Or honestly tie the M8 Greyhound to tech and require either the LT or Capt + Motor Pool upgrade in order to build the Greyhound. That way it might work better in team games but not be as spammy in 1v1.
I quite like that. Gives it the flexibility of doctrinal but not the cheese of a call in. |
Meanwhile, both axis factions have the luxury of having competitive infantry for the exact same price as that "cannon fodder" or just slightly more expensive.
I'd rather have a cannon fodder that scales the one that is a meme.
Sorry, 240 mp is NOT "cannon fodder", even 200mp osttruppen are no longer expendable(they were when they had cost of 120mp) and infantry that is incapable of cost effective fighting will never be desirable, "dey got utility" is a meme, not argument, grens have a lot of utility themselves, yet they do get fuel free LMG upgrade.
Could make their cost reduction somewhat more dramatic at later tiers to make them more replaceable.
Tbh the only real issue I would see would be con ppshs. But then again that would just shift the resource strain from manpower to munition and a short range dps bump on a squad with no vet wouldn't be too spooky I don't think |
Wehrmacht also has this opportunity - osttruppen. But as I said above - I don’t need cannon-fodder, I need effect units that will be useful and get the maximum veterancy. Conscripts are not effective, they are bad even as a support squad - their only useful to throw an anti-tank grenade.
If they were cheaper you could afford to risk them which would up their attractiveness. Things like merge is great on paper but if you have a 5 man con squad trying to merge into a 2 man squad and somewhere a model is dropped you lose the con squad and it's very much required vet. It's not a risk worth taking which diminishes the use alot. And if they are cheaper you could afford to have them holding the line trying to tie up the enemy. You could afford to build another squad to cap crew weapons or just be more volume of fire. Keeping in mind currently if you can AND the enemy can, you lose out because the enemy could scrounge munitions to vastly improve the quality of those fresh recruits. |
1v1 stationary riflemen destroy sturms. -> strum win in mid-close range
1v1 rushing rifleman cant beat volk behind the cover
almost situation rifleman hugging into volks behind the cover and lost MP efficiency
if rifleman hugging into volks safely, volk just throw flame nade and can beat easily again
also volks get better weapon earlier than rifleman and MP snowballing starts here
This is the issue. You can't engage them at range effeciently but you also cant close because of stgs and labs nades. They are such a poorly designed unit.
Obers should come earlier to lessen the blow and promote diversity but volks need toned down slightly for the sake of all balamce |
I agree. What I meant re a commander only upgrade at first was then we could see what difference it made on a smaller and safer scale. No need for a new commander, just swap the ability onto one of the the 74 unused soviet commanders we already have.
Or just make them Con-struppen and lower the price.
I fear that a bit too much work and tbh I fear the impact just throwing a weapon on a squad designed to simply be plentiful (like we've already seen in the most recent axis faction)
I still thrill that making them cheaper is the best course of action, it even delayed via later techs. Where other faction mainline scale with firepower conscripts would scale with durability and being easier to replace. Since Soviet fighting infantry are all 300mp or more I think this would offer a good contrast and fit their intended design better. A squad that scales purely with vet isn't expendable, one that also doesn't do damage is that much worse. |
A good test would be to add a commander which allows you to upgrade Cons with a DP28 and go from there.
Cons are already the only core unit in the game that is nearly worthless without a proper commander, adding another commander only buff doesn't fix that. |
Jesus this is getting painful.
Now to make it worse.
I think that people are right in saying that volks/okw starting MP could be looked at to help ease some balance issues.
As for cons? You can make them cheaper and give them all the utility you like. I'm still building penals as actually being able to kill enemy units proves more useful than dying a bit more slowly at vet3 for cons.
There's nothing wrong with building penals, the idea is to create a scenario where cons are desired and not simply handicapping yourself. The worst part about them is that as meh as they are at the start of the game they are even worse when if you need to replace a squad because they are every bit the exact same as the game started, no weapon and same price means it's even harder to lose a squad because there is nothing to bridge the gap of vet. |
why would we possibly compare t0 infantry that can build sandbags, snare, throw flame nades and are more durable than average? cant for the life of me figure out why....
you say about cons catching up to tanks and ignore that to actually do anything they need another 125mp and 25 fuel (more than the clown car, btw)
you also ignore that volks start with sturm pios that obliterate any starter unit that can catch at mid range and close on, you ignore that they always have AT no matter how they tech, and an mg too, you ignore that okw has a 210mp fast capping scout unit that COULD make up for lost ground if their infantry were more expensive and most importantly you are ignoring that okw can afford to build whatever bloody unit they please from the word go.
volks dont NEED to thrash cons and be comparable to rifles because they have all the support they could dream of from a second 0 shock unit to late game super grens. ober timing could afford to be adjusted but there is no reason for volks to act like lite riflemen, and certainly not for 250mp |
Yet the benchmark was and should be again grenadiers and not volks.
Which is why I don't want performance buffs, just cost effeciency buffs as cons have been underwhelming in that regard for a time. A unit that is designed to not actually be a front line unit shouldn't be priced the same as those that are.
Also if it's the volks match up that's the issue it makes sense to use it as context because buffing cons to address the volks match-up breaks the grens matchup, then you buff grens to match up against cons and it breaks other matchup. Volks are over performing compared to units more expensive and relatively priced making possibly well balanced units underperform relatively. |
Oh wait, this is the first time someone plays the cheap card saying volks are the problem. Yeah there are 5 threads for that, you can go cry yourself to sleep there.
Edit: Lets start to get some constructive discussions. If not Always the grass is greener on the other side, and this forum will not be other thing but toxic discussions of nonesense people bashishg each others heads
Like it or not, Volks are the common denominator. Cons v grens are balanced but vs volks cons fall flat. Rifles vs grens are balanced, but volks trade well against rifles which they shouldn't give what volks can do an what rifles can do (sandbags, deny cover, self heal with vet) and the main thing is without any outside costs.
When threads about allied infantry not performing according to cost people don't compare them to grens because they have a clear role and clear cut limitations. Volks less so. |