Conscript's DPS in the new patch.

good job vipper for this topic. you help to improve the game when making serious posts!

Thanks you. I it a nice changes to receive credits and not flak when you are trying to help.

Thanks you. I it a nice changes to receive credits and not flak when you are trying to help.

yeah and mr smith thanked you to.

alot of people flame, and attack the people that work on patch, witout realy traying to help.

you bring numbers, ideas, u willing to help. and that is great!

If i may be so bold;

Grens cost the same to build, but more to reinforce, they get the rifle nade and the faust, they also get the med kit and can build bunkers. They are a 4 man squad.

In Con-trast (sorry) Cost the same, less to reinforce, they get the molo and AT nade, they get merge (arguably better than the med kit) and they can build sandbags, while also getting 6 man squads.

Cons 6 men are on a more packed formation than Grenadiers though, and they are being targeted by the OST mortar and the OST sniper.

4-man grenadiers will also be able to use a garrison much better than 6-men conscripts

At this point Grens and cons are somewhat on par, balanced but not the same. The difference comes from the MG42 which makes Grens better, but also costs 60 muni.

By making Cons compete pretty well vs Grens with an LMG you risk making grens just as useless in the late game as cons are now.

Vet0 Cons will still struggle a lot vs vet0 Grenadiers. It's only after veterancy has taken effect (and after Conscripts have burned countless of MU doing oorah, and being bled quite a lot closing in) that they will reach Vet3; and then they deserve being equals.

That's because a 6-man Conscript squad, in the end still costs the same to reinforce as a 4-man Grenadier squad.

And that buying back cons late game being fruitless argument does run true, but for all factions as well. Vet 0 rifles are total trash vs vet 5 cons etc etc. Why should cons be different?

You can always buy a double-bar from your racks as USF on your Vet0 riflemen. You will be on the backfoot for sure; but your rifleman squad won't be completely useless.

If you throw a Vet0 live-version conscript in the fight, that squad is going to bleed you like crazy until it can have an effect.

I worry that with doctrines that give manpower free Cons, or give cons PPSH's or PTRS's or simply by allowing a player to gain significant map control with cons alone, you reopen the can of worms we closed before; that of light vehicle rushs that leads OST players into picking mobile assault 90% of the time because they cant compete in the early game.

Mosin nagant DPS curves won't change anything with respect to PPSH or PTRS changes. That's because those slot items will override Mosins.

The only thing that will change PPSH/PTRS performance is veterancy changes. With that, we ensure that every veterancy change we put in is taken out of the slot item (that was the main reason why PPSH accuracy was decreased).

By adding stuff that doesn't translate directly on the weapons at hand (e.g., reinforcement cost), it won't be easy to think of a compensating nerf to keep those upgrades at hand.

DPS curve is really the safest change we can do with respect to scaling.

Hopefully you can fix the problem earlier, and i can play some more and see how it plays out, but preliminary thoughts of my are mostly that a simple dps/combat buff throws so many other balance points out of whack. A more creative solution may been a better option. Alternatively allow them to upgrade 3 or so SVT rifles at some point, so they have to pay muni to be good as well...

I think it's worth trying to explore an avenue where not every mainline infantry gets access to upgrades and AT grenades. No matter how much we homogenise mainline infantry, faction doctrines have been designed with a different intent, and 2/3rds of Soviet infantry with elite infantry will face issues when Conscripts can finally hold the frontline and also perform an assault role.

The moment we give Conscripts weapon upgrades, is also probably the moment that Molotovs will have to be removed immediately (else its Rifle Company flamers v2.0), and that will give us a completely radically different design from what we started with.

The reason I think it's a good idea to look at DPS curves is because we've seen this work just fine for the Revamp mode.

yeah and mr smith thanked you to.
alot of people flame, and attack the people that work on patch, witout realy traying to help.
you bring numbers, ideas, u willing to help. and that is great!

Credits and Thank you, must go to everyone involved in the patch (regardless if we like the outcome or not.)

Credits and Thank you, must go to everyone involved in the patch (regardless if we like the outcome or not.)

This is the first thread in a while to have a positive outcome. We might not have seen eye to eye on the validity of the changes, but I did enjoy the discussion and that it stayed civil. It's a good thing Cruzz shed some light on the cooldown and aimtime numbers that might have not entered into consideration. Thanks for creating the thread.

Cons 6 men are on a more packed formation than Grenadiers though, and they are being targeted by the OST mortar and the OST sniper.

4-man grenadiers will also be able to use a garrison much better than 6-men conscripts


Vet0 Cons will still struggle a lot vs vet0 Grenadiers. It's only after veterancy has taken effect (and after Conscripts have burned countless of MU doing oorah, and being bled quite a lot closing in) that they will reach Vet3; and then they deserve being equals.

That's because a 6-man Conscript squad, in the end still costs the same to reinforce as a 4-man Grenadier squad.


You can always buy a double-bar from your racks as USF on your Vet0 riflemen. You will be on the backfoot for sure; but your rifleman squad won't be completely useless.

If you throw a Vet0 live-version conscript in the fight, that squad is going to bleed you like crazy until it can have an effect.


Mosin nagant DPS curves won't change anything with respect to PPSH or PTRS changes. That's because those slot items will override Mosins.

The only thing that will change PPSH/PTRS performance is veterancy changes. With that, we ensure that every veterancy change we put in is taken out of the slot item (that was the main reason why PPSH accuracy was decreased).

By adding stuff that doesn't translate directly on the weapons at hand (e.g., reinforcement cost), it won't be easy to think of a compensating nerf to keep those upgrades at hand.

DPS curve is really the safest change we can do with respect to scaling.

I think it's worth trying to explore an avenue where not every mainline infantry gets access to upgrades and AT grenades. No matter how much we homogenise mainline infantry, faction doctrines have been designed with a different intent, and 2/3rds of Soviet infantry with elite infantry will face issues when Conscripts can finally hold the frontline and also perform an assault role.

The moment we give Conscripts weapon upgrades, is also probably the moment that Molotovs will have to be removed immediately (else its Rifle Company flamers v2.0), and that will give us a completely radically different design from what we started with.

The reason I think it's a good idea to look at DPS curves is because we've seen this work just fine for the Revamp mode.

Soviets have access to a sniper as well, and they mortar is far from bad. Not only that they have access to the scout car/clown car with is in essence the perfect MG hunter

Cons have much easier access to molo's now which can push not only grens but any unit out of a garrison/cover.

Indeed I am not saying dont improve their early game consistency (which amounts to a DPS increase in most circumstances) and maybe some very small increases to dps at vet 0 IF that is needed. I don't understand why cons 'deserve' to be good at vet 3? Ostruppen aren't and they are still useful.

However, you will be homogenising fighting ability rather than features, a different way to get to the same place.

Yeah, i dont want cons to have weapon upgrades (non-doc) either. You do run the risk of making cons good enough to play every role already. Cons dont need to be assault infantry to be used aggressively.

Cons 6 men are on a more packed formation than Grenadiers though, and they are being targeted by the OST mortar and the OST sniper.

What does fornation have to do with snipers? Mortars sure, but snipers?

If you throw a Vet0 live-version conscript in the fight, that squad is going to bleed you like crazy until it can have an effect.

And in the process of that fight you could easily cap or decap a vp, or prevent an enemy squad from doing so at a crucial point in the fight/game.

You know, Cap circles are tiny and force squads like grens to close the distance to their least effective range to hold territory.

Cons, even in live, and especially late game, are great at weakening even Vet3 lmg grens trying to save a VP.

...
Thanks for creating the thread.

You are welcomed and thanks for taking the time to read and respond in civil, non aggressive way.

If one wants the simplest solutions, my suggested changes so far about conscripts would be:

1) Reduce size to 1 to make merge more attractive.

2) Change the mosin curve so that it has its optimum ratio to k98 at 15-20. Reason this increase the synergy with molotov (range 15) and it will make it easier for player to judge that range from molotov indicator. K98 could still win at ranges below 10 so that people do not abuse "ourah" to move to range 0 taking cover out of the equation.

3) Replace the PPsh upgrade with SVT upgrade that further increase DPS at the same ranges (15-20) at the cost of some far DPS. That will keep the behavior of the unit similar.

4) If PPsh stay move "near" range closer to 0 so that conscript have a reason to close the distance, and change the number of weapons to either 6 ppsh or 3 ppsh+ 3 SVT since bolt action and sgms do not mix well.

5) Move all bolt action "near" ranges to 10 (even 15) to allow better usage of SGM/AR.

Its impossible to quantify, that's why these changes need to be battle tested with as many good players as possible.

I guess that was kind of my point. Maybe "quantify" wasn't so much the right term as "considered" or "taken into account".

That's because upgraded infantry pay the munitions costs once during the lifetime of the game and they get good mileage out of their weapons. Conscripts trickle munitions off steadily throughout the game. Our goal is to have both types of performance enhancements (upgrades and temporary buffs) on par with each other.

What you should actually do, is make units abilities scale with veterancy so that you can smooth out pick in performance.

For instance the new "volley fire" ability is way too strong for the first engagement but becomes progressively less effective unless you up-gun the RE.

Now, if the penalty was bigger at first and benefits less (one could adjust the price also) but scaled with each vet level the ability could be balanced allot better.

Same can be done about "molotov" or "ourah" that could become a vet 1 ability.

Linear DPS isn't a problem per se for relative positioning. In fact even flat DPS isn't a problem per se.

Linear DPS curves are not good for a number of reason.

The weapon performance remains the constant with range thus a player does not benefit or loses from changing range.

Fights between weapon of the same type notice differences only at max and minimum ranges (the ratio dps curve is of the second degree or flat).

By using actual curves (ok they are might not be real curves) not straight lines one can amplify the affect of range giving more bigger benefit for repositioning their troops and counterweighting the drawbacks (moving out of cover, drop of DPS on the move,...) of doing so. Which lead to more fluid game and less static.

Pls stop changing DPS curves to linear (Penals/conscripts).

Linear DPS curves are not good for a number of reason.

The weapon performance remains the constant with range thus a player does not benefit or loses from changing range.

Fights between weapon of the same type notice differences only at max and minimum ranges (the ratio dps curve is of the second degree or flat).

By using actual curves (ok they are might not be real curves) not straight lines one can amplify the affect of range giving more bigger benefit for repositioning their troops and counterweighting the drawbacks (moving out of cover, drop of DPS on the move,...) of doing so. Which lead to more fluid game and less static.

Pls stop changing DPS curves to linear (Penals/conscripts).

I don't see how this applies to linear DPS; you move closer you deal more damage (or the opposite for LMGs). Tank accuracy and penetration curves are linear too.

I don't see how this applies to linear DPS; you move closer you deal more damage (or the opposite for LMGs). Tank accuracy and penetration curves are linear too.

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.

I don't see how this applies to linear DPS; you move closer you deal more damage (or the opposite for LMGs). Tank accuracy and penetration curves are linear too.

I did not say that you do not do more damage but the ratio of range to damage remains the same.

If you opponent is also using the same type of weapon the curves will rather parallel and the benefit from changing range will be minimal.

In patch the curve Mosin/K98 remains about the same from ranges 10 to 35, while in the old curves conscripts would do better around 25 range and thus had a reason to move to that range.

Now the only benefit from moving to range 10.

By creating a curve that boost's conscript's DPS around 15-20 things will become more interesting, since the molotov synergy improves.

Ballistic weapons DPS is completely different ball game since there is no cover and vehicles move faster.

I did not say that you do not do more damage but the ratio of range to damage remains the same.

If you opponent is also using the same type of weapon the curves will rather parallel and the benefit from changing range will be minimal.

In patch the curve Mosin/K98 remains about the same from ranges 10 to 35, while in the old curves conscripts would do better around 25 range and thus had a reason to move to that range.

Now the only benefit from moving to range 10.

By creating a curve that boost's conscript's DPS around 15-20 things will become more interesting, since the molotov synergy improves.

If Conscripts are fighting K98 all the time, then what you say would be interesting. However, Mosin vs Kar98 is a transition period in the early game until weapon upgrades start popping up (STGs, G43, LMG). Past that point, Conscripts still need a range where they are still useful.

Nevertheless Mosin vs K98 still have different curves, even if you just boost the far accuracy.

We can't boost Conscript's mid-range, which is a strong point without risking debalancing everything.

If Conscripts are fighting K98 all the time, then what you say would be interesting. However, Mosin vs Kar98 is a transition period in the early game until weapon upgrades start popping up (STGs, G43, LMG). Past that point, Conscripts still need a range where they are still useful.

Nevertheless Mosin vs K98 still have different curves, even if you just boost the far accuracy.

We can't boost Conscript's mid-range, which is a strong point without risking debalancing everything.

Is it possible to give Cons non doc ppsh? Or is relic not into that kind of change? This would bypass their need for damage adjustment in the closer ranges and would simply give a choice between close or longer range dps functionality.

If Conscripts are fighting K98 all the time, then what you say would be interesting. However, Mosin vs Kar98 is a transition period in the early game until weapon upgrades start popping up (STGs, G43, LMG). Past that point, Conscripts still need a range where they are still useful.

It is also a transition period for the importance of infantry fighting and its impact since when weapons upgrades become available vehicle and support weapons start having more of impact.

Getting the balance right in first engagements (rather then in late game) is far more important due to snowball effect.

When Relic moved Shock and Guards to CP 1 without any other changes the impact was tremendous simply because it upset early infantry fights.

And that is why G43 at CP 3 where mediocre while in CP 1 allows grenadier to be useful.

Nevertheless Mosin vs K98 still have different curves, even if you just boost the far accuracy.

We can't boost Conscript's mid-range, which is a strong point without risking debalancing everything.

Do the K98/Mosin DPS ratio curve pre and post patch and you will see that the affects of range have been ironed out in ranges other than 10.

Again in opinion this a case of fix or don't touch. It has come to point that infantry early fights need to be re-balanced one vs other at it was done in the September Patch.
Show Spoiler

The changes there where a great improvement and there is no reason to Roll-back to linear DPS curves

Is it possible to give Cons non doc ppsh? Or is relic not into that kind of change? This would bypass their need for damage adjustment in the closer ranges and would simply give a choice between close or longer range dps functionality.

PPsh is a bad option because smgs and bolt action do not mix well (unless all mosin are replaced).

PPsh is a bad option because smgs and bolt action do not mix well (unless all mosin are replaced).

Get them all smgs them haha.