Maybe the problem is this way of giving feedback about the conscript buff. I do agree that its not enough, but it shows the dev team does care about conscript situation. Do you really want triple buff/nerf solutions? Out of balance "this is my turn to be OP" BS? I dont, i do appreciate dev team caring for cons and giving NEW ideas instead of "make cons the new obers" concepts i've seen suggested so many times.
Cons not meant to be good at lategame, but i guess more cost reduction and more survival would be a good way to go.
I also proposed a radical solution, once and for all solve the problem of conscripts and penal by combining these units into one stretching them in time:
- conscripts model is renamed to the "rifle squad", removed abilities: Ura and merge, get six SVT-40 for 60-80 ammunition
- Penal model get Ura (increases movement speed and rate of fire), merge and move to the ability "rapid conscript" (because their skin without uniforms is more like quickly mobilized conscripts), similar to Osttruppen.
This way we get rid of the terrible design that the Soviets have two starting main infantry units and a blanket pulling which is more important / useful / earned more buffs. Because conscripts turn into penal.
Are people really complaining for a buff to cons ?
Do you really see a buff here? I see that modders know that conscripts suck at a later game, but instead of a buff, they just blur the problem. Even with the seventh person they will be bad against other infantry in the later game, which is why they have a 20% gain in experience and cheap reinforcement - they will suck and die.
If the M3 HT became cheaper, then the Lend-Lease Guards Assault Group should be cheaper. Ideally, I deleted it and made only Guard who can buy Thompson and Bazooka.
The point is to allow new Conscript squads to catch up.
I understood the meaning of this improvement, I lost the squad and built a new one and it was done to compensate because the conscripts suck in the late game, they cannot compete with other infantry, there is no damage - there is no experience. This is not a buff, it is a blurring problem. If they had a weapon upgrade, they deal damage - they are useful as an infantry unit and get good experience without a multiplier.
I therefore tried to whine about the absurdity of this decision. And so it gives an update: this is a later update of T4 (10-15 minutes from the start of the game) increases squad size by 1, reduces squad reinforce cost to 17 and increases veterancy gain by 20%. Takes up one weapon slot. Costs 50 munitions.
- increases squad size by 1 does not provide qualitative improvements in survival and increase damage, by this time the enemy has a veteran: PzGrens, Grens with MG-42, Folks with STG-44, Obers who who do not care on the 7th person.
- reduces squad reinforce cost to 17 Your conscripts are still the same food, but cheaper.
- increases veterancy gain by 20%. Absolutely pointless ability for T4, if you are a good player, your conscripts already have 2-3 veterans by this time, if you’re bad you’ll just feed the enemy and a 20% increase for your conscripts will still not give you anything.
- Takes up one weapon slot. Well, here, and so everything is obvious, the change is a dubious bonus for a real bonus in MG-42 / MG-34 / Shсreсk / Allied weapons in team games
Bottom line: conscripts need a qualitative improvement in the late game to be competitive in the late game, the position: they are not the main infantry but are needed just to build a sandbag and throw a grenade - they also do not stand up to objective criticism, they can do it with six people and one gun slot. This update does nothing to help conscripts be better in the late game.
I disagree, as the old saying goes, different doesn't mean useful. Faction differences are fine to an extent, but when the entire faction is a gimmick with half a toolbox and little room for new strategies, it's not only a pain to balance, but a pain to play with and a pain to play against. I'm using the original OKW as my example here, they were meant to take a quarter of the map and use infantry based anti-infantry and anti-tank to hold off until they could scrape together enough for a Jagdpanzer or Panther, then center their army around this as they try to gain more of the map. To keep the few vehicles they had, they were given tankier vehicles than average and excessively good repair. This could easily snowball and dealing with an OKW that became too strong was very frusterating. On the contrary if the OKW lost their vehicle then you have effectively crushed the keystone of their army, if they cannot get a new one fast, it's over. Alternatively destroying one of their trucks sets them back even more and they may as well quit.
Over time the OKW was heavily reworked, they gained a Machine Gun, their Infantry gained rifles (also making them realistic), they gained a Medium Tank, and they lost a bunch of gimmicks that didn't quite work. So on the contrary I applaud Relic for realizing the design was untenable and steadily reworking them as a more proven design instead of doubling down and trying to tape up the cracks a structure that is sat upon an unstable foundation.
This is completely your right, but the OKW could be balanced around the original concept - it is difficult, it requires skill and talent. Therefore, developers usually follow a simple path: mirror cloning, concept cuts. I am a supporter of the first approach.
Please point out the strategy to me in a mechanic that has a 5% chance of occurring. Is don't ever go for flanks/dives the strategy?
If you want the mechanic completely reworked that's one thing. I don't know how anyone can defend it as it currently is. The risk of losing your tank on a dive is enough threat. Doubling your losses because the computer decided it was time makes no sense in a strategy game
I said above: it's fun, it's an event inside the game to save the tank or to destroy it. If the tanks were abandoned in 100% I would understand the whine, but here only a measly 5% they add only fun. In reality, tankers left their tanks after the first shell hit the tank, and the winner got a lot of trophies.
Cover, surpression, angles, retreating, veterancy and many other concepts will remain in the game.
Unless you think abandons turning games around is what makes this game entertaining.
For me, yes, CoH 2 of 2014 with a bunch of new mechanics, with more unique fractions and problems much more fun than CoH2 of sample 2019, people call it a balance, I call it castration. It was possible to keep the mechanics and balance the game, but it is always easier to go the easy way - to remove the thing that would facilitate work.
This.
We already have MGD crits to flip-off players from time to time.
We don't need Abandon on top of it.
That's right, let's make the game more boring, the game has already lost the blizzard, the factions have lost their uniqueness and become mirror clones, let's kill the latest mechanics that made CoH2 unique and unlike other strategies.
Because you don't like it doesn't make it dumb.
Other person could consider your comment pretty offensive, especially if they like the abandon mechanic.
Imo out of control tanks could be abandoned too.
It's pretty easy to deny the abandoned tank, it's just another attack from the weakest of guns
I agree, this is a lot of fun. This is one shot of debris, for which the bloody battle begins. I have a lot of such cases from which I received joy:
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
