|
If you're not going to freaking support the idea of better Conscripts, then give us an additional man at Vet2 and Vet3, and reduce the reinforce cost per man by five at each of those respective levels.
Mid/late game when you'll get vetted squads like that, all of the cover has been blasted away and is comprised of craters that will hold 8 men. Sheesh.
Vet1 - blabla whatever we get now
Vet2 - blabla whatever we get now, squad size +1, reinforce cost per man from 20 to 15
Vet3 - blabla whatever we get now, squad size +1, reinforce cost per man from 15 to 10.
Is this drastic and slightly ridiculous? Yeah, sure. But how often do we see hordes of vetted Cons skittering across the map? Now they're weak infantry with which you can vet up all of your precious Axis squads, and Soviet players will now actually be able to drown said units in the blood and entrails of our fine Conscripts.
Before you go off and get your panties in a knot, Cannonade, remember that this is 2 additional utterly garbage Conscript rifles. Like, Cons vs. CE--not the end of the earth, shall we say? |
|
Cannonade, seriously, I'm having trouble understanding your reluctance to make Conscripts useful.
They don't win engagements. I've tried to make 4 con T2 -> Zis -> Maxim/PM-42 -> ZiS -> ZiS -> T3 -> HT (field presence) -> whatever type strats work since the beginning of whenever. Conscripts possess no ability to hold off Axis infantry pushes or to initiate any of their own without exuberant levels of support--we're talking at least a pair of ZiS guns (one alone will be eaten by anything on treads that has a Balkenkreuz painted on it), a mortar (smoke is a must to enable closing the distance without being torn apart), at minimum three, at best, 4, Conscript squads, usually a tag-along Maxim to enable your troops to fend off derprushes, and if you're feeling fancy, an M5 HT and a T-34. Disregarding teching costs, youre looking at
320 MP x2
240 MP x6
270 MP x1 (optional)
30 FU.
----
2350 MP, 30 FU total.
To defend a single location on the map, I'd usually put my bet on a pair of Grenadier squads, an MG42, a Mortar, and a PaK. If you're being super fancy, you'd throw up a bunker for reinforcing and have a pioneer shit out a patch of Shu mines. We'll assume your Grenadiers have LMGs, because really, who wouldn't?
240 MP x4
200 MP x1
320 MP x1
160 MP x1
60 MU x4
-----
1640 Manpower, 240 Munitions.
See the cost difference? This is for one spot on the map; the rest of the Ostheer players' army is elsewhere doing blitzkriegy, "Fur das Vaterland"-y stuff.
The costs, as have been shown, are almost equal (on a per squad basis), with the Soviet player needing to shell out MORE manpower after heavy losses in engagements--and let's not kid ourselves, more often than not, the Soviet player will suffer more casualties in your average engagement. So the Soviets are shelling out more manpower (on reinforcements), or a dead even amount (new squads) for a unit that doesn't perform as well as the opposition, and who's only advantages are the ability to construct free heavy cover, sprint for a very short duration, and make use of a marginally useful reinforcing ability that will still bleed you vs. axis players if, say, you use it to reinforce a one-man Guards squad. YOU STILL DO NOT COME OUT ON TOP.
Even PPSh Cons are blech, especially in team games--where I usually play (take the ZOMG 1v1 bullshit and shove it, this isn't the place). You need to close the range--just like Shock troops--except youre invariably squishier and will have to retreat at least one squad before you can close the distance ("flanking" is far more limited in chokepointy 3v3/4v4 maps).
If trying to defend, holding ground, you still lose--those same Grenadiers can shit out rifle grenades and alpha your squads before they even need to close to ranges where your Mosins can lay the hurt on. If I build Maxims I risk losing the gun and the whole crew if I don't baby it and repair the gun--not a rare thing in the hail of mortar and rifle nade shells in your average team game. Even if you don't lose the squad, you still need to retreat or risk losing the survivors to the high DPS of long-ranged Axis squads.
Cons never come out on top, ever. I have yet to see them carry engagements; only if they hide behind a literal wall of (soon-to-be-rendered-toothless) Maxims and constantly reinforce them via merge (that costs more than simply reinforcing the crew at a HT or at base) do they count towards the fight.
If we go off and spam Penals to try and stay in the fight, then I'm paying MORE than you (the Axis player) are to get a squad that can kinda, sorta stand toe to toe if I micro the living hell out of it--you must make no such efforts because your raw DPS more than compensates.
What option do you have for us Soviet players, this being leveled at Cannonade who has let forth a spout of fairly ridiculous advice; we're supposed to rely on elite infantry (that costs more than yours) that can just manage to stand even to yours? Oh, and we can use team weapons too-sadly, those will be nerfed in the near future. Oh, we have tanks! Wait, no, those are inferior to yours unless we count doctrines, and the Axis community wants doctrinal Soviet tanks nerfed too. So, assuming all of these changes go through, what the hell are we supposed to do when playing Soviets? Drown your grenadiers in a sheer tidal wave of blood and entrails? Force your troops to fire until their barrels burst, weapons jam, and we can then leap up, charge them, and bash their brains in with our sharpened entrenching tools?
Throw us a bone man; I played a couple team games as the Axis and couldn't stand it anymore because it was no fun--it was too easy! |
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
