Idea for Penals

-29% rec. acc. -29% rec. acc. -29% rec. acc. -29% rec. acc. -29% rec. acc. -29% rec. acc. -29% rec. acc. -29% rec. acc. -29% rec. acc.

Fixed.

Even with their current state (no rec. acc. bonus with vet) I could turn them into very good AI squads on some maps, therefore I don't think DPS is a problem, just survability. They are like light-shocks with flamer and it's fine like this.

Give tham 2 flamers and ability for ammo like sturm PG have in ostheer doc 4Head.

Give tham 2 flamers and ability for ammo like sturm PG have in ostheer doc 4Head.

Just no, I do not give penal flamethrower:
- Penal suck
- with flamethrower they suck more in the late game
- With two flamethrowers they will double sucking in the late game

Just my 2 cents on the matter.
Why try to push it into an elite unit?
Soviets were sort of based around multiple units but lacking a stronger veterancy/upgrade option.
Penals are considered dispensable infantry. If their stats are horrible, we can just compensate by their price. Penals and cons, with the prior acting more so a cheap close range unit while conscripts are more well-rounded with utility.

They're high pop, but if the player is willing to sacrifice manpower income for the early number of units, then there's some trade-off there. Plus, it gives the T1 sniper more screening options.

I'm no expert on the whole number balance, but I say why not have them at some incredibly cheap price to justify their whole "requires t1" and "still sucks" issue?

180 mp? 190 mp? 200mp? It's not like they share the superior survivability vets like the Ostruppen do.

There is just no reason to pick them.
Without making them an elite unit, just make them act like soviet "riflemen", for their price it's only fair.
Make them have a AT upgrade at the very least.

Just my 2 cents on the matter.
Why try to push it into an elite unit?
Soviets were sort of based around multiple units but lacking a stronger veterancy/upgrade option.
Penals are considered dispensable infantry. If their stats are horrible, we can just compensate by their price. Penals and cons, with the prior acting more so a cheap close range unit while conscripts are more well-rounded with utility.

The problem is that in order to use this dispensable infantry, you have to invest fuel, time and at least one engineer squad to build T1...then invest more manpower than Conscripts to acquire this dispensable infantry.
In the meantime, a much more economical investment is to simply train more Conscripts. In other words, the design around Penals as dispensable infantry, if they ever were for that purpose, is entirely flawed. So you're not only sacrificing manpower income, but fuel and time as well as unit presence.
Scout sniper squads can still get screening options by the Conscripts and Engineers you have trained. So from a purely manpower standpoint Penals mean nothing. The only true benefit of Penals is a larger squad for flamer duty (circumstantial given Engineers has same capability), and Satchel Bomb (unique, but is it always better than just flaming a bunker or garrisoned building? And how long will this last until vehicles arrive?)

In terms of cheaper cost that might solve the manpower problem, but it doesn't solve the unit's role. IMO that would actually turn Penals from underpowered to overpowered in a fortnight, because numbers matter in this game too. The more men you can have out there, the faster you gain map control, even if the enemy's machine guns are constantly forcing a retreat; at least Osttruppen are a doctrinal call-in, and limited to one commander with no vehicle specialties.

I am also starting to think that giving Penals more of an AT role might do the trick, even though they would come earlier in a still-rather-early-game-oriented T1, and make them rather similar to Panzergrenadiers. But then that means you have a game where you either go T1 and get PTRS units for just the PTRS, or you choose a commander that has Guards and pretty much bypass this limitation.

Just my 2 cents on the matter.
Why try to push it into an elite unit?
Soviets were sort of based around multiple units but lacking a stronger veterancy/upgrade option.
Penals are considered dispensable infantry. If their stats are horrible, we can just compensate by their price. Penals and cons, with the prior acting more so a cheap close range unit while conscripts are more well-rounded with utility.

They're high pop, but if the player is willing to sacrifice manpower income for the early number of units, then there's some trade-off there. Plus, it gives the T1 sniper more screening options.

