Russian conscripts

[Catacol]

Loving the game - didn't play PC1 so I'm enjoying it as a newcomer but quite an experienced wargamer.

The balance generally is good with cost v slots the constant trade off, and into my 5th or 6th multiplayer battle there is a huge amount to enjoy. Weather variation adds spice.

My only small complaint in terms of game mechanics is the cost, speed and size of Russian conscripts. MY opponent and I are finding that 70 prestige for a unit that can move 3 hexes on foot (when many other regular ground formations are capped at 2), has a big enough strength that it will virtually never retreat after the first attack on it, and a cost that is so low it is extremely easy to keep conscript formations in the field is swinging things a bit.

Can I suggest some kind of change in a future patch? Either drop their strength to 15 so that they are a bit easier to break, or reduce their footspeed to 2. Or increase the prestige cost, though actually allowing the Russians a unit at 70 rings true historically so I'd rather not do that. But slow them down or weaken them instead.

If/when mod tools come out I know we will all mod as we want it, but for the base game I think this is a necessary change.

[panzeh]

As somebody who's been playing conscripts in the campaign, i love what they do but if they gotta be changed for MP, so be it.

[PoorOldSpike]

Conscripts...Either drop their strength to 15 so that they are a bit easier to break, or reduce their footspeed to 2.
Or increase the prestige cost..

Hi, I've just been analysing the nine vanilla 1941 Russian infantry units on the v1.1.0 random mission generator purchase screen (below)-



and by mousing over them I see that their speeds are-
Cavalry = 5
Regular,Para,Naval,Mountain,Conscripts = 3
HW,Eng,Bridge = 2

so you see that the Conscript speed is pretty normal. (the HW/Eng/Bridgers have to lug heavy equipment around so naturally they're slower.)

As regards combat power, Bridgers are weakest, then Conscripts are the weakest of all the rest, Conscript ratings are soft attack = 5, hard attack = 4, defence = 3.
By comparison, HW (heavy weapons) are the toughest hombres at 11 - 9 - 9.
Regular inf are 11 - 7 - 8.
Bridgers are weakest at 4 - 1 - 4.

Conscripts however have a standard strength size of 20, but all the rest are 15.

SUMMARY- I personally haven't had much experience of fighting Conscripts yet, but on paper their low combat ratings make them look like weak armed mobs, but I could be wrong.
Also perhaps their strengths and weaknesses change depending what year it is (I know other units change),and perhaps scenario designers tweak unit stats specific to particular scens.

[Catacol]

Conscripts...Either drop their strength to 15 so that they are a bit easier to break, or reduce their footspeed to 2.
Or increase the prestige cost..

Hi, I've just been analysing the nine vanilla 1941 Russian infantry units on the v1.1.0 random mission generator purchase screen (below)-



and by mousing over them I see that their speeds are-
Cavalry = 5
Regular,Para,Naval,Mountain,Conscripts = 3
HW,Eng,Bridge = 2

so you see that the Conscript speed is pretty normal. (the HW/Eng/Bridgers have to lug heavy equipment around so naturally they're slower.)

As regards combat power, Bridgers are weakest, then Conscripts are the weakest of all the rest, Conscript ratings are soft attack = 5, hard attack = 4, defence = 3.
By comparison, HW (heavy weapons) are the toughest hombres at 11 - 9 - 9.
Regular inf are 11 - 7 - 8.
Bridgers are weakest at 4 - 1 - 4.

Conscripts however have a standard strength size of 20, but all the rest are 15.

SUMMARY- I personally haven't had much experience of fighting Conscripts yet, but on paper their low combat ratings make them look like weak armed mobs, but I could be wrong.
Also perhaps their strengths and weaknesses change depending what year it is (I know other units change),and perhaps scenario designers tweak unit stats specific to particular scens.

Good analysis - my comments are from multiplayer. They are extremely potent as blocking formations - they can take 50% damage and retreat, but then be purchased back up to full strength for a handful of prestige points. In terms of multiplayer games this is making them powerful, and when attacked by 3* grenadier formations they will take 7 damage (approx.) but still deal out 1 or 2 in return - and in prestige cost terms this makes them far and away preferable for close quarters resistance.

I'm playing multiplayer daily - and will get more of a feel as the weeks go by - but I think they are too strong at cost 70. Personally my solution would be to reduce strength to 15, same as all other infantry units. Or - leave them as they are and give us the mod tools double quick I'm aware for a lot of people the game is a single player experience, and perhaps single player campaign against AI the cost is correct. Human opponents, however, have a knack of tracking down the fastest route to exploiting a game to get a victory, and currently conscripts are looking like one such route. When backed by AT and Artillery they are just an incredibly cheap buffer zone that helps mash up attacking prestige points for little impact in return.

[Kerensky]

The counter to conscripts in MP is pioniere and engineer types.

A bit more expensive, but totally effective.

[SineMora]

The counter to conscripts in MP is pioniere and engineer types.

A bit more expensive, but totally effective.

With the caveat that I don't play PzC2 in MP, I'd imagine this to be true, because Conscripts have terrible stats -- they rely on numbers to do any damage. However, as most infantry have very low close defence this means they can still cause decent damage in close terrain, but engineers have a CD of 11 with half-tracks (10 w/o), so Conscripts should only have a 10-15% chance to convert a hit to a kill against them. Under chess rules they'd average one kill with a full strength unit and be absolutely clobbered by return fire. In the open just use armour against them.

Infantry in general is quite resilient, but Conscripts shouldn't be a cost-effective unless the opponent tries to fight them with Grenadiers or other expensive and wasteful infantry.

[Kerensky]

Yes that crazy high CD on engineers is what keeps conscripts in check. Engineers for CD encounters, vehicles for open terrain engagements.

That said, if you find conscripts supported by multiple support units... it should be pretty easy to outmaneuver them in any given MP map. It takes a lot of prestige for conscripts + supporting units, too much prestige to set up this defensive roadblock at every location.

[Blade0]

They ARE annoying buggers. They also come with 20 strength, so they're notoriously hard to kill, and enjoy entrenchment and close terrain properties.
I am OK with these as long as they're not coming with 2-3-5 stars too. They have low attack values, so relatively harmless - until they get those accuracy bonuses.
Yes, Russia always had the advantages of mass of land and throngs of men. But how do you define elite recruits? Battle-hardened veterans by the thousand with nothing but bolt-action rifles (one half of them) and 6 bullets and a knife for the other half?
So yeah, they have a place along with Volkssturm and Home Guards, as long as they don't get multiple stars.

[PoorOldSpike]

Below: Russian conscripts in action in 'Enemy at the Gates' charging the Germans at Stalingrad.
Many don't even have rifles but are told to charge anyway, I don't know if that's just Hollywood nonsense or if it's historically accurate-

[Horseman]

Below: Russian conscripts in action in 'Enemy at the Gates' charging the Germans at Stalingrad.
Many don't even have rifles but are told to charge anyway, I don't know if that's just Hollywood nonsense or if it's historically accurate-

Wasn't it something like the first "wave" got rifles. Then follow ups just got some ammo and were expected to pickup the rifles from the fallen?

[Catacol]

The counter to conscripts in MP is pioniere and engineer types.

A bit more expensive, but totally effective.

Thanks Kerensky - I'll give engineers a try. I've been using ordinary infantry or grenadiers and not buying engineers - probably going to lose my current MP game partly as a result, but I'll shock my opponent next time with a new tactic...

However - just as a thought. I've got a 3* overstrength 15 tiger - and in the open 1 hit from the tiger is not enough to force a 20 strength 0* conscript into retreat even without support units. I'm not sure that's right in balance terms. Maybe against a green tiger not overstrength - but something doesn't quite ring true when the conscript takes 12 damage but stands fast. And remember that with movement of 3 they have easy paths to retreat, whereas HW infantry with move 2 can frequently be caught out and forced to surrender due to no retreat path. Combination of 20 strength, movement 3 and only 70 prestige is significant.

[SineMora]

Grenadiers are just bad, period, but that is because game mechanics don't favour them -- they cant do anything worth doing that other infantry can't do better or cheaper -- but that is a different problem entirely. Conscript swarms have always been a strength of the Soviet sides, but they're not invincible.

NB: as Conscripts have terrible stats practically anything can kill them in the open, which means that quality is wasted on them. Rather than fighting them with your extremely expensive OSed Tiger, try some cheap Panzer IBs or IICs; the latter benefit from Rapid Fire and actually kill more Conscripts than the Tiger as a result, at a fraction of the cost. Conscript swarms are a great counter to players who like to rely on small number of OSed elite units as they allow you to tie them up -- they are basically the perfect tarpit, the PzC equivalent to Warhammer zombies or skavenslaves.

[Kerensky]

That's right, a unit with nice soft attack and a little extra Rate of Fire is your best friend against infantry swarms, and especially conscript swarms. People definitely underestimate that Panzer IIC for being awesome at anti-soft duties.

[Catacol]

The counter to conscripts in MP is pioniere and engineer types.

A bit more expensive, but totally effective.

I've just run some tests in a test scenario with a mixture of German, Romanian and Hungarian engineers against conscripts in hilly terrain. I'm not seeing much difference in terms of ease of dealing with them. They are very difficult to shift and they always cause casualties in return. It is their role in defence that is the concern - on the attack they are weak as they should be.

The more I play and test the more convinced I am becoming that they are too cheap for what they can do in defence. Either cut to 15 strength or make them movement 2. CD might say 0 on the charts and soft attack might be low - but in actual combat they are fighting better than that. Put support weapons behind them and they are a prestige chewer. 5 conscript units to 2 german pioneers in slot size....

[nexusno2000]

Yes that crazy high CD on engineers is what keeps conscripts in check. Engineers for CD encounters, vehicles for open terrain engagements.

That said, if you find conscripts supported by multiple support units... it should be pretty easy to outmaneuver them in any given MP map. It takes a lot of prestige for conscripts + supporting units, too much prestige to set up this defensive roadblock at every location.

And this annoyed me a lot in the beta.

Crazy stats on engineers to counter crazy stats on conscripts. To balance MP. But carries over in campaign...

[MickMannock]

Yes that crazy high CD on engineers is what keeps conscripts in check. Engineers for CD encounters, vehicles for open terrain engagements.

That said, if you find conscripts supported by multiple support units... it should be pretty easy to outmaneuver them in any given MP map. It takes a lot of prestige for conscripts + supporting units, too much prestige to set up this defensive roadblock at every location.

And this annoyed me a lot in the beta.

Crazy stats on engineers to counter crazy stats on conscripts. To balance MP. But carries over in campaign...

I agree. I get the feeling a lot of thought has been put into how balance things for MP which then translates badly into single player scenarios/campaign. And as a person who only plays single player stuff, I find that annoying.

Granted, I understand that people who only play MP want to have fun too, so I think it could be wise to have different rules/stats for MP and SP.

[Retributarr]

Crazy stats on engineers to counter crazy stats on conscripts. To balance MP. But carries over in campaign...

I agree. I get the feeling a lot of thought has been put into how balance things for MP which then translates badly into single player scenarios/campaign. And as a person who only plays single player stuff, I find that annoying.

Granted, I understand that people who only play MP want to have fun too, so I think it could be wise to have different rules/stats for MP and SP.

Obvious Re-Clarification:
"If I'm reading this correctly?", then it looks like that what is needed here to correct this dilema... is for the same units that will be used either for 'Single-Player or as well for Multi-Player' Games... to have different statistical "markups/settings" for the units to then properly "complement/work well" with the two different Game-Playing-Situations!.

[Rudankort]

Balanced units equally benefit both single player and multiplayer. MP is a good "test bed" which can highlight problems, this is the reason why it makes sense to listen to people who share their experiences in that mode. But ultimately, we are not giving MP any kind of priority.

When Engineers were assigned their stats, we were not thinking about Conscripts at all. We needed Engineers to excel in their intended role, and the stats reflect that. +8CD gives them a significant buff in close terrain, but compared to ordinary infantry they also got a significant nerf of -3SA, -2GD. Very roughly, in close terrain they got a +5 boost (+8CD -3SA) and in open terrain they got -5 nerf (-3SA -2GD). Engineers are effective against Conscripts in close terrain simply because they are effective against most other infantry types in that terrain.

That said, I already have a big list of things which I want to change in infantry balance. The problem is not so much in Engineers, which do their job well, but in other types, many of which seem too similar and redundant outside of their narrow niches. After internal discussions and tests, some of these changes will appear in future patches.

[MickMannock]

Balanced units equally benefit both single player and multiplayer. MP is a good "test bed" which can highlight problems, this is the reason why it makes sense to listen to people who share their experiences in that mode. But ultimately, we are not giving MP any kind of priority.

When Engineers were assigned their stats, we were not thinking about Conscripts at all. We needed Engineers to excel in their intended role, and the stats reflect that. +8CD gives them a significant buff in close terrain, but compared to ordinary infantry they also got a significant nerf of -3SA, -2GD. Very roughly, in close terrain they got a +5 boost (+8CD -3SA) and in open terrain they got -5 nerf (-3SA -2GD). Engineers are effective against Conscripts in close terrain simply because they are effective against most other infantry types in that terrain.

That said, I already have a big list of things which I want to change in infantry balance. The problem is not so much in Engineers, which do their job well, but in other types, many of which seem too similar and redundant outside of their narrow niches. After internal discussions and tests, some of these changes will appear in future patches.

I don't really understand this point. Balanced units is not (necessarily) benefiting SP. Cause Germany in the early years of the war were superior to their adversaries. That doesn't mean all their equipment were better but tactics, doctrines, training, etc were better and needs to be represented in the stats of the German units, to have a reasonable German campaign in SP. That however, doesn't sitt well in MP, cause if the German units are too powerful (playing a scenario in the early years) makes the person not playing the Germans frustrated, probably yelleing that the German units are too OP. And this reasoning could also be the reversed from 1944 and onwards when the sheer numbers of the Allies just overwhelmed the Germans (however, I'm not sure that is represented during MP but it should be).

[Rudankort]

I don't really understand this point. Balanced units is not (necessarily) benefiting SP. Cause Germany in the early years of the war were superior to their adversaries. That doesn't mean all their equipment were better but tactics, doctrines, training, etc were better and needs to be represented in the stats of the German units, to have a reasonable German campaign in SP. That however, doesn't sitt well in MP, cause if the German units are too powerful (playing a scenario in the early years) makes the person not playing the Germans frustrated, probably yelleing that the German units are too OP. And this reasoning could also be the reversed from 1944 and onwards when the sheer numbers of the Allies just overwhelmed the Germans (however, I'm not sure that is represented during MP but it should be).

In the first place, balanced units mean that their cost (in prestige and slots) reflects their power and usefulness. This is a must in single player, because otherwise half of the units will never be purchased, and when unit balance is perfect, in MP it is enough to give the opponents equal resources to balance the game for them. I'm simplifying things a bit here, but you get the idea. When you have unit balance right, you can then create all kinds of asymmetrical historical scenarios where one side has an advantage, simply by giving it more resources. But even in such asymmetrical scenarios, it is good unit balance which gives the player a lot of different, and at the same time valid and meaningful options for force composition.

UPD: This is just one aspect of unit balance, but there are others as well. For example, of course, any unit in the game must have a counter. Yes, Tiger, Panther and Maus are powerful and their stats reflect this. But contemporary tanks and other units of allies must be able to deal with them somehow. Otherwise, you purchase those units and it's auto-win. There is no challenge or fun any more. And if a human player cannot deal with some threats in MP, how can the AI hope to deal with it in SP?