[1.4.0.0] Conscripts

[Blackbishop]

Guys, could we keep it to the conscripts? ^^

I've noticed as of late that the molotovs seem to have a near 100% chance to damage a vehicles engine. This seems rather OP, and is extremely annoying. A fair chance is okay, but the near 100% is really annoying.

I've replaced those criticals (kept them for red damage level) for destroy secondary weapons ones. Also doubled the recharge time.

[GodlikeDennis]

If it weren't for insane molotovs, conscripts would be perfect the way they are. They're decent but the impetus to upgrade to strelky or other better troops would still be there. At the moment, insane OP spammable molotovs means everyone blobs and charges throwing fireballs at everyone who resists.

[IJoe]

Now, what exactly is OP about these molotovs?

[Red_Stinger]

Now, what exactly is OP about these molotovs?

Well, damaging engine of vehicle almost everytime is OP, especially for a 224mp squad.
With 3 molotovs, I managed to destroy a puma in some second. And remember that CS and N.I also get them.

[IJoe]

Well, damaging engine of vehicle almost everytime is OP, especially for a 224mp squad.

Why? It doesn't immobilize a vehicle. You can still drive away, if you wish. And the upgrade cost has been risen, and it no longer gives you 7 rifles 1 ppsh UNSUPPRESSIBLE squad. And after all that NERFING you say those pathetic molotovs  are OP? Give it a brake, people!

With 3 molotovs, I managed to destroy a puma in some second. And remember that CS and N.I also get them.

That is impossible, unless the puma was already dead.
Replay to the studio!!!

[Red_Stinger]

Come on! Dont get so angry, we are discussing about balance, and everyone can throw his impression/ideas. It's for a constructive objective!

You can still drive away a vehicle with a damaged engine; its easy when you are facing only conscript that cant do much by themselves after their molotovs. But when you are facing an AT gun, or TH/guards with AT nades, the lowered speed mean that your vehicle will take more damage from them. It wouldnt be a problem if a single molotov would almost always damage the engine.

I'm not saying that the molotov shouldnt damage the engine at all; its nice that you can expect at some point to stop a tank, but a FREE molotov which can slow down for a while a KT (or whatever) each time is OP, at least for me.

As for the puma, I dont usually keep my replays anymore. You can accuse me of being a liar, a hypocrite or whatever you want, it wont hurt me. It's just a lesson, and the next time I will keep replays when strange thing happen. Consider my previous statement with the puma wrong. 'nuff said.

[IJoe]

I'm not angry
I'm just saying, that a more powerful molotov, which it is, is a mere (and far from fair) compensation for all the drawbacks done to soviet tier1. So, if you want it reversed, it would only be right, that all the nerfs, or at least most of them, should be reversed as well.

[Blackbishop]

AFAIK, it was never intended that molotovs destroy engines so, that will be rolled back in the next patch.

[Otto Halfhand]

AFAIK, it was never intended that molotovs destroy engines so, that will be rolled back in the next patch.

I think damage engine criticals are in order for Molotovs. Reducing the chance of a critical engine hit may be jn order but I've found that micro is the most effective way to avoid the problem. When a Sov squad throws a molotov dance away from it. One idea that might be considered for Petrol Bombs is adding a 5 Fuel cost per use. The coctails were developed as an ad hoc anti-vehicle weapon and extensive use should delay the production of vehicular units. This would be a fair trade off to compensate for all those damaged engines. The comment was made that the molotov upgrade comes too early. I tend to agree with this. I think the armory upgrade cost needs modified to place it more in line with PE's incendiary grenade research cost. (Increase the fuel cost not the muni cost).

Why is it necessary to increase squad size to conscripts when the petrol bombs are introduced? The commisar is no longer there and the upgrade effects three different squads.

It was stated that conscripts become unsuppressible at vet 3. Why? A low grade infantry unit shouldn,t have this ability. Why not reduce the received damage a little?

As far as balance concerns go how do the stats for PE incendiary grenades damage/duration stack up to molotovs? Gasoline burns pretty quickly.

[IJoe]

AFAIK, it was never intended that molotovs destroy engines so, that will be rolled back in the next patch.

As far as I remember, it was one of the most popular ideas having to do with molotovs. And I regret, it is going to be taken away, especially since all those t1 nerfs are there to stay.

[RedGuard]

what does everyone think of the new conscript vet? is it any good or is it useless? is it too hard to obtain or too easy?

ive personally never gotten a vet3 con squad in pvp Im looking for some feedback I have a hunch that vet values should be lowered a tiny bit

[Paciat]

AFAIK, it was never intended that molotovs destroy engines so, that will be rolled back in the next patch.

As far as I remember, it was one of the most popular ideas having to do with molotovs. And I regret, it is going to be taken away, especially since all those t1 nerfs are there to stay.

Molotows work the same way as Incendiary nades of rifles damaging all light armor up to a Stuart. The only difference is that allies use less really light armor (like BREN carrier or Sdkfz 22x) and that molotovs are free.

[Otto Halfhand]

what does everyone think of the new conscript vet? is it any good or is it useless? is it too hard to obtain or too easy?

ive personally never gotten a vet3 con squad in pvp Im looking for some feedback I have a hunch that vet values should be lowered a tiny bit

Tovarich,
I like the vet1 and vet2 alot. There seems to be a problem at vet two where you not only lose the vet1 advantage of weapons pick-up but previously acquired weapons as well. The notion of an 8M/8R squad with with rifles, light weapons pick-up (do they get the un-natural suppression from moving while firing Sov LMGs like Guards and Naval Infantry too?), molotovs and no suppression is a horrible idea. I.E. A five squad run up the center, (with maybe the ability to suppress infantry in its path), molotov the 88s, recrew them, and just for kicks add The Red Tide at 4 CP. Conscripts? Balance? I don't think so.

At vet3 a lower received damage from direct fire weapons might be appropriate to offset the low hit points. Maybe not, (PE  55/210HPs/255 MP cost vs Consripts, (37/296HPs/224MP cost)?

I don't think it is necessary to decrease the vet requirements. Vet1 and vet2 conscripts are fun to play with. But in all fairness they are no longer meat shields.

[Blackbishop]

At vet 1 they have a 5% received dmg bonus, but i added that as place holder, they could have a 15~10% i guess .

Currently i'm not able to find a way to give them the capture weapon ability at any given time without crashing the game (it works, but when they get heavy fire coh crashes) XD.

[Otto Halfhand]

At vet 1 they have a 5% received dmg bonus, but i added that as place holder, they could have a 15~10% i guess .

Currently i'm not able to find a way to give them the capture weapon ability at any given time without crashing the game (it works, but when they get heavy fire coh crashes) XD.

The -5% received damage at vet1 seems OK at this point.

I have retrieved several weapons with Conscripts at vet1. They frequently don't make it back to a reinforce point but I've not had a crash because the squad is eliminated. I sorta think when you lose a squad that is heavy fire.