PTRS penals informative poll
Posts: 670
This is a purely informative poll created to let know how many players are for/against PTRSes for Penal Battalions. It is not connected to the balance mod team in any way.
+PTRS gives a strategic decision, should penal battalions be upgraded and lose some of their anti-infantry power like panzergrenadiers or stay purely AI
+Undoctrinal T1 light vehicle counter
-PTRS conscripts now obsolete; conscripts overall obsolete
-sliding away from penal battalions' initial design; penals now provide similar AT support as Guards, leading to role overlap like when penals with ppshes overlapped with shock troops
Opinions welcome
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
PTRSes just mean no combined arms, no AI utility in late game and just blob of penals.
On the other hand M-42 provides combined arms and Penals remain only AI.
Simplest solutions are the best.
Posts: 181
Posts: 1389 | Subs: 1
#PTRS_for_cons
Posts: 632 | Subs: 1
Gimme T1 M-42, screw PTRS.
I agree completely. With a small buff to penetration (and a corresponding price increase) the M-42 would be a solid early AT unit, making Soviet T1 much more worthwhile.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
I agree completely. With a small buff to penetration (and a corresponding price increase) the M-42 would be a solid early AT unit, making Soviet T1 much more worthwhile.
In fact it doesn't need better pen, becasue of quite good RoF.
Many times I was able to pull (in 1v1 and 2v2) up to 10k damage with this little thing.
Posts: 2742
T2 can be built as a first tech building and contains the ZiS.
For that reason T1 is kind of always going to be a bit of a detour.
Unless a Soviet player is able to overwhelmingly capitalize on the early game T1 power enough to bridge to a fast T34 or something, a Soviet is usually going to have to (bacK) tech to T2 at some point for the ZiS. Not to mention the maxim resides in T2.
I wonder if the maxim and sniper were swapped what would happen...
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
Just my opinion.
Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2
Gimme T1 M-42, screw PTRS.
PTRSes just mean no combined arms, no AI utility in late game and just blob of penals.
On the other hand M-42 provides combined arms and Penals remain only AI.
Simplest solutions are the best.
And replace the doctrine M-42 to BS-3
Oh yeah baby
Posts: 2742
Maybe with the suggested additions to the M42, those being the same stats as the T70 gun, and perhaps even the garrison ability of the raketen, this little thing can be put in T1 and server as both an early light vehicle counter AND a Maxim replacement or at least a Maxim alternative so people aren't forced to go T2 anymore just because of the ZiS and Maxim.
Just my opinion.
I made a little mod that did just that with the M42. It was fun, I'll admit, but all it really did was highlight how important the ZiS being in T2 is. I just wish every patch didn't break mod functionality. Ruined all the reference IDs.
As a result, I think it'd be easier to just switch the maxim with the sniper.
Maxim spam would be obliged to T1. T2 would have the ZiS, indirect fire, and a sniper which would round things out immensely. It would be a great tier for countering enemy tactics OR supporting a conscript heavy/commander reliant build (DShk, PPSh, etc). Axis players would know maxim spammers wouldn't also have access to the ZiS whenever they needed it for AT and barrages.
With the AT Satchels alone Soviet T1 finally has some sort of backstop against early vehicles. Each Soviet tier finally has some functional ability to handle vehicles.
And replace the doctrine M-42 to BS-3
Oh yeah baby
I can dig it.
Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7
Problem is that hey get instacountered by OKW flaktrack, so some changes need to be made to them or whole tier1
Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
M-42 is an interesting idea, but it needs some tweaks because it is just trash. It's unreliable as fuck given the weak penetration and meh accuracy, and the already half damage. At least buff the accuracy to make it consistently hit long range targets. In a perfect world this at-gun would rely on abilities instead of damage to function, like the AT-Halftrack from vCoH.
Posts: 2742
Soviet v OKW and USF v Ostheer have been junky matchups since the start. However I feel like the solution there lies with adjustments to OKW rather than Soviets. Soviets have had core problems with their faction since day 1, but not at all on the level OKW has seen in its storied and checkered past.
Posts: 2885
Maybe with the suggested additions to the M42, those being the same stats as the T70 gun, and perhaps even the garrison ability of the raketen, this little thing can be put in T1 and server as both an early light vehicle counter AND a Maxim replacement or at least a Maxim alternative so people aren't forced to go T2 anymore just because of the ZiS and Maxim.
Just my opinion.
+1 This is a good idea. I actually like the AT penals, but what you suggest is so much better. Units like raketen add so much flavour. With the garrison ability I would also think of retreat. Cloak only for doctrines that have AT gun cloak.
The T1 would need rebalance though as it simply sounds OP, especially against infantry.
And I would give the con ptrs to doctrines that have M42 at the moment.
Posts: 239
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
+1 This is a good idea. I actually like the AT penals, but what you suggest is so much better. Units like raketen add so much flavour. With the garrison ability I would also think of retreat. Cloak only for doctrines that have AT gun cloak.
The T1 would need rebalance though as it simply sounds OP, especially against infantry.
And I would give the con ptrs to doctrines that have M42 at the moment.
The only doctrine that does this is the Tank Hunter one I believe, the last Soviet commander to be added to the game.
Posts: 2885
The only doctrine that does this is the Tank Hunter one I believe, the last Soviet commander to be added to the game.
Sorry but the only commander that does what exactly? Cant find the context really
the whole point of T1 is that it can't stand on its own. you need to win the early game and get vehicles out sooner than your opponent for reliable AT. adding AT to an AI-heavy build just gives the SU players too many options with no risk.
I don't agree that it should stay without AT. But it might be a good idea to make it more expensive when it actually becomes a valid choice.
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
Sorry but the only commander that does what exactly? Cant find the context really
I think he meant, only the Tank Hunter doctrine gives Conscripts a PTRS upgrade.
Speaking of which, pretty sure only Urban Defence and Defensive Tactics which you can't get anymore has the M-42 as well.
Posts: 2885
I think he meant, only the Tank Hunter doctrine gives Conscripts a PTRS upgrade.
Speaking of which, pretty sure only Urban Defence and Defensive Tactics which you can't get anymore has the M-42 as well.
Yes, these 2 have. And it would be great if they could get PTRS cons instead of it if M42 goes into tech tree.
Posts: 515
Edit: this just came to me... why not just let Penals have access to AT grenades?
Livestreams
43 | |||||
128 | |||||
6 | |||||
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.35157.860+16
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.934410.695-1
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, linakill
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM