Conscript's DPS in the new patch.

Soo...than conscript are cheaper...but better??

so now all allie factions gets better standart infantery than on axis side?

yeah....why not? Since allie get all the nice TDs, axis armor was nerfed, Anti tank was nerfed on axis side...not really good anti infantery blob tools...axis seems a little bit weak now

There is a lot wrong with your post.

1) Cons are still 240 mp and wait... grens are still 240 mp They did not become cheaper. I played some games and honestly they didn't feel much different except for when they reached vet 3.
2) The Firefly was adjusted and made more inaccurate (or in the terminology you like to use: nerfed)
3) The Firefly's moving accuracy was reduced (nerfed)
4) The Firefly's tulips stun was decrease in its effectiveness (nerfed)
5) The Firefly had its vet 3 bonus damage halved (again nerfed)
6) The Panther had a cost decrease (buff)
7) The Panther had a reload decrease (buff)
8) The Panther had a accuracy decrease for when it's on the move. Only the OKW version. (nerf)
9) The Panther lost the 10% additional armour bonus at vet2 (nerf, then again it has stock an already higher armour value than a tiger and the highest health pool of any non doc tank at 800 hp (it also still gains an additional 200 (or so) hp at vet 2))
10) The Jackson had a moving accuracy decrease (nerf)
11) The Jackson had a cost increase (nerf)
12) The Jackson had a health buff to the level of any other medium tank in the game (buff)
13) The Elefant and JT do not equal all AT. In 2v2 I rarely ever call in a Elefant and I rarely see it called in either because Ost has never lacked for excellent AT.

In summation: Cons are not cheaper, they are not insane, allied tank destroyers received 6 nerfs and 1 buff. The panther seems good to me. The only axis AT that saw a clear nerf were the Elefant and JT, then again being able to 2 shot any medium tank is fun if you got the Elefant but if you face it, it's extremely frustrating on certain maps.

Play the mod. It's actually rather good.

There is a lot wrong with your post.

Pls avoid of drifting off topic to TDs.

Pls avoid of drifting off topic to TDs.

Said guy, who derailed whole Commander thread with Weapon Profiles posts

Because soviet have a much wider variety and far more cost effective doctrinal options.

Teching is essential to Ostheer and there very few low tech options for Ostheer.

Soviet have plethora of low tech option (like "lend lease" to be replaced by KV-1 after this patch)

And because grenadier have to kill 3 conscript models for every 2 they lose just to keep even.

Dont need use arguments with callins, its bad, coz its can be nerfed in 1 click adn option to survive like callins are not good. What if i dont play with that docs, waht i must to do ?
Soviet must have effective docs, coz there tier units are not good compared to axis tier units. Its way of life from 2013 year.
But how you can use argument like early about unit, i can udenstand if there was price like ostruppen and synergy with t2.
If ostheer can be EZ get to both tiers its will be bad, coz in both 2 tiers are good units and you have answers for all strats and units. Not many factions have choise like that without teching and low CP.

There is a lot wrong with your post.

1) Cons are still 240 mp and wait... grens are still 240 mp They did not become cheaper. I played some games and honestly they didn't feel much different except for when they reached vet 3.
2) The Firefly was adjusted and made more inaccurate (or in the terminology you like to use: nerfed)
3) The Firefly's moving accuracy was reduced (nerfed)
4) The Firefly's tulips stun was decrease in its effectiveness (nerfed)
5) The Firefly had its vet 3 bonus damage halved (again nerfed)
6) The Panther had a cost decrease (buff)
7) The Panther had a reload decrease (buff)
8) The Panther had a accuracy decrease for when it's on the move. Only the OKW version. (nerf)
9) The Panther lost the 10% additional armour bonus at vet2 (nerf, then again it has stock an already higher armour value than a tiger and the highest health pool of any non doc tank at 800 hp (it also still gains an additional 200 (or so) hp at vet 2))
10) The Jackson had a moving accuracy decrease (nerf)
11) The Jackson had a cost increase (nerf)
12) The Jackson had a health buff to the level of any other medium tank in the game (buff)
13) The Elefant and JT do not equal all AT. In 2v2 I rarely ever call in a Elefant and I rarely see it called in either because Ost has never lacked for excellent AT.

In summation: Cons are not cheaper, they are not insane, allied tank destroyers received 6 nerfs and 1 buff. The panther seems good to me. The only axis AT that saw a clear nerf were the Elefant and JT, then again being able to 2 shot any medium tank is fun if you got the Elefant but if you face it, it's extremely frustrating on certain maps.

Play the mod. It's actually rather good.

isnt a 6model squad with a 240 pricetag cheaper than a 4model squad which cost 240 to?

240/6 = 40mp / Model
240/4 = 60Mp/ model

and a refresh per model is cheaper too

isnt a 6model squad with a 240 pricetag cheaper than a 4model squad which cost 240 to?

240/6 = 40mp / Model
240/4 = 60Mp/ model

and a refresh per model is cheaper too

That's not how this game works. Units are balanced on the basis of their performance. A gren squad has always beaten a con squad except for the early game at close to mid range. This would mean that a con squad lost more members of a squad for every member that a gren squad lost. The reason why soviets have a lot of manpower bleed in the late game is exactly that and how badly cons scaled.

Units are balanced such that they trade effectively for their cost, not the number of members in their squads, that's why a ober squad does a lot more damage than a gren squad even though it also has 4 members. By the logic applied by you, rifles would be 30 mp too expensive or volks 30 mp too cheap because they are both 5 man squads

I hope this is helpful for you.

Back on topic: I have not yet seen that much of a difference for cons to be honest other than the much needed late game scaling at vet 3, which they do trade off for 5% survivability. The fact that they now have to overkill every unit due to the reduced damage seems to nicely offset some of the increase in dps at very close range. That combined with the fact that they need to get there without losing any members first.

That's not how this game works. Units are balanced on the basis of their performance. A gren squad has always beaten a con squad except for the early game at close to mid range.

If you want to take that approach I have to point that:
1) That an LMG grenadier is T1 unit with PB 1 tect cost researched and a 60 munition upgrade and thus more "expensive" and thus it should beat a conscript which is T0 unit.

Most of the issues with conscripts come from VGs and not Grenadiers. Cons vs grenadier is one of the most balanced match up of "mainline infantry".

But as you lets try to focus on the changes

Back on topic: I have not yet seen that much of a difference for cons to be honest other than the much needed late game scaling at vet 3, which they do trade off for 5% survivability. The fact that they now have to overkill every unit due to the reduced damage seems to nicely offset some of the increase in dps at very close range. That combined with the fact that they need to get there without losing any members first.

The effect of overkill is identical to VG (no upgrade) it affect DPS around 5%.

The increase in DPS is not in "very close" range 0 where DPS is about the same but in close range to mid range (10-15)

If you want to take that approach I have to point that:
1) That an LMG grenadier is T1 unit with PB 1 tect cost researched and a 60 munition upgrade and thus more "expensive" and thus it should beat a conscript which is T0 unit.

Not really, a vanilla gren (without upgrade) beats a vanilla con as described in my post. The lmg "only" exacerbates the performance disparity further.

Most of the issues with conscripts come from VGs and not Grenadiers. Cons vs grenadier is one of the most balanced match up of "mainline infantry".

Partially true, if vanilla grens are looked at, then again, the new changes do not seem to completely topple the mechanics between grens and cons to me. However, the match up is only balanced in the early game, with vet cons fall behind vanilla grens. When the lmg hits, cons just flat out lose at all ranges (except 0 and that only in a world where both units just spawn next to each other without having to close in). That's why cons have no purpose currently in the late game other than bleeding manpower (of their own faction) and throwing at nades.

The increase in DPS is not in "very close" range 0 where DPS is about the same but in close range to mid range (10-15)

Sorry, that is my mistake. I will try to get into engagements where the increased dps between 10-15 would become noticeable, which might be kinda tricky though. Let's see if there is really that much of a difference.

I was responding to your argument that overkill factor is important and pointed out that exactly the same applies to VGs (with out ST44).

Not because AGAIN, the dynamic of the early game is different when one has access to 2 full automatic weapons which spread damage and one of them is their starter unit.

Casualties become more RNG the sorter the fight so generally when cover is not involved and range are close. In the live version they become RNG because people tend to ourah conscript and fight at close range, something that will do even more at the patch.

I haven't seen people using hoorah and if they did, they are using Cons wrong. But the truth is, who ever uses Cons to begin with.

And now they will more reason to do so since the optimum range for fight will be 10. And that will force Ostheer either in HMG spam or the 3 g43 doctrines.

And now you are overreacting, cause conscripts winning by a margin at close range was how the game played since it's release till WFA were released.

Using ourah make lose 100% DPS because units do not fire actually.

I was referring to the 50% you have while moving at normal speed

Actually it going to attrition that will beat grenadiers since they around x150% more.

Conscript do not have to "win" engagement due to the bleed factor. Delaying Ostheer teching is a "win" on its own for Soviets.

And that's bs. You WANT to win engagements early on as Soviets, specially if you go for Cons spam and/or light vehicle play. You don't want to be playing from behind. The whole myth of you just have to bleed them cause they are more expensive has been debated since 2013 and it has always been: whoever plays better it's cards is gonna win cause the total reinforcement cost at the end is gonna be the same for both if equal playmaking is done.

That is part of the problem with patches, they do not explain what actually goal of each change is and how they aim to achieve it.

I think we both have enough ingame experience to spot incoming problems before they appear. I also think that this issues should raised ASP since Relic seemed to have ignore many many warning about incoming problems. The fact that ver 1.1 has been already released is promising sing, the fact that it they have moved to ver 1.1 even before testing is an indication that there is nothing wrong with finding problems (like the panther) before actually testing the mod.

There's already a replay with Redwing (someone who has plenty of xp with Con spam and offmeta play) and it seems for now nothing was crazy with Cons.
TBH i don't know your experience ingame cause i never seen your nick nor replays coming from you (i only bring this up cause you mention it). Unless something is completely obvious i don't give doomsday opinions. The PV uproar could be seen miles ahead, same with Jackson changes (although the dynamic with the other units is also huge). I don't think it's so with Cons.

I am posted pages and pages of warnings about the redesign of Penals, the USF mortar, the VG ST44, the ability to decrew USF artillery pieces yet we had to go thru months and years of broken things before they could be fixed.

1- Which redesign? The one who put them on the light while Guards were OP in combination with T70 or the one that gave them PTRS. I never liked the PTRS on Penals and would had just given them an AT satchel if AT nade was researched and/or try with the small AT gun first. You are not the first to complain about them.
2- USF mortar was problematic only because Relic released single player campaign mortar instead of the SU mortar version which was tested on the beta. Nowadays most people skip it.
3- I would gladly see those comments PRIOR to the release of the rework OKW, not after. TBH that was a complete mess and hard to do. There was so much shit going around that in comparison, it was the lesser evil at that moment. Unless my memory betrays me, i've always said that Obers arrive a bit too late but they are completely stupid once they vet. The transition between Volks into more AI infantry can't be done unless you spam PF or get JLI/Falls (both of them having issues with AoE and spacing). Still the main issue with OKW on 1v1 was playing against SU with maxim spam.
4- This has been the case since WFA beta.


I would not insist so much if patch where coming every month or 2 but if the game become broken for another 8 months it will probably die.

You know nothing Jon Snow. We had even less people a couple of months after the game release back on 2013. The active playerbase actually grew later on. The sheer amount of "top" players dropped during the years, specially after some time post WFA and the release of UKF but the more casual base was more than content to keep playing even if UKF, and the commander release after (CalliOP, Cancer and LM) made the game really obnoxious.
The game will die if there is no support at all. There hasn't been any incentive for people to come back and try the game again as it was the case on previous years. Either through balance or content patches. Still we are rocking with similar number of players.

Dead games are: Halo Wars, Homeworld, Steel Division, Grey goo, DAW3, Sudden Strike 4...

Unless it's a remasterisation (Wololo), a Total War or CIV like game, i don't think any other RTS has done any good.

Answers in red. I think i don't have anything more to add nor either part will change it's current opinion. I'll just wait for more replays/games to pop up before commenting any further.

Not really, a vanilla gren (without upgrade) beats a vanilla con as described in my post. The lmg "only" exacerbates the performance disparity further.

A gren squad has always beaten a con squad except for the early game at close to mid range.

What you describe is that Grenadier beat the conscripts only at max range. we makes the 2 units asymmetrical balance and is the exact intent of the "relative positioning".

For more about this you can check the change log that explain those principle or this thread:

Update September 9th, 2014
https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/67/coh-2-changelog/p2
under infantry tuning

https://www.coh2.org/topic/52782/suggested-improvements-to-small-arms-weapons

Sorry, that is my mistake. I will try to get into engagements where the increased dps between 10-15 would become noticeable, which might be kinda tricky though. Let's see if there is really that much of a difference.

The DPS of conscript remain the same bellow 10 while grenadier DPS increases the close the get 10 (that is why i suggested moving all bolt action rifles close range 10 and not just cons). That means that optimal range for conscript would be 10 (can be estimate by Molotov range 15).

Now the funny thing is that once conscripts reach range 10 its the grenadier would now want to move closer so that they can increase their DPS making things even messier.

I was referring to the 50% you have while moving at normal speed

Then you wording was actually pretty poor because this is what you wrote.

Try to keep spamming hoorah at every single engagement and you are gonna be dry of it. You also lose your 50% dps while running.

and inaccurate since the moving modifier for Mosin is *0.50 Accuracy *1.5 cool-down , resulting to around 42%-47% DPS depending on range.

Then you wording was actually pretty poor because this is what you wrote.


and inaccurate since the moving modifier for Mosin is *0.50 Accuracy *1.5 cool-down , resulting to around 42%-47% DPS depending on distance.

If semanthics is all you want to discuss... I would had written half but i guess you would had something else to say. The real point is if you don't have PPSH to greatly overcome the DPS lost on the approach and the muni expenditure it's not worth spamming hoorah.

If semanthics is all you want to discuss... I would had written half but i guess you would had something else to say. The real point is if you don't have PPSH to greatly overcome the DPS lost on the approach and the muni expenditure it's not worth spamming hoorah.

About "semantics"
Show Spoiler

I actually don't see your point. If conscript in patch stay in range 25-35 they will lose even worse than live due to lower DPS. (mistake in calculations)

If they do not run with ourah to close in to 10 units fast and walk, they will be cut down while moving and firing with their reduced DPS.

How is ourah not worth it? If ourah is not worth then probably conscripts are not worth it.

I actually don't see your point. If conscript in patch stay in range 25-35 they will lose even worse than live due to lower DPS.

If they do not run with ourah to close in to 10 units fast and walk, they will be cut down while moving with their reduced DPS.

Not sure where you're getting the reduced DPS from.

You can already tell that the raw DPS can't be less than it was at vet0 before at any range by seeing that the 12/16 damage reduction cancels out pretty much exactly with accuracy changes.

0.71828/0.541 ~ 1.32
0.65985/0.495 ~ 1.33
0.5565/0.334 ~ 1.66 --> dps increased past 25 by up to (12/16)*1.66 = 24.5%

And the near range change will increase dps between 10 and 24 slightly, 25 being exactly the same as before

I guess they're worse than they were before at vet3 at the max range due to reduced RA and the damage numbers no longer lining up nicely with unit health, but at the same time they were absolutely useless at that range even before so atleast the change gives them some range at which they can do something in the endgame.

Not sure where you're getting the reduced DPS from.
...

I used the Relic formula inserting the accuracy values, damage value and the new near range. (oups i seem their was a typo to far accuracy thanks)

About the close DPS most of the change comes from moving near range from 0 to 10 (achieving max DPS at range 10 and not 0) and not from changes in the accuracy.

Not sure where you're getting the reduced DPS from.

You can already tell that the raw DPS can't be less than it was at vet0 before at any range by seeing that the 12/16 damage reduction cancels out pretty much exactly with accuracy changes.

0.71828/0.541 ~ 1.32
0.65985/0.495 ~ 1.33
0.5565/0.334 ~ 1.66 --> dps increased past 25 by up to (12/16)*1.66 = 24.5%

And the near range change will increase dps between 1 and 24 slightly, 25 being exactly the same as before

I guess they're worse than they were before at vet3 at the max range due to reduced RA and the damage numbers no longer lining up nicely with unit health, but at the same time they were absolutely useless at that range even before so atleast the change gives them some range at which they can do something in the endgame.

Part of Vet3 received accuracy has been moved to Vet0 (0.92) and another part has been changed to an accuracy modifier at Vet3 (1.1).

So, veterancy-wise, Conscripts won't bleed all the way to the end-game (due to earlier RA), and they will hit harder and more-reliably in the late-game. Unless I've done something wrong with the numbers, the DPS increase at max range should carry directly to their long-range trading capability.

Worse RA will make closing-in costlier in the late-game. At the same time, molotov thrown speed should help compensate that. Molotovs are also meant to nudge the misaligned rifle-damage.

Originally, the new Vet3 accuracy bonus was meant to be higher, but we're going conservatively until we can see which units will enter scope due to commanders rework. For instance, if Guards/Shocks receive a buff, patch-version Conscripts will probably work just fine.

if Guards/Shocks receive a buff, patch-version Conscripts will probably work just fine.

What if not?

If they do not run with ourah to close in to 10 units fast and walk, they will be cut down while moving and firing with their reduced DPS.

How is ourah not worth it? If ourah is not worth then probably conscripts are not worth it.

This is accounting from what you said before and on the opening post about having to tweak hoorah or other changes to mitigate the conscripts changes.
"I think I get pretty well. What will happen with these changes is that anyone that want to use conscripts will ourah them to range 10, where "point blank" mechanism kicks in and the whole cover mechanism goes out the window. The result? fight from tactical will become a bloody mess of having to counter wave after wave of screaming conscripts."

A unit which takes roughly a couple of seconds or volleys of fire missed, has to be able to recover that damage lost and the opportunity of been able to snap the enemy squad out of model/dps as approaching. This is why i said, that unless you have PPSH, you don't want to use hoorah to get close at every engagement you have.
I haven't seen it on 4 years since release, besides the early 5 muni hoorah spamming to get faster capping and mobility on a game which had a low lethality to booth with, so i don't think it's gonna be an issue nowadays neither (pure mosin nagant).

So to put it clearly: hoorah is useful. It's not useful as to spam it at every single fight as you mention in your comments (or what i can deduce from wave after wave of screaming conscripts).
You are asking for other nerfs to account for the current Conscripts changes when it has barely been tested and people don't seem to find it obnoxious for the moment.

What you describe is that Grenadier beat the conscripts only at max range. we makes the 2 units asymmetrical balance and is the exact intent of the "relative positioning".

Thanks, I'm quite aware of this mechanic.

You seem to misunderstand what I say and seem to potentially mix up some stats. Grens do not win at just max range. They win from mid range up, as is the case now and is going to be after the patch as well.

Now the funny thing is that once conscripts reach range 10 its the grenadier would now want to move closer so that they can increase their DPS making things even messier.

I think, the proper response would still be to get more distance between you and the conscript squad as it has always been. If you move to close range you enter the only range at which cons are able to beat grens (before the patch, both units vet0 and grens without lmg).

I will continue to try and closely monitor my gren v con and con v gren engagements to see, if cons do trade too well at that 10-15 range out of a range of max 35.

The cons will not win at close range if they take too much damage coming in. Grens have very good close range accuracy and eventually when enough con models are down, rate of fire will no longer carry the cons to victory. For that reason, cons may be forced to engage at an unfavorable long range. It's find that grens have good long range, but the gap is unfairly large. It's about as unfair as shock troops vs grens, but without the cost difference.