Login

russian armor

Penals, the Elephant in the room

PAGES (8)down
8 Dec 2020, 15:10 PM
#41
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 15:02 PMPip
...
I realise this suggestion makes both units rather similar, but I think there is room to make them both unique.

My suggestions for Soviet stock infatry was, Penal a cheap offensive squad with molotov, ourah, ppsh and merge.

Conscripts a defensive squad with "hit the dirt" and sandbags.
Pip
8 Dec 2020, 15:29 PM
#42
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 15:10 PMVipper

My suggestions for Soviet stock infatry was, Penal a cheap offensive squad with molotov, ourah, ppsh and merge.

Conscripts a defensive squad with "hit the dirt" and sandbags.


Broadly similar to what I would suggest, though I would likely not take Molotov and Merge away from Conscripts (Though Penals in my ideal Soviet faction would indeed also have Merge). Conscripts leaning in a more "Defensive" direction than Penals' "Offensive" direction is absolutely what I had in mind. Penals being slightly cheaper (Or at least less bleed-y) would probably be a good shout, too. I think it will need a little more refinement.

I'm going to think a little deeper on this and see if i can drum up some actual numbers. If anyone has any glaring flaws they might like to point out with the concept as a whole, PLEASE do let me know, though.
8 Dec 2020, 15:43 PM
#43
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 15:29 PMPip


Broadly similar to what I would suggest, though I would likely not take Molotov and Merge away from Conscripts (Though Penals in my ideal Soviet faction would indeed also have Merge). Conscripts leaning in a more "Defensive" direction than Penals' "Offensive" direction is absolutely what I had in mind. Penals being slightly cheaper (Or at least less bleed-y) would probably be a good shout, too. I think it will need a little more refinement.

I'm going to think a little deeper on this and see if i can drum up some actual numbers. If anyone has any glaring flaws they might like to point out with the concept as a whole, PLEASE do let me know, though.

ourah goes hand and hand with molotov and "offensive" role and with PPsh, Conscripts are better of with explosive grenade.

Merge could stay with Conscripts depending on cost and target size, but if smgs penal remained at T1 merge could help mitigate some of the initial tech cost.
Pip
8 Dec 2020, 15:59 PM
#44
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 15:43 PMVipper

ourah goes hand and hand with molotov and "offensive" role and with PPsh, Conscripts are better of with explosive grenade.

Merge could stay with Conscripts depending on cost and target size, but if smgs penal remained at T1 merge could help mitigate some of the initial tech cost.


There's the risk of overloading this "new concept" penal squad as far as CQB performance goes if you start taking too much away from Conscripts and giving it to them. I'm envisioning them as of rather similar base performance. I could see Penals receiving the Molotov and Cons a Grenade in return, however. I'm trying to think what would be done to Conscripts in this "version" of CoH2 to cement them as the "defensive" option over Penals, other than either increased on-the-move penalties, or a small cover bonus, though. Either option feels a little unnecessary.



Regarding cost/target size concerns, my suggestion would be to normalise both units' (vet 0) RA so that one isn't strictly "better" than the other when it came to merging. The reason i'm rather set on the idea of them both having Merge is due to A: The sheer power of the ability, one unit with and one unit without would leave the unit without with a great deficit in utility, and B: I very much like it as a factional gimmick, and if Soviet were to have two "mainline" options, I feel it would be best not to lose access to this gimmick for wanting to make use of Mainline 2 over Mainline 1.

8 Dec 2020, 16:44 PM
#45
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

I honestly just think that whole idea of soviets with T1 or T2 is kinda flawed in its core.

I mean, if we look at the history of whole T1 or T2, it was always matter of cheesing the opponent.

T1 was a full cheese, with sniper in clowncars, later with flames in clown cars and double sniper. All of this were nerfed, leaving the only saving grase - Penals.

Mod team keep trying to boost and inject everything into penals, to make them the single reason why T1 should be build.

As an example lets take a look at Ostheer. T1 has nice units like mortar, sniper, grens but non of them are really essential, T2 is essential always. Because it provide you with AT gun (which in my opinion is the most important unit factions can have).

On top of that, soviets are the single faction which is fully designed and balanced around the idea that "you have to pick a commander".

This means that cons and T2, are over-all always more logical chose, because firstly you get access to MG and AT gun. Secondly you are not limited to a specific commander choses, because you can litteraly pick any commander and it will add on top of what you have, rather then cover your holes.

