[WBP] Frequently Questioned Comments about Soviet T1

There's a lot of backlash about the particular design decision of giving Penals access to the PTRS upgrade. Since everybody seems to be converging to the same objections, I think it is more productive to gather all these comments here, in a thread, so that everyone can look them up.

I can partly understand the hate vs putting PTRS on Penals (especially from people that haven't tried; or don't even want to bother trying the mod). However, if you guys ever want to see T1 built again, until the next patch, there needs to be some compromise somewhere.

In short, with this thread, I hope I'll be able to convince you that for T1 to be viable, one of the following should hold.

The three possible options are:

1. Keep Penals OP, as they are. Thus, a T1 investment will be worth it. The only issue is which gamemode you balance this opportunity cost to?

2. Give T1 access to some tech-free AT options, without requiring that T2 be built, so that they can hold off until T3.

3. Make T1 free/ultra-cheap. That way, a T1 will be less of a costly detour.

Which one would you choose?

The rest of this post is dedicated to the people that believe that no such compromise is needed.

"T1 doesn't need AT options because..."

"The Soviet guy can always build T2 to get a Zis gun"
Show Spoiler

"The Soviet guy can always pick a commander with Guards, if things go sour"
Show Spoiler

"You don't need T2/commanders. Just tech AT nades, and you should be fine vs vehicles"
Show Spoiler

"I don't agree with the Anti-infantry direction of current Penals because..."

"Penals are just fine in the live version; T1 is a risk-reward tier."
Show Spoiler

"Penals are just fine in the live version; Just remove the flamethrower and we're done"
Show Spoiler

"Penals were fine before the May Preview buffs. Just revert those buffs; done."
Show Spoiler

"Penals were already too strong before the May Preview buffs. Revert the buffs and remove access to the flamethrower"
Show Spoiler

"Penals get too much utility now, overshadowing Conscripts. Wasn't the point of Penals to supplement Conscripts, but not replace them? Molotov?"
Show Spoiler

"It is obvious that the reason Penals do not scale because they lack weapon upgrades (e.g., DP-28). Why not fix that?"
Show Spoiler

"Regarding Flamethrower&PPSh Penals; this is complete nonsense because..."

"Didn't we already establish that 6-man flamethrower squads are bad?"
Show Spoiler

"Aren't Flamer Penals going to make Shocks completely redundant now?"
Show Spoiler

"Aren't Flamer Penals going to make PPSh Conscripts completely redundant now?"
Show Spoiler

"What is this nonsense about Penal PTRS. Revert this change at once because..."

"T1 doesn't need access to AT; it's a risk reward tier"
Show Spoiler

"PTRS Penals are going to make Light Vehicle play unviable for axis"
Show Spoiler

"Why do PTRS Penals need to have worse-quality PTRS than guards"
Show Spoiler

"PTRS Penals have simply too much anti-infantry capacity"
Show Spoiler

"PTRS Penals accuracy will make their PTRS snipe infantry, won't it?"
Show Spoiler

"Penals can buy a THIRD PTRS, now? What do they need this for? Isn't that too complicated?"
Show Spoiler

Why mess with PTRS Penals, when you can add M-42 to the tier?
Show Spoiler

The second option is obviously the only sensible way to go. I must say I liked the 1.2 iteration of penals, but the m-42 solution always seemed more elegant from design perspective. And definitely much less clustered and complicated than what 1.3 does to the poor T1.

Wall of text in which you didn't touch most important option, M-42.

• Keep Penals OP, as they are (so that a T1 investment is worth it)
  
• Give T1 access to some AT options, so that they can hold off until T3
  
• Make T1 free/ultra-cheap (that way, a T1 will be less of a costly detour)
  
  Which one would you choose?

That's not the way to balance things. Penals need nerfs, they are over performing. But not to the point that they become useless against even grens.

T1 is already viable specially against OKW, and Wehrmacht too since the 222 costs 2 times more now, and has lost its late game utility.

How many Maxim/Conscript squads would you be able to build without making that diversion. Are 2 Penal squads going to be that much stronger?

That is a problem with the maxim overperforming (mobility/durability).

Just as an example, people don't bother investing on Sturmpioneers/STGObers for AI purposes, because volk do the job while having more utility and less MP-bleed. That doesn't mean we must buff SP/Obers.

"The Soviet guy can always pick a commander with Guards, if things go sour"

If Penals & Guards is the prescribed solution, how can PTRS Penals ever cause an issue? (in other words, what are you even complaining about?)

Guards+Penals meta is one of the most complained about issues, the solution is not making penals to perform both roles.

I understand that you guys might be under stress, and this occasional discouraging backlashes don't help either, but remember that time is too short, and let's just appreciate this opportunity that relic is allowing the community to tackle core issues and most complained about problems. Dedicating so much time to buffing/revamping a single squad is just wrong. People have spoken, this penal obsession thing, the sooner we move on the better.

m-42 sucks and i dont want it.

Wall of text in which you didn't touch most important option, M-42.

Updated!

Updated!

So in short:

You don't want add M-42 becasue it's useless (still less useless than AT Penals) and for months I've been proving in replays that's it's not useless (just some vet ability which improves penetration/damage).

And you don't want M-42 becasue of tournament.

For me it sounds very weak.

M-42 offers reasonable solution for light AT, which is in line with combined arms, stays useful even in later stages without weird options to get 3rd PTRS after T4, it is against mass Penals blob.

ANd last thing, iirc, it is most voted community option here.

Can we start by clarifying what is the design intent of Penals?

Penals
Currently in 1.3 are:
No upgrades Strongest AI infantry with very good DPS at ALL ranges and anti-garrison, anti-building abilities (what is the design intent of this unit?)

Penal Flamers:
One of strongest mid (15-20) AI infantry with anti-garrison, anti-building abilities (what is the design intent of this unit?)

Penal PTRS X2 X3
Average AI good against all vehicles from light to supper heavy due to 100% chance to hit vehicles and lots of deflection damage (what is the design intent of this unit?)

And the same accuracy bonuses for all 3 units that do not help flamer and Ptrs Penals in their roles.

Can we start by clarifying what is the design intent of Penals?

Penals
Currently in 1.3 are:
No upgrades Strongest AI infantry with very good DPS at ALL ranges and anti-garrison, anti-building abilities (what is the design intent of this unit?)

Mid-long range semi-elite glasscannons. Just like all other AI-only infantry, they too get access to grenades now.

Penal Flamers:
One of strongest mid (15-20) AI infantry with anti-garrison, anti-building abilities (what is the design intent of this unit?)

Anti-garrison, anti-building specialists. Molotov is really redundant here, but it's a nice touch; innit?

When you get a chance to try them in game, they aren't as strong as you claim. that's because they will randomly shed SVTs PPShs as models die.

Penal PTRS X2 X3
Average AI good against all vehicles from light to supper heavy due to 100% chance to hit vehicles and lots of deflection damage (what is the design intent of this unit?)

Defensive AT infantry vs vehicle rushes. Just like other AT infantry that cost something, they also have access to grendes that can be thrown defensively.

Mid-long range semi-elite glasscannons. Just like all other AI-only infantry, they too get access to grenades now.

Ok but can a 6 man unit actually be a glasscannon especially since it get defensive
bonuses with each member lost? Can Penal actually be wiped out out by small arms fire unless extremely bad play?

Since axis luck close range infantry other then pios and assault grenadiers are they not going to continue to dominate axis infantry?

Shouldn't they be more weak at long or mid range?

Anti-garrison, anti-building specialists. Molotov is really redundant here, but it's a nice touch; innit?

Ok but why mix 3 different types of weapon in the same unit? You want a close combat unit give them 1 flamer 5 shock troops PPsh (about 75% weaker)

Accuracy bonus does not work well flamer or PPsh so veterancy does not actually help be better in its role.

Defensive AT infantry vs vehicle rushes. Just like other AT infantry that cost something, they also have access to grendes that can be thrown defensively.

Ok but why do they need to so effective vs Heavy armor with the huge buff to deflection damage? They do 60 guaranteed damage (100% accuracy making blitzkrieg bonus ineffective and deflection damage)to medium/heavy/Super heavy tanks?

Accuracy bonus does not work well with PTRs AT so veterancy does not actually help be better in its role.

Ok but can a 6 man unit actually be a glasscannon especially since it get defensive
bonuses with each member lost? Can Penal actually be wiped out out by small arms fire unless extremely bad play?

Since axis luck close range infantry other then pios and assault grenadiers are they not going to continue to dominate axis infantry?

Shouldn't they be more weak at long or mid range?

Panzergrenadiers?

Panzergrenadiers?

Panzergrenadier best range is mid not close. Wasting time to move it close is probably not worth it
because:

1) Received accuracy bonus of PG affect the fight less
2) Pgs have bad DPs on the move

and there is also the timing and the resource investment in getting Pgs and the bleed issue...

If you want a glasscannon unit consider lowering size to 4 or 5 since Hp is generally better than target size, equipped with a bolt action rifle to excel far and offer Lmg upgrades...

I apologize if I sound critical I am not and you guys deserve congratulation for the effort you put in trying to improve the game. I am simply trying to understand the design intent so that I can make the best suggestion fitting that intent.

There's a lot of backlash about the particular design decision of giving Penals access to the PTRS upgrade. Since everybody seems to be converging to the same objections, I think it is more productive to gather all these comments here, in a thread, so that everyone can look them up.

Since everybody seems to be converging to the same objections, I think it is more productive to take heed of those objections and move on instead of grinding efforts to dust.

I can partly understand the hate vs putting PTRS on Penals (especially from people that haven't tried; or don't even want to bother trying the mod). However, if you guys ever want to see T1 built again, until the next patch, there needs to be some compromise somewhere.

You make it really hard to want to read the following wall of text when you start things off like this. This isn't an 'us' and 'them' this is all 'us'. Except all of 'us' need to get through to 'you'.

In short, with this thread, I hope I'll be able to convince you that for T1 to be viable, one of the following should hold:
- Keep Penals OP, as they are (so that a T1 investment is worth it)
- Give T1 access to some AT options, so that they can hold off until T3
- Make T1 free/ultra-cheap (that way, a T1 will be less of a costly detour)

Which one would you choose?

Option #4: Realize that the viability of Soviet T1 has everything to do about the viability of T2 and the necessity to rush for T3.

The rest of this post is dedicated to the people that believe that no such compromise is needed.

Is it? Is the goal to silence opposition or to arrive at a solution? Because there's more than just the perspectives you're laying out here.

The simplest answer is that giving PTRS to T1 is the most tried-and-tested option in the history of CoH2.

What is this, I don't even. And what is the result of this most tried and tested option?

You're asking questions like "Why didn't you conspam"?

You argue intensively about AT nade viability, but you never address the munitions cost of throwing AT nades. You only mention munitions as a factor when talking about PTRS costs.

Trying to break apart this massive wall of text and address these issues does not seem that productive when this thread itself is a rejection of multiple threads of feedback.

so what you are saying is soviet T1 needs to be flawless to compete with T2?
regarding your statements for soviets T1+T2 strategies:
crappy T1 AT is not the same as teching for T2 and getting Zis 3 which is also good vs medium tanks.
its not like you can't get 3rd penal after the Zis gun...

You make it really hard to want to read the following wall of text when you start things off like this. This isn't an 'us' and 'them' this is all 'us'. Except all of 'us' need to get through to 'you'.

Technically, there is a large congregation of people that bash the effort in v1.3, clogging up the thread, and making it difficult to receive feedback from actual in-game experience. The mod is out for less than 24 hours, the thread has received 117 responses; most of them stating the same.

Yet I doubt that people have really had the time to play the mod. That's because I was also on a lobby waiting for games to show up, so that I can also play the mod myself.

Option #4: Realize that the viability of Soviet T1 has everything to do about the viability of T2 and the necessity to rush for T3.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we are converging to the same conclusion.

The overarching answer to the T1 conondrum has to be one of the following:
- Keep Penals OP, as they are (so that a T1 investment is worth it)
- Give T1 access to some AT options, so that they can hold off until T3
- Make T1 free/ultra-cheap (that way, a T1 will be less of a costly detour)

According to your feedback and responses so far (which have been helpful, btw), you seen to be converging very hard towards option #2. Correct me if I am wrong, but you've been advocating for homing CoH1-style satchels. That's already an AT option; and that's already something that a T1 could use to hold out to T3.

The AT solution doesn't necessarily have to be PTRS. However, if we are discarding option #1 (because we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot for other gamemodes) and option #3 (because that takes away choice; and also, we don't know how non-doc Penals & maxims will really look like) we have to go for option #2.

Personally, I don't care if option #2 entails PTRS, or AT nades, or M42 or something. However that option needs to be side-tech free, if T1 is to remain competitive. That option doesn't have to be a silver bullet, but it should be good enough to guarantee you will make it to T3 the majority of the time.

T2 will still help; but that's the tapping-in option. However, T1-to-T2 shouldn't be the prescribed option; it should be the fallback option.

Trying to break apart this massive wall of text and address these issues does not seem that productive when this thread itself is a rejection of multiple threads of feedback.

I can add spoiler tags to allow people to home in on their preferred question. It's just tiresome having to deal with the same questions in 10 different threads.

Technically, there is a large congregation of people that bash the effort in v1.3, clogging up the thread, and making it difficult to receive feedback from actual in-game experience. The mod is out for less than 24 hours, the thread has received 117 responses; most of them stating the same.

Yet I doubt that people have really had the time to play the mod. That's because I was also on a lobby waiting for games to show up, so that I can also play the mod myself.

I think that's because a lot of people felt that the PTRS was an unpopular decision in the first place, so adding more felt more like a middle finger towards anyone putting their time into testing and giving feedback.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we are converging to the same conclusion.

The overarching answer to the T1 conondrum has to be one of the following:
- Keep Penals OP, as they are (so that a T1 investment is worth it)
- Give T1 access to some AT options, so that they can hold off until T3
- Make T1 free/ultra-cheap (that way, a T1 will be less of a costly detour)

According to your feedback and responses so far (which have been helpful, btw), you seen to be converging very hard towards option #2. Correct me if I am wrong, but you've been advocating for homing CoH1-style satchels. That's already an AT option; and that's already something that a T1 could use to hold out to T3.

Kind of. I thought the first iteration of AT Satchels without homing worked just fine. The homing version works too.

The key thing here is access to the Satchel. Sticky bombs in CoH1 were like 80mp and 25fuel. Going stickies was a choice, and having Penals out the door having access to this option could be problematic.

Making the ability morph when there's an upgrade or tier structure built isn't intuitive and isn't so much a side tech choice as a side effect. I used to advocate removing Satchel access on Penal Battalions until they got a flamethrower upgrade. (So that they actually role changed from long range infantry to anti-garrison/bunker.) Nowadays Satchel charge access (with AT functionality) being tied behind the AT nade from HQ might be the best bet. You don't have auto access to AT, you still have a panic AT option, and you're not having to completely morph abilities or units around.

The AT solution doesn't necessarily have to be PTRS. However, if we are discarding option #1 (because we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot for other gamemodes) and option #3 (because that takes away choice; and also, we don't know how non-doc Penals & maxims will really look like) we have to go for option #2.

Personally, I don't care if option #2 entails PTRS, or AT nades, or M42 or something. However that option needs to be side-tech free, if T1 is to remain competitive. That option doesn't have to be a silver bullet, but it should be good enough to guarantee you will make it to T3 the majority of the time.

I advocate for switching maxims with snipers. This is NOT possible without Penals having that AT functionality to their Satchels. The switch alone doesn't elevate T1 enough and just nerfs T2. But with the AT Satchel buff, T1 becomes feasible, and T2 remains viable. It also breaks the ability for Soviets to stand on OKW's neck with T2 alone. But that's such a significant change that would require more than my perspective.

I'd demonstrate it here if you let me harvest the AT satchel from your guys' efforts: https://www.coh2.org/topic/57974/winter-balance-suggestions/page/1#post_id580297

But I also I understand this is out of The Scope.

T2 will still help; but that's the tapping-in option. However, T1-to-T2 shouldn't be the prescribed option; it should be the fallback option.

Like I've also been saying, the early game access to the ZiS has always been the problem with early soviet teching. You're never really going to beat a combination like maxim + ZiS in one tier.

I can add spoiler tags to allow people to home in on their preferred question. It's just tiresome having to deal with the same questions in 10 different threads.

I get that. It might warrant a few different threads because it'll become a mess to keep a conversation going with so many different points being presented and responded to at once.

i personally think that you guys just didnt nerf penals or buff ost inf the right way in wbp1.0

2. As Penals accumulate veterancy, they definitely tend to outscale all infantry OST can field by that point.This is, even though Penals receive massive amounts of accuracy (which is the primary stat for long-range troops)Even with LMGs, Grenadiers will bleed/even lose very hard to Penals.This makes infantry investment for OST futile every time the Soviet player picks T1.This is one of the core issues this patch is trying to address.

ost infantry definetely has a hard time against penals, but also against pretty much every other infantry type in the game. so why not give ost strategic diversity by creating an upgrade in t0 unlockable with bt3 that gives grens ( maybe also pzgrens) a fifth man for a decent investment. that would be a global upgrade (something coh2 is missing a lot), it would increase wehrmacht lategame scaling and strategic diversity and maybe solve your problem.

if not (probably the case), then slightly nerf penals to give them a more defined weakness, maybe change their vet and accuracy so that they are worse at long range (right now thnx to flamer they are quite strong at every distance)

Show Spoiler

edit: and maybe make penal flamer a bit more costly

The problem with 5th man grenadiers is that it's less a strategic option as it is a critical upgrade that Ostheer needs to stay competitive. I think global upgrades more akin to CoH1's Veteran Sergeant upgrade might work better. For instance, a t4 upgrade that improves all infantry's received accuracy slightly.

Show Spoiler

Bolster squads for UKF is not a critical upgrade for a few reasons. Most of it has to do with the strength of all the other British toys. Otherwise Tommies are strong enough and REs are extremely cost effective without it.

Show Spoiler

I second this

It's really great that that you put so much effort in communicating the thoughts behind the changes. I have a couple of questions/remarks, if you don't mind:

1. Keep Penals OP, as they are. Thus, a T1 investment will be worth it. The only issue is which gamemode you balance this opportunity cost to?

Because you allude to gamemode: Are they considered OP in all gamemodes? Asking because while they clearly see more use nowadays, it's not like everybody is going for a T1 start, far from that. Yes, commanders that provide some means of light AT seem to be used predominantly, but it doesn't seem like penals overshadow everything else...

A question regarding the risk-reward thing, just so I'm on the same page there: What I think the idea is that a player picks a risk by going for penals. He has to be fairly aggressive with them, push other units off the field. If he manages to do so, he is ahead and probably can bring out his first T3 unit before the other player starts to have a significant impact with his LV (if he manages to field one). If he fails, he is confronted with a LV early and has to fall back on guards, partisans or even build T2. So, he is not out at that point, but at an disadvantage. Is that the same concept you have as well?

If so, this whole thing is about that you mean that it will no be possible to get to the sweet-spot in the balance to this risk/reward thing by tweaking the current penals a bit? Or did some other dynamic (re LVs?) change that required the further changes to penals?


Re: "The Soviet guy can always build T2 to get a Zis gun"
In your example you assume that somebody would build two penals before going T2. Why? Because the typical number of Penals seems to be more like 3, also typically augmented with an M3 or sniper...

Re: If Penals & Guards is the prescribed solution, how can PTRS Penals ever cause an issue? (in other words, what are you even complaining about?)

Valid point, but crossreading these comments I have the impression that the main issue is that once you settled for penals, there is nothing wrong in spamming them, because if things don't work out, you can transform them into whatever the situation requires.

Like, if somebody overcommits to penals now, the opponent can punish him by calling in a LV, to which you react by calling in e.g. guards which in turn costs popcap and manpower. With PTRS, one can simply turn one penal squad into a PTRS squad and be done with it. Similar to like if PGs would be available from OH T1.

Also, for guards at least you need to commit to a commander and buy a separate squad (granted, the "committing" part is not that hard since GMC overall is pretty good).

Re the part "I don't agree with the Anti-infantry direction of current Penals because..."
In the points below that one, most of your comments are along the line of Penals scaling too well. Also you say that the penals in v1.0 where perceived as too weak. Well, ok, in v1.0 it seems like penals received four nerfs: No flamers anymore, reduced accuracy at vet3, increased pop-cap and higher vet requirements. The first point I'd say is related to their impact on the game, the other three (arguably) relate to their scaling.

Later you address the point of "take away flamer". Now, I know that flamers on inf are a sensitive subject, but looking at this more pragmatically: When people say penals feel too weak, they likely mostly mean the missing flamethrower because early game we are not at vet3, regardless of the requirements. So, what would you expect to see if you left the flamer, but applied the other three nerfs? Like, this would not decrease the chance to get the reward, but would up the risk a bit, no? Also, this would make roving late game penal blobs less effective and more expensive...