Shared vet for Conscripts

[Otto Halfhand]

I think Shared Veterancy for Conscripts, (and Conscripts only), should be tried out. It may well be unbalanced; in which case it could be removed. It seems to me that when 2-3 conscripts are needed to flank an MG, 1-2 are going to be mauled and retreat back to base. Early in the game why even try? two thirds of the force will be out of commission for an extended period.

[Killar]

It may well be unbalanced; in which case it could be removed.

or not added at all.
If rifles flank an MG some will die too. If you retreat them early enough you wont loose a squad. Flanking an MG an loosing no soldier doesnt happen normally.

[Pac-Fish]

You are always going to lose soldiers when launching a large MG flank. After all one squad must absorb fire.

[Otto Halfhand]

Casualties are inevitable. Shouldn't the survivors be learning combat and survival skills in the process. 7/14?/24 EXP is extremely hard to obtain whthe time 75% of time you are in retreat and reorganization. I am not suggesting this idea will be balanced. It may well not be. I think the experiment should be made.

Gameplay aside I find the notion that players think of conscripts as mere cannon fodder, dishonors the memory of all conscripted soldiers in all wars that have been forced to die for their countries, and is REPULSIVE.

[Pac-Fish]

Originally Conscripts weren't even supposed to get vet sooooo yeah IMO they are okay for know (although I would like my 8 man squads back). And their vet requirements discourage players from using them as main line infantry. Rather Strelky should be used. If they got vet so fast, who would bother getting any other infantry

Gameplay aside I find the notion that players think of conscripts as mere cannon fodder, dishonors the memory of all conscripted soldiers in all wars that have been forced to die for their countries, and is REPULSIVE.

I don't mean to sound rude but this is a simple game, not a history lesson or a memorial service. We are all on COH to have fun, not honor people. And of course, its for balance.

[Dann88]

Even with no shared vet and only 4 rifles, Cons is a very scary unit in swarming early and cannon fodder later. Shared vet will make them a nightmare no matter what
About history, if you don't want them work as cannon fodder just don't do it. But in war, a soldier is cannon fodder in someways.

[stealthattack1]

yes, it is repulsive. but thats what they were thought of as during the war. this was really the mentality of the soviet union. commisars for petes sake shot thier own troops on a regular basis just to show others to not run away from battle. to "flank" machine guns, soldiers actually linked arms and ran straight at them. so, yes it is dishonorable, but it wasn't invented by the EF team. dont get me wrong, i think its terrible, but it also reflects the ideals displayed during the war.

[Otto Halfhand]

At Cold Harbor US Grant ordered his troops to attack a fortified positions. THe soldiers sewed name tags on the backs of their mates  before the assault so their bodies could be ID'd. They were draftees. Its not on EF. But it wasn't just the Sovs.

[stealthattack1]

fair enough. but it is still a game. if you still want the names changed, talk to the dev team.

[Otto Halfhand]

I wish to restate the shared vet for conscripts argument. I think shared vet for conscripts is a good idea.
 
Strategic Argument:

• In a firefight 3:1 odds are optimal and 2:1 is generally acceptable odds for engagement. 1:1 is a crap shoot. Conscripts and VG are natural opponents.
• 3cons vs 2VG is a crap shoot.
• 2Cons vs 2VG both upgraded should yield an advantage to cons at mid range and advantage to VG at close range.
• 3cons vs 2 VG both upgraded, my money is on the cons.
• VG buy their vet while cons have to earn it. Vetted VG vs cons is not a contest. Shared vet for conscripts is balanced.

Tactical Argument:

• We are playing Rock<Paper<Scissors here.
• As a PE player I would engage cons or Strelky with GR43s. Gds with ST44s and Shock Gds with Falls.
• I would no more send cons against Falls then I would send an AC vs 2ATG. I am happy to use my conscripts as skirmishers and to draw fire and cap. I am unhappy to find no other combat role for them. Vet allows this to happen. Shared vet is better.

Logistical Argument:
I am a stomper.  My opponents generate 25 to 50 % more MP than I do. To suggest Conscripts be penalized just so the player spend additional MP on Strelky to give them a place in the game is flawed. Having spent 1100 MP, (0 pop) on conscripts already. If I am going to double down why pay 1080mp, (24pop) for 4 squads of strelky when I get 3 squads of Gds at 1020MP (24pop)? If I really must invest in 24pop more I'll Spend it on 3-KV85s rather than Strelky, thank you very much.

Originally Conscripts weren't even supposed to get vet ... IMO they are okay for know (although I would like my 8 man squads back). And their vet requirements discourage players from using them as main line infantry. Rather Strelky should be used. If they got vet so fast, who would bother getting any other infantry
...And of course, its for balance.

