Login

russian armor

Penals, the Elephant in the room

PAGES (8)down
8 Dec 2020, 22:11 PM
#63
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Trading Vet 3 Acc for Received Accuracy and slightly reducing their reinforce cost in the late game is going to put Penals over the edge vs. Axis mainline inf?

Changes are listed in Opening post in the spoiler and include many other thing like faste build T1 to 3 PTRS with lower ready aim time.


I mean what do you think we should do? Add something like Tank Hunter Partisans to T1 and keep Penals as they are minus PTRS package?

It does not matter what I think that should be done, the questions is weather a unit that is expected to do everything is good design or not.
(Imo it a very bad design especially for faction with so many doctrinal options.)

If it is a good design let find way to improve the solution. If it is not lets changes the design instead of putting even more effort in bad design and ending up breaking more things in the process.

Adding an AT infatry is one solution that might work there are more.

There is already a suggestion from GiaA and even a couple from elchino7 like making T1 optional or adding the M-42.
9 Dec 2020, 09:15 AM
#64
avatar of GiaA

Posts: 713 | Subs: 2

From soviet feedback thread:

Problems with T1:

A. The only T1 AT option forces you to give up the Anti infantry strength of your mainline.

B. The AT option itself is bad because it doesn't have enough damage output to avoid getting forced to retreat or at least getting bled before the vehicle is pushed back.

C. You only have very few snares (2 max) and they have very limited range. This is particularly problematic when using the Sniper.

D. ATGuns are the most cost efficient units in the game so there's very little reason not to get ZIS-Guns.

Sanders suggestion of giving the PTRS upgrade three PTRS while increasing the price accordingly would solve problem b. but enhance problem c. All your early AT on one squad would mean that if that squad gets pinned or forced to retreat you are completely exposed.

My preferred solution:

- Move PTRS to Cons, unlocked with T1 build
- Penal AT Satchels get unlocked with AT nade tech
- Possibly give Penals Molotovs
- decreased Penal buildtime

This directly solves Problems C. and A. because a mix of Cons and Penals combined with AT nade tech would lead to normal amounts of snares and Penals no longer have to waste their AI strength by upgrading PTRS. It would also partly solve Problem B. because cons bleed less when getting slaughtered by the vehicle they're fighting. Better Penal Buildtime would give the T1 opening quicker map presence. It would still be significantly weaker than a con opening in this regard.

Penals would now function as a supplement to cons (which from my understanding makes perfect sense thematically). Realistically you'd probably only get 1 (when combined with a sniper) or 2 most of the time because you'll want two PTRS cons for AT. 2 Cons, 3 Penals into T70 would be very manpower heavyy but not unthinkable. Encouraging Con/Penal Combos has the additional advantage that it allows for usage of merge and sandbags which both benefit penals but isn't enough of a reason to mix the two in the current version since Penals don't benefit at all from the at nade upgrade so you might as well just spam cons to make it worthwhile. For the same reason i would at least consider giving penals molotovs.
9 Dec 2020, 09:19 AM
#65
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 09:15 AMGiaA


Check post 35. :)
9 Dec 2020, 12:35 PM
#66
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

took the liberty of copying this post here since it is relevant (I hope you not mind and I will delete if you mind).

I played a couple of games today and Penals feel great but I am worried their anti-infantry accuracy on the PTRS is too high. They seem very strong and blobbable against other mainline infantry squads despite having nice damage against tanks now. Though, while they are scary against Mediums, the 6 man squads get absolutely melted and bled by heavy tanks. Perhaps the PTRS anti-infantry accuracy shouldn't be so high, v2.1 doubled their accuracy on top of many other buffs. I think they could also lose the regular satchel when they are upgraded with PTRS so they can't be used to blow up support weapons and get cheesy wipes. (I also think PGren should lose Bundle when given shreks.)

The real OP cheese will be stacking PTRS Penal blobs in front of Heavy Mortars and/or DSHK's. The M5 reinforcement support is also quite strong. (PTRS Penals in an M5 is quite nice against Flak HT, perhaps other lights too)



11 Dec 2020, 13:27 PM
#67
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

I would tempted to test the following:

T1 now produces:
M3
Sniper
Penals pure are AI unit with grenades and weapons upgrade.
( Satchel can be move to another unit like CE or some sort of partisan unit.0
Zis Gun

T2 now produces:
Maxim
Mortar
Tank hunter team, an "new" infantry units equipped with PTRS.

The reason why the tank hunter is move to T2 is so that combination of sniper and AT infatry is not available from the start of the game.

The design would also create more room for doctrines that provide support weapons.
11 Dec 2020, 14:28 PM
#68
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1515

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Dec 2020, 13:27 PMVipper
I would tempted to test the following:

T1 now produces:
M3
Sniper
Penals pure are AI unit with grenades and weapons upgrade.
( Satchel can be move to another unit like CE or some sort of partisan unit.0
Zis Gun

T2 now produces:
Maxim
Mortar
Tank hunter team, an "new" infantry units equipped with PTRS.

The reason why the tank hunter is move to T2 is so that combination of sniper and AT infatry is not available from the start of the game.

The design would also create more room for doctrines that provide support weapons.


I guess that's not a bad design. Both tiers would have AI and AT. "mortar" in ZiS. AI in penals and a niche sniper.
Maxim for suppression and mortar for follow up and tank hunters for AT. I'm guessing that the tank hunters would have 3x PTSR and satchel?

Even though it sounds good on paper it would still require testing. Especially in teamgames.
11 Dec 2020, 17:37 PM
#69
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



I guess that's not a bad design. Both tiers would have AI and AT. "mortar" in ZiS. AI in penals and a niche sniper.
Maxim for suppression and mortar for follow up and tank hunters for AT. I'm guessing that the tank hunters would have 3x PTSR and satchel?

Even though it sounds good on paper it would still require testing. Especially in teamgames.

If a units is designed as tank hunter it can get any tools they. If they use PTRS they should probably start with 2 to leave some breathing room for light vehicles and be able to upgrade after certain tech is reached if there is need to.

Personally I do not like AT satchel as a design, there are 1 shots snare that have been removed from other units for good reason. They also do lots of friendly damage and can wipe out the unit using if the the guy the trow them die. In addition the best thing a vehicle can do if hit by one is to drive on the Penal and try to get some kills from the explosion.

Imo AT satchel should not snare they could do high damage and temporary critical.

For the Anti tank squad there are many options, AT grenades, some sort of long range disable (maybe weapons) and so on.

28 Dec 2020, 10:55 AM
#70
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Some patch notes that follow the band aid approach of Penals:

"Developer Comments: Due to the lack of anti-tank in the Special Rifle Command, we are giving Penal Battalions a more focused roll as a dedicated anti-infantry unit."


"Penals

The combination of the raw amount of bonuses Penal Battalion squads receive with the power of their flamer upgrade made the squad capable of winning nearly all engagements vs infantry, in almost any situation, creating very limited avenues for counterplay. To address this, we are removing some of the raw power of Penal battalions. At the same time, we are giving Penal Battalions access to some anti-tank utility to give Soviet T1 some tactical versatility, which it previously lacked."


"Penal Battalion

The PTRS upgrade for the Penal Battalion is being improved by giving the squad an additional rifle. The current upgrade lacks power against anything past the light vehicle phase, which means that an AT Penal squad scales poorly into the late game, posing minimal threat to tanks unless they could be satchelled. Accuracy of the Penal PTRS is also being increased to match their previous AI DPS when carrying 2 AT Rifles."

Since PTRS penal battalion are now designed as other AT squads and can counter mediums they should come in line with them and should at least lose their AT snare and have reduced AI power.
28 Dec 2020, 14:26 PM
#71
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 10:55 AMVipper

Since PTRS penal battalion are now designed as other AT squads and can counter mediums

I highly advise you to play the game and see how it works in practice or just check your worshipped Tightrope vid featuring it.

Becaust AT penals most certainly do NOT counter mediums, even behind green cover.
Pip
28 Dec 2020, 16:40 PM
#75
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

I still think Penals should just be moved to tier 0, have their AT package removed, and be given Veterancy and a "Mobilise Reserves" upgrade" to compensate.

Guards (Or some variation thereof) should be put in tier one. Their starting power changed to accommodate the fact they'd potentially be coming at minute one (Or being further gated behind also having tier 3/2). They provide a better AT platform than PTRS penals, due to Button, and it gives Soviet an infantry option to compete with Axis elites.

I'd still prefer Penals be redone into a true Conscript alternative, but this is a potential option if that isnt on the table.
28 Dec 2020, 16:42 PM
#76
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 16:40 PMPip
I still think Penals should just be moved to tier 0, have their AT package removed, and be given Veterancy and a "Mobilise Reserves" upgrade" to compensate.

Guards (Or some variation thereof) should be put in tier one. Their starting power changed to accommodate the fact they'd potentially be coming at minute one (Or being further gated behind also having tier 3/2). They provide a better AT platform than PTRS penals, due to Button, and it gives Soviet an infantry option to compete with Axis elites.

I'd still prefer Penals be redone into a true Conscript alternative, but this is a potential option if that isnt on the table.


That's not even wishful thinking, that's a meth overdose dream.

What do you do with 7 doctrines with guards?
What about shocks+guards?
What kind of power level these new penals should have if they are supposed to be alternative to cons, but but coming at the same time as cons?
What role should they have, because you've just described "cons but not cons, because they have different name now" which already is vippers wet dream.
28 Dec 2020, 16:53 PM
#77
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 16:40 PMPip
I still think Penals should just be moved to tier 0, have their AT package removed, and be given Veterancy and a "Mobilise Reserves" upgrade" to compensate.

Guards (Or some variation thereof) should be put in tier one. Their starting power changed to accommodate the fact they'd potentially be coming at minute one (Or being further gated behind also having tier 3/2). They provide a better AT platform than PTRS penals, due to Button, and it gives Soviet an infantry option to compete with Axis elites.

I'd still prefer Penals be redone into a true Conscript alternative, but this is a potential option if that isnt on the table.

Soviets do not need stock Guards.

If there is even the need for an AT squad, that should be separate "new" unit specifically designed as an AT unit with little AI.
Pip
28 Dec 2020, 16:59 PM
#78
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 16:42 PMKatitof


That's not even wishful thinking, that's a meth overdose dream.

What do you do with 7 doctrines with guards?
What about shocks+guards?
What kind of power level these new penals should have if they are supposed to be alternative to cons, but but coming at the same time as cons?
What role should they have, because you've just described "cons but not cons, because they have different name now" which already is vippers wet dream.


Ideally they'd be an "AT guard" variant, rather than being a direct copy of the doctrinal guards. Alternatively: The doctrines could be changed to not include Guards, but either have an upgrade for the nondoc guards to make them more potent, or have some other abilities instead.

I'm not sure. Guards + Shocks would likely be a cause for concern, though it's likely this could be balanced.

I've made suggestions before as to what Penals might look like if they were changed. Though they could well stay (almost) as they are if they ended up in tier 0. They're already rather expensive, and slow to produce, coupling with the inherent cost of Tier 1.

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 16:53 PMVipper

Soviets do not need stock Guards.

If there is even the need for an AT squad, that should be separate "new" unit specifically designed as an AT unit with little AI.


I'd prefer an "AT Guards" squad to them being purely a copy of the existing doctrinal guards. Button should be retained, though this is currently tied to the DP-28.
28 Dec 2020, 17:02 PM
#79
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 16:59 PMPip

...
I'd prefer an "AT Guards" squad to them being purely a copy of the existing doctrinal guards. Button should be retained, though this is currently tied to the DP-28.

Guards have high power level and high AI, a stock AT should not have high AI. It should simply be designed to fight vehicles.
Pip
28 Dec 2020, 17:14 PM
#80
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 17:02 PMVipper

Guards have high power level and high AI, a stock AT should not have high AI. It should simply be designed to fight vehicles.


Ergo: AT guards.
PAGES (8)down
7 users are browsing this thread: 7 guests

Livestreams

unknown 35
Russian Federation 123
unknown 15
Netherlands 5
Canada 2

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

514 users are online: 1 member and 513 guests
linakill
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49879
Welcome our newest member, linakill
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM