Conscript's DPS in the new patch.

...
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.

I have not asked for any nerf to conscripts what I have said is since conscripts are being buff the initial punch of Penals should go down (I am under the impression that the majority of the community agrees that Penals are OP).
About Penals
Show Spoiler

I have also said is that there no good reason in messing with weapon profiles by moving near accuracy from 0 to 10 for only 1 of the weapons.

I seriously doubt that ingame testing can give a clear picture of the current situation since the change in DPS ratio (gren/cons) from 10-0 is dramatic and judging the distance of a firefight whether it 10 5 or 0 is really difficult.

I have also said is Soviet do not really need a cost reduction in tech (grenade merge) and the Penals PTRS should get a tech cost similarly to other factions.

Imo near accuracy for should be bigger for bolt action rifles (probably even to 15) but for all of the not just one of them.

Finally for once more I have to point that fixing "mainline infantry" one at time is extremely difficult and all of them should be balanced at same time one vs other while sticking to "weapon profiles" and "relative positioning" as much as possible.

I thought penals did catch a nerf

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.

this a simplified DPS ration between Gren/conscripts in range 0/10/20/30
112% 85% 106% 129%

As you can see the optimum range for grenadier are 30 and then 0 while for cons its 10 then 20. This means that conscripts will have the advantage if the move to 10 but they will lose it if grenadier than move to 0.

So actually if conscripts manage to move to range 10 grenadier should then try to move closer and not further away.

That is byproduct of moving the near range from 0 to 10 for only 1 of the bolt action rifles and not all of them, which makes things unnecessary complicated.

I thought penals did catch a nerf

The change in the DPS is only on the move.

this a simplified DPS ration between Gren/conscripts in range 0/10/20/30
1.12% 0.85% 1.06% 1.29%

A ratio is never in percent. I guess you're referring to this: http://www.coh2-stats.com/compare?utf8=✓&squad1=conscript_squad_mp&squad2=grenadier_squad_mp&commit=Compare

The problem with DPS stats is that they do not account for: number of models in the other squad, number of models dropped, received accuracy modifiers, unit sizes or armour (only important for shocks)

As you can see the optimum range for grenadier are 30 and then 0 while for cons its 10 then 20. This means that conscripts will have the advantage if the move to 10 but they will lose it if grenadier the move 0.

So actually if conscripts manage to move to range 10 grenadier should then try to move closer and not further away.

Higher dps does not mean a squad will win at that distance since it still has to deplete the health pool of the other squad, which for a con squad is 6x80. Grens have a higher DPS at all ranges currently, but they lose at close to mid ranges because they are up against a squad with more health.

The dps a gren squad does at 0 is 23.05. It goes up against a squad with 6*80 health with a target size of 1.08. This means it will take the squad 6*80/(23.05*1.08)=19.28 seconds to kill the con squad.
The dps a con squad deals at 0 is 20.58. It goes up against a squad with 4*80 health with a target size of 0.95. This means it will take the squad 4*80/(20.58*0.95)=16.37 seconds to kill the gren squad.

Good luck with moving closer

The exact distance at which vanilla grens (vet0, no lmg) pull ahead of cons in time to kill is after 27 not 30 (in the current state of the game). The optimal range (the range at which they trade most effectively) is 35.

In all this theocrafting we're obviously completely ignoring superior gren scaling with vet and the effect of the lmg upgrade.

Back to topic: after a couple more games, I'm leaning more and more towards Cruzzi's analysis. Cons now do have one range at which they can actually do something in the late game.

...

The HP of each units is the same at all range.

The DPS ratio does no decide which unit will.

The DPS however is relevant to the result of the the firefight and indication to what is the optimum range to fight a specific enemy.

The number 1.12 0.85 1.06 1.29 translates to:
If you do 10.000 fight between grenadiers and conscripts at ranges 0/10/20/30 the best to worse result for conscripts regardless weather they win or not will be
10/20/0/30

The fact that Conscripts have more DPS at range 10 while having more EHP tent to also mean that conscripts will probably win most of the times at range 10.

Cruzz was right about the DPS at far (there was typo in accuracy) but he is not taking into account the near range change so his numbers in range 10 are off.

The HP of each units is the same at all range.

Of course they are, I never said anything to the contrary. But the fact remains that a con squad has 6 members and each member has 80 hp. A gren squad has 4 members and each has 80 hp.

DPS is damage dealt per second. It does not account for: the health pool of the other squad (, target size, armour, received accuracy), which is higher for cons than for grens. DPS figures account for damage of the gun, accuracy of the gun, cooldown of the gun, ready aim time (and if they are calculated properly also magazine size and reload time and some other things I forgot the name of).

The DPS ratios have the same shortcoming.

The DPS ratio does no decide which unit will.

The DPS however is relevant to the result of the the firefight and indication to what is the optimum range to fight a specific enemy.

Commonly optimum refers to the best solution across the relevant interval/range. In coh2 for me the optimal range is the range at which my squad wins the engagement most decisively or trades most effectively, which for grens would actually be max range, not 0 (at which range the squad would lose).

Maybe I am misunderstanding you and you meant "less disadvantageous" by optimum, in which case you are right, grens would trade better compared to range 10, but they'd still trade negatively and would still lose.

The fact that Conscripts have more DPS at range 10 while having more EHP tent to also mean that conscripts will probably win most of the times at range 10.

