Login

russian armor

PTRS penals informative poll

10 Dec 2016, 21:24 PM
#21
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Dec 2016, 21:10 PMNosliw
Why is everyone hell bound on putting anti tank in soviet T1? German T1 doesn't have anti-tank ... why must soviet have it? If you want to spam Penals because they're boss, what's wrong with just picking Guards/M42 doctrine, building T2 for AT guns, or going for SU76? I don't get why everyone is forcing an AT option into soviet T1 ...

Edit: this just came to me... why not just let Penals have access to AT grenades?

While I myself am uncertain that this Penal PTRS upgrade needs to happen too, I am pretty sure AT grenades on Penals will ensure no one will want to build Conscripts ever again. Molotovs and Merge alone are definitely insufficient reason to built Conscripts.
10 Dec 2016, 21:26 PM
#22
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Dec 2016, 18:57 PMTobis
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.


Meh, I hated the tax half-track. Wasn't a very good design imo.
10 Dec 2016, 22:48 PM
#23
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Dec 2016, 21:10 PMNosliw
Why is everyone hell bound on putting anti tank in soviet T1? German T1 doesn't have anti-tank ... why must soviet have it? If you want to spam Penals because they're boss, what's wrong with just picking Guards/M42 doctrine, building T2 for AT guns, or going for SU76? I don't get why everyone is forcing an AT option into soviet T1 ...


German T1 has panzerfausts. That's all that's necessary to make the tier effective by having at least one countermeasure. Also, Soviet T2 has both maxim and ZiS, which is more or less a more superior combination than what T1 offers.

Edit: this just came to me... why not just let Penals have access to AT grenades?


Conscript overlap, but it always is something that could work.
Phy
10 Dec 2016, 23:38 PM
#24
avatar of Phy

Posts: 509 | Subs: 1

PTRS in penals means rip cons if they do their job or rip t1 if it's not cost efficient. I still think ptrs to cons as an upgrade in t1 is the best solution.
M42 in t1 would need a reajust of the gun -which sucks atm- but I'm not a big fan of it because it does not add anything new at all. I like the idea of replacing m42 for ptrs cons in the commanders though.
11 Dec 2016, 00:48 AM
#25
avatar of What Doth Life?!
Patrion 27

Posts: 1664



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.


The Maxim/Sniper switch sounds like a great idea.

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Dec 2016, 21:10 PMNosliw
Why is everyone hell bound on putting anti tank in soviet T1? German T1 doesn't have anti-tank ... why must soviet have it? If you want to spam Penals because they're boss, what's wrong with just picking Guards/M42 doctrine, building T2 for AT guns, or going for SU76? I don't get why everyone is forcing an AT option into soviet T1 ...

Edit: this just came to me... why not just let Penals have access to AT grenades?


Are you gonna leave out that Ostheer has access to the MG42 in tier zero and gets Fausts just for going BP1?
11 Dec 2016, 05:10 AM
#26
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 875 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Dec 2016, 21:10 PMNosliw
Why is everyone hell bound on putting anti tank in soviet T1? German T1 doesn't have anti-tank ... why must soviet have it? If you want to spam Penals because they're boss, what's wrong with just picking Guards/M42 doctrine, building T2 for AT guns, or going for SU76? I don't get why everyone is forcing an AT option into soviet T1 ...

Edit: this just came to me... why not just let Penals have access to AT grenades?


Because assuming that Penals are balanced, nobody is going to bother going with a risk/reward tier there is so many other options. Tier 1 needs access to some kind of anti tank, else Tier1 will just never be seen again.
11 Dec 2016, 05:25 AM
#27
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



Because assuming that Penals are balanced, nobody is going to bother going with a risk/reward tier there is so many other options. Tier 1 needs access to some kind of anti tank, else Tier1 will just never be seen again.


Problem with T1 is that through the history of CoH2, it's been a crap or cheese tier. There's no such thing as "combined" arms. On T2 you might get a maxim, a mortar and a Zis. On T1 you just generally spam 1 of the 3 units.
-We spam clowncars till they nerf blitz, crew having 50% chance of dying, nerf damage on the move, cost, snipers inside, damage on the move for units inside, indirect nerf due to buff n changes to other units (222, Volks faust, SP cost)
-We double "spam" snipers till they remove sprints, overhauled OKW and add heavy counters to cloak/snipers.
-We got Penals to "cheese" heavy snow + satchel, steal OH weapons and finally their current iteration.

I think that in the end, PTRS can be fine on Penals. But i believe in a world, where T1 lacks direct AT (which nowadays can be get with cheaper T2) but compensates with good AI and utility (AT satchels should be kept).
11 Dec 2016, 06:08 AM
#28
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2



Sorry but the only commander that does what exactly? :) Cant find the context really



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.


Oh no nevermind I misunderstood what you wanted to say.

Excuse me.
11 Dec 2016, 07:02 AM
#29
avatar of skemshead

Posts: 611



Because assuming that Penals are balanced, nobody is going to bother going with a risk/reward tier there is so many other options. Tier 1 needs access to some kind of anti tank, else Tier1 will just never be seen again.


This all depends on your definition of balanced penals. Penals being strictly AI should give sov early game advantage and therefore allow easy transition to t2 or guards. I cannot see why they need any AT early game unless the goal is to go heavy T1 into T3. Its not a ridiculous thought to supplement penals with cons/AT nades and mines. The only issue would be as Hector pointed out is the OKW flacktrack but the timing on that could be adjusted.

I don't necessarily agree with the line of thought that some people have that each faction should have all the necessary tools to compete. Its not as though going t1 means t2 is inaccessible. Far from it really.
11 Dec 2016, 08:07 AM
#30
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

Investing in T1 I think is more of a detour in fuel expenditures more than something that makes T2 inaccessible. Going T1 and T2 also precludes any notion of getting a fast T3 or T4 unit.

With conscripts at HQ, that maxim and ZiS combo in a first tier building has always outweighed penals, clowncars, and the sniper team. (Although clowncar snipers was a rather viable strategy once upon a time...)
11 Dec 2016, 09:01 AM
#31
avatar of TheSleep3r

Posts: 670

Conscripts were always supposed to be Soviet core infantry. Like Wehrmacht and OKW, they had to have some utility infantry (cons) to throw nades and things like that, and some elite infantry to take care of infantry. Now PTRS penals completely shits on that design, removing conscripts from the equation. Player can either go conscripts, at nades and doctrinal infantry or go T1 and go full penal, reducing variety and infantry combined arms. This is something to consider
11 Dec 2016, 11:10 AM
#32
avatar of skemshead

Posts: 611

I admit i haven't had time too play the mod, but i do try to watch anyone that streams winter patch games, so my opinions are more about tier design rather that the finer points of balance.

I am assuming penals still have a large advantage early game (although their cost could negate field presence initially ) so sov should be able to hold half the map, presumably. Ost AC will now arrive later, unsure bout luchs and okw flacktrack.

Sov t1 cost 160mp and 10 fuel, t2 is 160 and 20 fuel. This to me seems fairly insignificant. About 45 secs ingame time. If sov has the advantage they press on to t3. If they get caught out then go t2 or At nades and cons.

Guards also come around five minutes, so it seems the window of opportunity for LVs is fairly small against heavy penal builds, and Lvs have been nerfed also.

It feels like what you are trying to do is make all builds on all maps vs both axis factions 100% viable 100 % of the time, ie start with penals then have a choice between at nades, t2, guards or t3. If so then I feels sovs are being given too many options, although not making them OP.

11 Dec 2016, 12:47 PM
#33
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

I dont get it why now more and more at possibilty comes to allies...since they get brits und tanks better than panther..why they get more at?

Give it to volks
11 Dec 2016, 16:04 PM
#34
avatar of Nubb3r

Posts: 141

I admit i haven't had time too play the mod, but i do try to watch anyone that streams winter patch games, so my opinions are more about tier design rather that the finer points of balance.

I am assuming penals still have a large advantage early game (although their cost could negate field presence initially ) so sov should be able to hold half the map, presumably. Ost AC will now arrive later, unsure bout luchs and okw flacktrack.

Sov t1 cost 160mp and 10 fuel, t2 is 160 and 20 fuel. This to me seems fairly insignificant. About 45 secs ingame time. If sov has the advantage they press on to t3. If they get caught out then go t2 or At nades and cons.

Guards also come around five minutes, so it seems the window of opportunity for LVs is fairly small against heavy penal builds, and Lvs have been nerfed also.

It feels like what you are trying to do is make all builds on all maps vs both axis factions 100% viable 100 % of the time, ie start with penals then have a choice between at nades, t2, guards or t3. If so then I feels sovs are being given too many options, although not making them OP.



I agree with this. 160mp and 20 fuel plus build time have ok build opportunity costs. This actually fine imo.

I still like the at satchel though. It's not about giving meaningful additions but rather a space for your opponent to fuck up and get punished for it. Like the stickies in vCoH, they add a micro strain (a very small one in the case of the satchel) and prohobit your opponent from engaging you recklessly. It's making a huge gap in the gameplay a little bit smaller.

If this approach isn't quite the way to go, I'd like to suggest adding an ability to the ptrs penals. Only give them one ptrs and add turret jam or vision block ability for a small munition cost per use. Or don't give ptrs and call it K-Bullet or something. This deters/delays/soothes lv in early game and adds utility that lasts into the late game.
11 Dec 2016, 18:20 PM
#35
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

For Soviets 160mp and 20fuel for the ZiS option as well as the maxims is always a good decision, whether its to unlock T3 or to spam maxims, or counter vehicles.

The real question when is it worth spending 160 manpower and 10 fuel and engineer buildtime to produce any of the following: sniper team, m3 scout car, or penal battalions?

Both the sniper team and m3 scout car are really only used best for trying to kill or deter an ostheer sniper. That leaves the penal battalion with the burden to carry the investment in just about any other situation. AT Satchels take that duty on very well, to the point that the PTRS is unnecessary.

However, rather than try to lure players into risking T1, if the maxim and the sniper were switched, Soviet T2 would have strong counter-play options or conscript support, and T1 would have straightforward early game strength. Both starting tiers would be strong options.

Ostheer T1 has the ability to handle both in different ways.

Each player will then have to adapt to each others' play and builds to gain an edge.

About OKW:

OKW still will struggle with maxim spam, but that's not a fault of soviet tiers. The difference though is maxims without mortars or ZiS is that all the volks and sturmpioneers that garrison to avoid suppression aren't awaiting imminent doom from ZiS barrages or mortar shells. Also, maxim spam against OKW under this tier setup gives OKW much more breathing room to get a Luchs out without facing a ZiS wall.

This arrangement also synergizes with all the soviet team weapon call-ins too.
11 Dec 2016, 21:19 PM
#36
avatar of Ulaire Minya

Posts: 372

How about we just make cons as useful as other factions' line infantry?
12 Dec 2016, 13:22 PM
#37
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post10 Dec 2016, 21:10 PMNosliw
Why is everyone hell bound on putting anti tank in soviet T1? German T1 doesn't have anti-tank ... why must soviet have it? If you want to spam Penals because they're boss, what's wrong with just picking Guards/M42 doctrine, building T2 for AT guns, or going for SU76? I don't get why everyone is forcing an AT option into soviet T1 ...

Edit: this just came to me... why not just let Penals have access to AT grenades?


Why OKW have raketen at t0 ?

Coz problem are in MP to get at gun from t2.
12 Dec 2016, 14:06 PM
#38
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

I understand the idea of having AT stuff on T1 but I'm not agreeing on giving it to the Penals. All other options exposed on this thread feel better than that.
This will lead into spam Penals into T3.
12 Dec 2016, 15:25 PM
#39
avatar of Sultan366

Posts: 9

How about we just make cons as useful as other factions' line infantry?


this its the solution but the machine just ignore it
12 Dec 2016, 17:09 PM
#40
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 875 | Subs: 6

This poorly constructed poll and the subsequent responses inspired me to rant in defense of PTRS Penals for 35 minutes.

1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Germany 40
unknown 30
United States 2

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

814 users are online: 814 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49141
Welcome our newest member, igryskoj24
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM