Profile of ZombiFrancis

After playing around in the mod for an evening, I find the fact that a jackson can survive three PAK shots and a faust to be a little much. They can survive a teller mine and a PAK shot too.

I think 520 to 560 health may be more appropriate. 560 works for the M10 nicely. And the StuG G for that matter.

Part of me thinks USF would benefit more from shermans being boosted to 720 health, like the dozer and easy 8. It'd give the Jacksons more of the screen they need to function as the glass cannons they're designed to be. Easy 8 could even go to 800 to be a special snowflake even, but that might be too mean to the Pershing.

I'm not sure if long range penetration even needs to be toned down.

But this version of jackson I really don't see much reason to use Shermans. Except maybe the Bulldozer Sherman call-in. The whole rest of the USF faction can handle AI.

I disagree with the weapon upgrades since it still does not deal with the issue that Conscript Mosin Nagants are very unreliable in not only mid-late game fights but also the early game. Losing a certain engagement because everyone missed at point-blank due to their 55% accuracy affects them more as Conscripts also shoot slowly and have 1.087 RA.

If the weapon upgrades are replacing half of the mosin nagants, then they would at least be half dealing with their unreliability. But you have to admit, on some design level, fresh, unupgraded conscripts shouldn't be models of reliability and consistency. By investing some upgrades into a global, passive upgrade, their unreliability is mitigated. This already occurs with molotovs and AT nades in that the conscripts can play a real, functional role. Their problem as we have all been discussing is their unreliability in combat.

A global weapon upgrade in that same, working model that by definition improves their reliability in combat should make sense... Enough to at least be worth trying. I mean why not slate the concept against the incredibly long list of changes you've crafted that are already in these mods, patches, and the live game?

Necessary Item

-Mosin Nagants to deal 10-12 damage from 16 with increased accuracy at all ranges. Possibly adjust cooldown/aim-times, but DPS stays relatively the same with maybe slight improvements at range. It would help them stall units, when behind cover, that are trying to fight at long-range. If it's 1v1 vs CQC squads there is always molotovs you can throw or you can fire as much as you need until they close and then you hit the retreat key.

In my opinion, their 16 damage rifles are what can actually give conscripts their edge. I would suggest simply increasing their close range accuracy into the 60% range, but simultaneously reduce the range the rifle considers 'mid' to match penals and rifles: 16. (Mosins are 25).

This would give conscripts a discernible shift in effectiveness at a consistent range with other allied squads. Their superior damage would prevail against Volks at close range until those StGs popped. If cons had a stock global PPSh upgrade soviet players would be able to match OKW's munitions investments with a fuel investment and balance out the StG advantage.

I dunno, it's baffling to me how staunch the resistance has always been to this idea over the years.

This still ensures you won't overlap with Penals who would still provide much more AI firepower and can win engagements far more quickly.

Except if they get PTRS though as per their current design, right? But I got to ask you, wasn't part of that push to give Penals so much AT addressing that threat of overlap? Show Spoiler

Other Improvements

-Lower reinforcement reduction for each Conscript upgrade purchased by 1 going to a max of 18. This modifier does not apply if you purchase weapon upgrades OR the weapon upgrades/slot items are slightly toned down when picked up by Conscripts. Incentives their nature as cheaper meatshield units that are either meant to chuck AT grenades, charge in with molotovs, merge, or screen/scout for the more powerful units.

-Space out their veterancy so they can get some survivability before veterancy 3 such as receiving -10% RA at level 1 like Volksgrenadiers. Helps negate that 1.087 they have until veterancy 3.

I wholeheartedly agree with those kind of vet changes. I've really disliked how with the ubiquitousness of vet 1 abilities, there's really only two effective levels of vet. (Except ol' OKW's vet )

Lowering reinforcement in any possible method available would be appropriate for conscripts. I always thought it was silly that maxims reinforce for cheaper than conscripts so that even merging was inefficient.

Personally I loathe the lmg42 in team games because more often than not I'm fighting riflemen and penals that have picked em off a wiped gren. By my faultimate or by teammates, lmgs are nasty in just about any allied squad.

Glitching double lmg42 and especially lmg34s is the only time the upgrades are really worthwhile.

I was speaking more generally in how unturreted vehicles function in the game, not about penetration values nor the StuG G against the very few and not-often used Allied heavy tanks.

Closing the distance against an opposing target puts unturreted vehicles in their most vulnerable position.

In order for moving DPS to contribute anything, you need to be moving forward (you can't shoot while moving backwards).
In order to be moving forward, this needs to lead you to a higher-gain situation than you are currently.
In order to have a higher gain situation while moving forward, this means that you need to be able to trade more cost-efficiently at close than you do at far.
In order for this to happen, you need something like the current G43 curve.

I use gren g43s against players using snipers. I also use gren g43s against brits due to mortarpits, or against particularly mortar happy players. I don't use G43s to try and fight point blank. Point blank combat is suicide for grens in virtually all situations. I can only think of tommy squads caught out of cover that I actually want to close the distance for the sake of DPS with grenadiers. (But that has everything to do with how Tommy rifles work, and nothing to with grens in actuality.)

Also, fun fact: Cap zones are typically about 18m in diameter. Victory points themselves are almost exactly 5m by 5m. If you're using grenadiers and you're fighting enemies within a capzone: you're fighting at a severe disadvantage.

Conversely, if you don't plan on moving at all, then the best choice you have is find some green cover, stay there and wait for the enenmy to come.
Once the enemy is too close to you, and you are no longer trading well, you hit retreat and you did your job.

This is kind of perplexing to me. The best choice is always fighting from green cover against an enemy that's moving. I can't think of a single situation where the best choice is not to sit in superior cover against an enemy that isn't in position.

And yes, you make a solid point that hitting retreat when you are losing is an appropriate thing to do. (?)

So, my question is:
- If G43 only contributes to long-range DPS, why would you ever forgo the best and most cost-efficient LMG (LMG42) in the game for the G43?

- Note that LMG42 also increase DPS at all ranges; therefore G43 might be a downgrade compared to LMG42 at close-range.

For the reasons I stated above that I go for G43s, which implies not going for LMG42s: snipers and mortars. Personally, weapon upgrades for grens is usually a response to my opponents. But TBH I'm usually spending my munitions on flamethrowers and mines before weapon upgrades for grens. I usually get way more results for munis spent there than I do with grens.

Also, G43s don't drop. The implications of that I think are strong enough on their own.

In addition to everything else, we also have OST design that already makes the faction near helpless in close-quarter maps. G43 commanders and AssGrens kinda help to mitigate that.

...I refute your statement with your own following statement:

What about PGren STGs, then? The amount of distance PGrens have to cover to be cost efficient vs Cons is tiny.

...

But I'm curious though, what about PGren StGs when I was commenting on close range DPS curves of G43s on grenadiers? Like you said, the PGrens do have to cover distance, tiny as it may be, to be cost efficient vs cons. And PGrens, being a 4 man squad, don't have the capacity to offensively close distance without the support of sight or shot blockers.