Penals - Why snares?

But back to the topic: The core of the discussion is imo that 60muni on top of 300mp squad makes combination of ptrs+satchel+ability to crit engine a little bit too much.

BTW support weapon companya is only 160mp and 10 fuel so getting access to zis is really simple. No need for penals to be that great at satcheling.

Best solution suggested was to jam weapons after satchel's explosion for some time so that the tank can come back for repairs if the vehicle is not completely depleted of health after the explosion. (I also think allowing different kinds of random crits after the satchel's explosion with only very low percentage of engine damage could be a really interesting solution)

60 ammo could be ok for a satchel package+ptrs if it just dealt extra damage but this engine crit makes it too much imo. This is what is boils down to imo.

I'm not entirely sure you believe that considering your starting complaint was that it prevents them to get squished it was that after a tank hits a mine (as in already has engine damage) the satchel can be used to deal enough damage that the tank will die quicker than if just getting shot at by a zis alone

The only real ways you are going to get hit by a satchel is if you drive into them (which is exactly why the satchel exists) or of you already have engine damage (in which case the snare portion is irrelevant)

The satchel HAS to do engine damage or the ptrs is a waste as the enemy can deny its use and it isn't enough a threat alone to ward off enemy armour (zooks piats and shreks are threatening enough to put a tank under the snare threshold) the satchel keeps tanks from diving them and later acts as a part of combined arms defending otherwise vulnerable casemate TDs.

I could get behind a motion to rebalance their ptrs' so that they use 3 instead of 2 to further cut their AI but the satchel is a necessary evil with more counterplay than you can shake a stick at, especially now that for mother Russia doesn't allow sprint in combat.

You wouldn't walk your infantry into an s-mine field, don't drive your tanks into a ptrs penal and all will be fine.

I'm not entirely sure you believe that considering your starting complaint was that it prevents them to get squished it was that after a tank hits a mine (as in already has engine damage) the satchel can be used to deal enough damage that the tank will die quicker than if just getting shot at by a zis alone

The only real ways you are going to get hit by a satchel is if you drive into them (which is exactly why the satchel exists) or of you already have engine damage (in which case the snare portion is irrelevant)

The satchel HAS to do engine damage or the ptrs is a waste as the enemy can deny its use and it isn't enough a threat alone to ward off enemy armour (zooks piats and shreks are threatening enough to put a tank under the snare threshold) the satchel keeps tanks from diving them and later acts as a part of combined arms defending otherwise vulnerable casemate TDs.

I could get behind a motion to rebalance their ptrs' so that they use 3 instead of 2 to further cut their AI but the satchel is a necessary evil with more counterplay than you can shake a stick at, especially now that for mother Russia doesn't allow sprint in combat.

You wouldn't walk your infantry into an s-mine field, don't drive your tanks into a ptrs penal and all will be fine.

I disagree. Causing engine damage with 1 shot is not called for. The damage of the satchel is enough to deter vehicle from pushing around PTRS Penal and even if it was not a temporary critical could be added to fix any issue.

In addition PTRS penals do not need to counter medium and heavy tanks. One can use Penal with their full potential in AI unlike PF then transition them to counter light vehicles with PTRS and even threaten medium and super heavies s with AT satchel while keeping decent DPS and normal satchel. That is simply too much utility for an early stock unit.

The 1 shot engine damage can be removed with causing any real issues while it might even help with unit diversity.

They were not OP, it's just that doctrine was the only way brits could fight competatively (they had no snare vs luch) and that doctrine was the only one that got picked. Someone in charge of balance at relic decided "meta = OP" and that was the result.

Now years down the line the unit finally got buffed again. Which obviously hints that nerfs were not needed.

I am not going to argue semanticist. It has been argued that AT IS where up until now UP and no one ever used them. I simply proved the opposite.

I'm not entirely sure you believe that considering your starting complaint was that it prevents them to get squished it was that after a tank hits a mine (as in already has engine damage) the satchel can be used to deal enough damage that the tank will die quicker than if just getting shot at by a zis alone

The problem is imo that apart from preventing them from getting squished (let's say that a good idea - though other handheld wielding units CAN get squished) they also have many more tactical ways of use, which you don't see or don't want to see imo. But true multiple satchels can be too effective imo.

The only real ways you are going to get hit by a satchel is if you drive into them (which is exactly why the satchel exists) or of you already have engine damage (in which case the snare portion is irrelevant)

I think you just limit yourself to predicting far fewer game scenarios when such crit engine can be used. There are many more ways including ambushes with true sight, penals on retreat paths and many many more. Maybe even most importantly, there are also lategame lack of concentration problems and a crit engine satchel may simply be a gamechanger. I just don't think you should get all these possibilities just for 60 munitions.

The satchel HAS to do engine damage or the ptrs is a waste as the enemy can deny its use and it isn't enough a threat alone to ward off enemy armour (zooks piats and shreks are threatening enough to put a tank under the snare threshold) the satchel keeps tanks from diving them and later acts as a part of combined arms defending otherwise vulnerable casemate TDs.

Well, I don't agree here. I think that ptrs is enough to deter light vehicles. Enough for 60 munitions. If you buy them on two squads it is more than enough. Of course I understand that if you do get rushed you want to use the satchel and just drain hp or maybe even random crit weapons for some time. You shouldn't just drain hp and have a crit. Soviet access to zis is really easy and you have t70. Also like you say - good players just don't rush them and won't be rushing them even without crit. But the mistake of driving into penals wouldn't be as punishing as it is now.

I could get behind a motion to rebalance their ptrs' so that they use 3 instead of 2 to further cut their AI but the satchel is a necessary evil with more counterplay than you can shake a stick at, especially now that for mother Russia doesn't allow sprint in combat.

It could be an option for say 90munitions. Mother Russia was just crazy OP imo. Good they changed it. Still, for now I would just remove those crits as I really belive that those little things add up and Russia is I think the chapest faction of all imo for what they get.

You wouldn't walk your infantry into an s-mine field, don't drive your tanks into a ptrs penal and all will be fine.

True - but remeber that one s-minefield costs as much as ptrs and is stationary. I feel that satchels are most dangerous because they require too much concentration from your opponent, much more than from the Soviet player and are just too cheap of an upgrade for the package.

The problem is imo that apart from preventing them from getting squished (let's say that a good idea - though other handheld wielding units CAN get squished) they also have many more tactical ways of use, which you don't see or don't want to see imo. But true multiple satchels can be too effective imo.

the other AT units are scary enough to dissuade trying to squish them. you drive directly at a shreked up pgrens and your tank IS going to lose half its health (making it prime for a supporting squad to snare) while a ptrs squad MIGHT take out 80hp (if it starts shooting in time, and both shots pen), which still wouldnt lower a tank below th threshold combined with a snare.

I think you just limit yourself to predicting far fewer game scenarios when such crit engine can be used. There are many more ways including ambushes with true sight, penals on retreat paths and many many more. Maybe even most importantly, there are also lategame lack of concentration problems and a crit engine satchel may simply be a gamechanger. I just don't think you should get all these possibilities just for 60 munitions.

well gosh, we wouldnt want silly tactics like using line of sight to create an ambush to be rewarded now would we.... thats called playing the game properly and at to an extent, outplaying your enemy. if you are rolling your tank armound unsupported around blind corners there is no saying what you will run into, the only thing you certainly wont however is a balance issue.

Well, I don't agree here. I think that ptrs is enough to deter light vehicles. Enough for 60 munitions. If you buy them on two squads it is more than enough. Of course I understand that if you do get rushed you want to use the satchel and just drain hp or maybe even random crit weapons for some time. You shouldn't just drain hp and have a crit. Soviet access to zis is really easy and you have t70. Also like you say - good players just don't rush them and won't be rushing them even without crit. But the mistake of driving into penals wouldn't be as punishing as it is now.

you seem to think the satchel is free by constantly citing 60mu... you know its 45mu ONTOP of the 60mu upgrade right? furthermore, the soviet arguably have the LEAST accessible AT gun when going t1, as its an alternate tech route (like the usf) but doesnt just sit and build itself nor does it unlock a free squad to make up for the manpower. at any rate, there is no reason that an AT unit should have a shelf life as you cannot "return" it. the PTRS isnt enough of a threat alone and the satchel makes the upgrade worth it and allows t1 to be viable into the late game without t2 (which IS an optional tier) at the cost on munitions drain.


It could be an option for say 90munitions. Mother Russia was just crazy OP imo. Good they changed it. Still, for now I would just remove those crits as I really belive that those little things add up and Russia is I think the chapest faction of all imo for what they get.

you are misunderstanding me. keep the same output as now but spread across another PTRS, less AI retained, same AT output. and again, the satchels are not free. pgrens pay 100mu for being able to deal 240 damage in a blink, 60mu gets you the ablility to deal upto 80 damage per plink. and then an additional 45mu will keep a tank from squishing you. complaining about the cost of the ptrs upgrade cost and comparing it to the likes of shreks is like comparing only the cost of a molitov and the bundled nade and looking at nothing else.
105 mu to throw the first AT satchel, yet you still have to get close to the tank (by your micro or your enemies miss micro) and the ptrs ain shooting while you close. 60mu gives you zero chase potential, no capacity to finish off a tank, no mobile AT outside the close range satchel. you are not looking at it from the otherside at all.

True - but remeber that one s-minefield costs as much as ptrs and is stationary. I feel that satchels are most dangerous because they require too much concentration from your opponent, much more than from the Soviet player and are just too cheap of an upgrade for the package.

covered basicly everything relating to this one above. least mobile hand AT (long set up, no chase potential, not threat frankly) cheap initial cost, high pay per use. satchel isnt free. i think i summed it up there

i think he is just trolling by now. time to stop wasting time on this thread.

the other AT units are scary enough to dissuade trying to squish them. you drive directly at a shreked up pgrens and your tank IS going to lose half its health (making it prime for a supporting squad to snare) while a ptrs squad MIGHT take out 80hp (if it starts shooting in time, and both shots pen), which still wouldnt lower a tank below th threshold combined with a snare.

Not always - very often a player can send even an m36 to simply crush pzgrens and, while it is risky, some players do it really effectively. If you use most tanks or LVs you really can make pzgren retreat without giving shrecks time to aim and not absorbing even a single volley. As an ost player you basically need another unit next to your expensive pzgrens to make sure such things don't happen. It can be a snare unit (better two as one will only drain some health and the other will crit dmg the engine and then shrecks will work – you don’t always hit with shrecks before circlestrafing begins). Alternatively, you can hav a pak to deter such play. But this is the whole point. With a more expensive pzgren squad you need at least one more unit to constantly accompany it to make sure you don't lose 360mp plus 100muni to being rushed and/or circlestrafed. I don't really think it is fair that penals are immune to such play for only 60muni. I would prefer to make Soviets either invest another 60muni into a second ptrs squad or have a snare cons or zis around to make sure you need similar micro/skill level to defend against vehicles. Remember that ost hasn't got sturdy light vehicles, so it also means that ptrs are very often more than enough to simply kill 222 or a flamehalftrack. Imo it is a balance issue – you simply can have a very powerful at squad for very little.

well gosh, we wouldnt want silly tactics like using line of sight to create an ambush to be rewarded now would we.... thats called playing the game properly and at to an extent, outplaying your enemy. if you are rolling your tank armound unsupported around blind corners there is no saying what you will run into, the only thing you certainly wont however is a balance issue.

It is a bit of a manipulation I'm afraid. I do love this game for such mechanics! The problem starts if it is available to only one faction for very little investment. Those satchels are a bit like demo charges in the past. Very convenient if you have them in your rooster, but just silly cause your opponent needs to be 3 times better to have similar results and invest much more resources and use combined arms. Satchel player can spend these resources in other areas – for example, rushing the t70. Imo it is the opposite of what you wrote. Satchels to some extend promote imbalance. You can just pretend it is a tool be used not to be rushed (which again put Soviets in a better position) but also on many replays of often skilled players you see tigers or panthers nuked with satchels by opponents of worse skill. Soviets just don't get punished for overextending their tanks that much and the axis player has to be twice more careful. Also all the manpower and munitions an axis player has to invest in deterring tanks Soviets may use elsewhere.

you seem to think the satchel is free by constantly citing 60mu... you know its 45mu ONTOP of the 60mu upgrade right? furthermore, the soviet arguably have the LEAST accessible AT gun when going t1, as its an alternate tech route (like the usf) but doesnt just sit and build itself nor does it unlock a free squad to make up for the manpower. at any rate, there is no reason that an AT unit should have a shelf life as you cannot "return" it. the PTRS isnt enough of a threat alone and the satchel makes the upgrade worth it and allows t1 to be viable into the late game without t2 (which IS an optional tier) at the cost on munitions drain.

Yes, I know it is 45 munitions. But regular snares cost too! You don't pay for a satchel if it fails to work! 45 munitions for crippling the engine and dealing huge damage is very little. Often it will cost your opponent a vehicle even a heavy tank. Furthermore, Soviets have a very easily accessible ZiS. The building costs ridiculous 160mp and 10 fuel. The problem is that players risk not building it, and not spending the manpower on it and prefer to go, for example, t70 quickly or have many more anty infantry squads on the field. If they do that and they don't want to buy, for example, two ptrs equipped penals, it is their choice. There should be some risk involved. You don’t invest in other AT solutions because you want to win infantry war? You can do that but there must be some risk involved.
Of course satchel makes the upgrade worth it, as it is a very good tool to deal with expensive units for very little, and if you catch your opponent not paying attention, they lose a unit that is like many times your ptrs and penal investment. Opposite armies need to work harder and invest more to have similar results. It is not going to be a munitions drain as you can't miss the satchel and lose 45 munitions. You can only screw up when trying to finish off the crippled vehicle but the designers of satchels made it deal so much damage that one really needs to try hard not to do it. I don’t think an at gun is an optional investment in any army unless you want to take some risk.

you are misunderstanding me. keep the same output as now but spread across another PTRS, less AI retained, same AT output. and again, the satchels are not free. pgrens pay 100mu for being able to deal 240 damage in a blink, 60mu gets you the ablility to deal upto 80 damage per plink. and then an additional 45mu will keep a tank from squishing you. complaining about the cost of the ptrs upgrade cost and comparing it to the likes of shreks is like comparing only the cost of a molitov and the bundled nade and looking at nothing else.
105 mu to throw the first AT satchel, yet you still have to get close to the tank (by your micro or your enemies miss micro) and the ptrs ain shooting while you close. 60mu gives you zero chase potential, no capacity to finish off a tank, no mobile AT outside the close range satchel. you are not looking at it from the otherside at all.

You are underestimating ptrs. The shoot more often than shrecks, are more accurate and deal quite a bit of deflection damage. You seem to be overestimating shrecks, too. Shrecks tend to miss horribly on retreating tanks and it is very often all or nothing. It is much easier to lose a shreck squad as they are a glass cannon. But again you are comparing different units and one shouldn't be a benchmark for another. The price is more important here. I think it is you who don't really look at it from the other side.

covered basicly everything relating to this one above. least mobile hand AT (long set up, no chase potential, not threat frankly) cheap initial cost, high pay per use. satchel isnt free. i think i summed it up there

Well, AT that gives you quite a punch, especially when massed, costs very little, but gives you the potential to keep your opponent on their toes the whole match. One mistake and their tank is gone. All for 60 munitions and losing relatively little ai performance. Best to pay 45 munitions only when it works. Wish the cpu charged me only for arty strikes only if they deal damage. And maybe think what it is like for your opponent when Soviet players do buy a ZiS, place a few cheap mines and support properly with 60 range tank destroyers and tanks. Then the satchel really shines.