Conscript's DPS in the new patch.

Get them all smgs them haha.

That would be more preferable (with adjusted DPS for PPsh of course), or SVTs(+3 or 6) or PPsh and SVTs (3+3).

For more about this once more here
Show Spoiler

Conscripts will still have to close in to beat Grenadiers in the early game. The patch doesn't change that.

The curves are still different. If the cross-over range (where Conscripts start winning Grenadiers) is too long at 25, we'll just change the mid range.

Yes, v1.1 Conscript DPS is a bug. And, unfortunately, we have to wait until v1.2 is released before we can really test the changes.

I think he means that it would be better if "sweet spot" distance in fight between unit X and unit Y wouldn't be at point blank range for unit X and as far as you can for unit Y, but somwhere in between, like it was at range 25 for cons vs grens.

As far as I can tell, for every pair of units in the game, the sweet spot is always at the extremes. I can't think of any exception where this rule doesn't apply. Heavy sappers, maybe?

Obviously, for the unit that has to go up close to win, actually moving all the way to point-blank range ends up hurting you, because you lose DPS due to moving, and you are potentially losing cover.

This is why for close-range units like Panzergrenadiers, that can actually DPS until far enough, often the best strategy is to sit at mid-range. That's because you still win, and there's potentially more cover for you to choose from.

As far as I can tell, for every pair of units in the game, the sweet spot is always at the extremes. I can't think of any exception where this rule doesn't apply. Heavy sappers, maybe?

Obviously, for the unit that has to go up close to win, actually moving all the way to point-blank range ends up hurting you, because you lose DPS due to moving, and you are potentially losing cover.

This is why for close-range units like Panzergrenadiers, that can actually DPS until far enough, often the best strategy is to sit at mid-range. That's because you still win, and there's potentially more cover for you to choose from.

This is not entirely true, for example the sweet spot for fighting against shock troops with either long range unit like grens or mid range unit like pgrens is around range 17 becouse this is where shocks stop to deal any statistically important damage. At the same time both grens and pgrens deal more damage at range of 17 than at extremes of 0 and 35. So in fact it is not in extreme but exactly in the middle.

As far as I can tell, for every pair of units in the game, the sweet spot is always at the extremes. I can't think of any exception where this rule doesn't apply.

Obviously, for the unit that has to go up close to win, actually moving all the way to point-blank range ends up hurting you, because you lose DPS due to moving, and you are potentially losing cover.

This is why for close-range units like Panzergrenadiers, that can actually DPS until far enough, often the best strategy is to sit at mid-range. That's because you still win, and there's potentially more cover for you to choose from.

You can only see that by doing a DPS ratio curve between the 2 units.
For instance its highly probable that:

Thompson Rangers/Assault grenadier, optimum range (for ranger) is around 15 drops around 10 and then slightly increases close to 0.

Thompson Rangers/Grenadiers, optimum range around 10-15 and the drops around 0.

You new DPS curves have flattened out the difference between Mosin and K98, give less reason to conscripts to change range if the fighting gren at max range.

You can only see that by doing a DPS ratio curve between the 2 units.
For instance its highly probable that:

Thompson Rangers/Assault grenadier, optimum range (for ranger) is around 15 drops around 10 and then slightly increases close to 0.

Thompson Rangers/Grenadiers, optimum range around 10-15 and the drops around 0.

Showing both curves is not enough. To get the optimal fighting range curve of both units you have to divide effective hp of squad A by the dps curve of squad B and the other way round. Then you have to plot both hp/dps curves or their difference.

Showing both curves is not enough. To get the optimal fighting range curve of both units you have to divide effective hp of squad A by the dps curve of squad B and the other way round. Then you have to plot both hp/dps curves or their difference.

I meant to do a combined DPS curve (the ration of one to other). That indicates the best ranges of each infantry not who is going to win.

This is not entirely true, for example the sweet spot for fighting against shock troops with either long range unit like grens or mid range unit like pgrens is around range 17 becouse this is where shocks stop to deal any statistically important damage. At the same time both grens and pgrens deal more damage at range of 17 than at extremes of 0 and 35. So in fact it is not in extreme but exactly in the middle.

The optimal range to fight vs Shocks is always max range. I would never abandon my 35 range to get closer to Shocks to deal any damage. Let THEM close the distance.

My point, however, is that for every unit engagement there is a specific range from which unit A wins if the fighting happens below that range, and unit B wins if the fighting happens after that range.

What Vipper is asking for is designate a range segment (e.g., 10-25) within which Conscripts will win, and outside which Grenadiers will win.

That's never going to work well though. Cons will get bled closing in from 35 to 25. Then, Grenadiers will relocate from 25 to 10, and now Conscripts will start losing again.

The optimal range to fight vs Shocks is always max range. I would never abandon my 35 range to get closer to Shocks to deal any damage. Let THEM close the distance.

My point, however, is that for every unit engagement there is a specific range from which unit A wins if the fighting happens below that range, and unit B wins if the fighting happens after that range.

What Vipper is asking for is designate a range segment (e.g., 10-25) within which Conscripts will win, and outside which Grenadiers will win.

That's never going to work well though. Cons will get bled closing in from 35 to 25. Then, Grenadiers will relocate from 25 to 10, and now Conscripts will start losing again.

Not exactly what I suggested.

Grenadier win from 35-25
Conscripts win from 20-15
Grenadier win or about the same from 5-0

The current kit conscripts have (ourah molotov) is better suited for mid fights.

And imo it can work just fine.

Reasons for these range:
Most fight when using Attack move starts at around 30.
At this point conscript use ourah (and moltovs) to bring the engagement at 15-20 and gain an advantage.

The engagement becomes less favorable in close distance to avoid conscripts always wanting to being the fight to point and making the cover irrelevant.

The kit conscripts currently have (ourah molotov) is better suited for mid ranges.

(one could redesign them as dedicated defensive infantry by replacing ourah with a "hit the ground" type ability that would give a 5-10 damage reduction)

Not exactly what I suggested.

Grenadier win from 35-25
Conscripts win from 20-15
Grenadier win or about the same from 5-0

Who wins at ranges 5-15?

With this arangements Grenadiers have the upper hand for the duration of the game:
- Conscripts will always get bled while closing in
- Grenadiers will always have the option of retreating after bleeding Conscripts
- Grenadiers will always also have the option of closing in and finishing the Conscripts

Close range units are usually given the benefit of having higher lethality, due to the potential for them bleeding while closing in.

By making Grenadier close-range output better than conscript close-range output (since conscripts are durable), you've created a super-soldier squad that can both A-move to win engagements, and can also gun down enemies super fast at close range.

Who wins at ranges 5-15?

Ranges not mentioned are transition ranges where squad are about equal and left to RNG.

With this arangements Grenadiers have the upper hand for the duration of the game:
- Conscripts will always get bled while closing in
- Grenadiers will always have the option of retreating after bleeding Conscripts
- Grenadiers will always also have the option of closing in and finishing the Conscripts

1) They will not bleed much if they use "ourah"
2) Forcing retreat is a win on its own
3) Since Grenadier do not have "ourah" and lose DPS on the move, so that clsoing in is not going to be a very good option for grenadiers

Close range units are usually given the benefit of having higher lethality, due to the potential for them bleeding while closing in.

By making Grenadier close-range output better than conscript close-range output (since conscripts are durable), you've created a super-soldier squad that can both A-move to win engagements, and can also gun down enemies super fast at close range.

And Close range units have the draw back of trading horribly at long ranges, a drawback which conscript do not have.

As I explained, if the advantage conscripts get for moving the fight bellow 10 is worth it, most fight will be take place there via "ourah" and the cover mechanism will have little impact.

"Ourah" is a big factor here because it gives conscript the advantage of easier choosing range. Unless you decide to change "ourah" (replace it, make it scale with veterancy) the options are limited.

In addition conscript can create their own green cover something not available to grens.

And there is another reason, long range fight and especially in cover, take longer, are more tactical less RNG, lead to less squad wipes and reduce the affect of forcing a retreat.

Mainline infantry fights should be designed about taking place in mid to far and not point blank.

As far as I can tell, for every pair of units in the game, the sweet spot is always at the extremes. I can't think of any exception where this rule doesn't apply. Heavy sappers, maybe?

Obviously, for the unit that has to go up close to win, actually moving all the way to point-blank range ends up hurting you, because you lose DPS due to moving, and you are potentially losing cover.

This is why for close-range units like Panzergrenadiers, that can actually DPS until far enough, often the best strategy is to sit at mid-range. That's because you still win, and there's potentially more cover for you to choose from.

For myself, the mission for my Pgrens is to push, flank, and/or clear ATGs or MGs as fast as possible. I think pgren bundled nades have more value than their STGs in most engagements I fight using panzergrens. Their sweet spot is: "clearing team weapons" for me, more than a specific range.

If I am playing ostheer and I'm just using my infantry to fight allied infantry I'm looking for a losing battle. Pgrens sweep suppressed infantry or team weapons. Fighting infantry squads in a slugfest with them is asking to be pushed off the field slowly but surely.

Grenadiers, LMG or no, are likewise asking for the same if they're not being supported by team weapons, (and in fact are typically supporting team weapons rather than the other way around.) Otherwise they serve most predominately as snare squads for diving tanks on repairing vehicles or pak positions.

....
By making Grenadier close-range output better than conscript close-range output (since conscripts are durable), you've created a super-soldier squad that can both A-move to win engagements, and can also gun down enemies super fast at close range.

I am not even sure why we are debating the bellow 10 ratio. When v1.2 comes out and the DPS of the conscripts at range 10 is adjusted, Grenadier will be trading more favorably at range 0 than they do in live because their near range will remain 0 while conscripts near range will be 10.

Allow me to try to explain this a bit better, from June 2013 to September 2014 Relic released a great number patch and focus allot of effort in getting small arm fire correct, because the understood its importance.

Their conclusion was that non-linear ("curved") DPS curves where better than linear DPS curves and adjusted the majority of starting weapons accordingly.

(Update March 25?, 2014)
https://www.coh2.org/file/4641/elbe_weapons.png

Quote from patch notes (Update April 24th, 2014?):
"Small Arms Weapon Profiles
The goal is to improve tactics by better defining unit roles; thereby, increasing the importance of unit positioning relative to cover. A weapon profile defines the distribution of damage over distance. Previously, the profiles were generally flat (Comment by me, by flat they mean linear, not horizontal) and did not fully characterize the strengths and weaknesses of a squad. Now, a Pioneer squad with a MP40 submachine gun has a very high damage output at close range but a substantially lower damage output at max range. The distribution of damage is no longer blended between ranges; this combined with the increased weapon lethality should reduce the tendency to rush infantry at one another."




Now the only way I see it is, that one can choose to continue this model and adjust the "new" weapons (mosin,SVT,STG44) to rest of the starting weapon or to adjust the rest of "old" weapons to the "linear" system.

In my opinion there is no good reason to throw out the window all the experience Relic had, by re-rolling into system they stopped using.

New mosin


DPS of 6 conscripts squad:

Old mosin 20.64 19.94 19.27 18.65 18.06 17.50 16.97 16.47 16.00 15.55 15.12 14.71 14.32 13.95 13.59 13.25 12.92 12.61 12.31 12.02 11.75 11.48 11.22 10.98 10.74 10.51 9.78 9.10 8.47 7.89 7.34 6.83 6.35 5.90 5.47 5.07

New mosin 21.67 20.89 20.16 19.47 18.82 18.21 17.63 17.08 16.55 16.06 15.58 15.13 14.70 14.29 13.90 13.53 13.17 12.82 12.49 12.17 11.87 11.58 11.29 11.02 10.76 10.51 9.95 9.43 8.94 8.50 8.08 7.68 7.32 6.97 6.65 6.34

The weapon now overkill doing 84 instead of 80 similar to VG k98.