And that is exactly my point, if the conscript optimum range is far all fight will take place far since non will have a reason to move. This change simply reduces the effect of "relative positioning" without achieving the intended goals:
Again, the optimum in any mathematical problem is the single point (or all identical points) in the examined interval that maximises (or minimises) the gains (losses). To accurately calculate it, you'd need to take the health of the opposing squad, multiply it by the target size and then divide it by the dps at the range in question.
Having the DPS ratio for grens and cons go from (this is a hypothetical example but I'll gladly calculate the right values) 1.4 to 1.3 does not mean the new optimum is now the far distance. Cons will lose more the more distance you put between the grens and cons. The DPS of the entire squad increases by 1.5-2 DPS at far range 
The entire squad does less damage at that range than a lmg42. |
If grenadier vs conscript trade slightly better the closer the get, there will be very little reason for either unit to reposition. Grenadier will lose more during the move while cons will be able to simply ourah away.
Sorry, but no one in the history of playing ostheer ever came to the conclusion that he/she should move their grens closer. Grens win more clearly the further away they are.
No one playing soviets ever used orah to get away from grens since cons lose the further away they are and are more likely to win (or just not lose as badly) the closer they are.
In your comparisons you neglect the health pool. We had this discussion and I showed you the calculations in the other thread so I won't go into this.  |
Actually it the optimum range has been moved towards far and the curve has become linear both of which are bad things.
I will make better chart when I have the time.
The chart is just fine. Again, DPS ratios between units are not optimum ranges. The optimal range is the range at which a unit wins the clearest. Talking of optimums by looking at DPS ratios is nonsensical because it completely ignores everything from received accuracy to target size, health pool and so on. Cons, with this DPS profile will lose at practically the same ranges as they did before. |
1. Cons are too good at long range now. Suggest to slightly reduce long range acc (grens and volks should have bigger advantage).
v1 Cons:
v1.3 Cons:
The uplift is rather little and due to overkill and no weapon upgrades, I am having a hard time believing that the difference is even that noticeable until they bleed enough to finally reach vet 3. |
OK so I don't like just being negative, here is a suggested change:
Nerf 1: demos have to be teched in HQ for 30 fuel 100 manpower. 60s build time. (Same as CoH1)
Nerf 2: Make them visible! Why should demos have a cloak of invisibility, they're not mines. - This will force players to place them cleverly, and make the onus on trying to spot them for the enemy players.
I like both solutions. I'd also suggest these other alternatives:
1) Completely remove demos and just replace them with s-mines
2) Have demos kill all but one entity in a squad within its blast radius (potentially increase the radius): The demo starts being more cost effective the more squads are within the blast radius and it stops wiping squads outright. For a single squad it would just be a really, really expensive mine without the suppression.
3) Have it deal 70 (or a more appropriate amount of) damage within a larger radius to punish blobs and reduce the cost. |
Recon support:
Forward Riflemen Observers:
- Make it apply always just like the panzerfus g43 upgrade, it's a completely dedicated commander ability just to do that.
- Have it apply to recon airborne as well as they are replacing riflemen as the game progresses (they are recon para troopers after all).
- Increase the sight bonus to 50%, because it is an entire commander ability just for sight, which pf get for getting a no brainer upgrade.
- Rename the ability to Forward Observers.
IR paths:
- Decrease call-in cost.
- Decrease reinforce cost.
M8:
- General buffs to make it a viable option.
- Potentially give it the ability to lay an m20 mine with vet (coh1 m8
 ).
Recon Sweep: There is too much overlap with the major recon and it is too expensive.
- Decreasing cost to make it fairly cheap, might be an option.
- (Or) replace it with the recon loiter from tactical support company.
- (Or) replace it with the flare from Special Ops. (I'd also make this suggestion for mechanized)
Airdropped combat group:
- Decrease the CP requirement to 5.
- Change the cost structure (I liked the substitution of manpower for some ammo).
- Potentially get rid of the atg.
- Have one airborne drop with zooks and the other unupgraded.
P.S.: I would have suggested fixing mine laying speed, but you already fixed that 
|
We've already predicted that. Trying to blow up demos passively still sets off the timer.
Primarily, you are going to use your demos vs structures, since they are now affordable. You could also try to score a cheeky wipe on the retreat path.
Brilliant. At least there is that. Good prediction |
|
Isn't the demo now about the same as the paratrooper explosive only that it can be set off?
The change will make the demo go from a clearly broken one-click squad wiper to something that works even less as a anti-blob measure as the original broken design. Blobs are monitored and everyone will spot a 3 second timer and will be able to react accordingly. Also, won't the design just encourage a player to spend an additional 5 munitions to place a mine under it and with that get the same cheesy squad wipes but now without the need to press a button?
Solutions I'd prefer:
1) completely remove demos and just replace them with s-mines
2) have demos kill all but one entity in a squad within its blast radius: the demo starts being more cost effective the more squads are within the blast radius and it stops wiping squads outright
3) have it deal 70 (or a more appropriate amount of) damage within a larger radius to punish blobs and reduce the cost |
People are gonna say that it looks bad, so what about removing them altogether and replacing them with some UI element? Or, if that is no option: Rearranging them inside their capping circle so that they aren't necessarily 100% in the middle every time, but somewhere else where they aren't as egregiously annoying.
It's a flag pole, it looks bad that infanty can't walk close past it to begin with. Having 1 guy in a squad potentially phase through won't even be noticed by most.
In a game where tanks phase completely through each other, I don't think that anyone has any ground to stand on to argue that it would break immersion if a tank drove through a flag pole.
The thing with this change is that it wouldn't require redisigning all maps. Removing the flag poles or relocating them would create a lot of extra work for mappers. |
I wish there was a way to make the smaller sandbags not fit against control points, instead, cause it's such a no-brainer.
Conscript sandbags at least force you to think of a way to place them strategically, or force you to tie up your engineers to put up a wire.
The issue with small sandbags could potentially be solved by making control points passable. That way created cover is accessable from both sides. This would also improve vehicle pathing. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
