Suggested improvements to Small arms weapons.

Penal are not allot more to reinforce due to 4 vs 6. Gren reinforce with 30 penal with 25...if you factor in merge Penal are even more cost efficient.

You replied faster than I could ninja-edit my post

I see your point now. At vet0 (with no weapon upgrades), there exists no single range where Grenadiers can trade cost-efficiently vs Penals. Penals cost "only" 25% more MP, but have 50% more durability. In order to trade equally, the Grenadiers have to find a range where they have 20% (= 1.5/1.25) more DPS than the Penals. Such a range does not exist.

However:
- How do Vet0 LMG grens DPS compare vs Penals?
- What about Vet3 LMG grens DPS vs Vet3 Penals?

Unfortunately don't have the actual number for the new Penal SVT, I am using the DPs provided by firespark.
So I can't factor in those parameters in graphs...

From testing thou, things become even worse for axis...When I tested vet3 LMG gren vs Vet3 Penal the Penal would lose win losing 1-2 entities (range about 35 heavy cover)...The vet bonuses for Penal all wrong. They get probably the best total accuracy bonus while the weapon fire way to often...

Main point here is that they have too much FAR DPS and most axis infantry do not even gain enough of an advantage by closing in.

I am of the opinion that Penals SHOULD be able to trade cost efficiently at mid-long range (and lose the trade at extreme long-range vs LMG grens), or be weaker at shorter ranges or something.

I agree that the cumulative Penal veterancy bonuses are too much (they are a bit like Vet4 OKW bonuses for some units). However, I wouldn't touch their accuracy Veterancy. Instead, I would start by removing their received accuracy bonuses.

In my mind, the new Penals are supposed to be a long-range shock unit. Thus, received accuracy is not as important as (offensive) accuracy, which would help you get a breakthrough (if the fight takes half a minute to resolve, there goes your flank).

However:
- How do Vet0 LMG grens DPS compare vs Penals?
- What about Vet3 LMG grens DPS vs Vet3 Penals?

range(0)range(5)range(10)range(15)range(20)range(25)range(30)range(35)
penal(preview) 34.92 34.92 27.26 21.05 17.42 14.68 12.54 10.81
Lmg Gren 23.61 22.19 20.69 19.56 18.69 17.99 17.06 16.00

As I say don't have the actual numbers so I can factor in the veterancy bonuses...but as I said the more veterancy the better Penal get...

In my mind, the new Penals are supposed to be a long-range shock unit. Thus, received accuracy is not as important as (offensive) accuracy, which would help you get a breakthrough (if the fight takes half a minute to resolve, there goes your flank).

Long range infantry should be using bolt action rifles and LMG that deliver more damage per shot but fire slower and improve very little with range (or get worse). SVT uses Semi automatic characteristics (fast firing great improvement with range) but Bolt action accuracy, it simply wrong...Probably the same applies to ST44 VG but on squad level by mixing weapons that good at all ranges...again I don't have the number for VG ST44...

range(0)range(5)range(10)range(15)range(20)range(25)range(30)range(35)
penal(preview) 34.92 34.92 27.26 21.05 17.42 14.68 12.54 10.81
Lmg Gren 23.61 22.19 20.69 19.56 18.69 17.99 17.06 16.00

As I say don't have the actual numbers so I can factor in the veterancy bonuses...but as I said the more veterancy the better Penal get...

From these numbers, I am getting that when you put 1 LMG Grenadier squad (240MP, 60MU) against a Penal squad (300MP) and both of them are at Vet0, the 240MP squad will still be able to trade cost-efficiently at ranges 25 or greater. I'm not even taking into account the fact that the DPS of the LMG will carry over to the next model.
Show Spoiler

Now, if both the LMG gren squad and the Penal squad achieve Vet3, and you pit them against each other, the Penal will ALWAYS manage to trade cost-efficiently vs the LMG-Gren squad, regardless of range. To make the trade a bit more even, the LMG-Gren player will have to pit more LMG-Gren squads against the penals.

In your example, where you had 1 Vet3 Penal vs 1 Vet3 LMG-Gren, the trade ended terrible for the LMG-Gren. This is OK, since the Gren squad was outnumbered there (300 MP vs 240 MP). However, what would happen if you put an equal amount of MP there (e.g., 5 Penal squads vs 6 LMG Gren squads), or 1 LMG-gren squad that is fighting against a Penal squad that has been brought down to 4-5 models?

Now, when I mention trading, I am assuming an equal investment of MP for both players. A 240 grenadier should NOT be able to trade cost-efficiently vs a 300 Penal. However, 300 MP worth of Grenadiers should at least be given a range where they can trade cost-efficiently (even if it's Soviet T1, and Penals have no other utility).

From these numbers, I am getting that when you put 1 LMG Grenadier squad (240MP, 60MU) against a Penal squad (300MP) and both of them are at Vet0

LMG needs to research T2 it is quite probable that Penal will already have vet 1 by LMG time and vet 1 gives a fighting bonus to them contrary to Grens.

As I said the problem is not that Penal are better than average in FAR they are also very good in other rangers also. That make relative positioning against them not very rewarding...

A similar issues probably exist with St44 VGs.

How relevant is received accuracy, and suppression advantage?

How relevant is received accuracy, and suppression advantage?

Suppression? not sure what you mean..

Effective EHP (target size)should be something like that:
Vet 0
Penal 6*80 = 480 EHP
Gren 4*80/0.97 = 330 EHP

Vet 1
Penal 80+80/0.97+80/0.97^2+80^3+80/0.97^4+80/0.97^5 = 518, (518+480)/2= 499 EHP estimation
Gren 4*80/0.97 = 330 EHP

Vet 2
Penal 499 EHP(estimation)
Gren 4*80/0.97 = 330 EHP

Vet 3
Penal =80*0.77+80/(0.97*0.77)+80/(0.97^2*0.77)+80/(0.97^3*0.77)+80/(0.97^4*0.77)+80/(0.97^5*0.77)=631, (631+480)/2= 556 EHP estimation
Gren 4*80/(0.97*0.77) = 428 EHP

But we are drifting a bit off topic

(borrowed Penal calculation from Myself...)

Off-topic question...Why not make the Assault Package give Cons 6 Ppsh ,but to somehow retain the damage that they have in present state?...why 3 Mosins 3 Ppsh if it is a assault package ?Make them just Close Quarter,weaker damage than Shock Troops and that is it...also another off-topic...Look at how many weapon upgrades are in this mod:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta6n4IJ3Rnw
Purely talking about the weapon upgrades available for the squads,range is a little exagerrated...but wouldn't it add more diversity to the game ?

How do Penals compare to Guards, seeing as Guards are the only other long range infantry the Soviets have.

Suppression? not sure what you mean..
-snip-
But we are drifting a bit off topic

(borrowed Penal calculation from Myself...)

You are simply comparing grens and penals dps, received accuracy would change the actual dps against those specific targets. Would be interesting to see how the graphs would change if it has any noticeable relevance.

SU going T1 means suppression advantage for OH for at least early game (say vet 0-1). I think the discussion is interesting and constructive, so I thought broading it a little wouldn't hurt, but I don't know if it's entirely relevant. I also don't have any way to actually test stuff atm, so that's why I just dropped it here.

I hope people don't mind it drifting a bit off topic, since the discussion has value.

How do Penals compare to Guards, seeing as Guards are the only other long range infantry the Soviets have.

penal(preview)____34.92__34.92__27.26__21.05__17.42__14.68__12.54__10.81
Guards___________26.68__25.51__21.74__18.93__16.73__13.92__11.53__9.44__2.84
Guards DPs_______25.63__25.79__24.61__23.84__23.31__22.10__20.99__19.69__2.84

LMG needs to research T2 it is quite probable that Penal will already have vet 1 by LMG time and vet 1 gives a fighting bonus to them contrary to Grens.

As I said the problem is not that Penal are better than average in FAR they are also very good in other rangers also. That make relative positioning against them not very rewarding...

A similar issues probably exist with St44 VGs.

Relative positioning is always rewarding, as long as there are relative differences in DPS. For instance, in the Grens vs Volks example, there is absolutely no reason to spend microing that fight. If you are winning, you will continue winning regardless of the distance.

In the Penals vs Grens case it will still be rewarding, even at Vet0, and even with no LMG. If it's 1 Gren squad vs 1 Penal squad then, yes, you will lose the engagement no matter what (that's frustrating).

However, if you put 5 grenadier models vs 6 penal models (equal MP investment), you will be winning long-range engagements.

Thus:
- If your opponent spams nothing but penals, and you decide to spam nothing but grens, vacuum analysis says you will win, if you keep fighting long range engagements.
- Otherwise, you need a force multiplier (MG, sniper), and try to survive until the LMGs/222 arrive.
- From then on, you have the advantage as your army is better equipped to handle other kinds of threads (modulo Partisans).

Now, if you are concerned about Merge, you can take away some DPS off Penal rifles and turn it into native target size. Thus, a merged conscript will always be significantly weaker than the Penal it is supposed to replace.

...
- If your opponent spams nothing but penals, and you decide to spam nothing but grens, vacuum analysis says you will win, if you keep fighting long range engagements.
....

This why this thread is not in the balance section. This it not a balance problem and I could had used the ST44 Gren as an example if I had numbers of their St44 (are the the same with SP?). This is a problem from bad design.

Penal have about the same far DPS as Guards yet their DPS increase allot faster in close range. That makes attacks from troops ineffective. Unit that Far oriented should benefit little from reducing range like bolt action rifles or even lose DPS like LMGs.

...
You are simply comparing grens and penals dps, received accuracy would change the actual dps against those specific targets.
..

As requested:

SU going T1 means suppression advantage for OH for at least early game (say vet 0-1). ...

Are you referring that going T1 for SO leaves them without HMGs? Because I don't see how suppression is relevant. If so try to keep in mind that this is about improving the design and not the balance.

You do have a point there. I've absolutely no idea what the curve of the Penals should look like. However, it seems that:
- It will make early Grens vs Penal confrontations extremely frustrating for the OH player (which will have to blob squads in order to counter them)
- Penals will seemed a bit balanced when LMGs come into play (for this, Penals will need short-range superiority to counter the less expensive Grens)
- I've absolutely no clue what engagements will look like when both squads are fully-vetted.

The reason I can't answer what Penal DPS should look like is because I have no clue what Soviets are supposed to be good at, in the late-game. (except for cheese. Soviets are great at cheese, all game-around).

A more important topic that also touches on what you've been looking is Veterancy and weapon upgrades. Let's call this "Veterancy profiles"-gate, because these seem to be inconsistent. There are two issues:

1) Some squads receive massively greater bonuses that benefit weapon slots than other squads.

(e.g., Penal veterancy, most OKW squads veterancy).

Weapon upgrades massively benefit from:
- Durability stats (both initial: squad size, target size, and veterancy-related)
- Offensive veterancy (accuracy, cooldown, etc)

Weapon upgrades do NOT benefit from base weapon stats, almost at all. In fact, the worse the base DPS of a squad is, the more they will benefit from a weapon upgrade that will substitute one of their crappy weapons (the pre-nerf rear echelon effect).

Thus, squads that trade off initial DPS (applied directly on their base weapons) for durability (higher squad size, etc), massively benefit from weapon upgrades.

The fact that most such squads are unable to have access to these upgrades, means very little when:
- You have Vickers drop-off (that will probably turn new Penals into terminators)
- Vet3 Tommies littering the fields with so many Bren guns (thus, turning OKW squads into terminators).

Basically, to keep things fair and predictable, veterancy stats should account for baseline durability stats, so that no squad that "happens to pick up an MG34" turns into a terminator.

2) Some squads (still) receive the wrong type of veterancy for their intended role.

Ideally, close-range assault squad needs higher received accuracy, whereas a long-range defensive squad needs offensive accuracy. When you need to close the distance, you want to prolong the initial part of the fight, so that you start trading when the range becomes optimal to you. On the other hand, when your optimal range is already max-range, you want to wear the enemy down as fast as possible before they can close the distance (where you have to retreat).
- Pre-buff Penals received too little received accuracy to be able to close in and use their flamethrower
- (Current) Tommies, receive too little accuracy vet, which holds them back from using their weapon to bleed advancing infantry (and, thus, become the kings of A-move blobbing)

...
I've absolutely no idea what the curve of the Penals should look like.
1) Some squads receive massively greater bonuses that benefit weapon slots than other squads.
...
2) Some squads (still) receive the wrong type of veterancy for their intended role.
...

The curve should fit the intended role of the unit, currently it is all over the place...If their upgrade is to be flamer they should have good DPS at 15-20 quite low above 25, and not that good bellow 10.

Weapon rack and UKF M5 are badly implemented because one can not really balance weapon regardless of the unit that pick them up.

There are few way to fix while maintaining the system:
1)Weapon cost should be calculated by dedicating the weapon cost of the weapon it replaces. A BAR for RE should be more expensive than BAR for Riflemen since it replaces a lower quality weapons.
2)Or/and weapon modifier for picked up weapons (slot weapon) should apply to squad so that the performance of a BAR should be lower for R.E.

And that is why I claimed that this patch is in the wrong direction. Instead of over buffing units to increase diversity customizing vet bonuses and vet abilities to better fit units roles could have far better result while creating less balance issues.

The curve should fit the intended role of the unit, currently it is all over the place...If their upgrade is to be flamer they should have good DPS at 15-20 quite low above 25, and not that good bellow 10.

We completely agree that the flamer upgrade makes no sense at all. Even if Penals were made weak at close range, the Flamer would be a cheap upgrade to completely negate it.

The Flamer + PPsh is also not a good upgrade, mainly because it doesn't mesh that well with their veterancy (which is not very strong on received accuracy). Thus, it's mostly a downgrade.

Weapon rack and UKF M5 are badly implemented because one can not really balance weapon regardless of the unit that pick them up.

There are few way to fix while maintaining the system:
1)Weapon cost should be calculated by dedicating the weapon cost of the weapon it replaces. A BAR for RE should be more expensive than BAR for Riflemen since it replaces a lower quality weapons.
2)Or/and weapon modifier for picked up weapons (slot weapon) should apply to squad so that the performance of a BAR should be lower for R.E.

And that is why I claimed that this patch is in the wrong direction. Instead of over buffing units to increase diversity customizing vet bonuses and vet abilities to better fit units roles could have far better result while creating less balance issues.

... or we could just implement unit Vet0 bonuses that apply to all weapon upgrades.

For instance, let's compare two units, Riflemen and Paratroopers. If a Rifleman picks up an LMG42, they become quite strong. Same with Paratroopers, except for the fact that:
- Paratrooper rifles are stronger than Riflemen (thus, you lose more DPS)
- LMG42 stats are identical for both units

The way I would implement a new system is give both Riflemen and Paratrooper equal DPS rifles (if they have the same profile). Then, I would implement a Vet0 offensive bonus which I would apply to Paratroopers. That way the Vet0 bonus applies to both native weapons and picked-up weapons.

It doesn't need to be better, at the least it should be even with the rest of the squad. The difference in far DPS between the Cons PPSh and Mosin should be negligible. It's not how it usually works, but it gets a pass for being an upgradable weapon on a general use unit as opposed to a dedicated CQB unit. Aside from the Panzergrenadier G43, it's the only unit upgrade that hurts DPS at a specific range.

I had to copy from the other thread since I would want to hijack cruzz's thread.

I tend to agree with this thread. The solution is quite easy do not mix weapon that do not fit together like smgs and bolt action rifles.

If conscript need a mid to far weapon replace the PPsh package with SVT package. If the Conscript need a new role replace all Mosins with PPsh...

"Perform moderately well at long range"
"Disadvantaged at long ranges"

Wtf how is this specialized ?

Grenadiers had upper hand on everything at long range, thus they were specialized units.

Grenadiers and VG without weapon upgrade have the same long dps.