This is what I wrote "Back to topic: after a couple more games, I'm leaning more and more towards Cruzzi's analysis. Cons now do have one range at which they can actually do something in the late game."

In their current state cons already win at range 10 most of the time, they will win more clearly with the patch changes.

if cons get their ppsh they shreed all axis infantery with ...in many cases even sturmpios, obers, fallis and panzergrenadiere...


for their cost...its little bit over the top.

remember: they can orrah, faust, molotov, 6model squad (better for recrewing, less wiping potenzial, ...)

Commonly optimum refers to the best solution across the relevant interval/range. In coh2 for me the optimal range is the range at which my squad wins the engagement most decisively or trades most effectively, which for grens would actually be max range, not 0 (at which range the squad would lose).

If grenadier lose in patch at range 0 they will lose worse at range 20 because the DPS ration is smaller.

I am not sure where we fail to communicate clearly. If for conscripts best to worse ranges are:
10/20/0/30

The reverse applies to grenadiers:
30/0/20/10

If the engagement is at 10 grenadier are better of in moving to 0 (and then retreat if things go wrong) since they will trade worse if they move to 20 and would have to move up 30 or 35 to trade better.

Regardless of who actually wins the anomaly in the DPS ratio from 0 10 is unwanted because it confuses things unnecessarily.

If grenadier lose in patch at range 0 they will lose worse at range 20 because the DPS ration is smaller.

Correct. But again, this is complete fiction and to me a completely uncomfortable amount of theocrafting, because we have to assume that cons and grens both are vet0 and grens have no upgrades (both of which will never happen in a game). We further need to assume that cons managed to close the gap without taking any health damage or model losses, which again is very unlikely unless smoke is used. If cons lose 1 member on approach, they lose and again, that is comparing vanilla grens at vet0 with vanilla cons at vet0, completely ignoring superior gren vet and upgrades.

If the engagement is at 10 grenadier are better of in moving to 0 (and then retreat if things go wrong) since they will trade worse if they move to 20 and would have to move up 30 or 35 to trade better.

Things will go wrong. They are certain to go wrong. 0 is only preferable to 10 if you manage to close in taking no damage (we also ignore moving accuracy penalties during trying to move in) but it's both a losing scenario, so it's not optimal. The trade is just less bad than at 10.

I need to stress again that these comparisons are complete fiction since we are consistently ignoring that cons need to get to these distances first and they will take damage doing so and won't be dealing damage due to moving accuracy modifiers.

I am not theory crafting anything and I am not guessing who will win.

I am simply pointing out making optimal range 10 and far worse 0 is problematic especially since one can not judge distances so accurately.

All bolt action should have the same (or about) near range.

If one want to turn Conscripts to a CQC unit one should give a different weapon type.

Messing with weapon profiles to fix balance might be an easy way but it also a wrong way and in the end creates more problems than it solves (see Penals).

I am simply pointing out making optimal range 10 and far worse 0 is problematic especially since one can not judge distances so accurately.

If I follow your argument, then you seem to be saying, that you are fine with the match-up between cons and grens at range 10, so that cons have a range at which they can do something in the late game, but you do not like that the damage does not fall off between 0 and 10 like any other bolt action rifle.

Messing with weapon profiles to fix balance might be an easy way but it also a wrong way and in the end creates more problems than it solves (see Penals).

Penals are not a good reference to make your point because they don't have bolt action rifles, they have semi automatic rifles.

If I follow your argument, then you seem to be saying, that you are fine with the match-up between cons and grens at range 10, so that cons have a range at which they can do something in the late game, but you do not like that the damage does not fall off between 0 and 10 like any other bolt action rifle.

You are opening a whole different chapter now
Show Spoiler
Among other things I do point out that having conscripts near range to 10 while other bolt action rifles to 0 is a bad change.

Penals are not a good reference to make your point because they don't have bolt action rifles, they have semi automatic rifles.

They are a good reference not because they are bolt action but because they mess with weapon profiles curves.

Although their weapons are semi automatic they do not follow proper profile being too linear(where their relative advantage should be mid ending up having too much DPS far). This becomes even worse with the ridicules high accuracy bonuses they get.

From the couple of games i have played so far with the patch (both have been uploaded in the replays section) i think conscripts may well be a bit too powerful for their cost (including a lack of tech).

It seems to me that cons trade very well vs Grens, and grens need an upgrade of an mg42 or g43 to outfight cons. However, even after that upgrade the cons can continue to trade very well, especially once they get to vet 3.

As a soviet player can get 3 or 4 cons out very quickly and take map very effectively, a rush to a t-70 will return as a very powerful strat against OST and OKW.

I need to play more games before i make my mind up, but i fear they have been overbuffed.

Ok, can someone please explain the issue in one sentence like you would like to explain to an idiot, asking for a friend.

(Cons are now OP???)

Actually Cons feel a bit better as opening move once you play the game and ignore the misleading maths. Play the game before looking into numbers and schematics.

Ok, can someone please explain the issue in one sentence like you would like to explain to an idiot, asking for a friend.

(Cons are now OP???)

The jury is still out, and its not as simple as cons being OP but also how a stronger conscript squad can amplify the faction as a whole into being too strong.

The jury is still out, and its not as simple as cons being OP but also how a stronger conscript squad can amplify the faction as a whole into being too strong.

Won't the reinforcement costs being too cheap be a problem for such squad now ?