Login

russian armor

Soviet September patch discussion

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (30)down
1 Sep 2019, 11:21 AM
#501
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Aug 2019, 21:41 PMGrumpy
Please take out all of the changes to mobilize reserves. I realize that it started as an attempt to improve it but it's turned into a dealbreaking nerf. If you want bolstered squads that can snare and throw molotov's, you pay 305mp/45fuel plus 240mp/50muni per squad. I usually get 2-3 so the average cost per squad is at least 340/15/50, which seems like it should get you an Ober or Falls instead of a slightly less shitty Con squad.


Seconded.

This new sidetech undermines everything that was achieved with Mobilize Reserves. Global upgrades are not worthwhile for one or two squads, so you're restricting Conscripts to all-in Conscript builds all over again.

If you can't make this work at T3 without sidetech, please just return it to T4.


Furthermore, why is the Balance Team partially reverting the T2 price cut when T2 is the weaker tier? The T-70 rush speed is set by T1, a stronger tier that doesn't have to pay a drop of fuel on Conscript sidegrades.
1 Sep 2019, 11:38 AM
#502
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 11:21 AMLago


Seconded.

This new sidetech undermines everything that was achieved with Mobilize Reserves. Global upgrades do not work unless you go all in on Conscripts.

If you can't make this work at T3 without sidetech, please just return it to T4.

Actually making conscripts viable by investing heavily on them is a step in the right direction. Conscripts blobs being effective has been tested and proved to be of poor game play.

Conscripts tactics already got buffed with lowering ppsh to CP2 and indirectly with the nerf to OKW.

What actually one can try it to lower the cost of individually upgrading conscripts squads.

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 11:21 AMLago

Furthermore, why is the Balance Team partially reverting the T2 price cut when T2 is the weaker tier? The T-70 rush speed is set by T1, a stronger tier that doesn't have to pay a drop of fuel on Conscript sidegrades.

The idea of lowering the tech cost of tech trees that are flexible is step in the wrong direction to begin with, it makes linear teching having an even great disadvantage.

The Soviet faction does not seem to be UP and lowering the cost of T2 is an unneeded buff. If one want to make T2 more attractive than T1 and not buff the faction one could/should also nerf T1 built by adding cost like adding tech cost to satchel/PTRS/AT satchels.
1 Sep 2019, 11:39 AM
#503
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

I would just like assault guards to have 0.97 RA like every other guards unit, instead of current 100% RA. Especially as a (mostly) CQC unit, they're really vulnerable and their veterancy kind of sucks too. Especially the vet 1 trip flare mine lmao.

Should have a grenade recharge time buff at vet 1, maybe, or a RA buff.


RA buff at vet 2 or 3 would be nice.
1 Sep 2019, 11:47 AM
#504
avatar of gbem

Posts: 1979

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 11:38 AMVipper

Actually making conscripts viable by investing heavily on them is a step in the right direction. Conscripts blobs being effective has been tested and proved to be of poor game play.



then why are lmg grenblobs stg volkblobs tommybrenblobs and rifle barblobs viable while conscripts still require insane amount of investment just to get a similar upgrade?

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 11:38 AMVipper

Conscripts tactics already got buffed with lowering ppsh to CP2 and indirectly with the nerf to OKW.


doctrines are irrelevant to viability... viability is gauged through the core faction not through doctrinal memes

also mobilize reserves still comes significantly later than PPSH STGs bars LMG42s brens SVTs... hell the only unit that comes after mobilize reserves are obersoldaten... why is mobilize reserves somehow treated as some super ability that needs lots of resources to be sunk in it?

its not anymore powerful than a bar an stg or an SVT ...
1 Sep 2019, 11:52 AM
#505
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 11:47 AMgbem


then why are lmg grenblobs stg volkblobs tommybrenblobs and rifle barblobs viable while conscripts still require insane amount of investment just to get a similar upgrade?

lmg grenblobs not viable
stg volkblobs nerfed this patch
tommybrenblobs nerfed this patch
rifle barblobs bacuse they are USF

Because soviet have many other option like Penal and doctrinal and they do not need conscripts blobs on top of all the other options.

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 11:47 AMgbem

doctrines are irrelevant to viability... viability is gauged through the core faction not through doctrinal memes

also mobilize reserves still comes significantly later than PPSH STGs bars LMG42s brens SVTs... hell the only unit that comes after mobilize reserves are obersoldaten... why is mobilize reserves somehow treated as some super ability that needs lots of resources to be sunk in it?

its not anymore powerful than a bar an stg or an SVT ...

Because the Soviet faction regardless of your claims does not seem to be UP
1 Sep 2019, 11:53 AM
#506
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



RA buff at vet 2 or 3 would be nice.

The vet bonuses of A.G are rather strong
Guards Rifle Infantry (Assault)
Unlocks the 'Trip Wire Flares' ability
-25% weapon cooldown, -29% received accuracy
+40% accuracy, +25% grenade range

(I can not check now but I think I remember the Trip wire flare being replaced by to the last man)
1 Sep 2019, 12:12 PM
#507
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 11:53 AMVipper

The vet bonuses of A.G are rather strong
Guards Rifle Infantry (Assault)
Unlocks the 'Trip Wire Flares' ability
-25% weapon cooldown, -29% received accuracy
+40% accuracy, +25% grenade range

(I can not check now but I think I remember the Trip wire flare being replaced by to the last man)


I stand corrected! Thank you!
1 Sep 2019, 12:29 PM
#508
avatar of gbem

Posts: 1979

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 11:52 AMVipper

lmg grenblobs not viable
stg volkblobs nerfed this patch
tommybrenblobs nerfed this patch
rifle barblobs bacuse they are USF

LMG grenblobs arent viable when shot with HE* and are getting a serious buff this patch

stg volksblobs got a 10mp starting cost nerf... while conscripts had a 125mp 25 fuel starting cost nerf to their viability

tommy brenblobs kinda deserved it.. though are still deadly in cover

rifle barblobs well... USF

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 11:52 AMVipper

Because soviet have many other option like Penal


again T1 only... leaving T2 in the dust


jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 11:52 AMVipper

and doctrinal


irrelevant


jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 11:52 AMVipper

and they do not need conscripts blobs on top of all the other options.

right because penal spam must be the only viable technique outside of doctrines...

guards/ppsh/SVT... the other viable soviet builds are all doctrinal... but hey T2 being completely useless as an opening build is fine because penals are soo good >.>


jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 11:52 AMVipper

Because the Soviet faction regardless of your claims does not seem to be UP


the faction isnt UP if taken from a T1 perspective... but fails horribly at T2 oriented plays... have you ever seen a stock conscript + T2 build work in the tournament? they mostly FAIL... or perform horribly...

1 Sep 2019, 12:33 PM
#509
avatar of gbem

Posts: 1979

vipper please stop measuring the viability of a faction only through a single crutch build (or through doctrines)... your arguments make no sense at all
1 Sep 2019, 12:35 PM
#510
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 11:38 AMVipper

Actually making conscripts viable by investing heavily on them is a step in the right direction. Conscripts blobs being effective has been tested and proved to be of poor game play.

I don't think there is any problem with having to invest into unit to make it good, more about how much you have to invest and how late that investment starts to pay off for cons in contrast to (insert literally any other squad in game that has side techs).
AT nades fine, these are always usefu, molos however aren't becoming any useful before vet2.
For a blob to be effective, it needs long range dps, that's why first and last time a con blob was any viable was when dank hunters were first introduced.

Conscripts tactics already got buffed with lowering ppsh to CP2 and indirectly with the nerf to OKW.

Its more of a normalization as there was no reason for cons to get their upgrades as late as they did and it was directly part of why they have sucked so hard in early and early mid game, SVT has shown re-emergence of cons due to timing when they became useful.

What actually one can try it to lower the cost of individually upgrading conscripts squads.

That I can stand behind, given already hefty investment into cons before you can upgrade and the fact they still get less bang for the buck compared to other global upgrades(both weapons and UKF bolster)

The idea of lowering the tech cost of tech trees that are flexible is step in the wrong direction to begin with, it makes linear teching having an even great disadvantage.

Don't know, brits don't seem to disadvantaged at all as they have all the tools they need and these tools perform up to the cost most of the time, they are also arriving when they are needed, you aren't going to benefit much from having ATG access in first minute when opponents aren't able to field any mechanized unit that would require it to counter.

Recent changes to Ost also warrant their strong presence and growing power early to late game and their tech being linear doesn't have any negative impact on them as again, they are getting all the tools needed when they are needed.

The Soviet faction does not seem to be UP and lowering the cost of T2 is an unneeded buff. If one want to make T2 more attractive than T1 and not buff the faction one could/should also nerf T1 built by adding cost like adding tech cost to satchel/PTRS/AT satchels.

Soviets overall are not up, T2 however is, price was lowered in an attempt to make it more attractive compared to T1 openings, but with pretty poor early game synergy of cons and maxims, T2 will remain to be underdog tier, cons themselves however became much more attractive, even for T1 openings.
Nerfing T1 by cost would completely butcher soviets early game since currently penals due to being as expensive as they are need to compete with outnumbering infantries and lower map control if you go by meta T1 openings. PTRS isn't strong enough upgrade to warrant any kind of side tech and without satchel Penals would literally have no tools what so ever other then rifles and in return would have to be buffed even further in raw performance since now you'd have to pump even more resources into them to give them their tools back.
1 Sep 2019, 14:25 PM
#511
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 12:29 PMgbem



Lowering the price of T2 will not make people go for T2 builts. It will simply allow them to back tech making T1 even more attractive. They will still have easy access to PTRS to deal with light and now easier access to ATG if the enemy rushes mediums tanks.

T1 is currently superior offering too much for a small cost.

It is as simply as that.
1 Sep 2019, 14:52 PM
#512
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

There might be a change where Mobilize Reserves either requires just the T4 or you can opt to go to buy it early at the cost of some resources like now with the grenade requirements. Idea is you can go stronger Conscripts earlier if you go a pure Con build at the cost of rushing LVs slower, though Soviets can go M5/Quad to compensate, or stall into T4 which means non-mass Conscript builds get stronger at end game tech.
1 Sep 2019, 15:00 PM
#513
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

just put the same upgrade in tier 4 that cost 0 resource and 5 second time

and reduce the cost in tier 3 to 15 fuel
1 Sep 2019, 16:28 PM
#514
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954

There might be a change where Mobilize Reserves either requires just the T4 or you can opt to go to buy it early at the cost of some resources like now with the grenade requirements. Idea is you can go stronger Conscripts earlier if you go a pure Con build at the cost of rushing LVs slower, though Soviets can go M5/Quad to compensate, or stall into T4 which means non-mass Conscript builds get stronger at end game tech.


This would be appreciated. Mass con builds bleed too much manpower to be viable in large team games. Most of us use a couple for merge, sandbags, occasionally a snare on a diving tank. The 7th man helps the squad not get wiped sometimes (depending on spacing when a Walking Stuka or PWerfer hits) so it's also useful. However, when the tech costs for the Cons exceed the cost of another Penal, then most of us will just get another Penal and put PTRS's on it.
1 Sep 2019, 16:52 PM
#515
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

Lend-lease M4C is completely equal to the Easy Eight. So why not give the Soviet M4C such a crew as the Easy Eight, because the Shermans were supplied with a full set of helmets and weapons for the tank crew.


And another small detail, many people ask why the Soviet Sherman is called the M4C - this creates confusion, because the British called their 17-pound Sherman the letter “C”.
But this is not the English letter "C"; this is the Russian letter "C".
The United States supplied to USSR with two tanks with the same designation M3: M3 Stuart and M3 Lee. In the Soviet classification, they were called M3L - light (М3Л - Лёгкий) and M3C - medium (М3С or М3Ср - Cредний). M4C is the generalized name for all M4 Sherman medium tanks.
1 Sep 2019, 17:36 PM
#516
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Lend-lease M4C is completely equal to the Easy Eight. So why not give the Soviet M4C such a crew as the Easy Eight, because the Shermans were supplied with a full set of helmets and weapons for the tank crew.


And another small detail, many people ask why the Soviet Sherman is called the M4C - this creates confusion, because the British called their 17-pound Sherman the letter “C”.
But this is not the English letter "C"; this is the Russian letter "C".
The United States supplied to USSR with two tanks with the same designation M3: M3 Stuart and M3 Lee. In the Soviet classification, they were called M3L - light (М3Л - Лёгкий) and M3C - medium (М3С or М3Ср - Cредний). M4C is the generalized name for all M4 Sherman medium tanks.

The M4C is a similar unit to the 76mm not the Easy8.
1 Sep 2019, 17:38 PM
#517
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 17:36 PMVipper

The M4C is a similar unit to the 76mm not the Easy8.

In any case, if the M4C is equal to the American Sherman, why not give him a crew.
1 Sep 2019, 17:44 PM
#518
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


In any case, if the M4C is equal to the American Sherman, why not give him a crew.

For the same reason Ostheer PzIV H and Puma only get 3 vet levels or captured maxim have a crew of 4. Faction design.
1 Sep 2019, 17:47 PM
#519
avatar of gbem

Posts: 1979

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 14:25 PMVipper

Lowering the price of T2 will not make people go for T2 builts. It will simply allow them to back tech making T1 even more attractive. They will still have easy access to PTRS to deal with light and now easier access to ATG if the enemy rushes mediums tanks.

T1 is currently superior offering too much for a small cost.

It is as simply as that.


The balance team is afraid of buffing the maxim... but is also unwilling to make cons stronger to compensate... having 1 bad starting unit and 1 unit that takes ages to reach parity vs upgraded infantry is simply not gonna work... how do you propose to make T2 viable?

Imo the maxim should be reworked to a proper assault machinegun with low suppression and setup with high dps
1 Sep 2019, 17:54 PM
#520
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Sep 2019, 17:47 PMgbem


The balance team is afraid of buffing the maxim... but is also unwilling to make cons stronger to compensate... having 2 bad starting units against the enemy is simply not gonna work... how do you propose to make T2 viable?

Imo the maxim should be reworked to a proper assault machinegun with low suppression and setup with high dps

Lowering the range of flame grenade or moving to SP. Imo that can fix allot of issues with maxims.

Removing the ST44 upgrade from VG or replacing it with MP40 can also help conscripts allot.

Better designing T1 can also help allot, changes could include:
lowering price for Penal replacing their weapon and giving them SVTs as weapon upgrade, removing PTRS upgrade and introducing a AT squad with PTRS if there actually a need for it.
PAGES (30)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

547 users are online: 1 member and 546 guests
Baba
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49061
Welcome our newest member, Rihedcfrd
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM