH AS FUCK for 60 muni and no upgrade xD basically comparable with double bars costing 120 muni and upgrade xD

Pls go away little troll. Show me your playercard to validate your point of view so at least I can treat you seriously.


8.27 *2 + 4.94*3 = 31.36 =/= 41

I could try to find math's playercard if you want me to.
12 Aug 2017, 03:38 AM
#86
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Jesus christ guys, can you just bang and get on with it?

Its drastic but i think the biggest problem with cons is that they are *supposed* to be expendable, but at 240mp and with those sweet sweet trip mines you cant risk losing them.
What would it be like to strip them of vet and introduce globals with tech? Little minor adjustments to things like oorah or small AOE buffs and cost decreases and what not as the player techs but no vet. Then you can lose your cons, they are expendable and replaceable, they can be sent to die so you tie up the enemy, they could provide a small buff when near a maxim, or a tank, or eachother. Make having them help your army instead of trying to make them an analog to volks or grens or rifles. Make them something entirely different and embrace it.
12 Aug 2017, 03:50 AM
#87
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2

Jesus christ guys, can you just bang and get on with it?

Its drastic but i think the biggest problem with cons is that they are *supposed* to be expendable, but at 240mp and with those sweet sweet trip mines you cant risk losing them.
What would it be like to strip them of vet and introduce globals with tech? Little minor adjustments to things like oorah or small AOE buffs and cost decreases and what not as the player techs but no vet. Then you can lose your cons, they are expendable and replaceable, they can be sent to die so you tie up the enemy, they could provide a small buff when near a maxim, or a tank, or eachother. Make having them help your army instead of trying to make them an analog to volks or grens or rifles. Make them something entirely different and embrace it.


They already ARE something entirely different from grens, volks, and rifles though. Part of the reason why (in my opinion) people are underrating cons so much is because they treat them as if theyre the same and do direct comparisons. Does anyone mention how much more capping power using a con build gives you than a grenadier build, or even a riflemen build? Cons have hidden/more subtle power in their ability to sprint, build green cover, and reinforce other squads with merge. Conscripts are a support/utility/map control unit and thats how theyre used at the top level (to decent effect). Cons may be slightly weak even in this role and even with this utility, so I really do think they need buffs, but I think that the buffs they need are much more minor than nearly everyone is asking for.
12 Aug 2017, 09:37 AM
#88
avatar of Kobunite
Patrion 15

Posts: 615

Tidied some of the more inflammatory or off topic posts.
12 Aug 2017, 09:52 AM
#89
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

global upgrade?

~70 fu + 200-300mp investment for 2 AVTs (automatic SVTs), which increases moving accuracy and mid-close range. also throws molotov faster and faster reinforce rate?

------------

i dont know about 1v1 but for 2v2 and up, conscript is a springboard to t-70, or even fast t-34. conscript never really becomes the backbone infantry even with AT nade. That would be fine if there would be an option to make cons the backbone or a springboard to other units.

------------------

also keep the hostility down OP.
12 Aug 2017, 15:28 PM
#90
avatar of karolllus

Posts: 172



They already ARE something entirely different from grens, volks, and rifles though. Part of the reason why (in my opinion) people are underrating cons so much is because they treat them as if theyre the same and do direct comparisons.


You play 1v1 where you can avoid direct confrontation with an enemy because you can just cap the other fuel or ammo in 2v2 you are forced to attack the same fuel or muni so the direct confrontation is ineviteble if you want to have any resources at all. Also most 2v2 maps are wide open maps with cover spanning from mid to long range. So its blob friendly too and long range friendly. Very few maps actually support short to mid range gameplay.


Does anyone mention how much more capping power using a con build gives you than a grenadier build, or even a riflemen build?


You somehow forgot to mention OKW (your favorite faction) which has the biggest capping power in the whole game and con spam doesnt really impress OKW. Again you present 1v1 mentality. Capping power doesnt count in 2v2.


Cons have hidden/more subtle power in their ability to sprint, build green cover, and reinforce other squads with merge. Conscripts are a support/utility/map control unit and thats how theyre used at the top level (to decent effect). Cons may be slightly weak even in this role and even with this utility, so I really do think they need buffs, but I think that the buffs they need are much more minor than nearly everyone is asking for.


Support of what? Which early game soviet unit is so good that they can support it? OK lets say everyone is using cons bad and their true nature is to support and provide utility (whatever that mystical term means). Why on earth then soviets are the only faction that starts with two weak support units and no infantry? In comparison ost starts with 2 support units pios and mg where pios can shred cons for 200 mp if done correctly while mg42 is the best mg in the game and its utility is undeniable. I get the logic that its a support unit but shouldnt soviets have access to regular infantry at the start of the game.

And please try thinking out of your 1v1 mode. Because in other mods gameplay is different. In 1v1 its all about infantry spam and capping. All your fights are more like skirmishes of 1-2 units at most. Late game you have one or two bigger pushes and the game is over. Early game in 1v1 you get less direct action, you dont have to contest the same points. You can field at least 3 units before you even meet your enemy. But in 2v2 for example you are sometimes forced to contest a point with your very first unit. After that you get constantly pushed with 4-5 units. So if your main infantry sucks then you lose fast and your support weapons suck what do you have left? That one guard rifles squad you called in? Oh yeah now I remember you go penals and defensive doctrine ^^ Thats right why change anything its fine.
12 Aug 2017, 15:45 PM
#91
avatar of karolllus

Posts: 172

Btw have you ever thought that in high elo people use one con squad for utility not because thats the units purpose but because the unit is dogshit at everything else?
15 Aug 2017, 00:53 AM
#92
avatar of Alceister

Posts: 14

What if Conscripts shared experience gains among themselves, or with other SU infantry units?
15 Aug 2017, 01:19 AM
#93
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

What if Conscripts shared experience gains among themselves, or with other SU infantry units?

That could be fun, i always thought giving shared vet to conscripts would be a neat vet 1 for shocks and guards-inspirational like , but just earning it themselves could be neat. The vet 3 would need toned down i think tho
15 Aug 2017, 01:25 AM
#94
avatar of le_saucisson_masque

Posts: 485 | Subs: 1

are there people on this topic actually saying that conscripts are underrated ? :lol:

capping power is a good point, but once your conscript squad get demolished by superior and not reallly more expensive ennemy squad, then your 'capping power' is back at base to reinforce when the ennemy can capture your territory.

There is really no way people can say conscripts are fine, you got to be mad to say such things.
15 Aug 2017, 01:27 AM
#95
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



They already ARE something entirely different from grens, volks, and rifles though. Part of the reason why (in my opinion) people are underrating cons so much is because they treat them as if theyre the same and do direct comparisons. Does anyone mention how much more capping power using a con build gives you than a grenadier build, or even a riflemen build? Cons have hidden/more subtle power in their ability to sprint, build green cover, and reinforce other squads with merge. Conscripts are a support/utility/map control unit and thats how theyre used at the top level (to decent effect). Cons may be slightly weak even in this role and even with this utility, so I really do think they need buffs, but I think that the buffs they need are much more minor than nearly everyone is asking for.

A lot of mainline infantry has those utilities though. Tommies and volks can make sandbags, riflemen can (kind of) sprint, a lot of other inf can sprint, okw has a light vehicle that can cap (so there goes capping power and sprinting), every mainline inf unit and some "elite" inf has a snare except tommies, and volks have a better version of the Molotov, and all of those shit on cons hard in terms of combat effectiveness. The only unique thing cons have is merge, which is admittedly very good for support weapons but still doesn't make them worth it, especially considering how bad maxim and the stock mortar currently are.
15 Aug 2017, 04:10 AM
#96
avatar of buttcheeksontoast

Posts: 59


The only unique thing cons have is merge, which is admittedly very good for support weapons but still doesn't make them worth it, especially considering how bad maxim and the stock mortar currently are.


And don't forget that merged units are still Con models so they inherit Cons' worse RA. :)


Its drastic but i think the biggest problem with cons is that they are *supposed* to be expendable, but at 240mp and with those sweet sweet trip mines you cant risk losing them.
What would it be like to strip them of vet and introduce globals with tech? Little minor adjustments to things like oorah or small AOE buffs and cost decreases and what not as the player techs but no vet. Then you can lose your cons, they are expendable and replaceable, they can be sent to die so you tie up the enemy, they could provide a small buff when near a maxim, or a tank, or eachother. Make having them help your army instead of trying to make them an analog to volks or grens or rifles. Make them something entirely different and embrace it.


Removing veterancy seems to go against the one of the central mechanics of coh2 which is preservation. Being rewarded based on how best you sacrifice Cons instead of preserve them leaves a bad taste in one's mouth and also seems like it would make distuingishing high-level play from a noob harder because both are losing squads MVGame.

15 Aug 2017, 05:26 AM
#97
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



It would still hurt to lose same way losing any squad does, but not worrying about vet actually makes them expendable for calculated risk without becoming 100% useless if lost and replaced.

The way i see it cons become glorified AT nade throwers and capper by late game ANYWAY so making them gradually scale (not as well as with conventional vet, but not leaving them as oddly durable balls of suck they are now) gives them a sense of fodder. The feel that if you need them to they can buy victory with their lives.

What would seperate the men from the boys so to speak would be deciding what is worth risking them for, you still bleed, you still need to replace them, but their infinite status of underwhelming is justified and enhances their flavour

Otherwise cons will overlap with penals or guards or shocks, they cant be made into conventional mainlines without stepping on toes and making somwthing else as pointless as cons are.
15 Aug 2017, 21:04 PM
#98
avatar of Alceister

Posts: 14

The only real niche for Conscripts early game is capping points and acting as roadblocks by stealing any structures near points if challenged. Even then, it's all too easy to be ousted by Sturmpioneers running up to whatever building your conscripts are hiding in, and forcing you out through sheer DPS. The utility of such an approach is even more limited by a lack of effective T2 AI options. You could go T1, but then why bother with Conscripts when that gives you access to Penals?
16 Aug 2017, 06:15 AM
#99
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



And don't forget that merged units are still Con models so they inherit Cons' worse RA. :)

That's why merge is good for support weapons, who have I think like 1.25 RA by default. Same thing makes merging them with shocks, guards, or even penals a bad idea.
16 Aug 2017, 12:38 PM
#100
avatar of TickTack

Posts: 578

The only real niche for Conscripts early game is capping points and acting as roadblocks by stealing any structures near points if challenged. Even then, it's all too easy to be ousted by Sturmpioneers running up to whatever building your conscripts are hiding in, and forcing you out through sheer DPS. The utility of such an approach is even more limited by a lack of effective T2 AI options. You could go T1, but then why bother with Conscripts when that gives you access to Penals?

sorry but any type of squad can be one shotted, therefore no unit is 'intended' to survive the whole match.
Cons can be phased out once better stuff has been unlocked by sov player, that's a very low risk strat for sov.
PAGES (7)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

657 users are online: 657 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49062
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM