Profile of MissCommissar

My point is simple - conscrips have too much weaknesses for "mainline infantry" squad, specially compared with other mainlines. They have absolutley awful "fighting" stats, such as:

a.) Very low rate of fire with basic Mosins. Grenadeer or Tommy with same bolt-rifles can shoot 2-3 times in time, which needed for Conscript to do only 1 shot;

b.) Very low accuracy. It's actually pretty random. Sometimes 4 or 5 soldiers can hit a target at once, sometimes they all missing, last happens more often. Uncompareable with really sniping accuracy of same Grenadeers, which missing rarely. US Riflemans also have pretty low accuracy, but, it compensated with high firerate. Here - low firerate and low accuracy together.

Add to those stats fact, that you can't upgrade Conscripts with additional weapon and give them more firepower without doctrines. All, (again) ALL factions, except USSR can equip their mainline infantry with additional weapons without any doctrines at all! And their mainlines don't really suffer of lack of firepower even without those guns, so - I don't understand logic here. Buff with weapon already good damage dealing squads = normal, buff low damaging squads with additional weapon = bad. It breaks my mind.

You can say: "lack of power is balance of their high survivability, so everything is fine". Ok, they have 6 men in squad, it really makes their survivability higher, I agree. But... here is another point, which I would like you to explain me.

Conscripts main strength is supoused to be "high survivability", but... for some reason, they have worst "Target size" stat of all mainlines in game, and that's important for your infantries survivability. Let's see:

Target sizes of mainlines (source: http://www.stat.coh2.hu/)
Conscripts - 1.087;
Volks - 1;
Riflemans - 0.97;
Grenadeers - 0.91;
Tommy Riflemans - 0.8 (!!!) (Seriously?!!??!).

So, as we can see... conscripts are worst survivable infantry in game, cos that's most easiest target to hit for enemy, unlike "everytime wiped poor grenadeers" with really nice target size stat, lol. Those 2 additional guys in squad really "gone missing" and nerfed with such high target size, cos they will die pretty fast under fire.

From that point I see 2 problems:

1.) Firepower of conscripts is low, because no non-doc additional weapon and basic weapon is shit. Basic combat stats are also pretty poor.

2.) Survivability of conscripts is also pretty low, cos they just can't stay long in hot combat - high target size causing their fast dying under any kind of fire, from rifles to tanks.

Both of them making Conscripts really weak, useless and because of that - entire faction suffers, because they suppoused to be your core unit for entire game. But they just can't be effective, cos they don't have powerful sides. Damage dealing suck, damage taking suck... How am I suppoused to use them as my main unit?

I think we have here 2 possible solutions:

Either

1.) Make something, that will increase Conscripts firepower during the game, and I don't mean veterancy, cos not only Coscripts getting firepower bonuses from it. USSR must have some kind of non-doc boost for them, maybe non-doc weapon upgrades, maybe upgrade, which will increase their stats somehow. Just something, that will make them reliable as damage dealers in mid-late game.

Or

2.) Fix their survivability stats, and first of all - target size. Guess designed to be "most survivable" mainline infantry unit in game deserve to have better target size, then "überfragile" grenadeers or "superman-tommies". Make it 0.8 - like for tommies and it will be real "survivable infantry", cos right now they just dying under fire like flys, with no chanses to hold on frontline long and do something really dangerous for enemy.

P.S. Forgot to say - Cons equiped with worst grenades in game, which you also have to unlock for high price. Moltov is awful - with such high target size Cons sometimes dying way before they throw hell bottle, because it throws in some kind of "drunk slow-mo", it also don't deal "impact damage" and range of throwing is again - low. AT-nade is more or less fine... but still worth too much fuel and MP for unlock.

240 armor is not okay for a unit whose main(and sole) purpose is to act as the spearhead of an assault.

and the churchill is not the first stone wall tank to fail. the kv-1 is pretty much in the same boat.

240 armor is actually OK for tank with such huge HP bar. Make it bigger and there will be really only one way to stop that beast - using PaK 43s or heavy TDs, and all of them are doctrinal.

KV-1 is not really "meatshield tank". It works like slower, but little better armored version of T-34-76 for very high price and doctrine. If KV-1 would cost 90-100 fuel - it would be perfect for that design. Or... it can be soviet copy of UKF's Churchills - a lot of HP, same gun, same armor for same price. I would like to have that also.

I think, if we will buff Churchill more it will once turn into KT...

But seriously, it's fine. Deals with infantry, middle tanks, has so much HP and armor, that PaK 43 or Elephant sometimes becoming your only option to survive, cos even Panthers don't deal enough damage.

What do you think about turning the Bofors barrage ability into suppression only (so it does 0 damage)?

Personally, I think, that Bofors should be pretty much like Bofors from vCoH. No abilites, no supression and pretty low accuracy at infantry, but - tough damage at same infantry (when it hits) and light vechiles. For to supress and keep infantry crowds under control UKF may use Vikkers HMGs without any problems.

Fixed it for you, because the upper four aspects definitely belong to OKW.

OKW was such "everything at once" faction, and it was problem those days and I wrote about it a lot on official forums. But... here came UKF and even OKW looks like "very nice designed and balanced faction" compared with it.

I only think, that if they giving to faction so powerful defensive game with tough and strong emplacements - let it have no real offencive gameplay then, or really difficult and overpriced offencive gameplay. It's reasonable, it worked in vCoH. And it works with USSR, but in another way. USSR don't have any defencive structures and their defensive gameplay is complicated and requires a lot of micro, head ache and such things, but for that - offensive HMGs, offensive spammable tanks, offensive spammable infantry... It's trade - powerful offensive to non-existed defencive.

So, why is it not allowable to USSR to have both defencive and offensive gameplay, but allowable to UKF? Why UKF have in stock tanks, compareable in power with Tiger and in same time - emplacements, which covers half of map with fire and destroying everything, even their counters, but when I suggest to give to USSR "defensive HMG bunkers for to make point and frontline protection less problematic" everyone says "You gonna make USSR OP, nevar!!!"?

Where is logic of faction balance then? One factions have everything, other have to suck and everyone admits it as normal, just because "1v1 stats show us, that everything is fine". They are fine because people are skilful enough to play as such shitty faction and win, not because it's good.