Login

russian armor

Why the 7 model Cons

11 Mar 2020, 12:40 PM
#21
avatar of Aradan

Posts: 889

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 12:29 PMVipper

That makes little sense. All the weapon you mention require the conscripts to be stationary to fire them, actually 7 men conscript on the move would have more DPS on the move than 5 men conscript on the move +1 weapon that does not fire.


Osttruppen are 6-men squad with LMG, snare and can build defence.

They are ideal infantry for Soviets :thumb:
11 Mar 2020, 12:48 PM
#22
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 1593 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 12:29 PMVipper

That makes little sense. All the weapon you mention require the conscripts to be stationary to fire them, actually 7 men conscript on the move would have more DPS on the move than 5 men conscript on the move +1 weapon that does not fire.


I do agree that Penal is design is problematic.


Well, it’s possible, but the weapon bonus always works regardless of the attack / defense or cover / out of cover, the 7th person bonus accuracy works in the cover, and it’s problematic to find a cover 3vs3 or higher with constant artillery fire when the whole map is one big red cover. Maybe this is just my bias, but my game experience tells me that weapons is better than the 7th person.
11 Mar 2020, 12:57 PM
#23
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8287 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 12:40 PMAradan


Osttruppen are 6-men squad with LMG, snare and can build defence.

They are ideal infantry for Soviets :thumb:

I have already pointed out that I disagree with LMG upgrade for Ostruppen.

But you have to keep in mind the following:
Osttruppen are doctrinal not stock
Osttruppen have less EHP than conscripts and die rather fast especially in late game
Osttruppen need cover
ostruppen do not have ourah for moving to cover fast

As I said I would have no problem with having the LMG upgrade replaced.
11 Mar 2020, 12:58 PM
#24
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8287 | Subs: 1


Well, it’s possible, but the weapon bonus always works regardless of the attack / defense or cover / out of cover, the 7th person bonus accuracy works in the cover, and it’s problematic to find a cover 3vs3 or higher with constant artillery fire when the whole map is one big red cover. Maybe this is just my bias, but my game experience tells me that weapons is better than the 7th person.


The late battle fiend in 3vs3 and 4vs4 is actually filled with cover since rocket artillery and other explosion create crates of yellow cover not red which is enough for unit with cover bonuses to benefit form it.
11 Mar 2020, 14:26 PM
#25
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 3960 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 09:37 AMVipper
Imo the 7 men upgrade is badly designed.

I currently "competes" with other doctrinal upgrades since it mutually exclusive.

I would test removing the extra model and reduce cost to 10-20MU (or make it passive), remove the cover bonus and leave XP gain and reinforcement reduction.

In addition PPsh now take a weapons slot, "hit the dirt" becomes a separate ability, Weapon Drop is simply completely redesigning or removed.

I disagree with most of this post.

Most doctrinal / non doc upgrades do compete though. Can't have an lmg and g43s or 5 man grens, no stg + lmg overs either. It's fine for it to compete as it offers a choice. Saying that doctrinal stuff shouldn't compete with non doc stuff sure puts everything in doctrines that isnt an ability into question.

Increased vet alone isn't enough for cons when things like stgs and lmgs are handed out like candy
Perhaps taking the cover bonus and linking it to oorah to add munitions drain could work as a way to tone down the 7 man upgrade but I feel it's necessary AND on theme (which is quite the feat for something added post release) for how cons are supposed to operate. It brings a much needed QOL bonus to merge in that you won't lose a vital vetted squad because a model drops at the wrong time.

Sure you would pay less for dropping models and the upgrade would be cheap (at that point it should just be a core side tech though instead of squad by squad) but it doesn't change the fundamental problem of cons being drastically outgunned by units that get weapons AND vet while they only get vet.

As for the ppsh / hit the dirt... I don't think separating them and reducing the power of thir doctrines is a good change either. Many of the doctrines that had HTD previously were sorely underpowered and underused. They greatly benifited from the merge and separating them again won't do anything any good. Though the ppsh could take a slot I do agree.
11 Mar 2020, 14:30 PM
#26
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2369 | Subs: 5

and it’s problematic to find a cover 3vs3 or higher with constant artillery fire when the whole map is one big red cover


What are you talking about? Constant artillery fire creates light cover all over the map, not red cover.
11 Mar 2020, 14:46 PM
#27
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8287 | Subs: 1


I disagree with most of this post.

Most doctrinal / non doc upgrades do compete though. Can't have an lmg and g43s or 5 man grens, no stg + lmg overs either. It's fine for it to compete as it offers a choice. Saying that doctrinal stuff shouldn't compete with non doc stuff sure puts everything in doctrines that isnt an ability into question.

There are some differences in your examples:
G43 changes the role of grenadier from static long range to mobile far to mid oriented
5 men upgrade is simply superior to Lmg


Increased vet alone isn't enough for cons when things like stgs and lmgs are handed out like candy
Perhaps taking the cover bonus and linking it to oorah to add munitions drain could work as a way to tone down the 7 man upgrade but I feel it's necessary AND on theme (which is quite the feat for something added post release) for how cons are supposed to operate. It brings a much needed QOL bonus to merge in that you won't lose a vital vetted squad because a model drops at the wrong time.

