Profile of Kugelblitz

Simply Enoch

Clan name: Eradication of Repulsive Evil and Corruption Team
Clan tag: E.R.E.C.T
Player names: Hard Justice & Perfect Hidden Justice
Steam ID's: 76561198005880516 & 76561197982682286

Just in case the title is too long:

Performance Gap Between Cons and Grens too large Late Game?

Before I truly begin, I just wish to say that I'm not great at the game, I would like to consider myself a competent player, but I don't believe I possess a deep enough understanding of the game to confidently and accurately render judgement on the game and its unit performances like the rest of you guys.

With that being said, I believe a broken clock can be right twice a day!

With that out of the way, I just want to say overall, Conscripts are great! From early on, to midgame you can safely rely on them to get the job done.

You have to close in to win your engagements--which is fine--until you reach the late game.

This is when both sides have an abundant amount of munitions, only, if you picked the wrong commander when playing Soviets (as I'm really enjoying the lend lease commander), compared to your German counterpart, you don't have the luxury of spending it on the back-bone of your army.

And this is where the performance gap becomes noticeable, because vetted Grens who are equipped with LMGs become even more potent at long range. This long range potency enables them to stay at range, forcing me to close in. By the time I've reached the Grens at a considerable range I've likely lost 1-2 men, which leaves the Germans in a safe position.

It gets to a point where I feel as if he sends one unit of Grens, I have to call it and reply with 2 units of cons. Where he sends 2 units, I feel like I have to send in 3. It's a game of numbers, and one I'm likely not to win.

I was able to preserve my conscripts to vet 3 too, it's just that by that time, they begin to feel like a third wheel. Not strong enough to lead attacks against their German counterparts. Which makes me wish I had invested in elite troops like Shocks.

I'm not asking for a weapon which counters the German's range advantage, I just want my Conscripts to be able to hit harder at close range when they close in. The only problem is, I don't want to be forced into choosing a commander solely for the intent of keeping my Conscripts viable.

The Germans possess the liberty of not having to compromise their commander choice for their Grenadiers. I think it's only fair if the Russians could say the same.

Like I said, I'm not going to pretend I know more about the game than you guys do. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Edit: I've just realised that it sounds like I am using nothing but Conscripts -- I use other units too, believe it or not. But I am focusing on the cases where I don't have the MG covering me, or I don't have the vehicle backing me up.

I'm rather desperate to get in, due to the fact I really want to see the improvements AmiPolizeiFunk mentioned!

It's impossible to satisfy everyone, but a decision still has to be made regarding the T-34. I feel that it fits well where it is, despite how it may have been in history.

Pripyat does demonstrate the issue, but my argument is that it isn't a good idea to balance a concept based on an outlier. The competitive community will prefer maps like Kholodny, Oka, or Moscow, all of which have plenty of ways to flank your enemy and maneuver vehicles. Side armor should be balanced based on which maps will be used the most, rather than what maps are special cases. Trying to balance side armor using a map like Pripyat will cause imbalance issues on other, currently more balanced maps.

You should be forced to sacrifice a T-34 against a Tiger either way. You can either ram the Tiger, destroying the main gun and crippling the engines so that it can't get away and can't cause damage, or watch as the Tiger destroys one of the T-34s. I think it'd be unreasonable if you were able to keep all of your T-34s alive against a Tiger, especially considering the cost difference.

Regardless, Pripyat is the only map that makes it difficult to flank a tank. All of the other maps in the closed beta allow for easy flanking.

I wasn't suggesting I shouldn't have lost a single T-34, I was just amazed by the amount endurance the Tiger demonstrated.

Concerning Pripyat, I agree overall, but like I said, this map greatly allows a player to potentially exploit the lack of side armour. It's still a map which will be played, which means it is a map which will show the problems of not possessing side armour.

I disagree with the mentality, of "ah it doesn't work with this content, so I'm going to work around this content". It can potentially promote, and excuse bad-game design.

It necessarily doesn't need to be at a choke point either, it's entirely possible one could do it with a building, I assume.

It wasn't to say the mechanic doesn't work in one map, it was just to emphasize how this could potentially be abused.

We haven't seen all the maps, so I will reserve judgement, but in the end, it can lead to gaining a huge, unfair advantage.