Some Penal Idea
Posts: 1563
Since the weapons crate is going up in cp, I would like to make a suggestion.
Instead of giving Penals ppsh with the upgrade give them a dp-28. But make this dp-28 function more like the BAR or the new VikersK. It doesn't have to be as strong as either of those(as penals have better offensive vet than both of them). It just needs to up the penals damage at every range and be fire able on the move.
This would actually give the crates some purpose to penals as now they are totally useless. And since the commander is now getting a stronger version of mandos I think ppsh for penals are unnecessary.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
In addition Penal already have good DPS at ranges and good DPS on move.
Posts: 1563
6 entities squad with high accuracy bonuses are bad candidates for weapon with concentrate DPS.
In addition Penal already have good DPS at ranges and good DPS on move.
Again as i said the weapon it self need not be as strong. Just adjust the power for vet. Fall also share the exact same vet bonuses. And their FG42's out match most weapon other "concentrated dps".
The FG42 are are stronger than Brens at max(this where the bren is the strongest) and stronger than the BAR at close(this is where the BAR is the strongest). And yet there is stronger stuff out there so I don't think this will be an issue.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Again as i said the weapon it self need not be as strong. Just adjust the power for vet. Fall also share the exact same vet bonuses. And their FG42's out match most weapon other "concentrated dps".
The FG42 are are stronger than Brens at max(this where the bren is the strongest) and stronger than the BAR at close(this is where the BAR is the strongest). And yet there is stronger stuff out there so I don't think this will be an issue.
And that is why falls are 4 men and lose 25% of their DPS with each model droped.
There are also doctrinal and CP2 have no snare and are not mainline infatry.
Soviets do need superior riflemen as their mainline infatry.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Soviets do need superior riflemen as their mainline infatry.
Have you got enlightenment or started using the unit finally, to not try to hard nerf it anymore?
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Have you got enlightenment or started using the unit finally, to not try to hard nerf it anymore?
Penal are simply badly designed and buffing them does not help because the problem is T1 and not penals.
As for what I do or do not do I suggest you start focusing on yourself instead and maybe there is chance you might improve.
Posts: 1563
And that is why falls are 4 men and lose 25% of their DPS with each model droped.
Are you really suggesting that an 3 man FG42 fall is some how weaker than 4 man LMG section at max range or weaker than a 4 man BAR rifle somehow???
There are also doctrinal and CP2 have no snare and are not mainline infatry.
The upgrade is 2cp now and Penals don't have snares either. I'm not sure why you'd even bring that up.
Soviets do need superior riflemen as their mainline infatry.
I don't really see how they can be superior rifle men. They don't have nades, no snares high reinforce cost and that weapon is gonna be adjusted for their higher vet bonuses so I don't really see a problem.
Posts: 1563
Have you got enlightenment or started using the unit finally, to not try to hard nerf it anymore?
Yo what do you think about the suggestion.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Yo what do you think about the suggestion.
Pointless, because there are already effective LMG guards in that doctrine.
If penal ppsh will now fall off, just add a regular nade to the package for them.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Are you really suggesting that an 3 man FG42 fall is some how weaker than 4 man LMG section at max range or weaker than a 4 man BAR rifle somehow???
I am not suggesting anything I am saying very clearly. 6 entities with concentrated DPS is bad design because they do not proportional lose DPS are they lose model. Even more so for Penal with "to the last man" ability
And here is the difference. One can have an army of Penal, one can not have an army of Falls because the unit is not available before minute 1.
The upgrade is 2cp now and Penals don't have snares either. I'm not sure why you'd even bring that up.
I don't really see how they can be superior rifle men. They don't have nades, no snares high reinforce cost and that weapon is gonna be adjusted for their higher vet bonuses so I don't really see a problem.
More EHP more DPS.
Their reinforcement cost is not high.
Finally the idea of squad that perform good at all range is bad because it reduces the effect of relative positioning and make squads that specialize in a certain range look pale by comparison.
Penal are more than fine in cost efficiency, they simply can not carry T1 on their own.
Posts: 1563
Pointless, because there are already effective LMG guards in that doctrine.
If penal ppsh will now fall off, just add a regular nade to the package for them.
Did you not read, It's not an LMG it will be like the BAR or new Vickers K decently strong at all ranges and also good on the move but weaker.
The current ppsh upgrade is pointless for 2 reasons.
Penals don't have the RA to close in (AB guards do)
Penals don't have nades (AB guards do)
So, this upgrade serves no purpose for penals. If you think it's pointless than m8 you zero imagination.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I am not suggesting anything I am saying very clearly. 6 entities with concentrated DPS is bad design because they do not proportional lose DPS are they lose model.
Existence of Airborne guards and the fact there was never a single person complaining about them proves you wrong.
Same for LMG paras.
Posts: 1563
Existence of Airborne guards and the fact there was never a single person complaining about them proves you wrong.
Same for LMG paras.
Are you high, everyone thinks LMG para's are near broken.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Are you high, everyone thinks LMG para's are near broken.
Is this why top players use almost exclusively thompson paras?
Posts: 1563
Oh really can you prove that claim?? And while your at it do directly ask Top players weather they think lmg para's are near OP or not. I think you'll be quite shocked.
Is this why top players use almost exclusively thompson paras?
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Oh really can you prove that claim?? And while your at it do directly ask Top players weather they think lmg para's are near OP or not. I think you'll be quite shocked.
Yes.
Open any stream with a top player playing USF airborne and use these moving round things above your nose to observe what they use when playing airborne.
Posts: 1563
I am not suggesting anything I am saying very clearly. 6 entities with concentrated DPS is bad design because they do not proportional lose DPS are they lose model. Even more so for Penal with "to the last man" ability
Not really a problem, they'll never outmatch 2x bar rifles or 5 man 2x Vickers Sections.
And here is the difference. One can have an army of Penal, one can not have an army of Falls because the unit is not available before minute 1.
So?????? it's not like USF can't have an army of 2x bar rifles or UKF won't be able to an army of 2x
5 man VickersK Sections. These Penals will be nothing compared to that.
More EHP more DPS.
Their reinforcement cost is not high.
Finally the idea of squad that perform good at all range is bad because it reduces the effect of relative positioning and make squads that specialize in a certain range look pale by comparison.
Penal are more than fine in cost efficiency, they simply can not carry T1 on their own.
Yeah, there are a ton of squads on all sides who do that.
But it's not about T1. It's about the weapons crate. It doesn't server a purpose for penals. Again this is a doctrinal upgrade.
Posts: 1563
That is still not a proof. People do what they want when they stream. And not every top player stream a 100% of the game s they play. If you can show me reliable statistic of this then answer other wise don't bother.
Yes.
Open any stream with a top player playing USF airborne and use these moving round things above your nose to observe what they use when playing airborne.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Penal are more than fine. The problem remain T1 and not Penal.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Existence of Airborne guards and the fact there was never a single person complaining about them proves you wrong.
Same for LMG paras.
Nope it does not prove anything, because you comparison is off mark.
You are referring to CP 3, expensive, elite troops, with lower vet bonus than can not be mainline infantry.
Move them to CP 0 and see what happens.
Livestreams
871 | |||||
35 | |||||
22 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.597215.735+12
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1103614.642+4
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.273108.717+24
- 8.721440.621+3
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Coh2_Amateur
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM