[Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback

That would render the squad useless vs infantry and a single point of failure because a single squad can get pushed away quite easily. The problem is still that you can get one ptrs volley out before having to retreat vs the flame HT. unless you take out a chunk of health of the HT it's of no use. Also PGrens will have a a good time because of the reduction of anti infantry capabilities.

A combination of increasing the lethality of PTRS (e.g. damage) and reducing Flame HT range would help alot. For their current cost they perform poorly. This would also help other units such as guards and tank hunter cons, not just penals.

I agree it's tricky. I'm personally thinking about:
- Penals from 300 to ~280 manpower
- move some DPS from vet 0 to vet 1 accordingly
- possibly revert T1 build time change
- either lower aim time for PTRS (should be easier to get a second or third volley off before having to retreat) or 3x PTRS for higher alpha damage, and with lower unit cost it would be less harsh to turn one of your squads into an AT one
- possibly T4 could give -2 reinforcement cost bonus (either passive or as a squad based upgrade similar to Mobilize Reserves for Cons) to reduce late game bleed due to lack of upgrade

The range on the flame 251 is already only 30, I don't think we can make it any lower than that without butchering it. Increasing damage per PTRS would probably make PTRS Cons too good.

I agree it's tricky. I'm personally thinking about:
- Penals from 300 to ~280 manpower
- move some DPS from vet 0 to vet 1
- possibly revert T1 build time change
- either lower aim time for PTRS (should be easier to get a second or third volley off before having to retreat) or 3x PTRS for higher alpha damage, and with lower unit cost it would be less harsh to turn one of your squads into an AT one
- possibly T4 could give -2 reinforcement cost bonus (either passive or as a squad based upgrade similar to Mobilize Reserves for Cons) to reduce late game bleed due to lack of upgrade

The range on the flame 251 is already only 30, I don't think we can make it any lower than that without butchering it.

I'm confused. This seems like a nerf?

We're thinking about giving Penals 3x PTRS or reducing aim time, and letting PTRS attack ground.

What would be the point of attack ground without a projectile?

....

The range on the flame 251 is already only 30, I don't think we can make it any lower than that without butchering it.

Once more removed DOT from flamer vehicles and add it an ability that would solve most issues with these vehicles.

The proposed reduction in the T70 AI efficiently while increasing the Panzer II Luchs AI efficiency has my head in a spin.

What would be the point of attack ground without a projectile?

They'd be given a projectile.

....
- Penals from 300 to ~280 manpower
- move some DPS from vet 0 to vet 1 accordingly
...

Lower cost to 270 have them start with 3 mosin 3 SVT.
Two upgrade option similar to PF:
3 PTRS now replaces SVTs
or
3 SVTs

- either lower aim time for PTRS

Since there is little reason to have different behavior is the version of PTRS make Guards PTRs similar with little AI and have "Firing Positions" increase the accuracy of the PTRS.

This make sense both from design point of view and realistic point of view.

They'd be given a projectile.

Cool!

Lower cost to 270 have them start with 3 mosin 3 SVT and PTRS not replaces SVTs.

10mp = 3 SVTs?

totally unbiased

I agree it's tricky. I'm personally thinking about:
- Penals from 300 to ~280 manpower
- move some DPS from vet 0 to vet 1 accordingly
- possibly revert T1 build time change
- either lower aim time for PTRS (should be easier to get a second or third volley off before having to retreat) or 3x PTRS for higher alpha damage, and with lower unit cost it would be less harsh to turn one of your squads into an AT one
- possibly T4 could give -2 reinforcement cost bonus (either passive or as a squad based upgrade similar to Mobilize Reserves for Cons) to reduce late game bleed due to lack of upgrade

I don't think it will be necessary to move some of their DPS to Vet 1, as is the squad is slightly inferior to Riflemen, which come at 280MP and have 1 less man. Not sure how you'll manage that anyway unless you start them with Mosin and give SVT at Vet 1 (Because any change to the SVT will also nerf SVT Cons, Airborne Guards, and Assault Guards) , but I disagree with that this is necessary.

I would also disagree with adding 3 PTRS to the squad, as said before it'll hinder what DPS they have left, which isn't much and they become not good at vehicles or infantry. Adding 3 PTRS also robs some uniqueness from the Conscript PTRS package, which is already underused.

I think the best thing to do is simply decrease the aim time and cooldown so the PTRS can be fired faster. It is a semi-automatic weapon after all, and it doesn't hold a candle to the Panzerschreck.

I think the best thing to do is simply decrease the aim time and cooldown so the PTRS can be fired faster. It is a semi-automatic weapon after all, and it doesn't hold a candle to the Panzerschreck.

The problem with the Penal PTRS, however, and why it could maybe have 3 is that the Penal PTRS squad doesn't scale really well into late-game. It's not incredibly dangerous to armour, it's snare while potent - is short-range and you're giving up an 8 population 300 manpower tier-locked squad to light anti-vehicle work that falters against infantry the moment it takes losses and the unit often doesn't have enough time to sustain DPS before getting butchered.

I can see the need for increasing rate of fire, but at the end of the day, it's essentially a dedicated AV squad so it does need to threaten vehicles later in the game.

The problem with the Penal PTRS, however, and why it could maybe have 3 is that the Penal PTRS squad doesn't scale really well into late-game. It's not incredibly dangerous to armour, it's snare while potent - is short-range and you're giving up an 8 population 300 manpower tier-locked squad to light anti-vehicle work that falters against infantry the moment it takes losses and the unit often doesn't have enough time to sustain DPS before getting butchered.

I can see the need for increasing rate of fire, but at the end of the day, it's essentially a dedicated AV squad so it does need to threaten vehicles later in the game.

New T3/T4 upgrade, "PTRS training", PTRS does what PTRS does for guards in soviet campaign.
Tho, it would really be amazing if penals weren't complete meme in late game, both AI and AT option.

Have you thought about making T3 optional and not required for T4. Instead, to unlock T4 you need 2 of the previous tiers. For example, you could go T1+T2 into T4( I think this wouldn't be too good since you are sacrificing the mid-game presence with t70 to rush out the t34 ). This could also be an indirect buff to penals since you don't need to backtech to get the ZIS gun or Maxim.

Lmao that t34 nerf, I don’t even know what to say. If you’re going to do that at lest buff the t34/76

Didnt you guys nerf PTRS deflection damage long time ago (because it was too OP lul)? Now you're wondering why PTRS squads are so useless in late game against actual tanks?

Buffing PTRS in general seems like it would kill the most birds with one stone. Whatever those buffs may be it would help penals, guards, and conscript ptrs units to better fight light vehicles. More damage and a faster firing time seem some of the most helpful. That critical shot stormjafwr suggested could also be worth looking into. Penals getting solid AT would be a big step for them being viable.

I still wonder what making the SU76 cheaper and more of a “AT for T1” would do. It could be something like the SU76 was only like 50 fuel but would only be able to handle light vehicles and maybe something like an Ostwind unless it was highly vetted. Nerf it as much as needed but the cheaper cost would be great to give T1 AT without back technically for ZiS.

What about the possibility of making T4 cheaper to get? Seeing as every unit there would be getting a nerf making it easier to tech into could make it less of an issue that the units are getting nerfed. It would help with a sticking point the Soviets have had for a long time.

Also I do like the idea of the T34 ram only being useable when low on health. Would be better than the vet 1 change imo. And alongside a possible T4 change it could be less of a rehabilitating nerf.

The problem with the Penal PTRS, however, and why it could maybe have 3 is that the Penal PTRS squad doesn't scale really well into late-game. It's not incredibly dangerous to armour, it's snare while potent - is short-range and you're giving up an 8 population 300 manpower tier-locked squad to light anti-vehicle work that falters against infantry the moment it takes losses and the unit often doesn't have enough time to sustain DPS before getting butchered.

I can see the need for increasing rate of fire, but at the end of the day, it's essentially a dedicated AV squad so it does need to threaten vehicles later in the game.

just give penals a mutually exclusive anti infantry weapon upgrade like 2x DPs or a bar... problem solved...

Penal troop scaling is indeed a problem.
I would go for:
-AT package unlocks a heavy AT mine (teller mine copy) at vet 2. 20% supression resistance bonus at vet3.
-regular unupgraded troops get a normal HE grenade at Vet3.

These changes fit their theme as penal troops.

Could we give Penal Vet3 reinforcement cost reduction bonus?

Could we give Penal Vet3 reinforcement cost reduction bonus?

They have one! It's called merging cons.

Should the ISU-152 get a penetration buff in exchange for its anti-infantry ammo range reduction or is the armor-piercing deflection damage significant enough to not warrant increased firepower against Axis armor? Not an easy test for sure.


It was called the "Beast Killer" (Зверобой: zveroboy) after all.