Idea for Penals

I'd like to point out that DPS is a gorramned lie.

Very rarely do infantry behave in a manner in which they actually put forth that kind of reliable DPS. Not to mention those numbers are almost always by squad, not entity, which means that they completely fail to account for squads that have lost entities.

It also doesn't take into account how squads lose entities. A conscript squad may deal 160 damage total to a Gren squad, which could result in 2 dead grens, or just wounding all four, which leaves them at 100% offensive capabilities.

DPS also ignores the impacts of movement, positioning, and using abilities. Player input between focus firing a squad versus auto attack is another factor that isn't really considered either.

There are so many variables at work that doing math equations to balance units is effectively a waste of time. Comparing things in a vacuum is likewise as silly an endeavor.

Just for the sake of sharing, vet 3 penals with 2 Vickers are hilariously good..

Just for the sake of sharing, vet 3 penals with 2 Vickers are hilariously good..

So are cons.

Sadly, neither of them can use that outside of specific team match-up.

So are cons.

Sadly, neither of them can use that outside of specific team match-up.

Think you are got confused, you wrote "sadly" instead of "fortunately"...if Penal or conscripts had stock access (as implied) to 2 LMG vickes level, with their current stats both units would be broken...and would end up also making the Soviet faction over-perform.

And Penal with 2 LMG have around 15-20% more DPS then conscripts by vet 3...

According to the file extracted from the editor mid range for penal_troops_svt_rifle_mp is set at 16.

17.5 for penal_troops_svt_rifle which is not used in multiplier games...

And exactly my point once more. Penal need better accuracy mid not far. If one gives 200% more accuracy far the benefit at range 20 would be only around 14% while the DPS total weapons area profile would be increased dramatically. On the other hand if one increase mid range accuracy by 15%-20% the weapon would benefit at range 20 about the same, without dramatically increase the performance.

Or one could move that mid distance at 20 for similar results...

Received accuracy becomes rather irrelevant at point blank and that is why shocks perform so good because the relay on their armor and not their Rec. acc. . On the other hand mid to far Rec. acc. works better...

what's with this absolute refusal to buff the penal's mid-long range?

the penal's 20 meter performance is affect by both its mid range and long range dps. Yes, it's a lot more weighted toward the mid range performance since it's closer, but the long range performance still have effects on it.

If all you do is buff its 16 meter performance, the svt's 20 meters performance is still going to be weighted down by its abysmal long range dps.

You need to buff both its mid and long range in order to have worth while effects. Just buffing either long range or mid range is not going to be enough.

you could double the svt's long range dps and still be individually weaker than the rifleman.

and received accuracy is still important at close range. None of the nonsniper weapons in the game have high enough native accuracy to negate received accuracy at close range.

Incidentally, the main reason why the tommies have poor close range dps is due to the enfield's relatively low close range accuracy. The tommy is only ~60% accurate verus the grenadier's ~75% accuracy


there's also the question of surviving the approach. There's no doubt of the effect of received accuracy if you compare the ranger (.80 target size) against the paratrooper (1 target size). The ranger last significantly longer.

Penals are great on urban maps and they can easily deal with any garrision.

Their only problem is survability and lack of scalling. I mean, they have nice % for accuracy but in late game agasint vetted axis' infantry they die like fiels.

All they need is maybe better starting rec.acc. and vet 2 -29% rec. acc. Do this and they will become serious threat.

And again, stop taling about buffing long range. You have cons for long range.
Penals are close/mid range units (why would I pick flamethrowerer for long range inf?) just make them able to close gap between enemy so they don't lose 3 models on approach.

what's with this absolute refusal to buff the penal's mid-long range?
the penal's 20 meter performance is affect by both its mid range and long range dps. Yes, it's a lot more weighted toward the mid range performance since it's closer, but the long range performance still have effects on it.

You need to buff both its mid and long range in order to have worth while effects. Just buffing either long range or mid range is not going to be enough.

Already replied, I never said mid DPs should not be buff, on the contrary.
My point from the beginning is that Katitof's claim that doubling the long DPS will solve all the problems the unit has is false (if not ridiculous):

In that case Penal should start with 6 bolt action Mosin weapons suitable for long range fights (probably between conscripts and guard level) and their upgrade should give them 5 SVT +1 flamer... suitable for mid fighting...vet abilities and vet bonuses should also be look at in this case.

If all you do is buff its 16 meter performance, the svt's 20 meters performance is still going to be weighted down by its abysmal long range dps.

...although the SVT weapon profile might need some tweaking (more DPS mid far, less close) I would rather see a Penals become tougher than deadlier...

If one gives 200% more accuracy far the benefit at range 20 would be only around 14% while the DPS total weapons area profile would be increased dramatically. On the other hand if one increase mid range accuracy by 15%-20% the weapon would benefit at range 20 about the same, without dramatically increase the performance.
Or one could move that mid distance at 20 for similar results...

you could double the svt's long range dps and still be individually weaker than the rifleman.

...
+20 to +174 more DPS is close its far better (especially at vet 3) a Pennal squad would probably be better than riflemen with 2Xbars.
In other words a 270 unit (160MP 10FU cost ) would be probably better than than 280+120 MU (150 15Fu tech) cost unit.
A flamer Pennal would probably be better than Flamer bar Riflemen...and you don't see a problem with that?...Do you have any idea why Relic moved flamer for riflemen to R.E.?
...
Exactly my point weapon profiles where introduced to change the flat weapon profiles and by doubling the far DPS one creates a flat weapon profile...which as Relic pointed out is bad in small arm fire fights...

Do I have to explain weapon profiles and why flat weapon profiles are considered bad?

Do I have to explain why smaller changes like 15-20% DPs increase mid or moving mid range to from 16 to 20 are better than 200% more DPS far?

(I am pretty sure that you, Firesparks have good enough knowledge of the game mechanics, probably better then mine and I do not have to for, you at least.)

Do I have to explain weapon profiles and why flat weapon profiles are considered bad?

Do I have to explain why smaller changes like 15-20% DPs increase mid or moving mid range to from 16 to 20 are better than 200% more DPS far?

How is giving the svt a buff at both mid and long range going to result in a "bad" weapon?

the m1 garand, the most common semi-auto rifle (carbine) in the game, still have okay dps at far range. the garand's weapon profile can hardly be considered "flat". The intention here is to make the svt-40 more similar to the garand, a successful semi-auto. Even doubling the svt-40's far range dps is still going to leave it inferior to to the garand.

here's the svt-40 dps

5.997037 | 5.997037 |3.943719 |2.388284 | 1.725866 | 1.318705 |1.014388 | 0.778319

garand dps:

6.762933 | 5.84988 | 4.33431 | 3.405472 | 2.805725 | 2.347228 |1.978269 | 1.674953

the svt-40 dps as a percentage of garand dps:

88.68% | 102.52% | 90.99% | 70.13% | 61.51% | 56.18% | 51.28% |46.47%

if we were to make a new weapon/svt with 88% of garand's dps:

5.9513 | 5.1478| 3.8141 | 2.9968 | 2.469| 2.0655| 1.7408| 1.47395864

You can basically double the svt-40's dps at far range point, and it would still be inferior to the garand.

How is giving the svt a buff at both mid and long range going to result in a "bad" weapon?

Maybe I was not clear enough having flat weapons profiles does not make weapons bad, it makes small arm fire fight "bad" and that is why weapon profiles where introduced.

Wanting to equip a "Soviet" unit with "USF" weapon ignores faction design. Riflemen have a very good weapon and great weapon upgrade because the whole faction is designed around them, so giving the same weapon to a Soviet squad is not necessarily a good idea.

Trying to "fix" SVT by increasing the far DPS is actually turning into a better version of guards Mosin, (the number you suggested are close that weapon at range above 15 far better closer) so:

In that case Penal should start with 6 bolt action Mosin weapons suitable for long range fights (probably between conscripts and guard level) and their upgrade should give them 5 SVT +1 flamer... suitable for mid fighting...vet abilities and vet bonuses should also be look at in this case.

(why edit a weapon to much a weapon that already exist in game when these 2 weapons use different weapon profiles?)

if we were to make a new weapon/svt with 88% of garand's dps:

You would end up with a Penal squad with around 30% more DPS the riflemen at VET3 so:

...and you don't see a problem with that?...Do you have any idea why Relic moved flamer for riflemen to R.E.?

the m1 garand, the most common semi-auto rifle (carbine) in the game,...

The are around 6 different version of the M1 in the game, with different properties...so its probably as common as other weapons...

Weapon profiles a great improvement in COH2 and Relic should try to follow them a much as possible. If Penals need to become a long range unit they should use the bolt action Mosin...

Maybe I was not clear enough having flat weapons profiles does not make weapons bad, it makes small arm fire fight "bad" and that is why weapon profiles where introduced.

The only one preaching on flat weapon profile is you.
You repeat it over and over like some kind of holy mantra, saying how bad thing it is, completely and utterly ignoring the fact that this is how weapon profile of MAJORITY of axis rifle infantry looks like.

Wanting to equip a "Soviet" unit with "USF" weapon ignores faction design.

Putting 100% resources on OKW ignores OKW faction design.
Making a light tank out of 222 ignores Ost design.
Nerfing brit emplacements and heavy armor ignores USF design.
Allowing OKW to have flamers ignores OKW design.
Tiger Ace ignores whole vet design.
Making volks stronger then cons and grens ignores OKW faction design.
Giving volks inc nades ignores OKW faction design.
Putting OKW P4 in T4 ignores OKW design.
Giving USF pershing ignores USF faction design.
Changing tier structures for OKW and Sov ignores faction design.

Guess what?
If faction design clearly does not work, no one gives a shit, its balance that matters.

We have broken unit, we have simply way to make it into working unit without imbalancing its performance or scaling against anything at the end.

Riflemen have a very good weapon and great weapon upgrade because the whole faction is designed around them, so giving the same weapon to a Soviet squad is not necessarily a good idea.

Like.... Ostwind, P4 or Panther for OKW? These are ost units, why OKW has them? Who thought it was a good idea?

Trying to "fix" SVT by increasing the far DPS is actually turning into a better version of guards Mosin, (the number you suggested are close that weapon) so:

Guard mosins are long range weapon, just like gren Kars.
Guards are doctrinal.
Guards scale better.
Guards are NOT dedicated, stock AI squad, but "medium tank" of the infantry, good vs everything, excelling vs nothing. Penals are dedicated AI squad that is not doing a good job at AI.
6 SVTs would still be WORSE then 6 guard mosins on long range.

And since you hate overlaping so hard, why weren't you raging hard when storms were implemented?
Stock they are just grens.
With upgrades they are just PGs or volks or G43 grens.
I don't see you losing your shit over that.

Do I smell... double standards again?

Its just so hilarious to see you literally crap yourself out of fear of penals becoming a valid AI squad with clear, unique role that still can not replace cons or even be compared to rifles in ANY way due to lack of flexibility.

My idea for penals would be making them a high dps unit specialized in demolitions.

Cost increased to 330mp.
DPS increased to make them more fearsome combattants, specialized in mid range combat
Flamer upgrade
Grenades and satchels as vet 0 abilities
Democharge as vet 1 ability instead of flare trip mines (demo removed from Engies)
Oorah at vet 2.

This would kill multiple birds with 1 stone.
- Soviets get non doctrinal elite infantry
- Give soviets a non-doctrinal unit that can throw a grenade
- T1 will have a unit that is usefull in the lategame
- Penals will get a clearly defined role instead of 'slightly different conscripts'
- Demo charges, an extremely potent gameplay mechanic that Soviets do not really deserve in their current powerful state, become more rare

The only one preaching on flat weapon profile is you.

Introducing weapons profiles (bolts action, carbine, smg...)instead of flat profiles was actually promoted by Relic and not me. Can't accept the credit for such a great improvement..

...utterly ignoring the fact that this is how (flat) weapon profile of MAJORITY of axis rifle infantry looks like.

You seem to have a very weird idea of what flat mean
grenadier_kar_98k_rifle_mp as percentage of DPS at range 0
1.00% 0.88% 0.76% 0.66% 0.59% 0.52% 0.45% 0.39%
The DPS drop off is 40%....

Putting 100% resources on OKW ignores OKW faction design.

And that is why Relic did not simply give 100% resource to the faction but completely redesigned it as you seem to imply. The is a very long list of change including new roles for units, new trucks for units, new cost for units new tech cost and so on...

Making a light tank out of 222 ignores Ost design.

Tanks have trucks and armor (immune to small arms fire penetration 1), 222 has neither so it remains a light vehicles and not a light tank
and so on.

Like.... Ostwind, P4 or Panther for OKW? These are ost units, why OKW has them? Who thought it was a good idea?

Different price different tech cost different vet level and bonuses result in different units...

Penals are dedicated AI squad that is not doing a good job at AI.

Actually they are anti garrison anti fortification...

...in ANY way due to lack of flexibility.

Finally you have seen the light, that their problem is the lack of flexibility

Try to be less vulgar pls...

Myself, you do come yourself as most vulgar throughout the thread, do not push it onto others. Furthermore, you are avoiding accepting that you are wrong most of the time, pushing and twisting other people's words to your advantage..

Myself, you do come yourself as most vulgar throughout the thread, do not push it onto others. Furthermore, you are avoiding accepting that you are wrong most of the time, pushing and twisting other people's words to your advantage..

Not others, but specific people who have written in the shout box things like:

"(blank name1): (blank name2) , you trains yourself in the art of forums recently, go argue Myself in penal thread, beat him and you'll get the license to forum full time you had practice with (blank name3) and (blank name4), now the final exam is ahead"

This people are by definition "forum warriors" more interested in "winning" an argument than actually improving balance.

On the other hand why don't you also stay out of balance thread if don't actually have anything to add that is remotely relevant to balance...

Introducing weapons profiles (bolts action, carbine, smg...)instead of flat profiles was actually promoted by Relic and not me. Can't accept the credit for such a great improvement..


You seem to have a very weird idea of what flat mean
grenadier_kar_98k_rifle_mp as percentage of DPS at range 0
1.00% 0.88% 0.76% 0.66% 0.59% 0.52% 0.45% 0.39%
The DPS drop off is 40%....

Ok so comparing 0 & 35;

Grens dropoff is ~60% - this is not flat and OK
Rifles drop off is ~75% - this is more than Grens so not Flat and OK
Penals drop off is ~87% - so decreasing this to match Rifles drop off would not make it flat so is OK
Tommy drop off is ~40% - flatter then Grens must by IMBA

Actually they are anti garrison anti fortification...

Anti garrison is covered by mollies / flam engies aswell
anti fortification is pretty specialized so ok for a side role but not for mainline non-doc infantry
AI is what cons are missing so fits well with the rest of non-doc infantry.

Finally you have seen the light, that their problem is the lack of flexibility

Try to be less vulgar pls...

So if you improve their flexibility by giving them OK (not good) dps at range this is a good thing yes?

My idea for penals would be making them a high dps unit specialized in demolitions.

Cost increased to 330mp.
DPS increased to make them more fearsome combattants, specialized in mid range combat
Flamer upgrade
Grenades and satchels as vet 0 abilities
Democharge as vet 1 ability instead of flare trip mines (demo removed from Engies)
Oorah at vet 2.

This would kill multiple birds with 1 stone.
- Soviets get non doctrinal elite infantry
- Give soviets a non-doctrinal unit that can throw a grenade
- T1 will have a unit that is usefull in the lategame
- Penals will get a clearly defined role instead of 'slightly different conscripts'
- Demo charges, an extremely potent gameplay mechanic that Soviets do not really deserve in their current powerful state, become more rare

Diz.

My idea for penals would be making them a high dps unit specialized in demolitions.

Cost increased to 330mp.
DPS increased to make them more fearsome combattants, specialized in mid range combat
Flamer upgrade
Grenades and satchels as vet 0 abilities
Democharge as vet 1 ability instead of flare trip mines (demo removed from Engies)
Oorah at vet 2.

This would kill multiple birds with 1 stone.
- Soviets get non doctrinal elite infantry
- Give soviets a non-doctrinal unit that can throw a grenade
- T1 will have a unit that is usefull in the lategame
- Penals will get a clearly defined role instead of 'slightly different conscripts'
- Demo charges, an extremely potent gameplay mechanic that Soviets do not really deserve in their current powerful state, become more rare

Combat engie price changed to free?
Because they are the worst of all engie type units and without demos they will also have faaar less use (just mines/sweeping and repair)
all others have SOME use:
sturms can fight and lay med supplies, speedy repair, put away sweeper, mines, harder wire.
Ost pios can build and increased spotting.
Rears can build fighting positions (and fire nades), weapon upgrades, volley fire.
Sappers build hella sh!t, combat efficiency, great vet, weapon racks, armour + lmg upgrade....

The only thing unique to combat engies is demos....

Ok so comparing 0 & 35;
...

Let me recap so we can start over, because I feel that this debate is close to being derailed.

It has stated by katitof a single change is enough to completely fix Penal battalions and that is simply a 200% increase in their far DPS.

I have responded and explained why imo that is a bad solution.

I have also proposed what in my opinion is needed to improve the unit.That includes:
new vet ability, new vet bonuses (as many EFA units also need) and possibly a new role.

From change suggested by others I prefer from more to less :
1) New role of cheap cannon fodder (as suggested by Vipper)
2) Improved EFH (as suggested by Australian magic)
3) Giving them a dual role, Far DPS/mid DPS (as suggested by Glokta)

In case 3) I objected reinventing the weapon profile (to deviate from carbine) of the SVT and suggested that a better solution is to have Penals start with Mosin as far DPS dealers and giving the option to player to upgrade them with 1 flamer +5 SVTs for mid DPS.

About the SVT as weapon I do agree that in it current form it is not very well designed it packs to much power close not enough at 20 and very little far. I have proposed that some of it close DPS should be move to range 20 and it far DPS should see a medium increase.

Now if you want to debate weapon profiles generally and what is flat and what is not . I would be happy to do so but probably in another thread since it off topic.

The SVT is a result of being nerfed to changed Penals role. When they were 360 manpower, penals were one of the best long ranged units. Recrewing team weapons with penals was a powerful strategy as well.

I used to love having utility with conscripts merging into my penals to keep myself on the field in the early days of CoH2. Mind you, back then the command delay/input lag was so extensive that I could consistently wipe MG42 teams with satchel charges. So much satchel carnage. And the satchel charges have also been nerfed/changed multiple times as well. For most of recent months satchel charges have been outright useless. That's changed for now at least, but it really entrenched the current meta away from Soviet T1.

The game was very different in the early days. Hell even cover used to be mostly meaningless back then. But even then, the Soviet T1/T2 was problematic, especially with conscripts being T0. What Soviet T1, and mostly by extension Penal Battalions is a way to not be crippled by having to choose between T3 and ZiS. The best way to achieve this without just plopping some AT in for Penals or in T1 is to increase the utility in map control. The other T1 units, the sniper and scout car are almost the epitome of not having map control.

But I'll repost this:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=616064538

That's a simple tuning pack I put together to test changes to Soviet T1. Play the AI or grab a friend and try out some T1 modified Guards action.

Currently:

Guards are in T1. They come without PTRS.
PTRS upgrade added for Guards: a clone of conscripts upgrade. This upgrade is only available if a commander that normally would call in guards is chosen, keeping PTRS behind doctrine.)
Penals replace Guards in commanders, at 0 CP. (Guard ability changed to 0 CP, and made to call in Penal Battalions.)

Adjustments to balance:

Guard entity cost/time from 55mp/5.5 sec to 50mp/5 sec.
Guard Mosin nagant moving accuracy modifier from 0.75 to 0.6
Guard Mosin nagant far accuracy from 0.526 to 0.398 (4/6ths of grenadiers Kar98k.)
Guards DP-28 upgrade requires either T2 OR T3.
Guards grenades use requires both molotovs and at nades to be researched from HQ.
Penals SVT mid range accuracy from 0.46 to .555 (5/6th rifle's M1 Garand)
Penals SVT moving accuracy from 0.5 to 0.6
Dispatch recharge time fpr Penals set to 26 (from 36 for Guards; time to build Penals from T1 is 27 seconds.)

I find that Penal Battalions work well in a doctrinal sense. They weren't exactly the backbone of the Soviet Army to begin with, and in CoH2 they don't actually function as such either.

(Please note I use this mod to test things randomly, and I think the Panzergrenadiers STGs might be modified to use short burst fires at long range, not sure if I uploaded that build to the workshop...)