Conscripts need to be balanced

Isn't Volks the problem? I find Cons ok vs Ostheer.

My reasoning is simple, at the moment Cons are getting really hurt by GrenLMG42, the Soviet players also get access to Shock/Guard via doctrine but mainly get access to the T-70 or the M5 to balance the fight.
Somehow one faction should have the worst infantry squad if we don't want a perfect mirroring between factions. The question is how is it balance around that and Ostheer not having access to light/medium armored tank is an answer to Cons being inferior to grenLMG42.

Now OKW is another topic. Volks are simply too good for the balance sake, that's not a secret.

Vet Cons are not inferior to LMG Grens. Vet Cons with PPSh are quite superior to Vet LMG Grens and will usually win even if you don't hoorah in. Which of course you should do, its not expensive, especially for Soviets which have few muni sinks.

Isn't Volks the problem? I find Cons ok vs Ostheer.

My reasoning is simple, at the moment Cons are getting really hurt by GrenLMG42, the Soviet players also get access to Shock/Guard via doctrine but mainly get access to the T-70 or the M5 to balance the fight.
Somehow one faction should have the worst infantry squad if we don't want a perfect mirroring between factions. The question is how is it balance around that and Ostheer not having access to light/medium armored tank is an answer to Cons being inferior to grenLMG42.

Now OKW is another topic. Volks are simply too good for the balance sake, that's not a secret.

if you nerf volks, how would volks perform vs rifles and IS? u cant just nerf 1 main line inf without addressing the others

Also people here talk a lot about conscripts being better at close range, let me explain something to those of you who think cons have better dps at close range than any axis unit.

Close range squad dps (upgunned)
sturmpios - 65,32
pgrens - 63,12
rifleman - 38,30 (46,06 - 2 bars)
penals - 34,20
sappers - 30,92
pios - 28,96
grens - 24,88 (26,32 - mg42)
volks - 24,70 (44,26 - stg)
rear echelon - 23,12
cons - 21,42
tommy squad - 20,88
combat engis - 13,68

DPS isn't the only thing you need to account for.

Personally, I would use the following formula to get a good first impression on unit cost-efficiency. The same formula works the same regardless of whether you're taking individual models or entire squads into account. Slot items will, of course, skew the result of the formula.

Cost efficiency per squad: (DPS of squad) * (effective health; received accuracy/hitpoint sum) / (cost to reinforce entire squad)

The cost efficiency of the squad is not a static value, and varies with range.

The cost efficiency curve is also not a set of numbers in a vacuum, and should always be compared with the cost efficiency of other squads at other ranges.

Moreover, even relative cost efficiency isn't a good metric, since squads will almost never fight it out stationary over long periods of times (or if they do, there will be snipers/etc involved). A low-DPS squad will be useless at killing enemy troops while they move to THEIR optimal range. A high-DPS (but low-survivability) squad, will have trouble surviving to get to close-range. That's why you can have stuff like cost-inefficient vanilla Conscripts and OP ppsh conscripts at the same time.

Conscript cost efficiency at Vet3 is bad; but not super-duper-bad. The major issue is how unreliable Conscripts are at getting it (due to their low-accuracy, RNG Mosins), and how badly they become bled while getting it (due to terrible long-range performance of Mosins). Also, if Conscripts die, forget about getting a late-game squad; they will never gain that level of vet again.

PS: Try Vet3 Conscripts vs Vet3 G43 Grenadiers. Pick any range you want and see which squad will always win. Now, take into account the kind of weapons supporting OST and Soviets.

Vet Cons are not inferior to LMG Grens. Vet Cons with PPSh are quite superior to Vet LMG Grens and will usually win even if you don't hoorah in. Which of course you should do, its not expensive, especially for Soviets which have few muni sinks.

PPSH are doctrinal and allow a different playstyle. Same goes for the G43 on Grenadiers.

if you nerf volks, how would volks perform vs rifles and IS? u cant just nerf 1 main line inf without addressing the others

The problem with Volks is mainly the lavanade + sandbag + passive healing, not their raw stats. For a mainline infantry they have too much tools on their own. I mean we removed the flamthrower from Riflemen and penals for a reason and conscript molotov is slow as hell for that same reason.

DPS isn't the only thing you need to account for.

Personally, I would use the following formula to get a good first impression on unit cost-efficiency. The same formula works the same regardless of whether you're taking individual models or entire squads into account. Slot items will, of course, skew the result of the formula.

Cost efficiency per squad: (DPS of squad) * (effective health; received accuracy/hitpoint sum) / (cost to reinforce entire squad)

Ofc we should take into account more factors then just dps. Although I mentioned dps because its the main source of veterancy. But if you want to go this way lets not just narrow it down to dps on one side and received accurasy hp on the other. Things like accuracy, sight range, passive healing. Thats also a part of the units kit.

First of all we should take into account that there are two seperate stages for any unit, its vanilla state, without weapon upgrades, vet or upgrades and then its the upgraded, upgunned and vetted version. Imo the performance of a vanilla unit should be represented by its initial mp cost. In this case cons are outmatched both againt volks and grens. Taking into account the fact the access to both molotovs and at nades requires an upgrade each it makes vanilla cons cost-effeciency far lower than that of volks or grens.

