Thread: T34/8513 Oct 2013, 08:29 AM
Are you saying you can survive with Pios only until you get Tiger or Elephant in 1v1 game?
That is what you are saying.
Because I can play entire game as Soviet, with that particular commander, having only HQ
To be fair, Germans can now go without buildings as well if they use the new mech assault commander. |
@Strummingbird: A global, one off fuel cost upgrade is already unprecedented in CoH2.
You're forgetting the molotov and AT grenade upgrades for cons, which are indeed one off fuel cost upgrades.
There is a lot of talk about oorah and merge, but you also need to pay a whopping 240 mp, 50 fuel to get their molotov and their AT ability - which grens (and even ostruppen!) get for free.
I agree that conscripts need some way to be effective in the late game, such as non-doctrinal PPSHs. Currently they can do little more in the late game than cap points and throw AT nades - which ostruppen do at half the price (or less, if you include the cost of the AT nade upgrade). That said, a decrease in LMG effectiveness would go a long way. |
|
Is it just me, or are Ostruppen basically what conscripts were meant to be? Big squad, expendable, meant to stay in cover, and even an AT-ability tacked on (without upgrade even). Balance aside, I think this feel is probably what they intended for conscripts - but they ended up with something closer to the US riflemen instead. |
Give Concripts a global or non-global non-doctrinal weapon upgrade, PPSs, Svt-40s or Dps but don't nerf the grenadiers
Really this would be the best solution, just like the BAR vCoH.
They wanted conscripts to be cheap, big, basically expendable squads that are good in cover. They eventually did made make such a unit at half the price, the Ostruppen, but ironically they gave them to the Germans. Conscripts are actually most similar to the US riflemen, but without the late-game DPS upgrade they sorely need. |
I think one reason why we are repeatedly seeing people say something like "I'd rather take <other faction's AT gun>" stems from faction design:
Ostheer does not have as many indirect fire options as Soviets. Their main source of indirect fire are mortars and then nothing at all until (if) they go T4. Everything they have is rather squishy (flames, explosions) and because of this and other reasons (no Oorah, more expensive mines) they have a harder time defending their AT gun. The things they'd use an AT gun for are mainly T70/T34 against which survivability is arguably more important than rate of fire. Against a Su-85 it just serves as a deterrent and can be taken out by the Soviet indirect fire solutions available in these situations (Su-76, Katyusha, 120 mm mortar).
Soviets already have potent indirect fire options or do not require them as much (survivable snipers, M3 flamers for taking/weakening positions). The squishyness of a Pak would not mean much to them because they could support it easier (mines, AT grenade, Oorah, merge, easier recrewing, doctrinal cloak). Rather, they'd take more potent non-Su-85 AT solutions because their amount and relative power of them is a bit lower (currently: combination of solutions less potent on their own).
And I think this is completely intentional from the design Devs.
Still, both lack from poor accuracy... their scatter stats should be improved so they are better against disabled and immobile (lack of enemy awareness) vehicles as well as against frontal charging vehicles.
I hadn't thought of it that way. That does seem to make sense.
And yes, I definitely agree that both AT guns should be better for their cost. |
|
Yeah, conscripts vs grens with default weapons is balanced. It only becomes one-sided when LMGs hit the field. |
|
Let's do some basic math:
ZiS:
1 shot per 4.4 seconds = 0.227 shots/sec
Pak40:
1 shot per 2.9 seconds = 0.345 shots/sec
0.345 / 0.227 = 1.52
This means that the rate of fire for the pak is ~50% higher than for the zis. Not 30%, not 35%.
Whether or not 50% higher RoF is worth the barrage and 2 extra crew is a matter of opinion, but I just wanted to correct some of the faulty numbers I've been reading in these threads. |
currently it takes 3.96 seconds for the pak to fire and 5.8 for the ZiS.
Jesus, I didn't realize the pak fired ~50% faster. That ZiS barrage ability and +2 crew really isn't worth 50% extra DPS, especially since the whole point of getting an AT gun is to damage armour. |
just look at pripyat.
God, that really is the worst map - the only one I've disabled. It's like Vire River Valley all over again. |
ZiS being versitile at anti-inft (for muni) and anti-tank makes it great.
Versatility in general is great, but for an anti-tank gun I would really, really prefer it to be specialized - because dedicated AT is almost certainly the biggest weak point for the Soviets. If you want something to provide indirect fire, you can get a mortar from the same T2 building (though admittedly the soviet 82 mm mortar is not in a good place right now). |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
