Comunnity poll for T1/penals design

The road to making t1 viable lies in fixing t2 and not making t1 better in every way.

Well yes and no.

The root of the problem lies in how the tiers of each faction relate to each other.

To start with EF armies have 5 tiers whereas WF armies have 4. Furthermore WF armies open the game building all their starting units from t0, where as ost will generally build t1 and soviets can choose between t0, t1 or t2. Sovs on the surface seem to have the most variety and flexibility. But in reality its a bit of a mess.

The issue for sov t1 is a lack of early map presence due to penals and snipers being expensive and m3 not able to capture points. The result is sov t1 must be strong to regain the territory it lost.

The solution to me is to re examine all factions and the timing/cost of each tier as well as general starting builds and make educated guesses as to when each faction will move to each tier.

The first thing that becomes apparent when doing this is sov t1 is always slightly behind and if the axis player plays aggressively and the map is small and/or allow for easy cutoff then it becomes difficult to catch up.

Secondly I would make sov t1 similar to ost t1 in cost, so that both factions can essentially field their first 3 units at around the same time, note, I am assuming ost goes mg, gren and sov goes con, penal. If sov t1 still lack field presence, and i am not advocating penal spam, then i would lower the cost of penals and adjust penal stats.

Basically I would make t1 the standard opening building for sov with penals being their core army, supported by cons (merge, sandbags, at nades).

M3 I would nerf as follows, reduced accuracy when moving. Flamers reduced damage when m3 moving so as to reduce the dreaded chasing retreating squads. Vet 1 ability, can reinforce.

Penals I would make optimal at midrange, leaving role for cons and shocks at short range. I would add flamer for 120 muni and add increased damage received when using oorah. Adjust stats so they are similar to usf rifles but don't vet quite so well.

For infantry AT I would add guards to t1 but lock them behind a fuel upgrade. Guards would be optimal at long range and have PTRS upgrade for 120 muni. Grenades would be tied to at nade upgrade. I think this type of structure allows for maximum variety and flexibilty but not so accessible that every option is available.

The goal would be to make each unit have a clear definable role, with upgrades that are priced appropriately so that they have opportunity cost and are not spammed. For example going penal flamer and guards with ptrs will not leave many muni for mines or sweepers. Going guards and at nades will delay t2 or t3 etc etc.

For t2 I would lower mp cost but increase fuel price, that way effectively killing the maxim spam opening but making it affordable if player goes cons spam or t1 opening and wants support weapons from t2.

The main idea is really to try and standardise soviets to some extent and balance from there.

Secondly I would make sov t1 similar to ost t1 in cost, so that both factions can essentially field their first 3 units at around the same time, note, I am assuming ost goes mg, gren and sov goes con, penal. If sov t1 still lack field presence, and i am not advocating penal spam, then i would lower the cost of penals and adjust penal stats.

You can't approach game balance by assuming what the players are going to do.

You can't approach game balance by assuming what the players are going to do.

The problem with sov t1 is the lack of field presence which then leads to sovs falling behind in the tech race which in turn leave them vunerable to vehicles.

There are two solutions. Either adjust the timing for sov t1 build orders or add At to t1.

I am not trying to balance the game by assuming what players will do, but rather provide an avenue that allows them to compete. For example ost can generally tech to BP1 after building 4 units and begin to aquire benefit from that. If they choose not too that is their fault not the game design.

That I agree with. Players compete against players, not factions against factions.

But assuming a specific build that players will follow is what makes that distinction blur.

That I agree with. Players compete against players, not factions against factions.

But assuming a specific build that players will follow is what makes that distinction blur.

I don't understand the.point you are trying to make.

To have any chance of balancing the game you have to make some assumptions of how people.will play and how the factions play against each other.

If the player does something stupid like build 4 penal squads then complains about being out teched does his argument carry any merit. Short answer is no.

Honestly, we've made more of a deal of it already than it is.

I'm just saying an Ostheer player that builts two MGs or rushes a mortar or a Soviet player that builds a second CE (for more flamethrowers/mining capabilities) instead of a conscript can completely sway the balance of map presence in the early game. Ostruppen and Assault Grens are a major factor too.

Ostheer is not a fast-capping faction. Even if they are able to spread their forces out to outcap Soviets, T1 or not, it is extremely difficult for them to hold all that territory until much later into the game.

I think we should start back at square 1 with the penal changes IMO. I think we've taken a dive off the deep end with these changes.

Offtopic: Are the semi-perma- uncloaking snipers still a thing? Wouldn't that make the russian sniper OP for sniper battles?

Honestly, we've made more of a deal of it already than it is.

Probably.

But to many people are focused on the wrong issue.

Let me clarify.

3 factions build core units from t0.

1 faction (ostheer) can build less expensive core units from t1.

Soviets can are buulding expensive units from t1.

This is always going to be a problem unless penals are strong and followed by guards.

Probably.

But to many people are focused on the wrong issue.

Let me clarify.

3 factions build core units from t0.

1 faction (ostheer) can build less expensive core units from t1.

Soviets can are buulding expensive units from t1.

This is always going to be a problem unless penals are strong and followed by guards.

I get you.

Although Guards aren't always necessary. They're probably one of the strongest and most reliable options, but they're a still a commander choice. I think that's an important thing to keep in mind.

I'll admit, MG42 being t0 has hurt Soviets more than anything. That got moved because of USF crushing Ostheer earlygame. And then that was too clunky so USF had to get the mortar in response...

Too many effective t0 units to make Soviet early teching worthwhile except as direct counters.

That's kind of why I'm an advocate for rearranging the tiers so that one is strong for the early game without strong AT support, and the other being a tier that needs strong infantry and crowd control support.

Show Spoiler

Make M42 unlocked in tier1 after you tech tier3 thought

If ones want to actually put an ATG in T1 I would rather move ZIS to T1 and M-42 in T2.

Spamming snipers that can be protect by the cheap M-42 can prove problematic.

It would also provide a reason to back tech to T1.

If one wants to continue the Flamer/PTRS approach I would suggest that Penal spawn with 6 PPsh (shock troops curve around 60% of DPs).

That would help solve the flamer DPS issue since the unit would have to move very close for optimum DPS

That would solve the PTRS AI issue without creating a third PTRS profile with completely different properties, since half the AI of the unit would be far half of it close.

An option for upgrading to SVT could remain open for Penals if need allowing Gren/VG to retain the supremacy in long range fights until Penal can upgrade to SVTs.

The more text the stronger the arguments. For f. Sake. Many posts are dumb.
Community sugestions are mediocre at best compared to really smart WB 1.3.

I think someone already came up with this idea:

- replace penals with guards: this guard squad wont have PTRS, and DP 1928 can be researched as soon as T3 is built.

- penals which can be called in by commanders who were former guards commanders, are now fitting the same role as the British Tank Hunter Infantry Sections from this British Crocodile commander

The infantry in all faction must be diversed. It means that there must be close/mid range unit, long range unit, a unit good vs infantry and AT intantry. If we add guards soviets will lack of mid/close range unit like penals.

The idea is to make penals something like sturmpio, pgrens, so unit with diffrent role and style of playing that conscripts better on closer engagements.

Though if penals don't be balance and we won't find any solution, yeah guards could do

Plus they had to change half of soviet commanders (including names) -> penal motor doctrine lul

Why in the hell do u want the penals to the new meta, which make all other infantery useless?

What is the point?

Penals is fault from begining.
Soviets need game build on using Conscripts, plus possibly supplemented with elite infantry from Docs. It would be enough to give in each tier building some Conscripts improvements (weapons, abilities, one more man, etc).
Penals and conscripst cannot coexist, without make one another useless.

Penals and conscripst cannot coexist, without make one another useless.

they can quiet easily

1) one of them becomes cheap
or
2) one of them is aggressive the other defensive infantry...

Relaying on 1 type of infantry is rather bad design...

Problem are in meta, some guys was beaten buy abuse with penals + guard + guard motor or isu doc. Thats why we have so many whines about this.

I'm ok with T1 having no anti tank. T2 is pretty cheap and there are plenty of commanders with guards, m42 or tank hunter partisans.