Profile of Cannonade

The thing is we are trying to find a way to help improve how cons perform mid-late game. All these are simply suggestions on how to improve them. What you keep telling us is that if con gets buffed grens should get buffed also(BTW thats not how buffing/nerfing works) which is NOT what this thread is about. Frankly we don't give a sh*t about grens in the thread(thats just you) what we just care about is how to give con longevity/better cost efficiency in the mid-late game.

First of all, I was asking for clarification from Volsky on his personal proposal, not you.
Second of all, Indidnt mention any Gren buffs at all there.
Third of all, you are one person, so its a bit odd you refer to yourself repeatedly as "we".
Fourth of all, this thread is about lategame. Not midgame.
Fifth of all, although you dont give a shit about anything except getting Cons something you personally want, that doesnt mean you can ignore the effect on balance overall, just to get it. I doubt very much Relic balances according to the logic you use that "Well, I dont give a shit about anything or anyone else except buffing this unit". This is referred to as "balancing in a vaccum" and is considered a bad thing.

Back on topic, I still say giving them a weapon upgrade like PPSH that is weaker and costs more than the doctrinal counterpart(3 PPSH for 75-60 muni) which requires T3/T4 is a good option since it still gives the doctrine several key advantages over the non doctrinal counterpart.

This still carries the problem of Cons having had the advantage of Oorah/Merge right from the start, as utility other units simply dont have, and instead of which other units only have a DPS upgrade option for Muni cost. This would result in Cons basically having it all. Utility throughout the match, AND a DPS upgrade.This in addition to the already 6man soak and cheaper reinforce per man cost throughout also.

Another good option is the lower reinforcement costs later into the game since it allows cons to be more cost effective as the game goes on.

Yep, I agree The_Couriers proposal of a reduction in reinforce cost by 5MP at T3/4 is worth considering.

Subscribe to Hans' Twitch channel.

Best and most effective way to contribute to his food budget!

The intent was never to shut down opposition. Merely to showcase a point I made. For a person who whines again and again that people misinterpret your words, you sure like doing the same to others.

As I said. For every person you claim agrees with you, and therefore supposedly strengthens your argument, I can point out another who does not. Its a pointless argument to even raise as it doesn't "showcase a point I made" in the least. Technically its called "argumentum ad publicum", and is a logical fallacy.

Vet 0 comparison is to underline the difference between veterancy and upgrades. Veterancy is paid for in blood and accumulated over time, upgrades are a straight up power boost you pay once for, on top of veterancy. For that reason, the LMG42 upgrade is better than slightly boosted veterancy, and as soon as they have it the grens will still dominate conscripts, and can contend with any Allied infantry save Paras and Shocks. You cannot seriously claim the vet changes will make conscripts competitive by themselves, LMG grens will still be just better, and again I say that as someone who plays both factions a lot.

A V0 comparison is completely irrelevant in a discussion focused on Cons scaling in lategame.
Muni is also accumalated over time, and is a finite resource. What you spend on one thing, means you cannot spend on another. Vet however is a resource that accumalates per unit, independantly. You completely missed the key point in my previous post, which was that according to your proposal, Grens would be FORCED to get LMGs for 60 munis, just to compete with equally vetted Cons. So yes, a Vet change, especially as ridiculously early as you proposed it, already at V1, would categorically make Cons more competitive than Grens, UNLESS they spend the 60 munis on LMG, which the Sov player can instead have invested elsewhere ONTOP of the Cons vetting normally to a better result than the Grens, unless he spends that 60 specifically on Grens. As I said, your proposal categorically forces even more LMG Gren play. If they don't upgrade at that cost, they will LOSE to naturally Vetted Cons.

LMG Grens are better DPS than Cons BECAUSE they have 60munis invested on them.
Wtf else would be the point of paying 60munis otherwise?

Reciprocally Cons have 6man, cheaper reinforce and 2 native abilities which provide utility right from the start.

And about Ostheer having to sink ammo to get their LMGs, well isn't that the assymetric balance you're fond of? Conscripts have to sink 300 mp 30 fuel to get grenades and AT nades, while the grens obtain grenades along their natural teching and faust right out of the gate. They also sink ammo in Oooorah, which at 10 a pop can't be spammed either. They also sink more manpower via losing more men almost every single time. So that 180 ammo ''deficit'' is not exactly crippling if it gives you an extremely solid core infantry while your enemy either has to out-micro you or invest in elite infantry.

Ost is FORCED to progress in a linear tier direction, whereas Sov can choose.
Meaning Ost is FORCED to sink that MP/Fuel in teching through every stage, whereas Sov is not.
That is asymmetric balance.
I'm certainly open to discussing reduction on ATNade or Molotov purchase costs, but I dont think youll get much leverage with Relic on that.
As to Cons having more manpower loss, thats ONLY true vs LMG Grens (who have spent 60Munis), for that stage of the game. That's why they are cheaper, and I already said I think your other alternative of reducing Con reinforce to 15MP after building T3/4 could be worth consideration.
As to your trying to claim Oorah as a significant Muni sink at 10, whereas in your previous post and here again, you tried to claim that 180Muni isn't much. Thats pretty funny, though utterly contradictory.

Now can we get back to discussing the actual topic, which is lategame scaling of Cons (meaning V3)?

One thing to note, veterancy isin't free. Veterancy gets paid for in blood.

Yes.

Unfortunately, and equally notably, that is however not true of Muni based upgrades.

Anyway, my proposal is to decrease their reinforce cost when T3/t4 is built (to 12-15ish MP)

I figure 15 sounds doable. Sort of like every 4th man for free, as compared to now.

I'd favor increased accuracy at vet 1 and received accuracy at vet 3 myself, but it could be the other way around. So they still scale less than grens, but get slightly better veterancy to compensate.

This I don't agree with.
Would mean that at V1 they already beat vanilla V1 Grens and hurt Support Teams harder than now.

Furthermore, if scaling is tied to Vet, it basically means that Cons scale for free, whereas Grens for example have to pay to scale and remain competitive (and they would already be uncompetitive at V1 without LMG).