PPSHs as a global upgrade. Seriously.

@Strummingbird:
Why global?
Why not a per unit upgrade?

@sevenfour:
I have NEVER attacked anyone based on their ladder page.
Just post it, as I have.
It is what it is, and we all have to live with our stats.
Hiding them serves no purpose.

@Strummingbird:
Why global?
Why not a per unit upgrade?

When I used the term global, I actually meant per unit upgrade. I really regret using the word global now

However global vs per unit could be an interesting discussion also.

I wouldn't give conscripts a weapons upgrade. I think they are fine in their role as basic infantry. However, they do scale rather poorly so boosting their vet3 bonus would help them out late game. But, if you buff conscripts, penals and shocks will be used even less frequent and be less useful overall.

I suggested Ppsh as a global upgrade years ago and Relic didn't listen to me Kappa

I suggested Ppsh as a global upgrade years ago and Relic didn't listen to me Kappa

I heard you asked 7 years ago.

Huh? Haven`t seen that in any patchnotes. *goes in game to check it out*

Nevermind - I was wrong - it said 40 only because I had 2 cons selected at the time. Still 20 each.

I heard you asked 7 years ago.

more less

I see no problem making them a "normal" option for conscripts. A minor munitions cost increase (to say 50) would be justified as, as Nullist points out, it could lead to some very powerful versatile units early in the game, and its more about late game viability.

I like the suggestion of "after all other upgrades" or tieing it in with tier 3/4. Conscripts definately need more options, and being forced to go one of three commanders, one of which sucks massively, would not be a problem.

The problem is that the skill has to be replaced by something. For the motherland? That's a pretty nice skill. It would add more munition sucking skills up, and support the infantry playstyles of the doctrines.

i dont like this idea. fucking con spam noobs will never make any other unit. it will be boring and just blobs of cons. never again would we see shocks or penals. this is a bad idea. there is enough of con spam already. its dumb and getting more common. there are people who try to win in 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 and just build cons and gaurds the entire game.

i dont like this idea. fucking con spam noobs will never make any other unit. it will be boring and just blobs of cons. never again would we see shocks or penals. this is a bad idea. there is enough of con spam already. its dumb and getting more common. there are people who try to win in 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 and just build cons and gaurds the entire game.

I suppose you have the Same opinion on people who spam osttruppen or grens with lmg42? Probably not, the problem is that conscripts lack the space to be useful late game.

i dont like this idea. fucking con spam noobs will never make any other unit. it will be boring and just blobs of cons. never again would we see shocks or penals. this is a bad idea. there is enough of con spam already. its dumb and getting more common. there are people who try to win in 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 and just build cons and gaurds the entire game.

You counered your own argument when you pointed out that people can already spam PPSH Conscripts and Guards if they want to. There`s no change in that, it`s already part of the game (how many times have I needed to say that already?). Plus if they increased the cost of the upgrade like some people suggested as part of the change, it would actually make life harder for conscript spammers. Haven`t thought of that have you?

I actually think we might see more Shock Troops as a result of this change since all the Shock Commanders (apart from Soviet Shock Army) will become much more viable. And this is even more true for the units and abilities that are currently unlucky enough to be exclusively under a Commander without PPSHs.

remove molotovs and give them to partisans, replace them with penals, and have penals a doctrine unit
give conscripts either a real grenade or a ppsh

It sounds like the next patch will even it out with using veterancy. In the stream it seemed like conscripts might get vet faster to make up for the damage discrepancy. So I'd wait till after the next patch to say they need a upgrade.

It sounds like the next patch will even it out with using veterancy. In the stream it seemed like conscripts might get vet faster to make up for the damage discrepancy. So I'd wait till after the next patch to say they need a upgrade.

Thank you for the post but I don`t think this is relevant. I am not asking for a buff, I want more variability in terms of Commander choices. Even if they get better vet or something along those lines it will still be better vet + PPSHs or just better vet which would once again force your hand to pick the same Commanders over and over.

That being said, this is the first time I`v heard of this new vet system and I don`t know the nature of the changes, let alone the consequences so my reaction is very much first impression rather than informed opinion.

Just had an idea (rare but has happend before). If making PPSH upgrade non-commander-specific is such a hardship - I can`t understand why, I try to be as open and objective as I can but I honestly still haven`t read/heard a signle reason why not, seems like an improvement with no drawbacks to me - then we can achieve the same result (variability in Commander choices) in two other ways:

Give the PPSH upgrade to every single soviet Commander there is, I am sure they can sacrifice one of their abilities/call-ins for greater good.

-OR- and ze german fanbois will love this one (while soviet ones will want to murder me)

Take the PPSH upgrade away from the 3 Commanders that have it and out of the game for good. We all know Soviets are OP anyway.



...

Justfor the record and since sarcasm and irony are notoriously hard to recognize on the internet, I am joking.

Seriously Relic, don`t do this.

IMO a SVT rifle upgrade would be perfect if ppsh's are going to be doctrine specific. I definitely agree though, conscripts become pretty useless pretty quick and don't scale well into the later game.

I wouldn't give conscripts a weapons upgrade. I think they are fine in their role as basic infantry. However, they do scale rather poorly so boosting their vet3 bonus would help them out late game. But, if you buff conscripts, penals and shocks will be used even less frequent and be less useful overall.

I pretty much agree with this point. Conscripts suck against infantry but I think that's their design. I think soviets are supposed to use elite infantry and snipers to fill out their ranks to better combat German infantry. A PPSH DP-28 or SVT upgrade would lessen the need for combined arms.

Unless of course we are trying to go back to the COH1 days where you could spam riflemen with BAR sticky bombs and Pineapples. Not to scoff at those days at all that was fun.

I also want to point out that I almost never get the PPSH upgrade and don't feel like it is necessary to compete as soviets.

I wouldn't give conscripts a weapons upgrade. I think they are fine in their role as basic infantry. However, they do scale rather poorly so boosting their vet3 bonus would help them out late game. But, if you buff conscripts, penals and shocks will be used even less frequent and be less useful overall.

I pretty much agree with this point. Conscripts suck against infantry but I think that's their design. I think soviets are supposed to use elite infantry and snipers to fill out their ranks to better combat German infantry. A PPSH DP-28 or SVT upgrade would lessen the need for combined arms.

Well the thing is Conscripts already have this upgrade available. All the current situation does is forcing people to pick specific Commander every time to get it. Your post and the one you are replying to therefore make no sense unless you are both arguing for taking PPSHs out of the game completely.

You won`t help variability by arguing for status quo because people will just keep going with the same Commanders and PPSHs anyway... On the other hand you can get more variability by making more Commanders viable as I suggest.

I think the PPSH avenue is completely the wrong way to approcah this.

Penals. They are the T1.5 unit to look to for upgraded Gren equivalency.

They come packaged with roughly the same DPS as G43s, and the same survival as Grens.

Aside from that, a nerf to LMG would also laterally and more specifically address Cons vs Grens disparity in vetted AND upgraded engagements.

People are "confusing" vet into this in ways that are not logical, such as comparing vet 2 upgraded grens vs vet 0 un upgraded Cons, as if that has any relevancy whatsoever.

One of the propogated myths, is that somehow Vet 2+ Grens are "better" than Vet2+ Cons.
This is just flat out false.
People then incorrectly imply from this that vetted Grens "scale better", which again is nonsense.
What they are ACTUALLY talking about, is UPGRADED Grens scaling better, which is ofc obvious that an UPGRADED unit will scale better in Vet, than an unupgraded one.

Then there is the fundamental difference that everyone is glossing over, that Cons are BETTER than Grens at ALL vet lvls, due to Merge and Oorah. Its only once Ost invest in upgrades, that they begin to scale better. Without upgrades, Grens are inferioir, at ewuivalent vet, to Cons, due to lack of Merge and Oorah.

Edited to add: Another alternative is making G43s universal on Ost, instead of LMG, and shifting the LMG to the Commander slot. This would indirectly flatten Gren scaling, at the same cost. And is, I wouls think, relatively simple to implement. Asymmwtrically this would mean both factions can field equivalent nonCommander infantry that is just about equal in DPS, survival and cost, mamely Penals as Sov and G43 upgraded Grens as Ost.

The problem seems to be vetted AND upgraded Grens outscaling vetted and unupgraded Cons.
It is ofc logical though, that they SHOULD scale better. If they are scaling TOO well, then the direct solution to that is reducing the DPS of the upgrade, because that is the part that is scaling beyond Cons, not the veterancy.

@Strummingbird:
Why global?
Why not a per unit upgrade?

The Germans tend to rely on munitions more, and the soviets fuel for upgrades in general. Having a global upgrade for a fuel cost would serve to reinforce this differentiation.

Making it a per unit upgrade for munitions wouldn't affect teching order much. Having it cost fuel would slow down vehicles, whereas with munitions the soviet player
could potentially just oorah less and toss fewer molotovs, then have both PPSHs and tanks out early rather than making a choice between them.

Unless you're suggesting a per-unit fuel upgrade, which would be quite unprecedented. Not saying that it would be a bad idea, but sticking with the status quo (fuel for global upgrades/vehicles, munitions for individual upgrades/abilities) would mean a suggestion is more likely to be accepted.