Sure you would pay less for dropping models and the upgrade would be cheap (at that point it should just be a core side tech though instead of squad by squad) but it doesn't change the fundamental problem of cons being drastically outgunned by units that get weapons AND vet while they only get vet.

My suggestions is to keep both XP and reinforcement discount. The discount particularly would help PPsh have reduced bleed in late game.


As for the ppsh / hit the dirt... I don't think separating them and reducing the power of thir doctrines is a good change either. Many of the doctrines that had HTD previously were sorely underpowered and underused. They greatly benifited from the merge and separating them again won't do anything any good. Though the ppsh could take a slot I do agree.

That is commander design issue. Actually the game should have abilities of different power level so that total power level of commander are about the same.

From my point of view combining a defensive ability like "hit the dirt" with an offensive one like PPsh make little sense and should be avoided.
(actually I would rather have hit the dirt replace ourah for conscripts solidifying them as a "defensive" infatry and ourah moved to redesigned penal solidifying them as an "offensive" one but that is just me)
11 Mar 2020, 15:21 PM
#28
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 725

How about waiting for the current nerfs to come through before calling for even more nerfs to cons.

Personally I would like to see the upgrade unlocked after meds+molo+at nade all get researched.
11 Mar 2020, 16:04 PM
#29
avatar of Serrith

Posts: 418



MG-42, Bren, Vickers, Schreck, Bazooka with any of these weapons. Conscripts will be better than the 7th person. I prefer an aggressive style of play with significant microcontrol. So a weapon upgrade is more useful to me than a bonus of accuracy from a static state. I do not need this illusory merger bonus.



Well, it’s possible, but the weapon bonus always works regardless of the attack / defense or cover / out of cover, the 7th person bonus accuracy works in the cover, and it’s problematic to find a cover 3vs3 or higher with constant artillery fire when the whole map is one big red cover. Maybe this is just my bias, but my game experience tells me that weapons is better than the 7th person.



...because of this we come to the strange concepts of the 7th person inventing strange roles for them. And I continue to think that we should remove one infantry unit and make the remaining unit competitive for the starting infantry of the remaining factions.



First, 7 man conscripts do not gain accuracy, they gain reduced cooldown and faster reload, and second they do not need to be stationary to receive these bonuses.

As vipper already mentioned, the weapons you brought up all require your unit to be stationary, and contradict your second point about not liking your units having to be in a static state. Not only that, you are relying on rng drops to upgrade your troops and you are assuming your allies or your enemy don't get to them first. That's like skipping medics to rely on your opponents dropping medical crates in bad positions so you can steal them and heal your troops

I'd also like to point out that rocket barrages, howitzers and off map barrages do NOT create red cover, they create yellow cover. Particularly in larger game modes where these are more plentiful, the terrain ends up being saturated with yellow cover resulting in 7 man cons almost perpetually receiving their cover bonuses.

Other things to note is that if you feel the merge advantage 7 man cons have is "illusory" then you are obviously not using merge enough or properly.
There is also no "strange role" that 7 man cons get. They flat out have a massive damage output increase due to both the cover bonus AND the additional man, they have an increase in durability due to the extra man, they are far more cost efficient because of their reduced reinforce cost and they vet up extremely fast because of the damage increase coupled with additional experience gain. Literally it takes everything that cons can do at the start and gives them a huge buff.





Early on cons are fine. They are faster and more durable then anything they face. When upgrades come out then indeed they are weak. Their durability advantidge becomes rather obsolete at that point, without ai upgrades to cover this they just suck mostly.
The 7th man corrects this and gives them the durability advantidge again.


The problem is that it is still "early game" at the time german troops start getting weapon upgrades. And even before that, conscripts fare rather poorly against the OKW early game lineup and also quite poorly against specific ost strats/commanders (eg assgrens).
11 Mar 2020, 16:22 PM
#30
avatar of Domine

Posts: 497

I remember when people were laughing at propositions to give Cons a seventh member, saying "They won't be able to fit any cover"


fucking kek
11 Mar 2020, 18:19 PM
#31
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2550 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 10:50 AMLeo251

The same thing could apply to Grens, but here we are, still with 4men.


So, the problem was Penals. Instead of nerfing penals, patch team buff cons. :loco:


The same thing could apply to Grens. 90% of player base has problems with 4men Gren squads.


Late game vet0 grens still have a rifle nade and a DPS boosting LMG to secure kills, evens against vetted squads. 6 man vet 0 lategame conscrips were literally just AT-grenade fodder that couldn't secure any kills.
11 Mar 2020, 18:31 PM
#32
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 570

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 16:04 PMSerrith


The problem is that it is still "early game" at the time german troops start getting weapon upgrades. And even before that, conscripts fare rather poorly against the OKW early game lineup and also quite poorly against specific ost strats/commanders (eg assgrens).


Ost has the same vs usf. They cant be equaly strong vs all enemy factions.
Vs okw i spread out less and focus fire more and always expect the sturms early on. I wont win 1v1 engagements with cons vs okw anyway.

I dont think that cons scaling later is a bad thing. That they scale without doctrines at all now is fantastic by itself.
11 Mar 2020, 18:53 PM
#33
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 570

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 10:50 AMLeo251

The same thing could apply to Grens, but here we are, still with 4men.


So, the problem was Penals. Instead of nerfing penals, patch team buff cons. :loco:


The same thing could apply to Grens. 90% of player base has problems with 4men Gren squads.


Penals are to grens are what pgrens are to conscripts. The next inf in the tech lineup, a harder puncher then what comes before. Penals just come earlier but the mg42 gas been moved to t0 and pio got a sightbuff for a reason.

Grens are not getting changed to 5 men stock, their is no point imo. Then it would become oskw.

11 Mar 2020, 20:59 PM
#34
11 Mar 2020, 22:12 PM
#35
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 3960 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 14:46 PMVipper

There are some differences in your examples:
G43 changes the role of grenadier from static long range to mobile far to mid oriented
5 men upgrade is simply superior to Lmg


and ppsh if for assaulting while 7 man is superior at holding ground and economizing manpower. both have applications where they are better than the other

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 14:46 PMVipper

My suggestions is to keep both XP and reinforcement discount. The discount particularly would help PPsh have reduced bleed in late game.


it wouldnt be an exclusive upgrade? not sure i like that... ontop of your 240mp cons you would then have a 20mu upgrade tacked on and the 80mp/10fu for molitovs and 125mp/ 15 fu for AT nades... all for kitted out infantry that wont be able to stand up to infantry armed to the teeth and battle hardened AND wont even have their merge utility to reliably fall back on

plus reduced bleed on ppsh cons wouldnt be a good thing, it doesnt need that buff, it would make it far more attractive and a no brainer where currently even with a ppsh commander you will likley be mixing 7 man and ppsh cons

the 7th man strengthens cons where they should be late game, which is bodies and volume of fire and simply 2mp off a head and some faster vet wont make them much better than they were before the 7th man was added.

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 14:46 PMVipper

That is commander design issue. Actually the game should have abilities of different power level so that total power level of commander are about the same.


i agree there should be different power levels to better balance commanders, but HTD isnt worth a whole slot and every singe commander that had it was underwhelming. the soviet commanders are ina much better spot with them merged. some abilities just dont stand up the the test of time and the doctrinal power creep that comes with it

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 14:46 PMVipper

From my point of view combining a defensive ability like "hit the dirt" with an offensive one like PPsh make little sense and should be avoided.
(actually I would rather have hit the dirt replace ourah for conscripts solidifying them as a "defensive" infatry and ourah moved to redesigned penal solidifying them as an "offensive" one but that is just me)


i dont see the issue with the ability granting offensive and defensive traits since they are exclusive to cons and as said before the goal is to make multiple paths attractive at the same time. HTD doesnt synergize well with the ppsh of course, but does with 7 man cons and any cons you planned on holding out on giving ppshs to turn into 7 man cons. call it "conscript equipment and training" for all it matters.
11 Mar 2020, 22:51 PM
#36
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8287 | Subs: 1


...

One of my main concerns is that soon we will see yet another buff to Pssh conscripts leading to more power creep.
12 Mar 2020, 00:11 AM
#37
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 3960 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 22:51 PMVipper

One of my main concerns is that soon we will see yet another buff to Pssh conscripts leading to more power creep.
what makes you say that? It's in a great spot already and well designed with strengths and weaknesses.
12 Mar 2020, 06:19 AM
#38
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8287 | Subs: 1

what makes you say that? It's in a great spot already and well designed with strengths and weaknesses.

A long history of patches.

Ppsh upgrade is good, on the other hand SVT is way better and currently in live 7 men upgrade is probably better.

Keep in mind that it has already been buffed in September although it was in "great spot":

Conscript Assault Package

Doctrinal PPSh-41 upgrade for Conscripts has been changed to be available earlier to match other weapon upgrades.

CP requirement from 3 to 2
12 Mar 2020, 06:48 AM
#39
avatar of A Furry Wehraboo

Posts: 56

I like the idea of 7 model cons. Also they are being nerfed in the coming patch while retaining the 7 model upgrade. I think this is a good change
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
UTT2 Main Event

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag T.R. 6 squads, 4 maxim 2 engies
  • U.S. Forces flag °NOSMarkov.-
uploaded by KahootKing

Board Info

122 users are online: 3 members and 119 guests
Farlon, Baba, Farlion
57 posts in the last 24h
921 posts in the last week
4599 posts in the last month
Registered members: 22738
Welcome our newest member, hoymy
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM