Login

russian armor

Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.3 Update

PAGES (18)down
25 Dec 2016, 11:58 AM
#321
avatar of TheSleep3r

Posts: 670

historically they were given the worst equipment, often times given sticks and told to run directly across minefields and at defensive positions. the only rifles they got were the ones they beat out of the hands of germans if they could.


murrica and enemy at the gates is strong in this one
25 Dec 2016, 13:33 PM
#322
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned


That doesn't mean locking a HT behind a medic upgrade makes any sense. Literally.


Up his price not make sense too.
25 Dec 2016, 22:10 PM
#323
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



this was complete rambling nonsense. absolutely not trying to be rude. but were you drunk when you wrote this?


Same can be said about your post frankly.

This was a good read, when this topic arised several years/months ago.
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3igu17/on_the_concept_of_soviet_barrier_troops_as/

1-Penal battalions =/= Penal companies.

"The penal units - shtrafbats battalions made up of disgraced officers and commissars and commanded at the front level, and shtrafroty companies made up of NCOs and common soldiers and commanded at the army level"



2- It was more frequently to be short down on ammunition than rifles. SVT were widely spread early on during WW2 but cost/difficulty on production led focus to the Mosin.
While it should be more common to see mosins and PPSH, i guess it's a matter for gameplay variety. The SVT were handed mostly to NCO/Elite infantry and Penal battalion on it's root were meant to be this (360mp unit been the mirror of PG)

3- The one with sticks were "Peoples' Volunteer Corps"/"Narodnoe Opolcheniye" (civilian levies), barely trained non-soldiers pressed into service for last ditch delaying efforts, who in some cases lacked even enough rifles to go around and instead were armed with only grenades or Molotov cocktails"


4- Clearing a minefield doesn't mean running and dying (if possible). Firstly, you'll do this with your less "combat trained" troops. Secondly you'll make them find a way through it, not clear every mine by sending troops 1 by 1 to "defuse them".

Some of the exaggerated parts on the wiki links to books from Viktor Suvorov, "an amateur historian regularly accused of historical revisionism".


Back into topic:

I think if upgrade/tech are meant to be used as stopgaps in order to balance unit timings/upgrades, changing the name and description should be done (for example in the case of the Flak HT). While i can't bring myself to give a name, i've give examples for locking down either AT/flamer tech for T1 with replacing "Molotov package" into Anti garrison and AT nade with just AT package.
25 Dec 2016, 22:59 PM
#324
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

penals right now are way too strong. so you give them ptrs and seeking AT satchels? whaa?? heres my 2 cents. penals make no sense currently. historically they were given the worst equipment, often times given sticks and told to run directly across minefields and at defensive positions. the only rifles they got were the ones they beat out of the hands of germans if they could. so why do they start with an advanced SVT rifle? i think they should start with mosins, and given the option to buy svt rifles with munitions. penals just dont make any sense in this game. why do untrained prisoners defeat volksgrenadiers and grens 1v1?


From my reading this is incorrect. First off, there were different types of penal battalions. Most were made up of infantry who were arrested for various crimes including political dissident. A handful during the early war were made up of disgraced officers, many convicted for ordering unauthorized retreats. The officer penals were used as assault troops, they were outfitted similar to assault engineers (SVT's, PPSh's, ROKS') and forced to storm enemy strongholds. The more common penal troops were used as cannon-fodder, they would be stationed at the part of the front line expected to take the most casualties. This meant that an area expected to be heavily assaulted or bombarded may be stationed with penal battalions, so that regular infantry wouldn't take that burden. Divisions without penal battalions would suffer those casualties just the same.

While charging through minefields did occur, it was not limited to penal troops and it was not done just because they can. The Red Army Officer relied on statistics to operate. If charging through the mines would result in less casualties than storming the machine guns, then the troops (infantry, penal, guards, etc) will charge through the mines. and that is that.

Penal battalions were less of a suicide squad marked for death, and more of a unit that you could lose and have your only regret being that without them, the infantry have to take their place.
30 Dec 2016, 10:11 AM
#325
avatar of Blalord

Posts: 742 | Subs: 1

Historical accuracy debate ... plz stahpe
30 Dec 2016, 10:32 AM
#326
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Dec 2016, 10:11 AMBlalord
Historical accuracy debate ... plz stahpe


Not to mention that nobody wrote anything about the fact that the Germans relied far more heavily on the use of penal units (going to the point of actively looking for minor offences to transfer soldiers to them). But hey, historical accuracy in a game with a unit by the name of "Obersoldaten" is like complaining about the lack of realistic physics while flying around on a pig...
30 Dec 2016, 18:17 PM
#327
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Dec 2016, 10:11 AMBlalord
Historical accuracy debate ... plz stahpe


Well, you would thought that after 4 years we wouldn't had to discuss why Penals battalions are not performing as Osstruppen or worst (although Prostruppen are really good now) and ignoring the fact that they had perform as pseudo elite units since the release of the game.

Anyway, we have to wait to see what v1.4 will bring us.

31 Dec 2016, 00:58 AM
#328
avatar of Partisanship

Posts: 260

It's almost January. Any news on when this will settle?
31 Dec 2016, 01:43 AM
#329
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

There are rumours that the changes will be implemented in February and that the next balance preview will be mindblowing(tm).
31 Dec 2016, 02:06 AM
#330
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1

31 Dec 2016, 09:02 AM
#331
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7

T70 got overnerfed, just tried it


Did the nerf it between patch 1v2 and 1v3 ?

Because if no then t70 is fine. Wipes less, but survives 3 pak shots like any normal light tank
31 Dec 2016, 10:41 AM
#332
avatar of Neph

Posts: 138

What sort of timeline are we looking at for the release of the WB patch?
31 Dec 2016, 11:15 AM
#333
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2016, 10:41 AMNeph
What sort of timeline are we looking at for the release of the WB patch?


Around february I think
31 Dec 2016, 11:15 AM
#334
avatar of JackDickolson

Posts: 181

It needs 45 days of further testing, and it was stated that the preview will be ruining as long as February.
31 Dec 2016, 12:00 PM
#335
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

T70 got overnerfed, just tried it


Due to the accuracy nerfs on the main gun:
- The T-70 has to get closer to be accurate
- It is not possible for the T-70 to be accurate while moving; thus you have to stop-and-fire

We are aware that the T70 is pretty bad atm when it is engaging squads spread out in no cover (squad formations & main gun accuracy nerf). Thus, we are looking into improving the output of its coaxial MG to give T70 consistent damage against out-of-cover squads (currently the coaxial fires bursts every ~ 6 to 9 seconds, not counting reload)

Was your experience of T-70's lack of power due to squads being spaced out, or how did you use it?
31 Dec 2016, 12:02 PM
#336
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

Thinking about it, it was the space out squads that made the T70 less powerful to me. I'm used to it sniping and damaging several members, and not just one.
31 Dec 2016, 13:10 PM
#337
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned
Thinking about it, it was the space out squads that made the T70 less powerful to me. I'm used to it sniping and damaging several members, and not just one.


+
2 Jan 2017, 09:12 AM
#338
avatar of Blalord

Posts: 742 | Subs: 1



Did the nerf it between patch 1v2 and 1v3 ?

Because if no then t70 is fine. Wipes less, but survives 3 pak shots like any normal light tank


Actually i think its a survival nerf, cause for me repair > + raw health

Cause:

+ before: With repair you could survive 2 pak shot too

+ before: at 100% health, if you get fausted, you could repair the engine damage with repair ( and still moving )

+ now: at least now you have to spend muni to survive a pak shot ( i always have muni as soviet so never was my problem )

But well, maybe without repair t70 will be easier to everyone
3 Jan 2017, 15:17 PM
#339
avatar of sinthe

Posts: 414

Did anyone notice the big difference on axis tanks now that the mgs target inf with the toggle on?

3 Jan 2017, 17:06 PM
#340
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6

so where's the "4th update" for this patch? :snfBarton:
PAGES (18)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

196 users are online: 196 guests
1 post in the last 24h
6 posts in the last week
36 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48976
Welcome our newest member, debetexchange
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM