Login

russian armor

Soviet General Faction Changes - New cmdr mod 5.0

PAGES (24)down
24 Apr 2019, 10:11 AM
#281
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Penals always had a role. But because cons were a dumpster fire they had to carry T1 builds on their own, et viola, we have the current state of penals.

They're an assault unit deaigned to remove fortifications. That is why they had flamethrowers and satchel charges. The SVT choice was always dumb but what are you gonna do. I agree that they have lost their identity but only because cons were so bad. Their AT rifles, at least, make sense. Forcing soviet T1 builds to ALWAYS have to pick guards for AT is not a good design choice and restricts variety in builds. Similarly, forcing shock troop commanders for bunker removal is bad. We HAD soviets where commanders were mandatory to have a full tool kit and it was a miserable time.

Engineers are also not durable enough to charge anything with a demo charge.


In my ideal design:


Conscript stats stay. As non-doc upgrades they can choose to buy two ppsh, three svt or two PTRS. They are now a versatile squad that can always bring something to any commander, but their upgrades are worse at their job than dedicated squads for any job. They exist to plug any hole in your army build with acceptable and cheap units. Side tech costs are reduced further. The doctrinal packages are upgrades to the normal ones: ppsh cons get more PPSH and maybe 5% RA. PTRS cons get more rifles and the grenade volley.


Give penals a mosin. Allow them to pick either three PTRS, three PPSH or a single flamethrower. T1 now has decent AT and a CQC squad. Penals no longer are just better conscripts and they are only good in close as assault troops.


Remove the guard PTRS. Give them a single DP as default with button. Allow them to buy one or two more DPs. Maybe even reduce their close range mosin damage. They are now a dedicated long range firepower squad and they rely on other unuts for AT damage and defending against CQC squads. T2 has maxims and at guns, t1 has penals, either of them have conscriots as cheap line filler.


Shocks are still damage dealing tanks with smoke and frags. Their simplicity is a strength.



There you go. Elite infantry have distinct roles. Penals have a job and don't just beat cons at all ranges. Conscripts don't excell at anything but they can do a little bit of everything, from sandbags to grenades to merging.

6 men penals with flamer is an incredibly bad idea.
24 Apr 2019, 10:14 AM
#282
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2





Penals were always superfluous, they always intersected with other units: when the Penals had a flamethrower and bad damage SVT-40, it was 6 people Engineers in T1. When SVT-40 get a buff and a flamethrower was removed, now it’s just an excellent infantry squad that overshadows Conscripts. And whatever you try to do it the struggle will continue. The ability to dig a trench and throw an anti-tank grenade (because Molotov sucks and to spend fuel on his unlock is stupid) does not cover good damage. If this does not stop the re-tightening of the rope between the Conscripts and the Penals not stop until the game dies. There can be only one.
24 Apr 2019, 10:22 AM
#283
avatar of SeductiveCardbordBox

Posts: 591 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Apr 2019, 10:11 AMVipper

6 men penals with flamer is an incredibly bad idea.


Doesn't really cause any problem with assault engineers. Removing their SVT first cuts their damage even with it dramatically. If it is too much, fine, leave it to the CEs. The swap to mosin and PPSH/PTRS options would still suit me fine.
24 Apr 2019, 10:31 AM
#284
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Apr 2019, 10:10 AMVipper

If stock conscripts spam becomes a viable tactic as it once was, there will be little reason to built any other unit.

I disagree completely.
Conscripts can't handle lights, so you already have the need for penals/guards or T2.
Cons won't certainly handle new, early PGs, so you have a need for penals/guards/shocks.
Cons will quickly start falling behind volks in early and mid game once StGs appear, which means penals/maxims/elites are needed again.

And the most important thing you really seem to forget about is the fact that this con upgrade is T4 and cons start falling behind as soon as 5th minute of the game due to appearing opposing elites and weapon upgrades.

Early game con spam is going to be as easily counterable as it is now. 4 cons might see re appearance without the need of ppsh doctrine, but more then that at you'll be shooting yourself at foot again, hell if 7th man upgrade isn't scaling them sufficiently enough, 4 cons already might be a bad idea.

The aim of diversity changes as the one conscripts is should be to create room for all units to be used. Else you simply replacing one spam with another maxims->Penals

And that is precisely why cons need to be made viable at end game as well.
So we do NOT HAVE to spam one single type of unit to carry the weight of mainline alone.

Cons being cheaper then penals and maxims specifically allow for diversity as now you have a bit of extra resources to put in other options without the absolute need to resort to spam that other options exclusively as it was the case with penals, maxims and guards up until this point in time.
24 Apr 2019, 10:32 AM
#285
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Apr 2019, 05:32 AMKasarov
Since we're back on Conscripts, I'll just repost this:


Cons starting performance is fine if not for ubervolks designed to hold their own against units 30mp more expensive so an svt will throw off gren balance slightly. Also would this weapon persist so it's always equipped? Would Tha increase the chance of dropping their 1 weapon slot weapon? What about with ppshs? Ptrs'?

Cons are supposed to be about manpower effeciency, so I like the cover bonus idea but Tying it to vet leaves the same problem we have now-if they are wiped they are fucked.

I think cons need whatever upgrades they have tied by tier not vet. They can be trash tier but raising the bar slightly each tier, even through fuel upgrades (like t0 has now) would be preferable to tied to vet.

To reiterate: cons only stop being worth it mid and late game, an early game svt isn't going to fix those problems nor is a late game only upgrade. The 7th man is better for cons than an early game svt as it let's them at least merge and crew weapons without risk of a wipe.
24 Apr 2019, 10:41 AM
#286
avatar of Kirrik

Posts: 573


Cons starting performance is fine if not for ubervolks designed to hold their own against units 30mp more expensive so an svt will throw off gren balance slightly. Also would this weapon persist so it's always equipped? Would Tha increase the chance of dropping their 1 weapon slot weapon? What about with ppshs? Ptrs'?

Cons are supposed to be about manpower effeciency, so I like the cover bonus idea but Tying it to vet leaves the same problem we have now-if they are wiped they are fucked.

I think cons need whatever upgrades they have tied by tier not vet. They can be trash tier but raising the bar slightly each tier, even through fuel upgrades (like t0 has now) would be preferable to tied to vet.

To reiterate: cons only stop being worth it mid and late game, an early game svt isn't going to fix those problems nor is a late game only upgrade. The 7th man is better for cons than an early game svt as it let's them at least merge and crew weapons without risk of a wipe.


Cons are manpower ineffecient compared *any* unit soviets have, including even maxim. If you factor cost of upgrades getting 4 cons squads costs you pretty much same as getting 4 penals. Their scaling issues start early-midgame when Volks get stg and grens get lmgs, they just get unbearable late game when only use for cons becomes crewing weapons and capping.
24 Apr 2019, 10:59 AM
#287
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Doesn't really cause any problem with assault engineers. Removing their SVT first cuts their damage even with it dramatically. If it is too much, fine, leave it to the CEs. The swap to mosin and PPSH/PTRS options would still suit me fine.

Assault engineer are 5 men with smg (that have low dps at range 20) not 6 men. (and yea they do cause problems.)
24 Apr 2019, 11:01 AM
#288
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Apr 2019, 10:31 AMKatitof

I disagree completely.
Conscripts can't handle lights, so you already have the need for penals/guards or T2.
Cons won't certainly handle new, early PGs, so you have a need for penals/guards/shocks.
Cons will quickly start falling behind volks in early and mid game once StGs appear, which means penals/maxims/elites are needed again.

And the most important thing you really seem to forget about is the fact that this con upgrade is T4 and cons start falling behind as soon as 5th minute of the game due to appearing opposing elites and weapon upgrades.

Early game con spam is going to be as easily counterable as it is now. 4 cons might see re appearance without the need of ppsh doctrine, but more then that at you'll be shooting yourself at foot again, hell if 7th man upgrade isn't scaling them sufficiently enough, 4 cons already might be a bad idea.


And that is precisely why cons need to be made viable at end game as well.
So we do NOT HAVE to spam one single type of unit to carry the weight of mainline alone.

Cons being cheaper then penals and maxims specifically allow for diversity as now you have a bit of extra resources to put in other options without the absolute need to resort to spam that other options exclusively as it was the case with penals, maxims and guards up until this point in time.

You can disagree as much you like, but you suggested that Conscripts spam should become a viable tactic not me and that makes the rest of yor post irrelevant.

Have a nice day.
24 Apr 2019, 11:06 AM
#289
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Apr 2019, 11:01 AMVipper

You can disagree as much you like, but you suggested that Conscripts spam should become a viable tactic not me and that makes the rest of yor post irrelevant.

Have a nice day.

No, it simply makes it opposing to yours and equally valid.

It might be a heart attack invoking shock to you, but someone needs to break it to you
24 Apr 2019, 11:29 AM
#290
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

I always thought Conscript could use the refit ability so you can replace a squad with a more dedicated unit.

T3 could allow you to refit a conscript squad into shock troop
T4 could allow you to refit a conscript squad into Guard squad

It would bring more diversity to the faction, even if you don't chose a Guard's doctrine you can still have them on late game.

I'm not talking about cost but don't say it should be free from cost. It's just a general idea.
24 Apr 2019, 11:38 AM
#291
avatar of SeductiveCardbordBox

Posts: 591 | Subs: 1

That doesn't make cons useful or promote a diverse build, it just lets you pick commanders without guards and still get guards. I don't want to consider the shock/guards or tank hunter/guards combos.

Conscripts need to be able to actually bring something without eclipsing elite infantry.

The devs insist they are supposed to be all about 'utility'

Let them be mediocre but versatile. Small weapon packages are ideal and allow cons to fit into many different roles and builds by covering weak spots in your force composition.

Yes I am gonna keep try selling it until I go blue in the face.
24 Apr 2019, 11:41 AM
#292
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Apr 2019, 10:41 AMKirrik


Cons are manpower ineffecient compared *any* unit soviets have, including even maxim. If you factor cost of upgrades getting 4 cons squads costs you pretty much same as getting 4 penals. Their scaling issues start early-midgame when Volks get stg and grens get lmgs, they just get unbearable late game when only use for cons becomes crewing weapons and capping.

I don't disagree. I've been bitching about the silly upgrade costs on cons for ages especially since they cost the same as grens and ever so slightly less than volks but never actually shine. But they are SUPPOSED to be about manpower effeciency. The 7th man and the changes therein help make merge more attractive, but a single svt does nothing for them at all early mid or late game.

I think the 7th man should be moved to 2 buildings instead of T4. It COULD be pumped out earlier, but it would at its earliest match enemy weapon upgrades. We might then see some side teching for once. T4 could allow for +1 weapon slot so non upgraded cons could have 2 slots and 7 man could have 1. Small things like that that make each tier attractive in its own right and bolsters the use ability of cons would be great imo
24 Apr 2019, 11:44 AM
#293
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


I don't disagree. I've been bitching about the silly upgrade costs on cons for ages especially since they cost the same as grens and ever so slightly less than volks but never actually shine. But they are SUPPOSED to be about manpower effeciency. The 7th man and the changes therein help make merge more attractive, but a single svt does nothing for them at all early mid or late game.

I think the 7th man should be moved to 2 buildings instead of T4. It COULD be pumped out earlier, but it would at its earliest match enemy weapon upgrades. We might then see some side teching for once. T4 could allow for +1 weapon slot so non upgraded cons could have 2 slots and 7 man could have 1. Small things like that that make each tier attractive in its own right and bolsters the use ability of cons would be great imo

7th men with 1 slot is bad idea as long as the are intentional drop-able weapons available. It change very little in 1vs1 and creates all sort of issues in team games.
24 Apr 2019, 11:48 AM
#294
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Apr 2019, 11:44 AMVipper

7th men with 1 slot is bad idea as long as the are intentional drop-able weapons available. It change very little in 1vs1 and creates all sort of issues in team games.


7 men with a single vickers or single piat wouldn't be that spooky seeing as their stats were balanced around being able to get 2. Additionally I would have it locked behind a sidegrade so the ability to do so would require a fuel and manpower investment. Furthermore it still costs 50mu for the 7th man. So 85mu for a single vickers on a durable squad across 2 players seems ineffecient...
24 Apr 2019, 11:58 AM
#295
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2


I don't disagree. I've been bitching about the silly upgrade costs on cons for ages especially since they cost the same as grens and ever so slightly less than volks but never actually shine. But they are SUPPOSED to be about manpower effeciency. The 7th man and the changes therein help make merge more attractive, but a single svt does nothing for them at all early mid or late game.

I think the 7th man should be moved to 2 buildings instead of T4. It COULD be pumped out earlier, but it would at its earliest match enemy weapon upgrades. We might then see some side teching for once. T4 could allow for +1 weapon slot so non upgraded cons could have 2 slots and 7 man could have 1. Small things like that that make each tier attractive in its own right and bolsters the use ability of cons would be great imo


This is not a shine - it is a blur. Will the 7th man improve? No, that is why to the 7th person in addition there is a 20% experience modifier and cheaper reinforcement. Why do I need such conscriptss if there is a penals. Okay, let's say I built T2 and played only through conscripts, I lost them in the late game. I don’t have the benefit of building new conscripts, it’s more profitable for me to build T1 and penals because they can compete with other infantrymen. I will need only one conscripts squad to throw an anti-tank grenade.
24 Apr 2019, 12:15 PM
#296
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



7 men with a single vickers or single piat wouldn't be that spooky seeing as their stats were balanced around being able to get 2.
Additionally I would have it locked behind a sidegrade so the ability to do so would require a fuel and manpower investment. Furthermore it still costs 50mu for the 7th man. So 85mu for a single vickers on a durable squad across 2 players seems ineffecient...

Not really.
The reason why their weapon slot was reduced to 1 is because they where OP when they had 2 Vickes or Piats.
24 Apr 2019, 12:23 PM
#297
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Apr 2019, 12:15 PMVipper

Not really.
The reason why their weapon slot was reduced to 1 is because they where OP when they had 2 Vickes or Piats.


The funny thing is this, that neither before these changes not now this commander almost did not use. I play a lot of this game. and I have not seen this commander for about a year and a half. But how much whining was it. Even now you can give two Vickers to Penals, but no one takes this commander.
24 Apr 2019, 12:25 PM
#298
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Apr 2019, 12:15 PMVipper

Not really.
The reason why their weapon slot was reduced to 1 is because they where OP when they had 2 Vickes or Piats.


So what’s better? Balancing that half-truck or holding conscripts hostage over it? If it messes up balancing so much then fix it, don’t base the power level of conscripts around it.
24 Apr 2019, 13:18 PM
#299
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

I think the 7th man should be moved to 2 buildings instead of T4. It COULD be pumped out earlier, but it would at its earliest match enemy weapon upgrades. We might then see some side teching for once. T4 could allow for +1 weapon slot so non upgraded cons could have 2 slots and 7 man could have 1. Small things like that that make each tier attractive in its own right and bolsters the use ability of cons would be great imo


That would still have the effect of the upgrade usually coming when T3 is built, which would give a huge sudden power spike (together with T-70) that should be avoided.
24 Apr 2019, 13:49 PM
#300
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

I understand that the game needs to be balanced around 1 v 1 but given the fact that team games are much more popular and TBH it is keeping this game alive, we have to consider all all game modes when balancing Soviets.

Also, I just don't understand what the developers were thinking of making Penals (criminal battalion) to be more effective infantry than conscripts (I believe the timeline for Soviet army was mid/late WW2)? I think we need to get over that "Enemy at the Gates" Conscripts and finally update Conscripts that fits the late war infantry squad of the Soviet army (which means either PPSHs or DPs).
PAGES (24)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

Livestreams

unknown 24
unknown 19
unknown 8
Canada 2
Germany 1

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

955 users are online: 955 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49080
Welcome our newest member, Keensler
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM