WinterBalance 1.2

PG nades being bundle wouldn´t be best idea becuase of their range and schrecks.


Gammon bombs are planned to work the same way as satchel but it cannot be currently changed because relic didn´t allow them to change british hammer and they don´t want to buff hammer without nerfing it (yes it need to be nerfed [comet])

so what's the point of nerfing bundle nade range? it's actually retarded that heavier nade could be thrown further than normal nade (or at least at the same range at rifle nade)

So........ how are people supposed to get the achievement "Torched" (Upgrade 30 Penal Battalions with flamethrowers and kill 300 infantry with Penal Battalions)?

Do a annihilationgame and make and upgrade

don't care about griefing. add full-strength friendly fire to everything. it'll keep people from blobbing into their own mortar/calliope/katyusha barrages.

you don't care about griefing, ok
what if no one care about your opinion ?


btw, i agree with hector that if you remove penals PTRS then soviet T2 will stay MUCH better than T1.
penals are fine right now and the whole soviet faction is pretty balanced.

The only thing which could get improved IMO is the conscript veterancy.
VET0- VET1 cons -> WEAK
VET2 cons -> ok but still a bit weak
VET3 cons -> Awesome
VET 3 cons + PPSH -> GODLIKE.

i can take down vet3 PGREN with vet3 cons ppsh, when both units are good at close range ?!

I think we should remove the received accuracy nerf the got 2 years ago (go back to model size of 1) and on the other hand, reduce slightly vet 3 received accuracy bonus.

would make them viable during the whole game instead of weak at the beggining and OP at the end.

From what I understand the goal is to make Soviet T1 more attractive, competitive with T2 and adding an option for light AT to aid to this goal?

The changes to penal battalion just don't feel right to me. They are overlapping to much with guards (although in weaker from). And promote handheld AT spam. Also the current penals are stealing the thunder from the "tank hunters" doctrine. I hope you will consider the following as an alternative:

suggested changes:

- remove PTRS from penals, focus on AI-role / suicide tank/bunker busting
- Building T1 gives combat pioneers access to the PTRS upgrade
- teching AT grenades gives penals access to AT satchel (you've done the work, so why not keep it)

There is a reason all specialist weapons ended up in the hands of builder units (doctrinal flamers, and handheld AT), this promotes a harder choice for the player vs an auto upgrade. Do I build an extra engineers squad for minor AT duty, or sacrifice my flame/sweeper upgrade? And deters spamm of handheld AT. I feel the flavour of the penal battalion is the satchel charge, and the reckless assault. I hope you will not deviate too far from the original vision of penals as building/bunker clearing specialists.

additional suggestion

- add DP28 tech upgrade to T1, allowing conscripts to get machine guns.

This adds to the attractiveness of T1 without focusing on it's directly produced units. Adds additional fuel expenditure for soviets, and an ammo sink (something else then mines, mines, demo, etc). Provides concript builds with additional options.

if all else fails

Would still prefer M-42 baby at gun to current changes

regards,
Exile

And now try to tell me what have katty/werfer inconsistence common with AT satchel charge

It has something in common with 50% friendly fire and Stark's post that allies are favoured in terms of friendly fire.

It has something in common with 50% friendly fire and Stark's post that allies are favoured in terms of friendly fire.

I have to say it again. Friendly fire for satchel is here to prevent griefing and it have nothing common with favoring allies nor politicy of no friendly fire. 50% of 240 DMG is 120 DMG and that is more than enaught to kill your 80HP penals if you aren´t careful enaugh

I've done a couple of test games usf v wehr to see how the matchup now pans out. I like a lot of the changes since the snowball effect seems gone. That being said there are quite a few issues that arise late game from that as others will probably figure out.

However the most glaring issue in terms of changes for usf seems the aa ht. The unit seems underperforming in general but especially if the new cost is considered. The unit seems to be in a rather odd spot.

Vanilla satchel has 340 damage
Vanilla satchel has 25% friendly fire modifier
Max friendly fire damage: 85

AT satchel has 240 damage
AT satchel has 50% friendly fire modifier
Max friendly fire damage: 120

I really cannot think of any ability in the game that has higher-than 50% friendly-fire modifier (except for a few, very stupid death-critical abilities). Thus, we capped AT satchel there. Thus everything is consistent.

With respect to "Why gammon bomb can't have that". Well, it will, at some point. However that will probably happen in the same patch when Comet and Tommies are both in scope; not before.

Hammer is already a stupidly no-brainer pick. Even though Heavy Gammon bombs are way beyond useless, and for many reasons, we don't want to make Hammer feel any more attractive than it already is.

Can the sticky satchels be stuck onto friendly vehicles and used as a missile?

I really wanted to add this. Howevever adding this requires the implementation to be a lot more complicated (rather than changing 1 value). Thus, if we ever decide to go down that route, It will have to wait until we discover whether the community likes the AT satchel idea or not.

I haven't tested the new AT satchel yet, but isn't it possible to make it replace ('upgrade') the vanilla satchel ability once PTRSs are equipped, and differentiate between anti-building and anti-vehicle damage with target tables? It shares cooldown and the cost is the same (IRC), so it might be less cluttered that way.

It is possible. However, that would look unintuitive:
- Only the PTRS penals would get access to the new ability, even though two different squads would appear to have the same ability icon/text

Also note that Vanilla satchel deals more damage, but causes not crits.

The reason Penals don't get this ability is so that PTRS Penals can at least do something in the late-game.

Vanilla satchel has 340 damage
Vanilla satchel has 25% friendly fire modifier
Max friendly fire damage: 85

AT satchel has 240 damage
AT satchel has 50% friendly fire modifier
Max friendly fire damage: 120

I really cannot think of any ability in the game that has higher-than 50% friendly-fire modifier (except for a few, very stupid death-critical abilities). Thus, we capped AT satchel there. Thus everything is consistent.

With respect to "Why gammon bomb can't have that". Well, it will, at some point. However that will probably happen in the same patch when Comet and Tommies are both in scope; not before.

Hammer is already a stupidly no-brainer pick. Even though Heavy Gammon bombs are way beyond useless, and for many reasons, we don't want to make Hammer feel any more attractive than it already is.



I really wanted to add this. Howevever adding this requires the implementation to be a lot more complicated (rather than changing 1 value). Thus, if we ever decide to go down that route, It will have to wait until we discover whether the community likes the AT satchel idea or not.



It is possible. However, that would look unintuitive:
- Only the PTRS penals would get access to the new ability, even though two different squads would appear to have the same ability icon/text

Also note that Vanilla satchel deals more damage, but causes not crits.

The reason Penals don't get this ability is so that PTRS Penals can at least do something in the late-game.

Good explanation, thank you.

smith why doublenerfing penals. they needed only damage reduction not both nerfs

It's an AT weapon. The purpose of PTRS Penals is to give soviets a non-doc light AT option that doesn't suck hairy balls (M-42), and would actually be carried to some capacity in the lategame.

PTRS Penals seemed like a good option, since they have very little overlap with existing handheld AT options (PTRS Cons and Guards are better, each for different reasons)

Since we want to investigate just how well PTRS Penals can carry both non-doc Soviets and cheese-doc soviets in the late-game, we wanted to see how they would perform with a bare-minimum capacity PTRS rifle. (6% accuracy at far is the lowest accuracy that guarantees hits on most axis vehicles on all ranges).

I actually think with the 'sticky' satchels, the PTRS is unneeded. It's sort of like Sturmpioneers with Schrecks, it's kind of spreading them too thin. But 3 different versions of PTRS is just not ideal IMO. Remember, Soviets have mines. (But ultimately, Soviets the ZIS available as their first tier REALLY complicates the matter of T1. Soviets are always going to need the ZiS, which makes the T1 option by default a detour.) However, sticky satchels will go a long way to give Soviets an option (if only in threat) against yoloing halftracks.

I have always believed that conscripts should get a 3ppsh global upgrade using fuel. If a PPSh commander is used, those conscripts can still be upgraded to have a full set of 6 PPSh.

Conscripts are already most effective at closest ranges, and with PPSh their role won't change, but evolve to have lategame function (clearing a crucial PAK easier for instance.) Their lack of smoke and durability still makes Shocks a strong choice, and close range capabilities would still synergize with Penals and Guards well.

Penals with AT satchels really are well set up. They could use molotovs or DP-28s to round out their abilities and role for Soviets. DP-28s could include button or not, but they could also include a version of rear echelon suppressing fire. But that was how I felt while I was trying to figure out how to make AT satchels myself. Molotovs would be a worthwhile replacement for the flamethrower though.

I've also thought about how feasible it would be to have Penals start with normal rifles, and have a global upgrade for SVTs. But that's a whole monster of rebalancing and testing that I don't think people would have the slightest interest in.

It would be interesting to see how an M42 with a sort of treadbreaker ability could function. But having 2 forms of ATgun in T1 and T2 seems clunky. I'd almost suggest moving the ZiS to T3 or something if it didn't mean wholly gutting T2 or redesigning all the soviet tiers (again.)

It's an AT weapon. The purpose of PTRS Penals is to give soviets a non-doc light AT option that doesn't suck hairy balls (M-42), and would actually be carried to some capacity in the lategame.

PTRS Penals seemed like a good option, since they have very little overlap with existing handheld AT options (PTRS Cons and Guards are better, each for different reasons)

Since we want to investigate just how well PTRS Penals can carry both non-doc Soviets and cheese-doc soviets in the late-game, we wanted to see how they would perform with a bare-minimum capacity PTRS rifle. (6% accuracy at far is the lowest accuracy that guarantees hits on most axis vehicles on all ranges).

But M-42 doesn't suck

It's "special" unit, but far from sucking one.

you don't care about griefing, ok
what if no one care about your opinion ?


btw, i agree with hector that if you remove penals PTRS then soviet T2 will stay MUCH better than T1.
penals are fine right now and the whole soviet faction is pretty balanced.

The only thing which could get improved IMO is the conscript veterancy.
VET0- VET1 cons -> WEAK
VET2 cons -> ok but still a bit weak
VET3 cons -> Awesome
VET 3 cons + PPSH -> GODLIKE.

i can take down vet3 PGREN with vet3 cons ppsh, when both units are good at close range ?!

I think we should remove the received accuracy nerf the got 2 years ago (go back to model size of 1) and on the other hand, reduce slightly vet 3 received accuracy bonus.

would make them viable during the whole game instead of weak at the beggining and OP at the end.

i mean, it's certainly more valid than yours. i know balance takes precedence, but the historical context of the game is what makes it. conscripts are conscripts... people would complain like crazy if vet 3 ostruppen could handle rangers, but you want vet 3 cons to go toe-to-toe with pgrens? please.

cons do not need a buff. they scale just fine into the late game.

It's an AT weapon. The purpose of PTRS Penals is to give soviets a non-doc light AT option that doesn't suck hairy balls (M-42), and would actually be carried to some capacity in the lategame.

PTRS Penals seemed like a good option, since they have very little overlap with existing handheld AT options (PTRS Cons and Guards are better, each for different reasons)

Since we want to investigate just how well PTRS Penals can carry both non-doc Soviets and cheese-doc soviets in the late-game, we wanted to see how they would perform with a bare-minimum capacity PTRS rifle. (6% accuracy at far is the lowest accuracy that guarantees hits on most axis vehicles on all ranges).

But right now you cripple penals too much by upgrading with PTRS. Luchs can kite them, flaktrack hardcounters them and with PTRS they currently suck too hard against infantry. Maybe changing accuraccy to previous state would be enaught, they should hit sometimes with PTRS, 10 DMG pre low RoF small Acc weapon is fine

Try to walk your blob under fire of your own Katyusha. Rockets will do absolutely nothing to you.

Now try to walk your blob under fire of your own PzWefer. You will wipe yourself

that's because PWerfers are OP as fuck you dumbass.

damage reduction doesn't work when you are doing insane damage.

that's because PWerfers are OP as fuck you dumbass.

damage reduction doesn't work when you are doing insane damage.

lul lul

Thanks for nice laugh

lul lul

Thanks for nice laugh

i also chuckled.

so much hate.

OMG why we cannot keep the topic and start talking about thing that are out of scope. If you think something is opieOP, then create game in preview mode and abuse the hell out of it. Then post those replays on balance preview mode replay section. It help balance team 1 000 000 times more than whining about them, because if they get serious feedback with evidence, they can convice relic and get green to change that balance issue.



ABOUT STUGe: I actually think that after balance patch 1.2 stug e is even more powerful than before changes. And will be even more spammed. This is because 2 stuge together have big shock value against squads because of their big Aoe and damage resulting into losing 2-5 models when squad is either in cover or standing. Squad will be forced to retreat and stugs can push while reloading.

Also his ability looks rather weird right now (shot of that ability is fast and strightforward while his normal shot is barrage) and doesn´t fit his profile (AI support gun is jamming guns of other tanks. completely stupid).


Suggestion:
Increase stuge cost to 80-100 fuel - 90 for first try to match its performance. Maybe making it potent and expensive is best thing for ostheer.

Change current ablity and give him ability similar to SU76 barrage once he hit vet 1 (cost - 30 munnition,AOE like SU76 or stuge [whitch one is better or more fitting], make it fire same number of shot as SU76 and range around SU76 barrage).
This will finally diferenciaty stug and stuge. Stug will be AT tank and Stuge will be hard hitting AI assault gun with ability to shell enemy fortifications or slow targets with good barrage.

Hector

And will be even more spammed. This is because 2 stuge together have big shock value against squads because of their big Aoe and damage resulting into losing 2-5 models when squad is either in cover or standing. Squad will be forced to retreat and stugs can push while reloading.

They should, they are facing an assault gun after all. Not to mention that its shells are basically flying turtles and can be easily dodged by a vigilant blob.

By spamming Stug-e you are just offering free vet feeders for the T34s/Cromwells and Shermans, which arrive roughly at the same time

They should, they are facing an assault gun after all. Not to mention that its shells are basically flying turtles and can be easily dodged by a vigilant blob.

By spamming Stug-e you are just offering free vet feeders for the T34s/Cromwells and Shermans, which arrive roughly at the same time

I meant instaretreat once they saw stug e becuase it will rape them hard.


You have paks to counter tanks, not stuge.

And you don´t undesrand. They are not uncouterable nor broken, they perform too well for their cost. 75 fuel is too low for that good tank that doesn´t even need doctrine.

Those shells are not all that slow and you will lose engangement against any stug + infantry becaue if you move out of cover, lmg will kill you, if you stay in cover stug will kill you. Saing that stug e projectiles are weak is as if you say USF mortar wasn´t OP because you could avoid his shells by moving.


Again, I´m not saing he is OP. I´m saing that he is too cost efficient and need price increase if we want to keep him in current state to prevent stug e spam into tiger (this is what were trying to prevent whole time)