Russian conscripts

[nexusno2000]

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?

And you've achieved a pretty good balance IMO. There are some units that are less useful, sure, but overall there are a lot of units that are good for their price.

That said, the formula for calculating costs does NOT take into account any special abilities, such as those of engineers, only raw stats. So Weht gets forced march. Eng get a little bit more than that Also, something like 2 CD isn't really worth much, but 8 CD early on is HUGE, beyond what the formula compensates for.

That same could be said for a simple unit like PzIIC. It's a decent tank... but is great once you count in Rapid Fire trait, for which it pays nothing.

15cm at is also very strong bc it gets BOTH Soft and hard support, AND has attack values vs both soft and hard that are so high it's always in that sweet 8+ spot.

The 88 is a related case, bc its both super effective as AA, where it doesn't really pay enough for range 3 combined with a fantastically OP attack power, and can switch to equally OP AT gun. The 88 just pays for raw AA stats. For AA this is compounded by AA being so expensive to begin with, which is worse when you add in trucks.

Slot cost compensates to some extent, I agree, but strictly speaking, I don't think the costs of all units have been tweaked 100%. Balance is good, but could be better

[NETSCAPE]

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-

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?

Enemy At The Gates is about as historically accurate as my last bowel movement. The Soviets had plenty of Rifles and Ammo. The western notion (typically cold war era propaganda) of the Russians completely disregarding the lives of their soldiers is not exactly true... there are pictures of Soviet Guards units in Stalingrad wearing body armor, helmets and soldiers rescuing the wounded ect.

I mean I don't want to come across as a commie sympathizer because at heart I'm a wehraboo. It's just that a lot off boomer-tier history is objectively false. Original source material is your friend. I only read books that reference such materials. Stay away from hollywood and journalistic type "history" lessons.

[petecoke71]

It doesn't seem like the problem raised with conscripts is any of their particular stats, but rather that it is too easy to purchase/replace them. If the prestige cost is correct, another way to add balance is to limit the number of strength points available to purchase/replace. This is more of a general point, but it does seem odd that I can keep replacing a specific type of regular unit (non-prototype/captured) without end if I have the prestige to do so. This has probably been considered already, but I wonder whether it would be too disruptive to the game to have strength point limits for specific types of equipment/training/personnel. The core slot limits are good, but it seems like (for example) the fortieth strength point of pioniere I take or replace in a scenario should have a much greater opportunity cost than the first 15 (other generals need them too and they are not unlimited). If I have separate pools for different unit types, that would perhaps add some realism, and limit the fielding of too unrealistic (and too narrow) a set of troops.

[Horseman]

It doesn't seem like the problem raised with conscripts is any of their particular stats, but rather that it is too easy to purchase/replace them. If the prestige cost is correct, another way to add balance is to limit the number of strength points available to purchase/replace. This is more of a general point, but it does seem odd that I can keep replacing a specific type of regular unit (non-prototype/captured) without end if I have the prestige to do so. This has probably been considered already, but I wonder whether it would be too disruptive to the game to have strength point limits for specific types of equipment/training/personnel. The core slot limits are good, but it seems like (for example) the fortieth strength point of pioniere I take or replace in a scenario should have a much greater opportunity cost than the first 15 (other generals need them too and they are not unlimited). If I have separate pools for different unit types, that would perhaps add some realism, and limit the fielding of too unrealistic (and too narrow) a set of troops.

Interesting concept- have you played the Prague offensive scenario?

[petecoke71]

Interesting concept- have you played the Prague offensive scenario?

No - have you exposed me as someone who comments before being fully informed? :-)

[Retributarr]

Interesting concept- have you played the Prague offensive scenario?

No - have you exposed me as someone who comments before being fully informed? :-)

"petecoke71 post": "someone who comments before being fully informed?"

To rattle his chain!... you might instead have worded the last portion of your statement into something such as... "someone who is a Clueless Wonder!".

[Horseman]

Interesting concept- have you played the Prague offensive scenario?

No - have you exposed me as someone who comments before being fully informed? :-)

I would suggest playing it - partly because it would give you a glimpse of what you suggested and partly because I thought it was very fun!

[Akkula]

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-

That is the most stupid movie I ever seen (about WW2). For sure it was made by an anti-soviet or anti-russian person, it was completely unhistorically from all points of view:
- The Soviets had a LOT of rifles and ammo, they had a significant surplus of weapons and supplies during the course of the entire war.
- Suicidal frontal charges are another invention of the cold war era. In fact one of the few frontal attacks during the Stalingrad battles resulted in a victory of the Soviets in the early battles for the Mamayev Kurgan.
- Penal battalions at back killing hundreds of comrades. It was explained many times that there was no mass slaughterings of retreating soldiers, the few cases (stealing, defection, etc) were related to executions by shot.
- In the movie they show T-34-85s..... no explanations needed here.
- And of course the fantasy of the German sniper coming for Zaitsev.

During the beta discussions I proposed to rename the conscripts to avoid confusion. After all, ALL nations had conscription right?, why to mention only the Soviets?.
Also the training was similar in the Soviet Union, USA, Germany, etc, so objectively speaking the "unexperienced" thing doesnt count. I think the Soviets should have Regular Infantry (conscripts) and Riflemen Inf (regular).

Best regards,
Akkula.

[RandomAttack]

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-

That is the most stupid movie I ever seen (about WW2). For sure it was made by an anti-soviet or anti-russian person, it was completely unhistorically from all points of view:
- The Soviets had a LOT of rifles and ammo, they had a significant surplus of weapons and supplies during the course of the entire war.
- Suicidal frontal charges are another invention of the cold war era. In fact one of the few frontal attacks during the Stalingrad battles resulted in a victory of the Soviets in the early battles for the Mamayev Kurgan.
- Penal battalions at back killing hundreds of comrades. It was explained many times that there was no mass slaughterings of retreating soldiers, the few cases (stealing, defection, etc) were related to executions by shot.
- In the movie they show T-34-85s..... no explanations needed here.
- And of course the fantasy of the German sniper coming for Zaitsev.

During the beta discussions I proposed to rename the conscripts to avoid confusion. After all, ALL nations had conscription right?, why to mention only the Soviets?.
Also the training was similar in the Soviet Union, USA, Germany, etc, so objectively speaking the "unexperienced" thing doesnt count. I think the Soviets should have Regular Infantry (conscripts) and Riflemen Inf (regular).

Best regards,
Akkula.

Wow, there is so much wrong here I don't know where to start. Notwithstanding the movie:
- There *were* penal battalions-- also "suicide battalions" (perhaps the same?) that were allotted 1 per "Front" (Army Group). Often even soldiers that escaped capture and returned to their units were placed in these. This is well documented.
- It wasn't the above that were gunning down "runners", it was the NKVD. It absolutely did happen. Can argue about how often, but not whether it actually happened.
- Many Soviet conscripts had virtually no training at all-- many didn't speak Russian. Taught absolute basics of marching and digging in. To compare these conscripts training to that of Western Allies is silly. They were basically cannon fodder/meat shields except the few instances where they could just overwhelm with sheer numbers.
- They may have had lots of rifles & ammo on the books, but that doesn't mean the SOLDIERS had them where they needed them. There are far too many historical references (from the Soviets themselves!) about follow on forces having to arm themselves from dead comrades.

The Soviets had a complete disregard for casualties that is almost incomprehensible today (or even at the time, for that matter). But that doesn't mean we should just dismiss it because it seems unbelievable. The historical record is clear for those willing at look at it.

[Akkula]

That is the most stupid movie I ever seen (about WW2). For sure it was made by an anti-soviet or anti-russian person, it was completely unhistorically from all points of view:
- The Soviets had a LOT of rifles and ammo, they had a significant surplus of weapons and supplies during the course of the entire war.
- Suicidal frontal charges are another invention of the cold war era. In fact one of the few frontal attacks during the Stalingrad battles resulted in a victory of the Soviets in the early battles for the Mamayev Kurgan.
- Penal battalions at back killing hundreds of comrades. It was explained many times that there was no mass slaughterings of retreating soldiers, the few cases (stealing, defection, etc) were related to executions by shot.
- In the movie they show T-34-85s..... no explanations needed here.
- And of course the fantasy of the German sniper coming for Zaitsev.

During the beta discussions I proposed to rename the conscripts to avoid confusion. After all, ALL nations had conscription right?, why to mention only the Soviets?.
Also the training was similar in the Soviet Union, USA, Germany, etc, so objectively speaking the "unexperienced" thing doesnt count. I think the Soviets should have Regular Infantry (conscripts) and Riflemen Inf (regular).

Best regards,
Akkula.

Wow, there is so much wrong here I don't know where to start. Notwithstanding the movie:
- There *were* penal battalions-- also "suicide battalions" (perhaps the same?) that were allotted 1 per "Front" (Army Group). Often even soldiers that escaped capture and returned to their units were placed in these. This is well documented.
- It wasn't the above that were gunning down "runners", it was the NKVD. It absolutely did happen. Can argue about how often, but not whether it actually happened.
- Many Soviet conscripts had virtually no training at all-- many didn't speak Russian. Taught absolute basics of marching and digging in. To compare these conscripts training to that of Western Allies is silly. They were basically cannon fodder/meat shields except the few instances where they could just overwhelm with sheer numbers.
- They may have had lots of rifles & ammo on the books, but that doesn't mean the SOLDIERS had them where they needed them. There are far too many historical references (from the Soviets themselves!) about follow on forces having to arm themselves from dead comrades.

The Soviets had a complete disregard for casualties that is almost incomprehensible today (or even at the time, for that matter). But that doesn't mean we should just dismiss it because it seems unbelievable. The historical record is clear for those willing at look at it.

- Penal battalions is confusing (at least in english) because sometimes it refers to the "suicidal battlalions" as you like to mention (criminals, murders, prisioners, etc released and sent to the worst missions) and to the "executioners". I was clearly referring to the punishment detatchments.
- The numbers are not that high like the hollywood loves to makes us believe. During the entire Stalingrad operations (6 months), around 1650 soldiers were executed by robbery, defection, etc. Also most of the veterans stated many times the punishment was needed.
- How much is many?. Even during the first stages of Barbarossa the conscripts had a decent training in the military training bases in Russia (at the other side of the Volga), Kazahastan and Turkmenistan.
- To use a story as the general context is silly. I would like to know your sources, so far all books I read, western or russians, says the opposite.
- The disregard for casualties is another bullshit. Stavka was worried about the casualties as the replacement were not in abundance, even by the end of the war the reserves were at critical levels. To have many losses do not mean disregard, and just to mention the death ratio between the Axis and the URSS forces was 1.8, quite far from "hordes of infinite" russians....

Best regards
Akkula.

[RandomAttack]

Executions?
In the course of the war, 168,000 Soviet citizens were formally sentenced to death and executed for alleged cowardice or desertion; many more were shot out of hand, without a pretence of due process. A total of around 300,000 Russian soldiers are believed to have been killed by their own commanders— more than the entire toll of British troops who perished at enemy hands in the course of the war.
Max Hastings. Inferno (Kindle Locations 3261-3264). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Training in early war?
Infantrymen in the first months of war were taught only how to march, wearing portyanki— foot cloths— to compensate for the shortage of boots; to take cover on command; to dig; and to perform simple drills with wooden rifles. There were insufficient weapons, no barracks or transport. Each man learned to cherish a spoon as his most useful possession— veterans said they might throw away their rifles, but never the spoons tucked into their boots. Only officers had watches. In the desperate days of 1941, many recruits were herded into action within a week or two of being drafted.
Max Hastings. Inferno (Kindle Locations 3288-3292). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Leningrad/shooting own people?
Zhukov reorganised Leningrad’s defence, countermanding Voroshilov’s order to scuttle what was left of the Baltic Fleet in the harbour; through the years ahead, the warships’ guns provided critical support for the land forces. The general launched a series of thrusts against the Germans which climaxed on 17 September, cost thousands of lives, and foundered amid devastating artillery fire. A marine officer, Nikolai Vavin, described an attempt to reinforce the island fortress of Oreshek on Lake Ladoga: “Our guys just didn’t have a chance. The Germans quickly spotted us from the air— and it became a mass execution. The enemy’s planes first bombed and then machine-gunned us. Out of my own landing group of two hundred men, only fourteen reached the shoreline.” Faced with protests from his officers about the futility of such attempts, especially from the Nevsky bridgehead on the east bank of the Neva, Zhukov remained implacable: “I said attack!” Casualties soared, while medical facilities for the wounded were almost nonexistent. Zhukov placed blocking units— zagradotryady— behind the front, to shoot down his own men who attempted to flee, a practice that became institutionalised in the Red Army.
Max Hastings. Inferno (Kindle Locations 3615-3624). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

And it seems STAVKA only had any concern for losses after losing the first 4 million or so men... This is just one book, but particularly interesting in that most of the sources are either official records or from surviving war diaries, letters, etc. There are plenty of source citations throughout. No Western country would ever have accepted the degree of casualties the Soviets did (not that they had a choice-- if you complained, you died).

Most war movies of any timeframe have lots of ridiculous stuff in them-- don't even get me started on Vietnam!

If you are really invested in a particular narrative, it's fairly easy to find a source somewhere to support it-- and WW2 has SO MANY books. Ok, I'm done.
Regards,

[Retributarr]

Executions?
In the course of the war, 168,000 Soviet citizens were formally sentenced to death and executed for alleged cowardice or desertion; many more were shot out of hand, without a pretence of due process. A total of around 300,000 Russian soldiers are believed to have been killed by their own commanders— more than the entire toll of British troops who perished at enemy hands in the course of the war.
Zhukov placed blocking units— zagradotryady— behind the front, to shoot down his own men who attempted to flee, a practice that became institutionalised in the Red Army.
Max Hastings. Inferno (Kindle Locations 3615-3624). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

No Western country would ever have accepted the degree of casualties the Soviets did (not that they had a choice-- if you complained, you died).

If you are really invested in a particular narrative, it's fairly easy to find a source somewhere to support it-- and WW2 has SO MANY books. Ok, I'm done.
Regards,

RandomAttack:
Your on the "Right-Trakk"... you say it like it really is!... bravo!!!.

[PoorOldSpike]

..Most war movies of any timeframe have lots of ridiculous stuff in them-- don't even get me started on Vietnam!

Yeah, hollywood tends to mix fiction with reality, how about it Sarge?-

https://youtu.be/SmP7egoSwmY

[Akkula]

Executions?
In the course of the war, 168,000 Soviet citizens were formally sentenced to death and executed for alleged cowardice or desertion; many more were shot out of hand, without a pretence of due process. A total of around 300,000 Russian soldiers are believed to have been killed by their own commanders— more than the entire toll of British troops who perished at enemy hands in the course of the war.
Max Hastings. Inferno (Kindle Locations 3261-3264). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Training in early war?
Infantrymen in the first months of war were taught only how to march, wearing portyanki— foot cloths— to compensate for the shortage of boots; to take cover on command; to dig; and to perform simple drills with wooden rifles. There were insufficient weapons, no barracks or transport. Each man learned to cherish a spoon as his most useful possession— veterans said they might throw away their rifles, but never the spoons tucked into their boots. Only officers had watches. In the desperate days of 1941, many recruits were herded into action within a week or two of being drafted.
Max Hastings. Inferno (Kindle Locations 3288-3292). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Leningrad/shooting own people?
Zhukov reorganised Leningrad’s defence, countermanding Voroshilov’s order to scuttle what was left of the Baltic Fleet in the harbour; through the years ahead, the warships’ guns provided critical support for the land forces. The general launched a series of thrusts against the Germans which climaxed on 17 September, cost thousands of lives, and foundered amid devastating artillery fire. A marine officer, Nikolai Vavin, described an attempt to reinforce the island fortress of Oreshek on Lake Ladoga: “Our guys just didn’t have a chance. The Germans quickly spotted us from the air— and it became a mass execution. The enemy’s planes first bombed and then machine-gunned us. Out of my own landing group of two hundred men, only fourteen reached the shoreline.” Faced with protests from his officers about the futility of such attempts, especially from the Nevsky bridgehead on the east bank of the Neva, Zhukov remained implacable: “I said attack!” Casualties soared, while medical facilities for the wounded were almost nonexistent. Zhukov placed blocking units— zagradotryady— behind the front, to shoot down his own men who attempted to flee, a practice that became institutionalised in the Red Army.
Max Hastings. Inferno (Kindle Locations 3615-3624). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

And it seems STAVKA only had any concern for losses after losing the first 4 million or so men... This is just one book, but particularly interesting in that most of the sources are either official records or from surviving war diaries, letters, etc. There are plenty of source citations throughout. No Western country would ever have accepted the degree of casualties the Soviets did (not that they had a choice-- if you complained, you died).

Most war movies of any timeframe have lots of ridiculous stuff in them-- don't even get me started on Vietnam!

If you are really invested in a particular narrative, it's fairly easy to find a source somewhere to support it-- and WW2 has SO MANY books. Ok, I'm done.
Regards,

Your narrative is based in ONE book which is based on some testimonies?. I don't think that is too objective.
The 350000 soldiers counted as "loss" were put out of commission and sent to the rearguard to be court martialed, not killed by the our commanders. Some authors (deliberately?) are confussiong "losses" with murders, but not surprising coming from a cold war era author like Hastings.
My sources are varied, from people who had access to the Soviet Army classified archives after the fall of the USSR to testimonies. Some authors I use as reference for this topic in particular are Michael Jones, David Glantz, Vassili Zaitsevv, Earl Ziemke, G.F. Krivosheyev, Boris Bogachev, for sure I am missing a few more.
Regarding the training of conscripts there is no point to mention the books, there is a plethora of western ones explaining how it was.
But I don't want to keep the off topic (it is unfair for the OP), if you want we can keep the discussion via PM.

Best regards,
Akkula.

[Catacol]

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.

Thanks Rudenkort - think I agree with this. I see nothing wrong in the way that engineers perform....or indeed other elite formations like commandos or SAS. Overstrength 3* commandos are a pig in close quarters...and so they should be. But I've just come off playing my 4th human v human custom built scenario in 1943 Russia, and both my opponent and I agree that the 20 strength, 3 speed and incredibly cheap nature of conscripts makes them a game changer. They can be used to plug any gap pretty effectively at very low cost in defence, and if speed and/or breakthrough is something the German player needs to achieve then swarms of conscripts makes it impossible. Either reduce them to 15 or knock speed to 2 so that they can be forced to surrender more easily and not retreat all the time....to be reinforced for peanuts and come back for more!

As an aside - is it too expensive to reinforce an experienced unit with experienced replacements? Again - I'm playing several hours of MP every day and learning fast....and I think the cost differential between green and experienced reinforcements is too high maybe?

Thanks

[Rudankort]

Thanks Rudenkort - think I agree with this. I see nothing wrong in the way that engineers perform....or indeed other elite formations like commandos or SAS. Overstrength 3* commandos are a pig in close quarters...and so they should be. But I've just come off playing my 4th human v human custom built scenario in 1943 Russia, and both my opponent and I agree that the 20 strength, 3 speed and incredibly cheap nature of conscripts makes them a game changer. They can be used to plug any gap pretty effectively at very low cost in defence, and if speed and/or breakthrough is something the German player needs to achieve then swarms of conscripts makes it impossible. Either reduce them to 15 or knock speed to 2 so that they can be forced to surrender more easily and not retreat all the time....to be reinforced for peanuts and come back for more!

It's interesting that you think giving Conscripts 2 movement points instead of 3 will solve all issues, because this does not sound like such a big deal. In the next update, strategic bombers will be able to destroy unit's movement points, it might solve your problem with conscripts then.

Otherwise, we'll see what are the best adjustments for Conscripts, considering all other changes which will happen in Infantry class. For example, base infantry of all nations might change from 3 to 2 slots, and if it happens, Conscripts at 2 will not look so much different. Maybe their price will need to go slightly up (e. g. from 70 to 100), maybe some other adjustment will be required. In any event, I'll keep your feedback in mind.

As an aside - is it too expensive to reinforce an experienced unit with experienced replacements? Again - I'm playing several hours of MP every day and learning fast....and I think the cost differential between green and experienced reinforcements is too high maybe?

Right now the difference is about 2x. I think, the difference needs to be pronounced, because otherwise people will just use elite replacements all the time. In campaign environment you have an option to replace much cheaper during the deployment phase. In MP this is not available. But in many MP scenarios you don't want to use elite replacements anyway, because you don't have enough time to gain any meaningful experience on your units.

[Akkula]

In the next update, strategic bombers will be able to destroy unit's movement points

Be careful with this. I noticed that in the campaign, in many scenarios, the AI (Soviet and Allies) has a huge (actually TOO much) amount of strategic bombers. Maybe you should adjust this by removing/replacing some, otherwise is going to be very unfair to the player to move the units.
At least in the eastern front this could be an opportunity to be more historically accurate as the the red airforce did not use many strategic bombers during the course of the war.

Regards,
Akkula.

[Retributarr]

In the next update, strategic bombers will be able to destroy unit's movement points

Be careful with this. I noticed that in the campaign, in many scenarios, the AI (Soviet and Allies) has a huge (actually TOO much) amount of strategic bombers. Maybe you should adjust this by removing/replacing some, otherwise is going to be very unfair to the player to move the units.
At least in the eastern front this could be an opportunity to be more historically accurate as the the red airforce did not use many strategic bombers during the course of the war.

Regards,
Akkula.

I myself do not understand the intricate ramifications of the Intricacies of the issue as you seem too,,, but!... my 'Spidie-Senses' tell me that you are on the right track on this point of concern.

So... as the late actor... "Charles Bronson"... used to say...
"Be Dead-Sure!!!... or Be Dead!!!".

[Akkula]

In the next update, strategic bombers will be able to destroy unit's movement points

Be careful with this. I noticed that in the campaign, in many scenarios, the AI (Soviet and Allies) has a huge (actually TOO much) amount of strategic bombers. Maybe you should adjust this by removing/replacing some, otherwise is going to be very unfair to the player to move the units.
At least in the eastern front this could be an opportunity to be more historically accurate as the the red airforce did not use many strategic bombers during the course of the war.

Regards,
Akkula.

I myself do not understand the intricate ramifications of the Intricacies of the issue as you seem too,,, but!... my 'Spidie-Senses' tell me that you are on the right track on this point of concern.

So... as the late actor... "Charles Bronson"... used to say...
"Be Dead-Sure!!!... or Be Dead!!!".

I love your way to express yourself.

[Catacol]

Thanks Rudenkort - think I agree with this. I see nothing wrong in the way that engineers perform....or indeed other elite formations like commandos or SAS. Overstrength 3* commandos are a pig in close quarters...and so they should be. But I've just come off playing my 4th human v human custom built scenario in 1943 Russia, and both my opponent and I agree that the 20 strength, 3 speed and incredibly cheap nature of conscripts makes them a game changer. They can be used to plug any gap pretty effectively at very low cost in defence, and if speed and/or breakthrough is something the German player needs to achieve then swarms of conscripts makes it impossible. Either reduce them to 15 or knock speed to 2 so that they can be forced to surrender more easily and not retreat all the time....to be reinforced for peanuts and come back for more!

It's interesting that you think giving Conscripts 2 movement points instead of 3 will solve all issues, because this does not sound like such a big deal. In the next update, strategic bombers will be able to destroy unit's movement points, it might solve your problem with conscripts then.

Otherwise, we'll see what are the best adjustments for Conscripts, considering all other changes which will happen in Infantry class. For example, base infantry of all nations might change from 3 to 2 slots, and if it happens, Conscripts at 2 will not look so much different. Maybe their price will need to go slightly up (e. g. from 70 to 100), maybe some other adjustment will be required. In any event, I'll keep your feedback in mind.

As an aside - is it too expensive to reinforce an experienced unit with experienced replacements? Again - I'm playing several hours of MP every day and learning fast....and I think the cost differential between green and experienced reinforcements is too high maybe?

Right now the difference is about 2x. I think, the difference needs to be pronounced, because otherwise people will just use elite replacements all the time. In campaign environment you have an option to replace much cheaper during the deployment phase. In MP this is not available. But in many MP scenarios you don't want to use elite replacements anyway, because you don't have enough time to gain any meaningful experience on your units.

Hi Rudenkort

A very good idea giving strat bombers the ability so slow or halt movement. Right now, in multiplayer at least, their value is pretty peripheral. In terms of conscipts and movement reducing to speed 2 would allow easier surrenders, but my preference would be to see strength fall to 15. I can, of course, do that in my own edited version of unit stats and scenario equipment setups by modding….so I have my personal solution already - but I think it would be a good move for the base game.

My scenarios are being built long - so experience can be gained, especially seemingly with artillery. It seems to accrue stars quite quickly. I suppose it comes down to how much prestige a designer wants to give each player, and maybe I need to increase my prestige budgets. It still seems a lot to pay for the better troops though, and it is a shame to see orbats on the field gradually decline and head to universal 0*.

I've got a few other ideas and thoughts, but I'll put them into the wishlist thread.