TBH, your point is kinda iffy. You started with a false premise (conscripts never receiving nerfs in last years) and continued with a subjective opinion.
If we compare today conscripts they are much weaker than conscripts on release. And that's is fine, because most if not all the power they had, came from cheese (which is a subjective opinion whether this is good or not).
.....
Not really I did not start with a false premise. I was simply responding to this comment:
Since release the nerfs are much more then the buffs. If this trend continues, the units will be fighting with sticks and stones 
Which is simply misleading.
A) Comparing the game with release is simply misleading because the game was broken state at the time. One can claim ostheer where nerfed because Elephant was a stock unit. Comparison with release are rather pointless.
B) Conscript only had minor changes for a long time. The changes in the recent years might have removed cheese from all factions but aimed to buff Conscript not nerf them. Any nerf they might have received was to remove cheese and counterweight they buffs they got.
...
The problem has always been the Western Front Armies, which put the power level so high compared to what we had with vanilla factions. Even worst when you consider that veterancy was not working properly for quite a long time (which further exacerbate the original intended late game potential AI). The problem in their case was not early performance but mostly late game potential.
...
And this is part of my argument. Instead of buffing other faction to the power level of WFA, it is the WFA that should be brought to power level of vanilla factions. |
Since release the nerfs are much more then the buffs. If this trend continues, the units will be fighting with sticks and stones
Conscript have not received nerf in years. They have even received buffs. If they are behind (with grenadiers) it is because everything else has been buffed substantially.
The only question here is what power level do one want to balance units around and how fast should model Drop.
Judging from units like JLI, Pathfinder, assault engineer and so on currently models drop too fast making the game more about brute force than tactics. |
The pattern with nearly every online multiplayer game in existence* (my point here is that's kind of just how balance tends to work with these kinds of games, up to opinion on whether given units were overnerfed/buffed at the end though)
(Edit: just realized you said UNnecessary, so imagine the next paragraph reworded with "mechanics" instead of strictly "weapons." And also take the last two paragraphs as not necessarily directed towards you then)
Also, the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, normalizing weapon slots would likely involve (over/under) buffing a bunch of weapons, then subsequently (over/under) nerfing them. No real point here, just a comment.
Finally, the existence of multiple weapon slots makes the game more interesting, even if it can lead to imbalance in certain situations. Axis vs allies would no longer be a 1 weapon vs 2 weapon dynamic (higher cost, lower efficiency, but more potential) and would probably be a "whose upgrade is better" dynamic. Of course you could make try to make the dynamic more interesting by further differentiating the profiles, but im not sure how far you can take that idea before you have to essentially create clone weapons. You could also adjust the number of weapons given per slot, which sounds workable, but I still don't like how it separates upgrades into singular spikes instead of the tiered ones that multiple weapon slots provide.
As with a lot of things, this is a matter where the specifics (the numbers and the actual hard implementation) would probably be more important than the concept alone.
Not really. CoH2 has a long history of major buff and nerfs elevating units to broken status or condemning them to oblivion.
Take Tiger ACE, penals, Assault grenadiers, Soviet industry for instance that they completely broken and stay like that for months.
The point I was trying to make thou was about resources management.
One can use his resources and try to improve the game with changes that aim in increasing diversity and run the risk of creating nearly as many problem as he solves with unit like JLI, Pathfinder, Assault engineers.
Or
One can make solid changes like changing the Vet 1 abilities in units like Guards, Penals, Pgs and get solid results that might only need a minor tuning.
|
I'd be in favour of making all squads have one slot so you don't need to zoom in on the models to see what they're armed with.
We don't have the resources for the major rebalance that'd entail though.
I find unnecessary to reduce the number of slot to 1 for all infatry.
On the other hand, imo normalizing and simplifying game mechanics is a much better investment of resources than over buffing and then over nerfing units/commanders/abilities which seems to be the pattern with COH2's patches. |
All those options come in the lategame though, with the exception of the AEC, and that doesn't really count if we're being honest. It's more of a defensive thing and it doesn't even work properly all the time.
An AEC can drive in cone of a HMG and pop smoke to block vision. (Some other units can also do that).
When it comes to smoke for UKF, I would test replacing the HE shell barrage of pyrotechnics with smoke rounds. Some other changes would also be necessary like air-bust shell but that is fixable. |
I'm not sure you really want to see conscripts with 6 ppshs running around lol.
If there is need to lower their close DPS that can be adjusted.
Currently they have more DPS at long range than SMG units and their DPS does not Drop evenly when they lose models. By the time they have lost 3 models and it is about time to retreat they have only lost less than 25% of their close DPS.
Compared to MP-40 VG or Assault grenadier that lose 20% of their close DPS with the first model they lose is a big difference.
|
But its 5 mp40s vs 3 ppshs right? Not to mention cons only have 1 slot to begin with
I really dont know if ppshs should take up one, but perhaps mp40s shouldnt take up BOTH.
The fact that Conscript have 3+3 weapons is benefit not a draw back since the have damage at all ranges.
Imo Ppsh should take all weapons slot or it should provide 6 ppsh.
Bottom line is that weapon upgrades/minesweepers and weapon slots are currently mess and it seems that they are going to become even messier with new commanders. Imo one should try to normalize them across factions. |
PPSH upgrade adds PPSH guns.
MP40 upgrade adds
-smoke nades
-rec acc bonus
-MP40 guns
Does it add regular nade instead of lava one? I'm not sure, OKW upgrades provide so much additional stuff its hard to track it all down.
If anything, its rather clear case why one takes weapon slot and other don't - you're not buying upgrade for an infantry, you pay muni to change it into completely different squad with different tool kit and same vet.
Flame grenade is replaced by frag grenade (which is a nerf).
(It would probably be easier to track changes if you actually played all faction or even the game)
Ppsh upgrade also comes with "free" "hit the dirt" so you get 2 abilities in one slot. Actually the upgrade is a more attractive than MP-40 upgrade, especially since VG have access to MP-44.
The best thing of the ability is the flamer for SP. That is part of the reason MP-40 is getting a buff.
But that does not change the Fact PPsh DOES NOT take a weapon slot.
Or the fact that MP-40 DOES take both weapon slots. And that is the topic of this thread.
|
|
PPsh do not take a weapon slot.
Unlike MP-40 upgrade for VG, conscripts can pick up weapons. |
Penals, while strong, are far from the most cost-efficient infantry. You have to build a 160 mp tech building and then build every single penal for 300 MP, which means you have to play them perfectly in the early game or you will easily lose any and all map control.
They also aren't all that versatile imho, unupgraded they totally kick infantry ass, but that's only in a vaccuum with no variables involved, they have no grenades (a snail could dodge a satchel so it doesn't count) OR they get the AT package which makes them marginally useful at shooting light vehicles and snaring, but their AI capability is basically neutered and they're only good for ambushing and making opponents think twice about vehicle diving at that point.
Try not to confuse "too cost efficient for all around units" with "the most cost-efficient infantry".
Going T1 in 1vs1 might behave some risk involved but it diminishes in 2vs2 and above and this an additional reason why they are badly designed. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
