Soviet General Faction Changes - New cmdr mod 5.0

I think the idea of a bigger/cheaper conscript squad is much more unique and thematically fitting than weapon upgrades. It also makes merge better. Overall, I love the concept (and it's reminiscent of something I've posted before!)
The cover bonus might be too much, though. Halve it, maybe? And is it too good with Hit the Dirt?

I'm pretty sure that the sergeant model has some issues. Winter version is broken, I think? Also lacks LoDs. I tried using it in a mod and it wasn't great. Guard with no cape is nice, though.

I was always amused by the bigger/cheaper thematically suited. What is themed here? The number of soldiers, weapons (only the first year the recruits received more SVT-40, then the production of SVT was reduced to produce a cheaper and faster Mosin) and equipment in the pre-war division and in the mobilized squad should be the same. All this is a conscript theme - it's just a justification of ridiculous changes, instead of the normal direct buff.

All army of the Second World War were a conscript army, just for some reason the USSR has ridiculous concept: instead of historical strelki (rifle squad) - conscripts, the second main infantry (unnecessary) at the start of the game - penal troops, which were 1% of the entire army.

1. It might be the last patch. I've always had this idea Code of Conduct of incorporating these tips via mod, but the mod is not my thing. I hope if @Andy_RE wants to be able to add as a first page and then selecting the commanders:

will help new users and some users who are wild and who play without conduct.

2. And these are some small changes that greatly improve the game on 2v2/3v3/4v4 teamgames. Do not need many patch tests:

-Add, Put Away/Activate Minesweeper ability Sturmpioner to EngineerSOV and PioneerWERH.
In this way its durability in the field is increased.
-Add upgrade ultra repair hability to EngineerSOV and PioneerWERH.
Activated when you reach T3/T4. SOV/WERH sappers are very weak and it is very difficult for them to scale to vet2.
-Started unit swap; SturmpioOKW by Volk, Tommy by RoyalIng.
You should not gift units of 280MP or 300MP from start.
-Add Anti-aircraft Mode ability AAtruckOKW to all the AA's of the game.
This prevents them from being revealed in FOW units unnecessarily, which does not have AA properties like MG on turrets.
-Forward Assembly BRIT; swap Coordinated Fire by Brace hability.
Coordinated Fire is little used, but if it is put brace it will be used a lot, because it is exposed to the
harassment and artillery of the axis.
-Reduced or remove range minimum smoke limit to Emplazement Mortar BRIT
It is difficult to defend the emplazement with a brace very nerf.
-Remove paralize vehi/tanks. Riegel & M20 mines: Completely paralyze, so it's kind of senseless in this game situation.
-Remove Spoting Scope hability from ELE.
-Remove InfraredHT OKW.
-Reduced range vision in camo of Raketen, JPIV, ATzis.
The raketen is used as a cheap sniper, providing vision and a high defense
-JT one throughout the game (like TigerACE). If you lose him you can opt for the KT.
-Remove StumTiger critics own of abandoning vehicle.
-Raise costs MU; 1 flares 60MU, ArtyFlares 90, ReconCircle 90MU, ReconPass 60MU.
This will reduce the abuse of recon / flares and then rain of rockets
-WKstuka reduced damage as to Katy/Panzerwer, reduced cost from 100 to 90FU
Now the emplazement are garbage, you have to reduce the damage by projectile and leave the bonuses vs placements
-Maybe reduce FU Comet cost from 185 to 175FU, Ff from 155 to 145FU.
OKW vs SOV have good TDs, but UK are super slow as the Ff or do not reach that strength as the comet vs panther.

basically nerf entire axis faction into oblivion

btw new cons beat upgraded grens long range bh cover xD

btw new cons beat upgraded grens long range bh cover xD

240mp and 60mun loses to 240mp and 70mun.
Totally unexpected, especially after years of 250mp stomping mercilessly 240mp.

Another thing is M-42, how about putting its range back to 45, but reducing reload of canister shot(between 100 to 200% additional reload time on canister)?
I'm thinking here something akin to PE ATHT, which was similar unit in coh, except instead of ammo swap it had timed ability that made it from rapid fire low dmg weak anti tank gun into slow firing infantry sniper.