If you go T1 without backteching, you kinda need to pick a commander with DShK because you dont have an MG, you kinda need to pick commander with M42 because you dont have any AT guns, you kinda need guards to use button + Penals satchel.

And even if you want to backtech, why bothering yourself with T1 to begin with. Even in teamgames, ppl who go for T1 still always backtech for T2.

TDLR: I personally think that T1 shouldnt be a "chose tech", it should be a part of a standart tech which requare both T1 and T2 to be build, to access T3. In this case, this will allow to balance T1 and units in it not as an entity which is kinda supposed to be chosen and provide option over T2, but as a part of a tech with all units from T0, T1 and T2 working togeather. T3 cost ofcouse should be ajusted.
8 Dec 2020, 17:04 PM
#46
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

I honestly just think that whole idea of soviets with T1 or T2 is kinda flawed in its core.

I mean, if we look at the history of whole T1 or T2, it was always matter of cheesing the opponent.

T1 was a full cheese, with sniper in clowncars, later with flames in clown cars and double sniper. All of this were nerfed, leaving the only saving grase - Penals.

Mod team keep trying to boost and inject everything into penals, to make them the single reason why T1 should be build.

As an example lets take a look at Ostheer. T1 has nice units like mortar, sniper, grens but non of them are really essential, T2 is essential always. Because it provide you with AT gun (which in my opinion is the most important unit factions can have).

On top of that, soviets are the single faction which is fully designed and balanced around the idea that "you have to pick a commander".

This means that cons and T2, are over-all always more logical chose, because firstly you get access to MG and AT gun. Secondly you are not limited to a specific commander choses, because you can litteraly pick any commander and it will add on top of what you have, rather then cover your holes.

If you go T1 without backteching, you kinda need to pick a commander with DShK because you dont have an MG, you kinda need to pick commander with M42 because you dont have any AT guns, you kinda need guards to use button + Penals satchel.

And even if you want to backtech, why bothering yourself with T1 to begin with. Even in teamgames, ppl who go for T1 still always backtech for T2.

TDLR: I personally think that T1 shouldnt be a "chose tech", it should be a part of a standart tech which requare both T1 and T2 to be build, to access T3. In this case, this will allow to balance T1 and units in it not as an entity which is kinda supposed to be chosen and provide option over T2, but as a part of a tech with all units from T0, T1 and T2 working togeather. T3 cost ofcouse should be ajusted.


If you are going for the big faction overhaul like this, you could also heavily nerf the T70 and make T3 cheaper so soviet midgame could be about the choice between su76 or T70. T4 could be split in two to get earlier access to t34/76 with an additional upgrade for su85/katy/7man.
Pip
8 Dec 2020, 17:15 PM
#47
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

snip


I'm definitely in agreement. Soviet tech being more "Linear" would be a fantastic improvement, and open up a lot more strategies as it would (hopefully) mean Soviet are rather less forced to pick commanders to fill otherwise unfillable holes in their roster. I still think a major rework to Penals and a moving of (some type of Guards) to a nondoctrinal position would be nice as well.

It feels like one of those sorts of changes that Lelic would approve of, and the small group of people who REALLY hate it when improvements are made (That reduce RNG or "faction uniqueness) would likely be up in arms.

I really do like faction uniqueness, but it simply can't be at the expense of the faction's usability. OKW's not having an MG was unique, but it was an abysmal decision and was rightly reverted.
8 Dec 2020, 18:28 PM
#48
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

As an example lets take a look at Ostheer. T1 has nice units like mortar, sniper, grens but non of them are really essential, T2 is essential always. Because it provide you with AT gun (which in my opinion is the most important unit factions can have).


In the current meta. Let me remind you not too long ago, when Ostwind was OP prior to nerfs, skipping T2 was the norm.

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 14:48 PMVipper

I do not think that comparison with situation before the July patch is an indication of anything since the soviet faction had completely different design.


MP cost could easily be lower. This design allows earlier access to m3 and sniper compared to
your suggestions after T2.

or one could simply add a pure AT infatry in T1.


1- What you have in mind is a full rework of not only T1 but Conscripts as well as spreading different type of upgrades and grenades. If the whole plan is gonna be making Penals to be analog to PF, i'm saying that that design is not gonna work cause it was already implemented before. Yes, a full rework on many more units is gonna open more possibilities and might make this concept work, but i don't think a Conscript is open up for realistic debate.

2- It doesn't matter when you field the M3A1. You need 60 munition + been on your territory + the time to upgrade. You hit around 3:30, faster if you rush exclusively munitions but going T1 and building an M3 means lower territory capture.

How long till a 222 arrives? This is expecting the best scenario of facing Assault Grens, cause Gren/Ostruppen openings nullifies it. Worst if you play team games.

OKW can open or react with PF or plainly go for Flak HT. If you fail to wipe things up, you basically lost the game.

Which opens the only alternative of playing risky with snipers and your only realistic option is getting a commander with the 45mm AT gun. But snipers don't accomplish much against all the meta units we have atm which are mobile in nature or have an increased number of models.

3- Be precise and realistic. What AT infantry, with which weapon upgrade.



At the end of the day, this whole discussion and exchange of ideas just shows that Penals is not the Elephant in the room.
8 Dec 2020, 18:31 PM
#49
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



:lol::lol::lol:

One of the many reasons I quit 1v1 back in the day. Flamer Penals.


I'm talking about 2013/2014 Penals. Way before the 2nd rework. The first rework made them useless, even if they had a flamer and the 2nd one is the one you probably talking about.

They were literally 6 man Grens with G43 and the only flamer in the game which never explode. And they couldn't compete against 2x sprinting snipers, clowncar, maxim spam or OG PPSH + HTD
Pip
8 Dec 2020, 18:43 PM
#50
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594



In the current meta. Let me remind you not too long ago, when Ostwind was OP prior to nerfs, skipping T2 was the norm.



1- What you have in mind is a full rework of not only T1 but Conscripts as well as spreading different type of upgrades and grenades. If the whole plan is gonna be making Penals to be analog to PF, i'm saying that that design is not gonna work cause it was already implemented before. Yes, a full rework on many more units is gonna open more possibilities and might make this concept work, but i don't think a Conscript is open up for realistic debate.

2- It doesn't matter when you field the M3A1. You need 60 munition + been on your territory + the time to upgrade. You hit around 3:30, faster if you rush exclusively munitions but going T1 and building an M3 means lower territory capture.

How long till a 222 arrives? This is expecting the best scenario of facing Assault Grens, cause Gren/Ostruppen openings nullifies it. Worst if you play team games.

OKW can open or react with PF or plainly go for Flak HT. If you fail to wipe things up, you basically lost the game.

Which opens the only alternative of playing risky with snipers and your only realistic option is getting a commander with the 45mm AT gun. But snipers don't accomplish much against all the meta units we have atm which are mobile in nature or have an increased number of models.

3- Be precise and realistic. What AT infantry, with which weapon upgrade.



At the end of the day, this whole discussion and exchange of ideas just shows that Penals is not the Elephant in the room.


I think when people are talking about Penals being reworked into a PF analogue, they're (Or at least I'm) not saying they should become PF (In that they start out semi-useless but outscale their counterpart massively/can be given Shrecks), but that they should be a similar type of unit to PF, a mainline infantry alternative that doesn't necessarily have to replace the "regular" mainline. In the same way that people (generally) will build PF as a supplement to Volks, rather than their entire infantry force being PF.

When were Penals a PF analogue, exactly? Was this when they had the ability to upgrade with two Flamethrowers? I'm not disputing you, I'm just not sure to what you're referring.

I agree that Penals aren't quite "The elephant in the room", but I do think they're an unit without a real place. Turning them from this strange "Semi-elite AI that can become a semi AT infantry" squad into a viable mainline alternative to Conscripts I think would be a good move, and would leave room for their replacement with a more focused squad in tier 1.

Also, I'm not Vipper, but I'd suggested a more AT-focused Guards squad as "that AT infantry squad" One or more extra PTRS, Button, and/or some sort of anti-vehicle utility ability on top of this, but without DPs, and definitely without a real snare. Perhaps there are other options, the same concept of AT guards who instead of PTRS have Lend-lease Bazookas, or even Panzershrecks (Though Shrecks on a six man squad in a faction with merge is perhaps a bad idea). A third option might be to make the M42 nondoctrinal and put it in tier 1, but that would be rather redundant, and I don't think it's such a fantastic idea.
8 Dec 2020, 18:43 PM
#51
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


1- What you have in mind is a full rework of not only T1 but Conscripts as well as spreading different type of upgrades and grenades. If the whole plan is gonna be making Penals to be analog to PF, i'm saying that that design is not gonna work cause it was already implemented before. Yes, a full rework on many more units is gonna open more possibilities and might make this concept work, but i don't think a Conscript is open up for realistic debate.

We have to agree to disagree, "Old Penal will not work because they where not used is before the tech changes" a thoery based in allot of flawed assumption. To start maxim spam was op and far easier to use the Penal and in addition what happened before the patch is simply irrelevant after four years of patches that dramatically changed the Soviet faction.


2- It doesn't matter when you field the M3A1. You need 60 munition + been on your territory + the time to upgrade. You hit around 3:30, faster if you rush exclusively munitions but going T1 and building an M3 means lower territory capture.


How long till a 222 arrives? This is expecting the best scenario of facing Assault Grens, cause Gren/Ostruppen openings nullifies it. Worst if you play team games.

OKW can open or react with PF or plainly go for Flak HT. If you fail to wipe things up, you basically lost the game.

Which opens the only alternative of playing risky with snipers and your only realistic option is getting a commander with the 45mm AT gun. But snipers don't accomplish much against all the meta units we have atm which are mobile in nature or have an increased number of models.

In your suggestions M3 comes after building T2 so allot later and far less room for it...


3- Be precise and realistic. What AT infantry, with which weapon upgrade.

I am deliberately not giving specifics (even more so since specific users are being toxic), the reason of this thread is to point out that there is problem with Penal and T1 and the current patch simply add bandaid instead of solving the issues. My point is that the patch need a new direction.


At the end of the day, this whole discussion and exchange of ideas just shows that Penals is not the Elephant in the room.

It does not really matter if it the Penal or T1. Bottom line is that there is a issues and the patch does not fix the issue.
8 Dec 2020, 18:46 PM
#52
avatar of Lady Xenarra

Posts: 956



I'm talking about 2013/2014 Penals. Way before the 2nd rework. The first rework made them useless, even if they had a flamer and the 2nd one is the one you probably talking about.

They were literally 6 man Grens with G43 and the only flamer in the game which never explode. And they couldn't compete against 2x sprinting snipers, clowncar, maxim spam or OG PPSH + HTD


Ahh right. Yeah I bought the game towards the end of 2014 and maxim spam was what ultimately finished my 1v1 career in this game lol. 6 man gren-likes! :rofl: These crazy design decisions by Relic I'll never understand.

Pip
8 Dec 2020, 18:56 PM
#53
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594



Ahh right. Yeah I bought the game towards the end of 2014 and maxim spam was what ultimately finished my 1v1 career in this game lol. 6 man gren-likes! :rofl: These crazy design decisions by Relic I'll never understand.



It really is surprising how decent CoH2 is today, given Lelic's rather insane balancing decisions early in its life. It's certainly not perfect, but it's far better than anyone looking at the game in 2014 could have imagined it would ever be.

Did all the "good" decisions come after handing development to the Community Balance team, or did Lelic decide to stop drinking mercury before then?
8 Dec 2020, 20:02 PM
#54
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

Penals are just an end result of legacy Soviet teching design, we can go in circles all day talking about game design and past balance decisions but at the end of the day this patch is about improving core armies and meta problems. As long as Penals are made a less obviously bad choice to full conscript builds without making them OP then that should be enough for this patch.

Unless you want to argue that late game utility buffs or PTRS changes push Penals into OP territory or that your changes achieve a better result in helping Penals function as a non-doc unit then we should stick to talking about the proposed changes because I doubt the balance team has the appetite to redesign Soviet teching just to solve the T1 or T2 only problem just to have "better game design"
8 Dec 2020, 20:10 PM
#55
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 18:43 PMPip
I think when people are talking about Penals being reworked into a PF analogue, they're (Or at least I'm) not saying they should become PF (In that they start out semi-useless but outscale their counterpart massively/can be given Shrecks), but that they should be a similar type of unit to PF, a mainline infantry alternative that doesn't necessarily have to replace the "regular" mainline. In the same way that people (generally) will build PF as a supplement to Volks, rather than their entire infantry force being PF.


I think outside of 1v1 and in a lesser way 2v2, making your PFs your whole infantry army is entirely fine, specially when you are not forced to fight with sandbags as hard as in the smaller mode. Specially when you expect the game to go for long and where PF will shine.

Not sure how much space design you have for a non semi Elite/Elite oriented Penals when Conscripts exist. Soviets are the faction which starts with arguable the weakest squad and therefore has the smallest mp pool power (initial mp + starting unit value). Anyone who opens ups with a tier requires a 2nd engineer for capping purposes. Let's say you make T1 cheaper or even free. Why bother with Penals at say 260 (mod team is already considering them at 280mp and moving some of the vet 0 DPS to vet1) when you could just go conscript + sniper instead. You are already relegating capping power and you'll get a unit which can't outgun Volks or Grens in a timely fashion and you would be at number disadvantage.


When were Penals a PF analogue, exactly? Was this when they had the ability to upgrade with two Flamethrowers? I'm not disputing you, I'm just not sure to what you're referring.

First rework and it was only 1 flamethrower. They became pseudo Riflemen (weapon profile and dmg). Hell they had one of the strongest vet (and they still have) in the game in order to let them "scale". They received hoorah as well. They tried to "fix" the unit in the same way they tried with Conscripts for years, before the 7man upgrade (give them better vet and hope for the best).

I agree that Penals aren't quite "The elephant in the room", but I do think they're an unit without a real place. Turning them from this strange "Semi-elite AI that can become a semi AT infantry" squad into a viable mainline alternative to Conscripts I think would be a good move, and would leave room for their replacement with a more focused squad in tier 1.

Also, I'm not Vipper, but I'd suggested a more AT-focused Guards squad as "that AT infantry squad" One or more extra PTRS, Button, and/or some sort of anti-vehicle utility ability on top of this, but without DPs, and definitely without a real snare. Perhaps there are other options, the same concept of AT guards who instead of PTRS have Lend-lease Bazookas, or even Panzershrecks (Though Shrecks on a six man squad in a faction with merge is perhaps a bad idea). A third option might be to make the M42 nondoctrinal and put it in tier 1, but that would be rather redundant, and I don't think it's such a fantastic idea.


When they reworked Penals (3rd time) into PTRS, i didn't like the idea and would had preferred to keep them purely AI, with only AT satchel and giving T1 the 45mm AT gun. But at this point i think it's too late for that to be the case.

I don't believe the mod team is gonna try or rework the units so hard for them to flip concepts in a 180° way.


jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 18:56 PMPip


It really is surprising how decent CoH2 is today, given Lelic's rather insane balancing decisions early in its life. It's certainly not perfect, but it's far better than anyone looking at the game in 2014 could have imagined it would ever be.

Did all the "good" decisions come after handing development to the Community Balance team, or did Lelic decide to stop drinking mercury before then?


-The balance before Osstruppen/AG/Partisans/Elite/Industry was fine thought a bit too 1 dimensional in the way to play it.
-Post nerfs towards Elite/Industry was mostly fine with the exception of how boring it was to play Ele vs -ISU if you were to tryhard. Same with call ins vs call ins tanks.
Up to this point it was basically OP shit vs OP shit.
-Post nerf to Ele vs ISU, best time to play 2v2 vanilla OH vs SU. "Balance" fair state.
-WFA broke the game from mid 2014, all the way up to their reworks and UKF release and subsequent balance patches which put the game in a fair state just about first quarter of 2017.

Problem with previous balance philosophy was basically: we can't balance DLC before they are released and we later are gonna give triple nerfs and buffs and hope for the best. Oh, we are also not gonna list everything in the patch notes and you hope that Cruzz is there to make the work, make comparisons and look for the full list of changes.
8 Dec 2020, 20:22 PM
#56
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Penals are just an end result of legacy Soviet teching design, we can go in circles all day talking about game design and past balance decisions but at the end of the day this patch is about improving core armies and meta problems.

I agree that talking history is of little help especially if it ancient history about thing that have little relevance to current state.


As long as Penals are made a less obviously bad choice to full conscript builds without making them OP then that should be enough for this patch.

One of the problem is thou that Penal have been in the same state for years and yet they went from dominating the meta and now they slowly falling out a favor. So the solution does not actually lay in buffing the Penals since Grenadier and VG are at there limit and ready to fall apart.



Unless you want to argue that late game utility buffs or PTRS changes push Penals into OP territory or that your changes achieve a better result in helping Penals function as a non-doc unit then we should stick to talking about the proposed changes because I doubt the balance team has the appetite to redesign Soviet teching just to solve the T1 or T2 only problem just to have "better game design"

Well the problem is that "band aid" approach applied so far does not work, so imo one should either
solve the problem or not touch it at all.

There are many different solution one can choose from.

If T1 need an AT infatry/or AT Solution then T1 should get a proper AT Vehicle infatry (with proper cost/vet bonuses/abilities timing)and not chameleon that is push and twisted to fit every role out ther. That is simply a "lazy" solution that in end create allot more problem that it solves.

There have been endless thread about Penals over the last 4 years and imo the majority of them say the same thing: Penal are simply badly designed trying to cover to many roles at the same time.
8 Dec 2020, 20:31 PM
#57
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 15:10 PMVipper

My suggestions for Soviet stock infatry was, Penal a cheap offensive squad with molotov, ourah, ppsh and merge.

Conscripts a defensive squad with "hit the dirt" and sandbags.

So you want to have cons split into 2 units.
Yeah, no, that's never gonna happen and I can't stress how stupid the idea is.
8 Dec 2020, 21:44 PM
#58
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 20:22 PMVipper




One of the problem is thou that Penal have been in the same state for years and yet they went from dominating the meta and now they slowly falling out a favor. So the solution does not actually lay in buffing the Penals since Grenadier and VG are at there limit and ready to fall apart.




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?

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?
8 Dec 2020, 21:48 PM
#59
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



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?

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?

He said it multiple times by now.
He wants 2nd conscript squad with different name and less potent upgrades.

In fact, if you go through his post history, you'll see he wants heavy nerfs on everything that's stronger then grens and he calls that "buffs".
Pip
8 Dec 2020, 21:57 PM
#60
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

snip


PF in team games: I think that would depend on the strength of the players you're fighting. PF are undeniably weaker combatants, and less cost-efficient, and less able to contribute to fights early, so you run the risk of being overrun by your opponents. Going full retard Panzerfusilier is not necessarily going to be as detrimental as in 1v1s and 2v2s though, i agree. Another reason "PF clone" is absolutely not what I'm suggesting, they're merely the most obviously "Alternate, similar role mainline infantry" to illustrate a point.

Regarding Design Space: Again, I'm not suggesting they follow the approach of PF, being weaker and more expensive, but scaling far better than Volks. I'm suggesting they be the same price as Conscripts, (+ - ~10mp) and simply offer a different type of mainline infantry in some way. Ideally they'd both come from tier 0 in this concept version of CoH2, which would obviate issues posed by an "alternative mainline" requiring a special building.
The exact nature of their being "Different" would likely require a fair amount of experimentation and design work, and admittedly it's very unlikely to happen, but I think at the very least it's an interesting thought experiment, right?
I think there's definitely design space available to implement something like this. It just depends on what it entails, precisely.

Slightly unrelated: But on their own I definitely agree that """Combat""" Engineers are the weakest starting unit, but when combined with a merging squad and Flamethrowers they can arguably be one of the best in some circumstances.

Regarding reworked Penals: Yeah, I've never thought the idea of balancing an unit around its veterancy was a good idea, especially not for Infantry. Despite the game being about unit preservation, losing units does happen even to the best players, and having to rebuild an unit that only becomes usable at vet is a daunting prospect. 7man was a good move, even if it has some teething problems. As i mentioned in a previous post I'd want Penals (In this rework concept) to benefit from "Mobilise Reserves" in a similar fashion to Conscripts do now, because I think non-weapon based unit upgrades are quite suitable for Soviet mainlines (And this would also help cement the "Alternative" idea, that all current conscript upgrades benefit "New Penals" in a similar way).

Regarding the Balans™ team: You're likely right, but I think if it's done well a "major" rework like this might be easier and better for the game in the long run than fiddling about trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Hey, if I (or whoever) do[es] all the design/implementation work for them, they might at least entertain the idea, eh? I can't speak for them obviously, but I'd imagine the Balans™ team might be interested in a "big" change if it's A: Done well, and B: fixes issues... Assuming Lelic lets them, obviously.

As I said before, I think it's a fun thought experiment even if it doesn't ultimately go anywhere, it's not as though theorising hurts anything.


Regarding DLC and Balans™: Yeah, that was basically the impression I'd gotten so far, thank you for the history lesson, I'm genuinely always rather interested in how balance has progressed through COH2 (and any game's) life. Beyond patch notes it's not really terribly well documented, though, and patch notes don't quite give the whole story.




So you want to have cons split into 2 units.
Yeah, no, that's never gonna happen and I can't stress how stupid the idea is.


Why is it a stupid idea? The intention would be to provide two slightly more "specialised versions" of a core infantry squad, not to "split conscripts into two units"... at least the way I'm thinking about it.

I'm not endorsing the exact approach Vipper is suggesting, regarding taking tools from Cons and giving them to Penals, but I am behind making Penals a viable "Alternative conscript squad" rather than what they are currently. I really don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the idea, unlike other suggestions I've seen made on the forum.
PAGES (8)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

418 users are online: 418 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49159
Welcome our newest member, Nullegbv44
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM