[Axis] StG44 and MP40 representation in this game

#1
2 years ago
SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 434
edited February 2017 in Balance Feedback

Can we discuss and/or shut me down on what I've just been thinking.

The way these two weapons are represented in coh2 is a little..underwhelming would you agree? Both in balance and authenticy. I mean c'mon, one of them is effectively an AK-47. The StG's, on whatever unit they're on, feel as if they're only effective at relative short range. You use them as you would with shock troopers almost. Close in, always.

The fact that the rangers with their thompsons act like the StG's in this game gives credence to the strange balance. If that's the case, the StG's on the PG's/Storm troopers should act like the ones you find on the Obers. That's it actually, the Ober StG's are perfect.

Could we just have a blanket increase on the range effectiveness on these weapons (not the scoped ober one) - the equivelent of a, I dunno, 3% increase in dps? In the same spirit of what the Pioneers got in the WBP. They're all on fragile 4 man squads to begin with and are up against superior multi-capable mainline infantry that also just close in without a care. I'm not sure how this would be fair against Soviets though. Make conscripts cheaper? I mean 240 is only 10 less that volks.

«1

Comments

  • #2
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    Most people don't understand just how effective the stg44 is at mid-range, park a squad of P-grens at range 20 and watch them outperform most equivelent infantry. Many players see just how fast they slaughter allied infantry at point blank and believe this is where they are at their most effective, they are dead wrong. They have excellent RA base stats and bonuses (even more so in the WBP), they lose this at point blank (within 10 range) and being a four man squad makes them even more fragile without it.

    They will outrade nearly everything bar dual lmg units from range 20 where they have their best combo of defensive stats and damage output, fire up cheatmod and test different scenarios and engagements to see just how good they are. Most players treat them like some sort of Axis quasi-stormtroopers, but they are too vunerable to close across open ground and drop like flies, let them fight from cover and use smoke to let them get to optimal range.

    Stormtroopers follow the same principle, but you can use the camo/tactical advance to shred units faster than most players can react. Bar that you follow the same rules and try too keep them at mid-range, only engage units without automatic/semi-automatic units at close range, all others remain at mid.

  • #3
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    The problem with St44 is that is hard to maintain the optimum range. Against rifles one has to find cover in mid range while against SMG one must maintain distance although St44 are rather bad on the move.

    To make things even worse USF Thompson wielding infantry simply have to much DPS at mid range overshadowing assault rifles.

  • #4
    2 years ago
    GenObiGenObi Posts: 1,368

    the problem is on the way the unit is used, use them like american rifle man mid range behind cover. Oh and the AK47 has a lot of great features, long range accuracy isn't one of them.

  • #5
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,041

    The solution would better off be nerfing Thompsons mid dps over buffing the STG. I don't know why they became assault rifles but it has been an exercise in lunacy.

  • #6
    2 years ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited February 2017

    stg44 are quite decent. The problem is that they are on 4man squads pgrens, sturms. You need to get the stgs into midrange which is a bit difficult on open maps. As well, pgrens are far too pop cap expensive. You cant name a single 9pop squad that is worse than pgrens. Volk stgs are on average less formidable. mp40 on the other hand is trash. Which is why pios are finally getting the buff they deserve. Compared to stens on the 210 mp sappers, mp40s are embarrassing. And still I imagine after the buff sappers will still beat pios, much like volks will beat cons with a diff of 10 mp.

    The mp40s are decent on assault grens cuz they have 1.5 armor however, if stg squads are hard to use, well mp40 troops are even more difficult to use cuz ppsh and thompsons easily out dps them at their optimal range. Assault grens are probably the flimsiest assault squad in the game even with the 1.5 armor. Ass grens cannot afford to charge even cons sometimes. However, ass grens vet is quite good so similarly to pgrens, you need to vet them up. Most people say ass grens are utter garbage, and that is simply not true. Players tend to skip t1 if they use ass grens. Mistake. Ass grens are quite expensive to reinforce and if your going to rely on ass grens and mgs, your severely limiting your tactical options in the early game for cost effective engagements. Ass grens should be used as supporting infantry that should not be on the front lines taking damage when scouting. Leave that to grens and pios. As well, sprint is an underused ability, but very helpful. Sprint should be buffed to oorah levels.

  • #7
    2 years ago

    @Vipper said:
    The problem with St44 is that is hard to maintain the optimum range. Against rifles one has to find cover in mid range while against SMG one must maintain distance although St44 are rather bad on the move.

    To make things even worse USF Thompson wielding infantry simply have to much DPS at mid range overshadowing assault rifles.

    Stg44 are quite decent on the move actually. And yes Thompsons will overshadow stgs so the question is did you get stg troops after seeing thompsons? Then you made a noob mistake. Or did the USF player get Thompson after seeing a lot of stg troops? That's normal. I think the problem is that the Thompson also has decent on the move accuracy and not only do you get it on elite troops but also on 5 or 6 man squads. USF assault troops are hands down the most threatening due to these combination of factors. Relic turned Thompsons into assault rifles. That is what they said when they buffed them. However, they still maintain the lethality of smgs at point blank. Hence they are better than shocks. I think ranger thompsons should have less moving accuracy while para thompsons should remain very good. Heavy Cav can use a nerf.

  • #8
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647
    edited February 2017

    The nerve of you people. Its like you want USF to fight on a level playing field. Rangers have an important job in dispensing freedom with those thompsons, now you want them to get up close and personal with those dirt facists? Unbelievable.

    On a more serious note, Ass-grens in live are lackluster at best whilst bleeding mp and muni like a stuck pig. Ass grens in the WBP are pretty damn good, those changes have made them much more cost effective, the grenades throw much faster and at vet 1+2 combined gives them 39% RA bonus. Just team them with a mortar and they can handle nearly anything not bulletproof, team them with an mg to handle other cqc troops.

    @1ncendiary_Rounds Ass-grens in live only have 1 armor, the squad leader alone has 1.5. In the new patch that has been standardised so they all have just 1.

  • #9
    2 years ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited February 2017

    @Farra13 said:
    equivelent infantry.

    That's the problem. Pgrens are NOT equivalent infantry to riflemen and IS. Pgrens are elite or at least crack troops. The pop cap tells the whole story. I am a heavy user of pgrens and I think they perform decently (could use a small buff) if you know how to use terrain and sight mechanics to your advantage. My biggest annoyance with them is that they are 9 pop cap when they will lose the double lmg WFA mainlines in a straight up fight when rifle and IS are only 7 and 8 pop cap respectively. Ostheer units are commonly too pop cap expensive. Pio - 6 finally changed to 5 like everyone else. Grens - 7 yet flatout losing to riflemen and only better than cons after lmg upgrade, panther and brummbar both too pop cap expensive because they flatout suck. In the late game, I find myself pop capped when I try to bring out armor because i have 3-4 pgren squads.

  • #10
    2 years ago

    But what about soviets? OKW Sturmpios have STGs, available from the start, don't need any buildings\upgrades to be built. There would be sense in the suggested upgrade if there weren't Soviets in the game, because both UKF and USF forces have potent starting units (and even so, Rear echelon troops are much less threat to Sturmpios than Infantry sections). On the other hand, Soviet engineers are pretty much weak without flamethrowers and they're usually ordered to build T1 or T2 before heading forth into the battle. Even if they aren't, Soviet player will have no other units than Conscripts untill either engineers are ordered back to the HQ or new engineers have arrived.

  • #11
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,991
    Soviets have Penals, use them. They are known to dominate early engagements handily. And that won't change post WPB.
  • #12
    2 years ago
    Boris_yeltsinBoris_yel… Posts: 104
    edited March 2017

    Oh gosh, sorry, I forgot about those unstoppable immortal penals, penals, that need T1 to be built, while Sturmpios are available at the start of the game, penals, that are recieving veterancy debuff and PTRSs instead of the flamethrowers. Yeah, OKW players can't just buy 2 more Sturmpios and counter penals and soviet engineers without the slightest effort (they can). And considering all this, you want to buff STGs, making units wielding them universal as hell. Yeah, that's really smart.

  • #13
    2 years ago

    @Boris_yeltsin said:
    Oh gosh, sorry, I forgot about those unstoppable immortal penals, penals, that need T1 to be built, while Sturmpios are available at the start of the game, penals, that are recieving veterancy debuff and PTRSs instead of the flamethrowers. Yeah, OKW players can't just buy 2 more Sturmpios and counter penals and soviet engineers without the slightest effort (they can). And considering all this, you want to buff STGs, making units wielding them universal as hell. Yeah, that's really smart.

    Soviet infantry need to enhance

  • #14
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @Boris_yeltsin said:
    Oh gosh, sorry, I forgot about those unstoppable immortal penals, penals, that need T1 to be built, while Sturmpios are available at the start of the game, penals, that are recieving veterancy debuff and PTRSs instead of the flamethrowers. Yeah, OKW players can't just buy 2 more Sturmpios and counter penals and soviet engineers without the slightest effort (they can). And considering all this, you want to buff STGs, making units wielding them universal as hell. Yeah, that's really smart.

    Now remember that OKW were out of scope this patch, much like the brits. I imagine there are upcoming changes to them, namely in terms of infantry, volks cost and cost effectiveness. That said, the current live penals were stomping on OKW hard, at least with OST they have the mg-42 as a backbone supression plarform, giving them a decent early counter that allowed them to retain some map control, something OKW lacked (flaktrack and mg-34 are both pretty awful in live). OKW only has volks and sturms, both of which were heavily outgunned by penals, leading to them losing the early game hard anf failing to catch up.

    Sturms are unbelievebly squishy and lack any real range on their weapons, they are primarily an agressive flanking unit early game. If you struggle with them, either maxims (OKW have little counters in the first six mins) or keep them at range and force them to close, they drop like flies when out in the open, Penals only really lost some of their vet RA and flamers, they still do more than enough damage to easily push of sturms in the WBP.

    Buffing STGs won't happen, the mod team considers OST the gold-standard of balance, all other factions will be basically be brought to their level. Sturms will remain close range, Volks stg will probably be reworked and P-grens have enough damage as it is when used correctly.

  • #15
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited March 2017

    @Hingie said:
    Soviets have Penals, use them. They are known to dominate early engagements handily. And that won't change post WPB.

    Okay, but that's currently... If you buff stgs across the board, yes that will change. Penals are losing their flamer, and while they'll still have good AI, it won't be good enough if both sturms and volks are getting their weapons buffed.

    Why is this needed at all? Volks with stgs already do more than they should for what you pay. Can't understand how grens and cons get to be that much worse just cause of 10 mp. Grens also get a 60 muni upgrade, but stg volks are still way better w/ theirs, and poor cons have to pay 300 mp and 40 fuel just to get snares and a worse version of the volks grenade. All because of 10mp... Hell grens are in tech too, so if you include that it's even more ludicrous.

    @Lazarus said:
    The solution would better off be nerfing Thompsons mid dps over buffing the STG. I don't know why they became assault rifles but it has been an exercise in lunacy.

    How? They were buffed before rangers were added btw, so let's get that out of way. Tommys are a 90 muni upgrade on a 380mp squad (paras) or 400 mp squad (ranger) and come later. Stgs are a 60 muni upgrade on a 250 mp squad and come earlier, or they come with a 300 mp or 340mp squad, both still less than paras. I think it's silly for rangers to be as good as they are because of the doctrine they are on, but IMO Thompson performance is exactly where it should be. Rangers should be on someone else, or just not have tommies. It's kinda redundant that they do anyway, since paras get em.

  • #16
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,041
    edited March 2017

    @Boris_yeltsin said:
    Oh gosh, sorry, I forgot about those unstoppable immortal penals, penals, that need T1 to be built, while Sturmpios are available at the start of the game, penals, that are recieving veterancy debuff and PTRSs instead of the flamethrowers. Yeah, OKW players can't just buy 2 more Sturmpios and counter penals and soviet engineers without the slightest effort (they can). And considering all this, you want to buff STGs, making units wielding them universal as hell. Yeah, that's really smart.

    You think Sturms counter Penals? See - unlike Penals, Sturms have an actual clear engagement range. If you start a fight at max range and close, even cons for all the woe and misery people think of them will win - for cheaper.

    No such situation for Penals. Grens lose to Penals at all ranges. Sturms lose to penals (unless they pop out right on top of them.) Volks lose to Penals at all ranges (until they hit vet 3 or 4 and have their upgrade)... the closest thing there is to infantry that can actually fight Penals in any kind of reliable way is Panzerfusiliers, and they're a 2CP unlock in a single doctrine. If you're going to pretend that Sturms can "easily" just counter Penals when you need to play them smart just to counter Cons, you need a reality check.

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Lazarus said:
    The solution would better off be nerfing Thompsons mid dps over buffing the STG. I don't know why they became assault rifles but it has been an exercise in lunacy.

    How? They were buffed before rangers were added btw, so let's get that out of way. Tommys are a 90 muni upgrade on a 380mp squad (paras) or 400 mp squad (ranger) and come later. Stgs are a 60 muni upgrade on a 250 mp squad and come earlier, or they come with a 300 mp or 340mp squad, both still less than paras. I think it's silly for rangers to be as good as they are because of the doctrine they are on, but IMO Thompson performance is exactly where it should be. Rangers should be on someone else, or just not have tommies. It's kinda redundant that they do anyway, since paras get em.

    Because USF already had an assault rifle in the BAR. The Thompson should be like the PPSh, something that will tear people to absolute shreds at close ranges and do not much else. The package on Paras should have gotten a price reduction, not a performance buff and rangers can just go fuck themselves for all I care.

  • #17
    2 years ago

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    How? They were buffed before rangers were added btw, so let's get that out of way. Tommys are a 90 muni upgrade on a 380mp squad (paras) or 400 mp squad (ranger) and come later. Stgs are a 60 muni upgrade on a 250 mp squad and come earlier, or they come with a 300 mp or 340mp squad, both still less than paras. I think it's silly for rangers to be as good as they are because of the doctrine they are on, but IMO Thompson performance is exactly where it should be. Rangers should be on someone else, or just not have tommies. It's kinda redundant that they do anyway, since paras get em.

    You realize that the stgs on volks have a significantly different damage profile than the ones on pgrens, sturms and stormtroopers. Only at long range volks stg outdps the normal ones. At short and medium range volk stgs are completely overshadowed by the normal ones. You should be comparing the 100 muni upgrade for storms which are no where as good as thompson upgrades for paras and rangers. The only redeeming quality is tactical advance, which is also present on the paras. I've had a situation where I had stationary storms and popped tactical adv against thompson rangers that were charging my position yet the rangers still overcame tactical advance and wiped the stormtroopers. Can't say that this will always happen, (feel free to test it out) but its pretty insane the amount of firepower the thompsons bring.

  • #18
    2 years ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited March 2017

    Nobody here is asking for stg buffs. Stgs are in a good spot. Most stg troops just need a bit of vet to be cost effective in a straight up fight. Or else they should be used in ambush purposes without vet. I think it would be wise to tweak the Thompson damage on rangers. As I've said earlier, Heavy Cancer can seriously use a nerf, and don't give me the old "but the other doctrines are shit" excuse. Ostheer has plenty of doctrines and many of them are also shit. Heavy Cav was brought in to increase a variety of playstyles, but when 75% of 1v1 players use this doctrine, it deserves to be called Heavy Cancer. It basically a commander that collect the best abilities from the other commanders.

  • #19
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited March 2017

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    You realize that the stgs on volks have a significantly different damage profile than the ones on pgrens, sturms and stormtroopers. Only at long range volks stg outdps the normal ones.

    Well aware of this, the only STG profile the OP seperated from his/her request was IR Stgs on Obers:

    @SquishyMuffin said:
    Could we just have a blanket increase on the range effectiveness on these weapons (not the scoped ober one) - the equivelent of a, I dunno, 3% increase in dps?

    I believe the bold part of that quote qualifies as someone "asking for stg buffs." It's kinda how the thread started.

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    You should be comparing the 100 muni upgrade for storms which are no where as good as thompson upgrades for paras and rangers.

    Why? I did not start the thomspon comparison...

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    The only redeeming quality is tactical advance, which is also present on the paras.

    Being able to camo with automatic weapons/handheld AT isn't redeeming?
    Disclaimer I am not suggesting storms are OP, that's just the title of this clip stormless posted
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=IYBMrnSfsdE
    Pretty sure camo is part of the reason they pay so much for a shreck/stg upgrade (IMO partisans should have to pay for their shreck btw, I don't think anyone should have AT right after popping out of a building)

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    I've had a situation where I had stationary storms and popped tactical adv against thompson rangers that were charging my position yet the rangers still overcame tactical advance and wiped the stormtroopers. Can't say that this will always happen, (feel free to test it out) but its pretty insane the amount of firepower the thompsons bring.

    You know tactical adv makes you more vulnerable right? It's a very bad idea to use it against another high-dps squad. Stg obers will annihilate paras using it if the paras aren't already up the Ober's ***.

    I've said multiple times on this forum that rangers do not really need to exist at all, let alone be as good as they are. The thompsons are at their current level because everyone always chooses m1919s over them on Paras barring a few urban maps. If they get nerfed (even with a cost reduction), no one's ever buying them with how good they are with m1919s.

  • #20
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited March 2017

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    I've said multiple times on this forum that rangers do not really need to exist at all, let alone be as good as they are. The thompsons are at their current level because everyone always chooses m1919s over them on Paras barring a few urban maps. If they get nerfed (even with a cost reduction), no one's ever buying them with how good they are with m1919s.

    One could simply nerf the M1919s or provide more EHP, making something op (even to mid ranges) to make it more attractive than an alternative is not really the answer.

    Currently a Smg Para squad has more DPs at range 15 (which is mid) than a PG squad and more EHP.

  • #21
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited March 2017

    @Vipper said:
    One could simply nerf the M1919s or provide more EHP, making something op (even to mid ranges) to make it more attractive than an alternative is not really the answer.

    **Currently a Smg Para squad has more DPs at range 15 (which is mid) than a PG squad and more EHP. **

    You spend 40 more MP and 90 muni to get that. Now that doesn't mean they are not OP, but it just feels like this thompson complaint is only coming now that heavy cav is one of the most popular commanders. Hence why I'm leaning towards changing/scrapping rangers instead of further weakening Airborne.

    Like heavy cav is just ridiculous. Riflemen defenses is the best unsung ability in the game, cause getting to place mines with your rifleman is amazing. Then you have the best smoke off-map ANYone gets, then you have great call-in infantry, and then you have the best tank US can get. It is by far he most ridiculous thing that has been added to this game post-launch IMO. Their were individual abilities, like Ost and USs vet skipping ability that were among the craziest, but as a whole commander I think heavy cav is as bad as it gets.

  • #22
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited March 2017

    Regardless of the heavy cavalry commander Thompson and smg Ranger/paras simply have to much DPS at mid range. They should perfrom closer to other smg infantry being good at close quarter combat.

  • #23
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    I have to agree with vipper here. Dps trade offs should be considered here, too many upgrades are no brainers...
  • #24
    2 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    I have to agree with vipper here. Dps trade offs should be considered here, too many upgrades are no brainers...

    Yeah, most of these upgrades has little to no tradeoff. This goes for all sides.

    Grenadier LMG42 is practically an autobuy in like 90% of all situations. the other 10% is when you autobuy G43s instead.

    Same goes for Volk STGs, also an autobuy with no repercussions, other than getting sturmpio shrecks of another muni upgrade later.

    Soviets has little to no upgrades to speak of, so we skip that

    I never see people actually use the Ranger's unique 3rd weapon slot at all. No triple BAR triple fun, no triple zookas, no triple anything but Tommy guns.

    Obviously the problem there is the tommy guns. They are essentially and statistically nearly identical to the STG44. And they get 4 of them

    HOWEVER. They do cost a boatload of manpower (400) and require an additional 90 muni for the Tommy guns. In my opinion, the Tommy guns should just get a price increase to 100 muni and slightly hinder their mid-range DPS. or don't touch the DPS and increase price to 120 muni.

    Also I remember when they 1st came out and people called them UP ;) https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/230957/us-stats-rangers-vs-riflemen

  • #25
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited March 2017

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    I have to agree with vipper here. Dps trade offs should be considered here, too many upgrades are no brainers...

    Well now this is a much bigger conversation than paratroopers. Cause the no-brainer about paratroopers is to get AN upgrade, not tommies. To me their being limited to a single doctrine, their cost, and their upgrade cost all justify their current performance. Volks and Obers both have auto-buys, and Obers have a great doctrinal upgrade. I think it's fine for doctrinal infantry that cost about same (less MP but more muni) as stock elites to perform this well. The ober lmg is still a monster. It's not the OP Auto-sniper it once was, but it's still damn good.

    @Vipper What close range infantry should they perform more like dps wise? Shocks? Shocks are more survivable, come a CP earlier (whoopty do, but it is still a difference) and only need to spend 10 more MP to deploy with no muni cost.

    I just don't understand why ariborne needs nerfing. This commander is far-from game-breaking as far as the US meta is concerned right now.

  • #26
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    @Vipper What close range infantry should they perform more like dps wise? Shocks? Shocks are more survivable, come a CP earlier (whoopty do, but it is still a difference) and only need to spend 10 more MP to deploy with no muni cost.

    I just don't understand why ariborne needs nerfing. This commander is far-from game-breaking as far as the US meta is concerned right now.

    I did not say that airborne on cavalry needs nerfing, I said that SMG weapon should not perfom better than assault rifles at mid range.

  • #27
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268

    @Vipper said:
    I did not say that airborne on cavalry needs nerfing, I said that SMG weapon should not perfom better than assault rifles at mid range.

    How much are we dropping the cost for this upgrade then? You didn't answer my question about how they should perform like other close range infantry.

  • #28
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited March 2017

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Vipper said:
    I did not say that airborne on cavalry needs nerfing, I said that SMG weapon should not perfom better than assault rifles at mid range.

    How much are we dropping the cost for this upgrade then? You didn't answer my question about how they should perform like other close range infantry.

    Generally speaking SMG and rifles should not mix. The upgrade could provide 5-6 Thompson having good DPS from range 10 and closer. The MP40s have a good curve.

    It the shape of curve that need twining not the actual DPS.

    If this units then are having trouble closing the distance the could receive defensive properties to help them out like smaller target size, armor, sprint, smoke grenade.

    Upgrading with SMGs should change the role of the unit not simply make it a better to ranges above 20.

  • #29
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited March 2017

    @Vipper said:
    Generally speaking SMG and rifles should not mix. The upgrade could provide 5-6 Thompson having good DPS from range 10 and closer. The MP40s have a good curve.
    Upgrading with SMGs should change the role of the unit not simply make it a better to ranges above 20.

    Okay well again I'll ask how much are we slashing the cost. Paras are the only close-range infantry besides ppsh cons that actually need to upgrade. There's costs 40, and it's already on a wicked cheap squad.

  • #30
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Vipper said:
    Generally speaking SMG and rifles should not mix. The upgrade could provide 5-6 Thompson having good DPS from range 10 and closer. The MP40s have a good curve.
    Upgrading with SMGs should change the role of the unit not simply make it a better to ranges above 20.

    Okay well again I'll ask how much are we slashing the cost. Paras are the only close-range infantry besides ppsh cons that actually need to upgrade. There's costs 40, and it's already on a wicked cheap squad.

    And again I will answer that cost of the upgrade has to be inline with the other changes I suggested. If Paras for instance where to get 6 Thompson good at range 10 and closer, access to smoke grenades and a target size of 0.8 the current price would probably be fine.

    If you want to to compare the conscript PPsh and Thompson you have to keep in mind that the Thompson is about X1,8 better than PPsh at range up to 10 and about X6 times better at range 20.

  • #31
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited March 2017

    @Vipper said:
    If you want to to compare the conscript PPsh and Thompson you have to keep in mind that the Thompson is about X1,8 better than PPsh at range up to 10 and about X6 times better at range 20.

    I'm comparing their cost-effectiveness, not their overall performance. Ppsh cons can be easily spammed and its a solid upgrade that's easy t get. It also comes on a squad that can sprint.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.