We should also take into account the actualy effectivness of abilities. Wanna talk about molotovs? I remember people talked about molotov balance a for years now. Is there really a good reason you can come up with that would explain why molotovs are still a fucking meme? Fix it. Increse its cost if needed but make it useful. It pains me when I see people not even upgrading that ability although it should increase the value of their basic units. Maybe wanna compare effectivness of molotovs to incediary or rifle nades which axis get for free?

The cost efficiency of the squad is not a static value, and varies with range.

Exactly thats why units with better long range dps always have advantage over the short range units because every engagement they enter in long range friendly environment. Thats why all long range infantry is blob friendly. Also units that are forced to close the distance risk stepping over a minefield or into mg range. Problem that grens or volks dont actually have. Grens especially becasue they mow down any mgs in sight or rifle nade it to death in an instant. Thats why mgs are ineffective vs axis blobs, meaning the main anti blob mechanic is not effective vs a specific blob. Also did you see the range on incediary nades? Playing ost for instance is all about camping a point without pushing, you have literally no pressure to do anything which lowers your losses by a lot. You just wait for your enemies to come so you can mow them from afar. OKW can do the same but its more fun to chase and mow down defensless cons at close range. Force them out of cover with lava nades denying them the only mechanic that was supposed to help them.

There is a little bit of a conundrum here, let me explain. This game has great mechanics called cover. Cover basically negates a large portion of enemy units damage. Cover also promotes static engaments. Combined with long range weapons and mechanics of effective cover denial (like rifle nades and incediary nades) it makes axis basic infantry even more cost effecient.

Moreover, even relative cost efficiency isn't a good metric, since squads will almost never fight it out stationary over long periods of times (or if they do, there will be snipers/etc involved). A low-DPS squad will be useless at killing enemy troops while they move to THEIR optimal range. A high-DPS (but low-survivability) squad, will have trouble surviving to get to close-range. That's why you can have stuff like cost-inefficient vanilla Conscripts and OP ppsh conscripts at the same time.

OP ppsh cons, thats a good one. You really wanna go that lane? OP in which game mode at what map? In close quarters they are merely as effective as volks. So you just basically admitted that volks are op. On open maps they lose to gren blobs any day. Snipers? Thats a good one too. You know that long range weapons like in case of grens, volks, obers allows them to oneshot my sniper? Also ppsh is a doctrinal weapon, the same as g43 which enables grens to combat effectively even rifleman thx to stun nades. You really want to go this way?

Conscript cost efficiency at Vet3 is bad; but not super-duper-bad.

I agree its not super-duper-bad its just super bad.

The major issue is how unreliable Conscripts are at getting it (due to their low-accuracy, RNG Mosins), and how badly they become bled while getting it (due to terrible long-range performance of Mosins). Also, if Conscripts die, forget about getting a late-game squad; they will never gain that level of vet again.

True rng mosins are a joke, so is the magical 25 range for cons. After you reach 25 range your dps doesnt increase. Which is somewhat retarded.

PS: Try Vet3 Conscripts vs Vet3 G43 Grenadiers. Pick any range you want and see which squad will always win. Now, take into account the kind of weapons supporting OST and Soviets.

I literally have no idea what you tried to prove here? Soviet and ost weapons are worlds apart. G43 grens are terminators.

My solution was and still is simple. Take into account all the factors and readjust cons price to match its vanilla and scaling performance. That way they might be shit but at least dirt cheap.

If not then start with making molotovs throw speed better, increase cons close dps a little bit so it actually scales beyond range 25 and make accuracy more reliable.

I literally have no idea what you tried to prove here? Soviet and ost weapons are worlds apart. G43 grens are terminators.

You do know that G43s don't increase their toughness right?

Vet 3 cons EHP: 735 (80*6/(1.087*.6))
Vet 3 Grens EHP: 457 (80*4/(.091*.77))

Getting faster molotovs and a slightly bigger throwing range at vet 2 or 3 would be very welcome.

You do know that G43s don't increase their toughness right?

Vet 3 cons EHP: 735 (80*6/(1.087*.6))
Vet 3 Grens EHP: 457 (80*4/(.091*.77))

But it DOES help grens in the ranges that cons would otherwise beat them. The only reason cons even EVER beat them is because they simply outlast them

But it DOES help grens in the ranges that cons would otherwise beat them. The only reason cons even EVER beat them is because they simply outlast them

No. Conscripts will consistently lose at all ranges vs G43 on equal cover. The only reason why Conscripts might sometimes beat G43 grens is because they are RNG machines, and RNG can go both ways.

So, after the god-awfully long amount of time it takes for Conscripts to reach Vet3, they will still be beat by vet3 G43 Grens at all ranges, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Getting faster molotovs and a slightly bigger throwing range at vet 2 or 3 would be very welcome.

conscripts are fucked in all way :

their abilities suck
Their DPS, as stated by Smith, are very bad until vet.3 and then depend mostly on RNG
Their hitbox is fcking big, i think it is 1.20 while grenadier per exemple have only around 0.9 (30% more chance to get hit)

This single unit has everything wrong, it's funny when you think about that because Relic had made a special balance patch focused exclusively on the conscript a few years ago

IMO, conscript should be as effective, at all range, as grenadier (without lmg 42) and as effective at vet3 as vet3. grenadier with lmg42.
It would be an easy way to balance these units, and because grenadier has to spend 60 muni on a lmg42 that conscript doesn't need, i would then increase the cost of molotov & AT nade.

(basically makes 1 moisin nagant = 2/3 of a grenadier kar98, and add a vet3 bonus to increase accuracy)

That's just randomn idea, took me 5 second to think about it but it's still better than what did Relic during years

IMO, conscript should be as effective, at all range, as grenadier (without lmg 42) and as effective at vet3 as vet3. grenadier with lmg42.
It would be an easy way to balance these units, and because grenadier has to spend 60 muni on a lmg42 that conscript doesn't need, i would then increase the cost of molotov & AT nade.

That doesnt sound balanced at all o.O

That doesnt sound balanced at all o.O

how does a rank 350+ know what is balanced ? o.O
i have been asking for month now, but this part of the forum should really be locked to rank 50 or less.

how does a rank 350+ know what is balanced ? o.O
i have been asking for month now, but this part of the forum should really be locked to rank 50 or less.

I totally agree, Id rather see this part of the forum restricted to people who not only are high ranked but are highly ranked with all factions not just one. I believe every persons opinion is valuable as long as its supported by experience in the field. Someone who isnt able to reach high ranked or someone who only plays one faction either doesnt know what would be balanced or wants the game to be in favor of the faction he plays. Even if this means I myself would lose access to the balance forum its ok with me. I agree to that because I want quality game more than expressing my own opinion. Also it wouldnt be restricting at all because everyone could get access based on his high and versatile ladder position. There are so many modes that literally everyone would get access if that person ever wanted that. People who have 4k games with okw and 100 games with other factions combined shouldnt be allowed to talk in balance forum because clearly they have no idea what balance would look like.

Since we all know the forums will not be "acces only" for people with a certain level, I would like to kindly ask you guys to redirect your efforts into the discussion of the topic that's in the title.

Thank you

how does a rank 350+ know what is balanced ? o.O
i have been asking for month now, but this part of the forum should really be locked to rank 50 or less.

Pot meet Kettle

That doesnt sound balanced at all o.O

Yeah I think that'd make cons the superior unit period, especially considering hey have a bigger squad size. It also seems very uninspired. I'm all for cons buffs, but I don't think that's the way to go about it.

how does a rank 350+ know what is balanced ? o.O
i have been asking for month now, but this part of the forum should really be locked to rank 50 or less.

You slap him with the rank comparison, but the only rank I see on your playercard is okw 2v2.

Yeah I think that'd make cons the superior unit period, especially considering hey have a bigger squad size. It also seems very uninspired. I'm all for cons buffs, but I don't think that's the way to go about it.

You slap him with the rank comparison, but the only rank I see on your playercard is okw 2v2.

i didn't play coh2 for half a year, except one 2v2 match as okw but i was ranked under 50 with all faction in 1v1.

It does't mean i'm right when i speak about balance, but at least i got some basic knowledge on how works this game and i won't be saying completely retarded things like i have seen on this thread.

About the conscript, what i proposed is to make them as good as grenadier , not superior, not inferior as it is in live version.

If you got on one side, a squad made of ONE single soldier and on another side a squad made of 20 soldiers, they can be equal by making the 20 men squad's hitbox 20 times bigger than the hitbox of the one man squad.

That's how you would do to make conscript and grenadier squad equally resilient.


Anyway this discussion is useless : at the release of coh2, when there was only 2 different faction, it was possible to make assymetrical balance (not saying Relic managed to do it, they fcked up that too) but now with 3 allies faction and 2 faction on the Axis side, assymetrical balance can't work because there are way too much possibilities.

that's exactly what happens here with the conscripts, when playing soviet against Osther, conscripts are not that bad (at least in early game), but if you fight against volksgrenadiers ... your conscripts will get rekt -> nerf volksgrenadier would make them weak to USF riflemen, but if you buff the conscripts then they become OP against grenadiers.

Conclusion : This game will never be balanced because Relic released shitty DLC, without thinking one second about game balance but only about $

how does a rank 350+ know what is balanced ? o.O
i have been asking for month now, but this part of the forum should really be locked to rank 50 or less.

This game was broken for years till Cruz came around and pointed it out. All the balance and strategy experts were working off a broken game and claimed to know everything before then. He wasn't the best 1v1 top player either. Just some guy looking through CoH code for fun and managed to get Relic employees fired and force Relic to fix their mess of a game.

So to think rank has any sort of bearing on balance is pretty dumb. Not saying it doesn't matter, but hard to say rank matters when long time and high ranked players didn't know the game was broken since launch. Balance is subjective in the first place, but the problem stems from Relic balancing this game for years on a broken platform. That's why there is so much inconsistency in the game.

But there is so much reworking to do that it's not even worth it anymore. They might as well just dump this game and start on CoH3.