Rate of fire seems to be the actual issue with M-42 AI capacity of canister shot, so lowering that instead of range would allow the unit to actually use that utility instead of being forced to retreat the moment opponent gets in the range of the shot.

I believe as long as M-42 won't be able to outrange infantry, even at the cost of RoF, its AI part will never be used because it is too much risk over too little reward and RoF reduction wouldn't hinder single M-42 usefulnes in prolonged engagement and would diminish its potency when spammed greatly.

I am not at all a fan of the 7-man upgrade as it is, having said that...

Tightrope's video shows a case of "barely winning" in a match-up at long range. I feel the need to repeat what I said when his previous videos showing one-off comparisons came out -- seeing it once does not mean it always will be like that, and in such close results, RNG can very strongly sway things one way or another.

I also was disappointed in the comparison against pgrens when Shadow moved the pgrens to the destroyed tank green-cover, but left 1 model very obviously exposed, with the 2nd possibly being exposed as well since they were at an angle to the conscripts (and I am told cover is directional).

Though even if the pgrens won that engagement, it still would not mean that's how things will always go.

Regarding the changes to the m-42, I think it should rather have its cost raised rather than its performance nerfed, but then I am personally biased as I really like using that unit in pairs. Though I find it comical that we are nerfing this unit because "it is abusive when massed" when the game is plagued with blobbing issues that are not being addressed.

The theme I mean is that Conscripts are cheap and not that effective per man. Instead of making them have more firepower like other troops, this reinforces that they are cheap and not that effective per man. It's good for the unit's identity, and more importantly, the game's unit diversity.

It's not about history, it's a playing piece in a game. Squad sizes in-game have nothing to do with real squad sizes; it's abstract.
I didn't say anything about the names of units, but I completely agree there. "Penal Battalion" especially rubs me the wrong way because they're a squad, and the name is designed to shock, like much of the Soviet campaign.

Also, agreed with Katitof on the M-42's rate of fire.

Tightrope's video shows a case of "barely winning" in a match-up at long range. I feel the need to repeat what I said when his previous videos showing one-off comparisons came out -- seeing it once does not mean it always will be like that, and in such close results RNG can very strongly sway things one way or another.

Veterancy would swing the engagement further into favor of the conscripts.

IMO, this whole cover bonus should just be changed to 10% more accuracy. People underestimate the worth of an extra model. It's not just an extra model worth of dps and health, but also increases utility, survivability and makes the squad bleed less (cause of damage distribution). With the lower reinforcement cost, it's a good upgrade already. If you add the cover bonus on top of that, it becomes too much, so changing it to 10% more accuracy seems reasonable.

Veterancy would swing the engagement further into favor of the conscripts.

IMO, this whole cover bonus should just be changed to 10% more accuracy. People underestimate the worth of an extra model. It's not just an extra model worth of dps and health, but also increases utility, survivability and makes the squad bleed less (damage distribution). If you add the lower reinforcement cost on top of that, reducing the dps bonus to 10% more accuracy seems reasonable.

I don't think we fundamentally disagree, I also would rather we keep it at 6-men and just give them a normal efficacy buff -- if you do it via a stock SVT or DP upgrade, you'd even lock them out of picking up other weapons (and so no fear for le dreaded Vickers power combo).

Vetted upgraded-cons probably would beat grens consistently, but you'd also have grens with LMG for much longer than you'd have upgraded cons. Regardless, my point wasn't "axis op" but rather to not conveniently forget RNG whenever it is convenient to one's desire to feel incredulous.

240mp and 60mun loses to 240mp and 70mun.
Totally unexpected, especially after years of 250mp stomping mercilessly 240mp.

Another thing is M-42, how about putting its range back to 45, but reducing reload of canister shot(between 100 to 200% additional reload time on canister)?
I'm thinking here something akin to PE ATHT, which was similar unit in coh, except instead of ammo swap it had timed ability that made it from rapid fire low dmg weak anti tank gun into slow firing infantry sniper.

Rate of fire seems to be the actual issue with M-42 AI capacity of canister shot, so lowering that instead of range would allow the unit to actually use that utility instead of being forced to retreat the moment opponent gets in the range of the shot.

I believe as long as M-42 won't be able to outrange infantry, even at the cost of RoF, its AI part will never be used because it is too much risk over too little reward and RoF reduction wouldn't hinder single M-42 usefulnes in prolonged engagement and would diminish its potency when spammed greatly.

sorry but no, if grens cant beat them long range, are they supposed to close the distance? The long range is where the gren needs to exel vs cons. its been long agreed the performance between cons and grens are the best balanced, yet with these changes cons are guna be sh*ting on grens at all ranges.

I agree with your other idea of just giving cons the ability to upgrade, it will be alot easier to balance then what ther doing now

If 7th man won't stay, just scrap airborne SVT drop, add that as stock con upgrade and replace SVT drop with any other weapon upgrade(I'd personally go with dank hunter con ptrs).

or they could use guard mossin and keep the stv

I also was disappointed in the comparison against pgrens when Shadow moved the pgrens to the destroyed tank green-cover, but left 1 model very obviously exposed, with the 2nd possibly being exposed as well since they were at an angle to the conscripts (and I am told cover is directional).

Random note: cover bonusses do not apply when units are within 10 range of each other. So in that engagement there was no cover, technically speaking.

Also to elaborate further, directional cover does exist but only for green cover (-50% damage and -50% accuracy), although green cover always gives -50% damage from explosives. Yellow cover (-50% accuracy) is not directional.

240mp and 60mun loses to 240mp and 70mun.
Totally unexpected, especially after years of 250mp stomping mercilessly 240mp.

kat range is iomportant too, nobody expect lmg 34 ober to beat shjoock troop at close range even if they cost more and have lmg upgrade

Random note: cover bonusses do not apply when units are within 10 range of each other. So in that engagement there was no cover, technically speaking.

Also to elaborate further, directional cover does exist but only for green cover (-50% damage and -50% accuracy), although green cover always gives -50% damage from explosives. Yellow cover (-50% accuracy) is not directional.

Pretty sure this is past 10 range, right?



Conscripts have sight 35, according to coh2db.com/stats, and the enemy squad is past the halfway point of their radius of vision, so I assume the green cover there works.

You can see the bottom model sticking out; anyway it's a minor thing that's not worth harping about, but I brought it up to further reinforce my point that "single case examples" are not something to generalize "X will beat Y" heuristics off.

From what i see, this is threading dangerous waters. The in cover buff will probably see a nerf or a change. This reminds me of other instances (in other games as well) when you have to buff something so much that people don't realise at which point is good or not.

3 mossin guard upgrade after tier 3/4 would better

Random note: cover bonusses do not apply when units are within 10 range of each other. So in that engagement there was no cover, technically speaking.

Also to elaborate further, directional cover does exist but only for green cover (-50% damage and -50% accuracy), although green cover always gives -50% damage from explosives. Yellow cover (-50% accuracy) is not directional.

Rule of thumb: A conscript sandbag should be around 10m long.

Also those notes for cover are wrong (unless something change which i'm not aware off).

All cover is directional, this includes light cover (let's differentiate light/yellow and heavy/green).
The exceptions are:
-craters produced in the terrain. IIRC demo charges are one if not the only explosive source to produce heavy cover type of craters.
-Garrisons: buildings.
-Unless they fixed it, bunkers which provides heavy cover instead of garrison cover.
-Can't remember they type of cover for garrisoned infantry in vehicles.
-HTD was changed but i can't really remember if there was an ability of UKF which made them behave as if they were in cover.

Yeah, I'll agree that I too wasn't expecting such a buff in cover.

I still think a damage reduction (10%) in cover would be better as they still currently suffer from artillery.

If this happened, the rof (or cool down) should be lowered to 20%.

3 mossin guard upgrade after tier 3/4 would better

This seems an interesting idea. If it proves to be too much, make it 2 and add like a 10% rate of fire bonus when in cover and/or a reduced reinforce cost. The upgrade would also lock out the option to pick up other weapons.

The 7 men squad with the current bonuses seems too strong against Ost (didn't play OKW, so no idea how they'll fare).

240mp and 60mun loses to 240mp and 70mun.
Totally unexpected

Come on man you are better than that.

Yeah, I'll agree that I too wasn't expecting such a buff in cover.

I still think a damage reduction (10%) in cover would be better as they still currently suffer from artillery.

Bruh 6 man squad complaining about artillery

#4mansquadlivesmatter