Ah but conscripts do have Vet. They no longer have 8 man squads or Molotov's that work against vehicles, (my preference). Shared vet is only one idea of many ideas that have been tried with conscripts. For Balance?  It hasn't been tested. If its not balanced get rid of it. PvP rules.
 

[Pac-Fish]

IMO a conscript can beat a volks squad (w/o vet) and they cost alot less(although they won't be at them everytime). With MP40 the volks will probably win but thats a whole different story. Volks can act a main line infantry but Conscripts aren't supposed to be main line infantry later on. Strelky are. And they can buy RBS which negates Volks vet. Your argument is based off the idea that Conscripts are main line infantry, which they kind of aren't. "Good as cannon fodder" is their description.

You can't really compare conscripts, strelky, and guards as the same thing. Guards are sort of diverse + need a lot of tech upgrades to get them. And why are you getting 5 conscript squads . That is what the numbers say after all.

You realize that conscript vet isn't really anything to brag about. vet 1 makes them cost less, therefore they don't fight better. I forget what vet 2 does although it doesn't help fighting either IIRC. Vet gives then a 20% damage increase. So thats it . And you must remember that they are effected by CS vet which is a vital unit who should be getting the kills.

[Killar]

[/list]Logistical Argument:
I am a stomper.  My opponents generate 25 to 50 % more MP than I do. To suggest Conscripts be penalized just so the player spend additional MP on Strelky to give them a place in the game is flawed. Having spent 1100 MP, (0 pop) on conscripts already. If I am going to double down why pay 1080mp, (24pop) for 4 squads of strelky when I get 3 squads of Gds at 1020MP (24pop)? If I really must invest in 24pop more I'll Spend it on 3-KV85s rather than Strelky, thank you very much.

You seriously want to change basic balance so you can easier beat a extreme AI enemy?

Well the answer will be simple: no!

Pls lock this.

[Otto Halfhand]

@ Cat Fishy:

...Your argument is based off the idea that Conscripts are main line infantry, which they kind of aren't. "Good as cannon fodder" is their description.
You can't really compare conscripts, strelky, and guards as the same thing. ...And why are you getting 5 conscript squads . That is what the numbers say after all.

You realize that conscript vet isn't really anything to brag about. vet 1 makes them cost less, therefore they don't fight better. I forget what vet 2 does although it doesn't help fighting either IIRC. Vet gives then a 20% damage increase. So thats it . And you must remember that they are effected by CS vet which is a vital unit who should be getting the kills.

You can obtain up to 5 conscript squads at zero burden to your pop cap and with zero MP maintenance burden. That means 5 extra squads on map and a higher MP gain rate. Conscripts are low grade infantry, Strelky are line infantry and Gds are elite infantry. My comparison of the three types is on a MP cost and pop basis only. 5 cons. 4 strelky and 3 Gds are comparable only in MP costs. That is what the numbers say. I seldom get more than 4 conscripts, but will always get the fifth if my MP budget allows (no pop). Infantry is infantry and Gds are Gds. If I can get by with low grade infantry, skip the intermediate step and get elite infantry early it is to my advantage. The premise is exactly the same as the Wher T1/T3 /Storms Strat.

Yes conscript vet isn't that great, CS vet helps it. But I don't choose who gets credit for the kill. Sometimes my conscripts vet before the CS, when engaged in the same skirmish. One thing we can be certain of conscripts will die like flies. I am lobbying to get a little more value from conscripts.


@Killar: I bear you no ill will but please don't be a horses ass. I did not suggest changing the balance to suit the AI.

Logistical Argument: ...
I am a stomper. ...Shared vet is only one idea of many ideas that have been tried with conscripts. For Balance?  It hasn't been tested. If its not balanced get rid of it. PvP rules.

Your final comment reeks of Star Chamber censorship. 
I reiterate. I bear you no ill will.

[GodlikeDennis]

Shared vet promotes blobbing, which is bad for gameplay and not at all how cons should be used. Midgame, Strelky should be pushing up the line while conscripts try to find a way in to flank and let loose molos on infantry in cover and MGs. Then the CS and 2 strelky can rock in from front on and demolish if your opponent still only has volks. Strelky completely outclass them.

You aren't considering that Sovs have the CS in early engagements which are much stronger than a volk squad.
CS + con > 2 volk
CS + 2con = 3 T1
CS + 3con < 4 T1
CS + 3con + molos/fast strelky/4th con > 4T1

[Otto Halfhand]

CS + 3con + molos/fast strelky/4th con > 4T1

I don't understand this line.