I'm no expert on the whole number balance, but I say why not have them at some incredibly cheap price to justify their whole "requires t1" and "still sucks" issue?

180 mp? 190 mp? 200mp? It's not like they share the superior survivability vets like the Ostruppen do.

Yeah, it could work. Cost-efficiency is definitely more important than sheer power in one unit. Might require dropping the pop to 6 too though, Penals are definitely specialized enough while not being particularly strong to prevent spam issues.

Penal are not jack of all trades (that is the role of guards) they are specialized anti-garrison and anti-fortification unit.

The flamer upgrade available to them restricts there optimal range to 20 and below. As long as they only have the flamer upgrade available to them they will benefit more by mid DPS bonus than by far DPS bonus as suggested by Katitof...

What they need in their current state is different vet bonuses and different vet 1 ability (and maybe more mid dps)...

Redesigning them is a different approach which imo is better. They role of cheap T0 troops with some of the utility of conscripts suits them better...combined with a new role for conscripts...

"jack of all trade" here mean decent at all ranges, like the American m1 carbine and m1 garand.


US flame rifleman already proved that semi-auto rifle were a good match with flamethrower. Penal just need a general boost in dps at the mid and long range to make them more similar to the old US flame rifleman.

and your suggestion at redesigning them would just just the penal into conscript and conscript into penal. We are just back at square one.

Theres something I don't get though.
Penals are good at mid range.

But so are cons, so what's the difference since at the end all that matters is being in a good cover?

"jack of all trade" here mean decent at all ranges, like the American m1 carbine and m1 garand.

US flame rifleman already proved that semi-auto rifle were a good match with flamethrower. Penal just need a general boost in dps at the mid and long range to make them more similar to the old US flame rifleman.

and your suggestion at redesigning them would just just the penal into conscript and conscript into penal. We are just back at square one.

The success of flamer riflemen was that the where T0 with access to flamer, grenades smoke grandees, AT grenades, AT weapons and assault rifles, with buying veterancy and great veterancy bonuses and better DPS mid and far. Riflemen remain relevant for the duration of the game while Penal don't.

In their current state Penal lose most of their utility pretty fast and compare pale to the very versatile conscripts.

Not sure increase their DPS will be enough to make them attractive...a vet 3 Penal is still not very useful in late game...

The suggestion aim to give some of the utility of Conscripts to Penals leaving room for both units to work...Cheap infantry Penals, decent infantry Conscripts...

Theres something I don't get though.
Penals are good at mid range.

But so are cons, so what's the difference since at the end all that matters is being in a good cover?

Penal are close to mid, conscripts are mid to far...(Carbine vs bolts action profile)

Would it actually be so bad having a fighting unit as a t0 and a high utility unit behind 10fuel? Their price could go down (cons) if behind a tier... Cheap useless units feels more like a..not core infantry anyways..m

Only it does, because this is how soviets are played.
They are made to focus on overwhelming number and map presence, they are not made to camp and be defensive, with Soviets you have to invest in cheap infantry and annoy the hell out of your opponent.


From cheap conscripts, to mass SU76, or mass T34.

Only it does, because this is how soviets are played.
They are made to focus on overwhelming number and map presence, they are not made to camp and be defensive, with Soviets you have to invest in cheap infantry and annoy the hell out of your opponent.


From cheap conscripts, to mass SU76, or mass T34.

the problem with swarms tactics for this particular game are massive
-you have the micro tax of needing to outnumber your enemy
-overwhelming RNG (ive seen a t34 bounce the kill shot off the ass of a tiger 5 times and the first shot from a t70 pen it frontally)
-losses hurt you and harden the enemy (seems obvious but when compounded by other factors...)
-pathing! CoH2, where a 26 tonne tank grinds to a halt and performs a 17 point turn so it ca rotate 0.000000726 degrees to move around a stump...

the soviet have the problem of even out playing your opponent doesn't guarantee you will come out on top of the engagement

stuffing a t34 up the ass of at iger STILL has a 33% chance to bounce each shot...on top of having the t34 run the risk of hitting a mine, or an AT gun, or a pak, or a faust.. you risk it all and still can yield absolutly 0 damage

t34s still require a full tech and 10% of your pop
losing one will lose you 80fuel and 300(!) manpower and its ENTIRELY possible to not gain anything...




if the soviet are

Would it actually be so bad having a fighting unit as a t0 and a high utility unit behind 10fuel? Their price could go down (cons) if behind a tier... Cheap useless units feels more like a..not core infantry anyways..m

because it would screw t2 build if the at nade and molotov got locked behind a separate building.

better to rely on AT guns, mortars and maxims to hold the mid game while waiting out for doctrinal armor and elite infantry with utility conscripts that can snare and support set up teams decently.

than

rely on penals, snipers and m3 that cannot deal with vehicles at all, snipers not having dps to counter infantry and set up teams and being completely nullfied by forward retreat points. m3 not scaling at all after 3 mins into the game.

penals is shit, even if they were buffed, the t1 hasnt got any mid game units or upgrades at all, 1 wrong move into losing fuel points, its gg right there.

The success of flamer riflemen was that the where T0 with access to flamer, grenades smoke grandees, AT grenades, AT weapons and assault rifles, with buying veterancy and great veterancy bonuses and better DPS mid and far. Riflemen remain relevant for the duration of the game while Penal don't.

In their current state Penal lose most of their utility pretty fast and compare pale to the very versatile conscripts.

Not sure increase their DPS will be enough to make them attractive...a vet 3 Penal is still not very useful in late game...

The suggestion aim to give some of the utility of Conscripts to Penals leaving room for both units to work...Cheap infantry Penals, decent infantry Conscripts...

how is cheap infantry penal and decent infantry conscript going to be different than cheap infantry conscript and decent infantry penal? All that's doing is swapping the skin and model of the two unit.

The t2 infantry is going to need a buff either way, might as well buff the penal. Moving the conscript to t2 and then buffing it is hardly better than just buffing the current penal.
The suggestion is just going to needlessly complicated matter.

I don't think penals were supposed to replace cons any more than panzergrendadiers replace grens. They are a utility unit that adds something to your composition; as such, a little more manpower cost for rifle flamers and the satchel charge seems entirely reasonable to me.

If Wehr bunker play was more present, penals would have an important function to fill. But bunkers are so soft that even a T-70 can clear them out relatively quickly, and the Zis even more so.

Penal are close to mid, conscripts are mid to far...(Carbine vs bolts action profile)

Not sure you know what a carbine is........

Not sure you know what a carbine is........

A semi automatic rifle (according to Relic seperation). Can fire shots 1 by 1 without having to maunal load it, in game G43, SVT, M1, M1 carbine are Carbines. I real life that usually have sorter range (and sorter barrels) than bolt action rifle because part of the energy is lost in moving the part and in propellant gases escaping during reload.

In contrast Bolt action rifles have be reload manually, in game K98, Mosin, Enfield are bolts action weapons.

(In game weapon using the "Carbine profile" tend to have most DPS mid to close with a drop of at far, while weapon using the "Bolt action" profile tend to have most DPS far to mid with little improvement close )

(edited to be more accurate after pointed out by Putinist and Glokta)

how is cheap infantry penal and decent infantry conscript going to be different than cheap infantry conscript and decent infantry penal? All that's doing is swapping the skin and model of the two unit.
The t2 infantry is going to need a buff either way, might as well buff the penal. Moving the conscript to t2 and then buffing it is hardly better than just buffing the current penal.
The suggestion is just going to needlessly complicated matter.

I think it is explain in detail and better on the other thread....
Currently conscript are not cheap and have to much utility (that should be split between Penals and Conscripts)...thematically Penals fit the role of "cannon fodder" better.

They could even stay at T1 if their the price was lowered enough and had enough utility...For instance if they AT grenade (not teck cost) and merge was moved to Penals that costed around 200 manpower (with a new stats) from conscripts that might work giving people an extra reason to get T1