Their pick ratio is sad their win ration with UKF is actually very high . (third highest although the sample is too small).
Notably and surprisingly (although again the size too small) the highest win ratio is double UKF.
Imo that is an indication that USF and Soviet do not mix well and an explanation for that could be that Penals seem to be more cost efficient than Riflemen or Soviet have better units option for supporting their Penals.
And giving Conscripts placebo-effect buffs like those pointless fiddling with damage of their Mosins without actually changing it's DPS totally worked out and Conscripts became useful? Funny how Osttrupen ended up having better scaling into late game thanks to their LMG than Cons. Hell even Brit engineers have better scaling into late game thanks to flamethrower or armor/vickers upgrade they have.
You know something is wrong when engineer units with nearly same reinforcement cost ends up better than core infantry of another faction
That is incorrect there was no "placebo-effect buffs" in conscripts in the "DECEMBER 19th" patch.
The DPS of the squad was increased.
The mosin become:
a) more consistent in its damage out put
b) It had its DPS increased
You're the one turning balance issues into your personal issue to understand the basic of each faction.
If you say something stupid, I'll not blame the balance or the game, but say you said something stupid.
That is incorrect I have made no personal comment.
Because if your 800 games with USF would have been enough for you to understand the game mechanisms, you'll have see that USF isn't design around having AT capability every time available and thus USF units need to be design with this aspect, especially when they are only available late game.
Now you are assumption that I do not understand the game mechanics is simply false and again you are going personal.
USF can easily have AT assets like bazookas, by the time the enemy has fielded mediums tanks and a USF player has no AT assets, by that time , he is probably playing bad.
This may change with the new patch but at the moment, there is nothing evident that shows the Scott over value a Pz4 that comes a couple of minutes later with the same AI potential once upgraded with in addition strong AT capability.
Comparing a Scott with Pz4 show that you do not understand game mechanics since you are comparing a medium tank and artillery support unit, with a very big difference in their prices price, I might add.
My points remain:
Scott has very good defensive capabilities
If a player find himself in situation where his opponent has medium tanks and he has not AT assets he probably has done something wrong and that has nothing to do with performance of the Scott itself.
The number of my game with USF is irrelevant to the Performance of the Scott and especially it defensive properties. I also happen to have around 800 games as USF.
Turning balance issues into personal issues is non constructive and I would suggest you avoid it.
The point he's making is yuu have to first shoot yourself in the foot to find a use for the bandage. You are better off not getting cons and instead getting another maxim/penal squad. You are better off having 2 maxims (they might actually suppress something then) over having a Maxim and a con squad so you can merge the con squad into it when it gets low. Similarily, while more expensive a pair of penals offers 12 rifles with sights equipped so the 60mp you would save getting a con squad over another penal you would lose 10 fold in lost combat performance.
TECHNICALLY you are right, giving better the bodies the better guns does improve the combat power on field, but you have to weaken yourself first.
No that was not the point he was making, there was a claim that "Merge also doesn't increase your fighting power" and you also seem to agree that this claim is untrue. I have simply point out that error in that claim.
The rest is a attempt of smoke and mirrors to conceal the fact that the specific claim is wrong.
Merge is good ability regardless of the overall performance of conscripts.
Now if you want to open a discussion about if one should include at least 1 conscript in his army composition it a completely different topic.
On that topic I would argue that there are benefits for doing so:
One could produce a conscript during the time his CE built T1 to increase his field presence
One could produce a conscript to have easy access to green cover
One could produce a conscript to have access to AT grenades to counter FHT especially if his T-70 is running late.
One could produce a conscript to use merge with either his Penals, Guards or his maxims
One could produce conscript to take advantage of number of doctrinal abilities
Scott is in just the right place IMO. If it's getting changed at all, I would say nerf it and move it to captain (part 2, or whatever we're calling the second tier upgrade).
Having it arrive earlier but with less power as to not punch too hard for it's time would be kinda nice. Sometimes i feel like it's too late to get one even when I could really use it. They can be hard to keep alive if you don't have any real tanks to keep it protected.
That is simply incorrect.
Scott have some of the best defensive properties that include:
400 HP
19 size
7 speed
40 Rotate
Defensive smoke
barrage on the move
Now if you are talking about a situation where one's opponent has tanks and one does not have any AT to counter that is actually bad play and not an issue with Scott.
You could have 9 penal models in 2 penal squads instead, just not getting irrelevant con squad in the first place.
At the moment some people pretend too hard that stock cons are useful.
While they are not useless, they most certainly aren't pulling their worth.
There will always be discussions and issues with their performance as long as they cost same as grens while being completely inferior after first 5 minutes without a proper doctrine.
Not matter how much BS someone can write,it will not change the fact that Merge can increasing the fighting power of one army since the merged entities can have access to better weapons.
If one has in the field 3 penal and 6 conscripts, one has 3 SVT and 6 mosin. By merging one now 6 SVT and 3 mosin and thus has more firepower and fighting power.
I'm honestly not sure if the opinion of anyone here counts, other than Miragefla's.
As for the 1v1 players, their ranks were in the low 100's. I would take their opinion with a little bit of skepticism. The 1v1 rankings are pretty stratified. There is a big difference in skill between people in the top 30-50 and someone in the low 100's. My best rankings in 1v1 were in the upper 200's/lower 300's. When I would play a 100 level player, I'd usually lose, but a lot of the games were close. When automatch would take too long and decide to place me against a top 10 player, it was a completely different game. Most of the time I would be out-positioned so badly that the game would be lost at the 10-15 minute mark. However, sometimes they would decide to test some troll strategy. Von Ivan once built 3-4 raketens against and used them to cap like crazy. It worked well for me until he decided to stop messing around when he was down to 200 vp's. He then completely wrecked me in the first serious battle. I could have came here and started a thread "Raketens OP", but they aren't. In the same manner, I don't think that Scotts are OP.
Lastly, USF's early and mid game aren't in good shape. While the tech changes may help, it seems way too early to be asking for nerfs to a faction that hasn't even been shown to be competitive yet.
It is a forum everyone's one opinion counts.
Else yours does not count either so why post it.
Now lets try to talk about scott and not who claimed what.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
