Profile of GI John 412

You want historical accuracy and the originally intended game design that was supposed to make Conscripts incompetent but zergy? You switch the performance between Allied SMGs and Axis SMGs, so that the many-model Allied squads have to stand in close range of enemy units for a long time to deal serious damage, while the low-model Axis squads murder anyone who dares get into close range with them -- then it'll be accurate and balanced.

Please do some actual research. The Germans only produced about 1.1 million MP40s, compared to 1.75 million Thompson’s of all types, about half a million grease guns 6 million PPSh-41s and 2 million PPS43s and 4 million STENs. Cross reference those numbers against all the other weapons fielded by each warring nation (such as the K98k at about 16 million rifles) and you’ll find that MP40s should in fact be the least common SMG of all. Not to mention how realistically poor they perform compared to the better US and Russian SMGs (realitive rate of fire, controllability, cartridge, reliability etc.) To be fair, STENs are kinda crap, but you just gotta love ‘em for being such an ugly duck. Lol

Basically, if you’re too lazy to actually read, or maybe if you just can’t, go watch some of Ian’s videos on Forgotten Weapons on YouTube. He will enlighten you to your folly if you believe everything German is somehow better.

The Soviet Union conscripted millions of barely literate peasants into its vast army during the Second World War. Due to the shortages in training time, it became readily apparent that average Red Army soldier was not going to be able to achieve a high degree of marksmanship regardless of the quality of the rifle issued to him. However, the Stavka also noted that this could be overcome with the use of submachineguns as they were cheaper than rifles to build, easier to become effective with and were extremely effective at the close ranges that most fighting was happening at. As a result, the USSR fielded a huge number of PPSh-41 and PPS-43s during the war.

In game, there has been much criticism of the conscript PPSh upgrade, whether it is too expensive, too powerful or perhaps a bad idea to give conscripts a mix of long range bolt action rifles and short range submachineguns. I stand by the notion that conscript PPShs mixed with Mosin-Nagant rifles is not only historically accurate, but also fits the unit design of conscripts in general.

Put into as few words as possible, conscripts are generalists that counter other units not by being better at them at what they’re good at, but by being better at them at what they’re bad at. Conscripts best short range units at long range and long range units at short range. The PPSh upgrade allows a conscript squad to enhance their flanking power against team weapons while maintaining their role as a long range plinker against short range troops, and as a close range assaulter vs long range troops. This mix is entirely keeping with the Soviet faction design of flexibility and combined arms.

In short, keep PPSh conscripts good at countering what other units suck at, but balance them so they don’t beat things at what they’re good at.

Not radical in implemtation, but radical in how it changes the gameplay. A simpler buff to range would make it useable again without the potential for unforeseen second and third order of effects as a result on such a big change in how the mortars are used.

I just think it’s a safer bet to go with incremental changes rather than a whole new way of playing the mortar pit.

But that’s just my opinion. Lol

While interesting, I think that this is too radical of an idea to implement at this point. A safer solution would be to simply buff the mortar emplacement’s range. It won’t be OP because all mortars are getting a damage nerf that will severely nerf all mortars enough in other ways.

@ A.E, you gonna cast some of these games?