This poorly constructed poll and the subsequent responses inspired me to rant in defense of PTRS Penals for 35 minutes.
Thank you for explanation of your view on this change! But one opposing opinion still exits - M-42 in Tier 1. For me this is still the best way to go.
I want to talk about your opinion, that there exist units with same weapon and same usage:
1. Pioneers and Assault Grenadiers - Nope, they have the same weapon, but different role on the field.
2. Rangers and Airborne - Yeah, half agree. They separated by doctrines. You can't have both of them at the moment. I think rangers have bad design. In comparison with airborne they have less abilities, less number of soldiers in the squad, only one upgrade, and the same role and price (390 and 390 iirc).
I find better variant - Volks and Panzerfusiliers. Both have grenades, both have AT snare, both have AI upgrade. They are very close to each other in so many ways. No sarcasm
I think the problem with Guards and Penals is current version of Penals. It is AI and anti-garrison unit. All his abilitites and ROKS-3 upgrade works for this role. And this is realy unique infantry unit with his unique role. Only Riflemen with M2 have the same role as AI/Anti-garrison mainline infantry, before they lose this doctrine upgrade. PTRS Penals much closer to Guards role than ROKS-3 penals. This is why i have doubt about this change. But this is not mean, that i want to see penals unchanged. Keep experimenting with them!
In fact the only really important argument in machine's video is that relic may not agree on moving m42 from the useless doctrine hell to meta heaven.
Other than that it's enough to give it some more mobility (raketen style but without camo) and AI damage (to keep tier profile and not to buff its AT but still make it worth it) and we've got one of best placed and designed units in whole game. No jokes. It doesn't have to be cheap, one on the field should be enough.
And why would I go penals instead of cons after nerfs? Well it's early game and I need some AI. Cons are already belived to be utility squad and spamming them doesn't work without suitable doctrine. Not to say that if someone is not planning on going penals he is not going to end up with PTRS penals either way.
Saw the vid and you briefly mention the M3 and the SU sniper. Again, once the changes to Penals are implemented, the current situation would still remain the same.
-Are penals worth getting or not? You won't think about combining your army composition with M3 and snipers (you get sometimes a single one depending map and opponent and still not worth the cost/risk/reward).
I know there are some ideas roaming around on how to bring T1 as a whole into the late game, but this means it's just a stop gap patch till the other changes are on the scope of been implemented.
"What do PTRS Penals do, that Guards don't? And the answer is really nothing..." That's the problem. We are not getting T1 because we want snipers and M3, we are getting it because LIVE Penals with Flamers are OP.
The whole point of high risk/high reward on T1 was when either M3 and/or snipers were OP. Every noob can just blob around a ball of Penals with flamers and Guards and be effective. That's not the case with utilizing either snipers or clowncars. That's why live T1 is low-medium risk/high reward.
-Less relevant but i won't think PTRS penals will make Shocktroops return.
-IMO, the key to bring T1 into play is not having a single unit been viable/OP rather than the whole tier been balanced. I think with PTRS or not we are going in the direction of making Penals balanced but again making T1 been dead. Why not play Cons/T2 instead (quoting Jesulin/Hans) and with that, why not play USF/UKF competitively.
1- Penal: I do think that the AT Satchel is really a great idea. Why? Cause it would be too easy to bully/push around the unit if that wouldn't be the case. Guards have button to avoid this.
2- M3: same with other light vehicles (Kubel) why not start by reducing veterancy requirements.
Better veterancy? Utility? Faster unload/load of troops?
3- Sniper. Since we have to embrace the whole 2 man snipers concept why not:
-Make flare vet 0 again. Flare (same with mortar/trip wire) reveals cloaked units. Flare are shot by the spotter only.
-Sniper model has same sight range as infantry units (35)
-Spotter models has current sight plus 5 (45>50). You will have same sight range as shoot range.
-Vet1: increase spotter sight range by +10
-Spotter and sniper model can independently die. Spotter is cheaper to reinforce than sniper model (45vs90).
Train thought:
1- Penal: I do think that the AT Satchel is really a great idea. Why? Cause it would be too easy to bully/push around the unit if that wouldn't be the case. Guards have button to avoid this.
If that is your reasoning then how should Assault Grenadiers, AI panzergrenadiers and obersoldaten avoid these situation?
Is the AT-satchel linked to the PTRS upgrade? If so you can skip this question.
In fact the only really important argument in machine's video is that relic may not agree on moving m42 from the useless doctrine hell to meta heaven.
Other than that it's enough to give it some more mobility (raketen style but without camo) and AI damage (to keep tier profile and not to buff its AT but still make it worth it) and we've got one of best placed and designed units in whole game. No jokes. It doesn't have to be cheap, one on the field should be enough.
And why would I go penals instead of cons after nerfs? Well it's early game and I need some AI. Cons are already belived to be utility squad and spamming them doesn't work without suitable doctrine. Not to say that if someone is not planning on going penals he is not going to end up with PTRS penals either way.
Imo how relic can cares if thay dont play this game, dont know this game, can not fix this game. Relic opinion for us are like stone opinion.
Imo how relic can cares if thay dont play this game, dont know this game, can not fix this game. Relic opinion for us are like stone opinion.
Except, they possess all the rights to the game. And we can't do anything about it. Also, they might know nothing about playing the game but hey, they made it after all. Who knows how good or bad it could be if there were different people working on it.
If that is your reasoning then how should Assault Grenadiers, AI panzergrenadiers and obersoldaten avoid these situation?
Well unfortunately nothing. Obers and assault gren have been since day 1 invitations to be abused by vehicles. Shock troopers are also in this category. Panzer grenadier at least have the threat of 2 panzerwchrecks popping out. PanzerfauSts on assault gren with t1 built and schrecks or fausts for obers shouldn't be considereal heresy. Shocks are harder to pin down. They got smoke at least.
Is the AT-satchel linked to the PTRS upgrade? If so you can skip this question.
Unfortunately so. It makes it extremely hard to use since each penal has to be upgraded individually for access using munitions to use munitions. Then the squad has a big ol beacon of a ptrs signalling axis light vehicles which unit to maintain a distance of 10 from.
Except, they possess all the rights to the game. And we can't do anything about it. Also, they might know nothing about playing the game but hey, they made it after all. Who knows how good or bad it could be if there were different people working on it.
Make baby easy, grow baby is hard.
Its still dont give answer about m42 in t1, coz if relic dont whant it, question are why ? At least, lets test it on new version of mod, lets see + and - of this. Soviet play in patch close to @Zarok style@ like one way.
If that is your reasoning then how should Assault Grenadiers, AI panzergrenadiers and obersoldaten avoid these situation?
Is the AT-satchel linked to the PTRS upgrade? If so you can skip this question.
That's not the point.
AT units can be bullied around by pushing the model which carries the weapon. PS gets frontloaded damage (+ snares on grens/Volks), zook/piat has less of it but they get better RoF.
Anyway, PTRS are not for alpha/burst damage but deterrent with sustained damage. Right now, if you go T1 is because you want Penals, if you go Penals you don't get more than 1 conscripts and even with 2, it's hard to justify investing on molos/AT nades. So unless you have Penals with PTRS inside a building, you could just mop them with a Flamer HT/222/P2/Flak HT (which is now the case) by pushing them around. With Guards you have button to avoid this.
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.
I think this is a bold and unjustifiable statement. The fact that Penals cost more than Conscripts and require T1 should be reason enough to build cons instead. The manpower cost for T1 and 1 Penal squad is more manpower than 2 conscripts. Basically when you have 2 conscripts you have 1 penal. So I don't think your statement is correct. I think more realistically the choice is between: more squads on the field (conscripts) that are less combat effective, can merge, and have molotovs, can build sandbags, can oorah, or penals who have better combat efficiency, no merge ability, no oorah (at least until vet1), no access to molotovs or sandbags, and come later. I think if both have AT nades it would be fine, considering that there are quite a few differences between penals and conscripts: cost, timing, performance, unit abilities, interactions with doctrines (ie, PTRS doctrine for Conscripts, Conscript Repair (M4C doc)), etc.
Saw the vid and you briefly mention the M3 and the SU sniper. Again, once the changes to Penals are implemented, the current situation would still remain the same.
-Are penals worth getting or not? You won't think about combining your army composition with M3 and snipers (you get sometimes a single one depending map and opponent and still not worth the cost/risk/reward).
I know there are some ideas roaming around on how to bring T1 as a whole into the late game, but this means it's just a stop gap patch till the other changes are on the scope of been implemented.
"What do PTRS Penals do, that Guards don't? And the answer is really nothing..." That's the problem. We are not getting T1 because we want snipers and M3, we are getting it because LIVE Penals with Flamers are OP.
The whole point of high risk/high reward on T1 was when either M3 and/or snipers were OP. Every noob can just blob around a ball of Penals with flamers and Guards and be effective. That's not the case with utilizing either snipers or clowncars. That's why live T1 is low-medium risk/high reward.
-Less relevant but i won't think PTRS penals will make Shocktroops return.
-IMO, the key to bring T1 into play is not having a single unit been viable/OP rather than the whole tier been balanced. I think with PTRS or not we are going in the direction of making Penals balanced but again making T1 been dead. Why not play Cons/T2 instead (quoting Jesulin/Hans) and with that, why not play USF/UKF competitively.
1- Penal: I do think that the AT Satchel is really a great idea. Why? Cause it would be too easy to bully/push around the unit if that wouldn't be the case. Guards have button to avoid this.
2- M3: same with other light vehicles (Kubel) why not start by reducing veterancy requirements.
Better veterancy? Utility? Faster unload/load of troops?
3- Sniper. Since we have to embrace the whole 2 man snipers concept why not:
-Make flare vet 0 again. Flare (same with mortar/trip wire) reveals cloaked units. Flare are shot by the spotter only.
-Sniper model has same sight range as infantry units (35)
-Spotter models has current sight plus 5 (45>50). You will have same sight range as shoot range.
-Vet1: increase spotter sight range by +10
-Spotter and sniper model can independently die. Spotter is cheaper to reinforce than sniper model (45vs90).
Train thought:
Nice response. We are testing more changes to Penals internally to give them some anti infantry utility and interactivity.
I'm in favour of the M42, but I must say it is very vulnerable to being decrewed. If its offensive stats remain unchanged, it could do with some received accuracy buffs.
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.
Penals are balanced when considering them as an AI squad, yeah. The recent nerfs have seen to that. I'm not convinved that reducing their AI further is a good idea, even if it comes with the wonderful reward of T1 AT.
For that reason, M42 seems a more attractive solution for RUS T1 AT.
Else, make cons AT nade half price and time to research.
I have a problem with the spam Penal and convert some when needed into AT units. It gives too much solution for the Soviet player by using a single unit for half of the game.
a) Your opponent build a light tank, solution is to convert one or two penal and then adapt your tiering
b) Your opponent build more infantry, solution is to keep your penal AI and adapt your tiering.
There isn't basically a wrong decision making with Penals at this stage of the game.
If you compare with USF which propose a similar gameplay early on, you need to decide whenever you want AI control with the T1 or AT and light tanks with T2. And if you don't, you still need to invest fuel on zook.
Soviet aren't design that way, You went Penal spam, it goes well = T3 and you got AI and AT solutions. You went Penal spam, it goes wrong = T2 and you got AI and AT solutions.
This is why, even if the Penals you build on the patch are balanced as a unit, this will not bring any balance into the gameplay. If I agree that in order to reduce the Penal impact early on we must give a AT solution on the T1, this solution shouldn't be on the Penal themselves. It can come from a M-42 or from other solutions. It should have a real cost, something that impact your strategy and decision making more than -I'm on the downside so T2 + penalPTRS, I'm on the upside so t3 + penalPTRS.
I want to talk about your opinion, that there exist units with same weapon and same usage:
1. Pioneers and Assault Grenadiers - Nope, they have the same weapon, but different role on the field.
2. Rangers and Airborne - Yeah, half agree. They separated by doctrines. You can't have both of them at the moment. I think rangers have bad design. In comparison with airborne they have less abilities, less number of soldiers in the squad, only one upgrade, and the same role and price (390 and 390 iirc).
I think its a bit incorrect to compare other factions call in infantry to soviet. SU is designed to have call in elite units, guards or shocks, look at the number of doctrines that have them. To get guards you don't have to lock into a specific doctrine and thus playstyle.
I think its a bit incorrect to compare other factions call in infantry to soviet. SU is designed to have call in elite units, guards or shocks, look at the number of doctrines that have them. To get guards you don't have to lock into a specific doctrine and thus playstyle.
Watch the video. GGTheMashine has said "There is a lot of units, which share the same weapon, and yet nobody said they are overlaping..." and then he has given this examples to explain, that penals and guards not overlapping. I don't agree with that and explain why. That's all.
If it's preview, why not put M-42 in T1 to see how players will react/adapt?
Australian magic is right. The m42 idea is worth testing. On the other hand the PTRS penal option is also in the testing phase.
So my suggestion is to give soviet T1 two exclusive free global upgrades. One would give penals a PTRS upgrade, the other would allow building m42 in T1. That way we can test and compare these solutions in battle while making them both more and more polished. Before the patch goes live we can draw a winner and drop the other solution.
Also, I think that the implementation of m42 should differ from the current version but that is another story.
I have a problem with the spam Penal and convert some when needed into AT units. It gives too much solution for the Soviet player by using a single unit for half of the game.
a) Your opponent build a light tank, solution is to convert one or two penal and then adapt your tiering
b) Your opponent build more infantry, solution is to keep your penal AI and adapt your tiering.
There isn't basically a wrong decision making with Penals at this stage of the game.
If you compare with USF which propose a similar gameplay early on, you need to decide whenever you want AI control with the T1 or AT and light tanks with T2. And if you don't, you still need to invest fuel on zook.
Soviet aren't design that way, You went Penal spam, it goes well = T3 and you got AI and AT solutions. You went Penal spam, it goes wrong = T2 and you got AI and AT solutions.
This is why, even if the Penals you build on the patch are balanced as a unit, this will not bring any balance into the gameplay. If I agree that in order to reduce the Penal impact early on we must give a AT solution on the T1, this solution shouldn't be on the Penal themselves. It can come from a M-42 or from other solutions. It should have a real cost, something that impact your strategy and decision making more than -I'm on the downside so T2 + penalPTRS, I'm on the upside so t3 + penalPTRS.
This ^^ 100%.
There is no meaningful decisions.
I watched the rant video and I don't think you helped your cause calling peoples views stupid or ridiculous. Most posts seems to be either opposed to the idea, or are proposing alternative ideas. No one is being offensive and I don't believe too many think it is an OP solution. I certainly did not make any such claim.
You obviously want more variety build wise, and that is to be commended on some level, but it is only unit variation that you are promoting. Its not really a strategy of strengths and weaknesses.
I am not necessarily opposed to the idea, believing it to be too strong, but rather because it is to easy. If an upgrade was required that required fuel I may be of a differing view, maybe. The idea that soviets need more At options in the same patch that all lvs and stug e were nerfed seems a little overkill.
I think it is certainly viable with certain commanders and builds but I think there could be a problem when the sov player goes guards and then upgrades some or all penals to ptrs and relies on 120, sniper, t70 or t34/85 etc etc for AI. Axis vehicles will be facing a lot of At.
I'm also not really a fan of more handheld At on six man squads. I thought the patch was to raise the skill cap. Also taking advice only from elite players is not always the best idea, since they play differently and react faster, whereas down the ladder ie 250+ blobbing becomes a thing very quickly.
I am also a little mystified as to why sovs going t1, t2 is a ridiculous idea, yet ost have to do it every game or simply loose. I know the cost is different, (didn't have time to calculate sorry) but it just seems that your argument hinges upon t1 - t3 being the only teching path and therefore validating your decision to implement ptrs on penals. Seems to me the issue is one of timing and cost, but maybe that is outside of patch scope.
I guess my only real concern is not that it is OP, but more along the lines on being low risk, resulting in a change from flamer penals/guards every game to ptrs penals guards every game.
Saw the vid and you briefly mention the M3 and the SU sniper. Again, once the changes to Penals are implemented, the current situation would still remain the same.
-Are penals worth getting or not? You won't think about combining your army composition with M3 and snipers (you get sometimes a single one depending map and opponent and still not worth the cost/risk/reward).
I know there are some ideas roaming around on how to bring T1 as a whole into the late game, but this means it's just a stop gap patch till the other changes are on the scope of been implemented.
"What do PTRS Penals do, that Guards don't? And the answer is really nothing..." That's the problem. We are not getting T1 because we want snipers and M3, we are getting it because LIVE Penals with Flamers are OP.
The whole point of high risk/high reward on T1 was when either M3 and/or snipers were OP. Every noob can just blob around a ball of Penals with flamers and Guards and be effective. That's not the case with utilizing either snipers or clowncars. That's why live T1 is low-medium risk/high reward.
-Less relevant but i won't think PTRS penals will make Shocktroops return.
-IMO, the key to bring T1 into play is not having a single unit been viable/OP rather than the whole tier been balanced. I think with PTRS or not we are going in the direction of making Penals balanced but again making T1 been dead. Why not play Cons/T2 instead (quoting Jesulin/Hans) and with that, why not play USF/UKF competitively.
1- Penal: I do think that the AT Satchel is really a great idea. Why? Cause it would be too easy to bully/push around the unit if that wouldn't be the case. Guards have button to avoid this.
2- M3: same with other light vehicles (Kubel) why not start by reducing veterancy requirements.
Better veterancy? Utility? Faster unload/load of troops?
3- Sniper. Since we have to embrace the whole 2 man snipers concept why not:
-Make flare vet 0 again. Flare (same with mortar/trip wire) reveals cloaked units. Flare are shot by the spotter only.
-Sniper model has same sight range as infantry units (35)
-Spotter models has current sight plus 5 (45>50). You will have same sight range as shoot range.
-Vet1: increase spotter sight range by +10
-Spotter and sniper model can independently die. Spotter is cheaper to reinforce than sniper model (45vs90).
Train thought:
I really like your Ideas.
To compensate T0, reduce Molotov animation to throw it faster, increase cost to 30 ammo (OKW Style).
Make AT satchel unlock on T0 AT Nade research.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
