Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.4 Update

So penals aren't as effective, but they still deny cover. And once again, like so many others i'll restate flamers on mainline inf is just silly. The counter play for penals in live 1v1 is backing away and using a second squad to support. Giving penals ppshs does mean that they can't solo squads as easily but they still push squads out of cover, and if you use other infantry, say guards, still very problematic. But again, in its simplest form, mainline infantry shouldn't be able to deny cover. Pretty basic concept.

If picking an upgrade for your troops is not a choice, then American and Brits don't offer the player choices when they go to upgrade their infantry, and we know these are certainly choices..

Don't confuse choices with meaningful choices. Teching for upgrades ( eg USF weapon racks ) is not the same as just upgrading an existing squad once you see a vehicle. This is the problem so many people have with ptrs penals. There is no forward thinking or planning. The soviet player can go any t1 build and as heavy as he chooses, all the while knowing he just has to keep 80 muni in reserve in case an AC or flame HT turns up.

As to the notion that you have to make a choice between AI penals and AT penals, well thats a weak argument since you can just buy another penal to replace the the one you upgraded or you can just get say 3 AI penals then upgrade the 4th penal with PTRS.

Its F***ing braindead.

I am not disputing there is an issue with t1 and a lack of At, and the problem is not easy to solve given the restrictions of the patch, but those people (including the mods) that continue to claim there are choices being made or sacrifices being made when upgrading PTRS need to really consider if they are truely being impartial or if they are arguing their case to support the changes they made in the mod.

Don't confuse choices with meaningful choices. Teching for upgrades ( eg USF weapon racks ) is not the same as just upgrading an existing squad once you see a vehicle. This is the problem so many people have with ptrs penals. There is no forward thinking or planning. The soviet player can go any t1 build and as heavy as he chooses, all the while knowing he just has to keep 80 muni in reserve in case an AC or flame HT turns up.

As to the notion that you have to make a choice between AI penals and AT penals, well thats a weak argument since you can just buy another penal to replace the the one you upgraded or you can just get say 3 AI penals then upgrade the 4th penal with PTRS.

Its F***ing braindead.

I am not disputing there is an issue with t1 and a lack of AT, and the problem is not easy to solve given the restrictions of the patch, but those people (including the mods) that continue to claim there are choices being made or sacrifices being made when upgrading PTRS need to really consider if they are truely being impartial or if they are arguing their case to support the changes they made in the mod.

I actually don't like the penals for a different reason, I think the PTRS on penals just suck. In a 1v1 with good players you will never see this upgrade, it completely wastes an expensive 300 mp squad. No real player will use the ptrs penals when you have the superior options to:
-tech t2 and get zis (and mortars and maxims)
-use guards instead
-rush a t70
-use cons atnades
-use Partysans

For penals being such an expensive ai squad, you are gimping the hell out of them to get a mediocre at squad, and spending a bunch of munis to do it. I understand that that is by design, but the other choices are cheap enough that it will never be a better choice to throw away your ai squad.

It's not worth trying to force an at role onto the penals when there are so many other better options already available to soviets. PTRS specifically clashes so much with guards, why not just swap penals and guards if you want the PTRS?

I do like the AT satchel though.

It all started with wehrmacht needed a significant buff to their infantry which was somehow "too complicated to fix" like adding a fifth guy in the grenadier squad. Instead i see patchnotes upon patchnotes how allied infantry is getting reworked. Im guessing the designers of this patch is some allied fanboys who thinks wehrmacht is "fine"

So why again does Soviet tier 1 need this kind of counter play ability? Can Ostheer t1 have this too? Would be nice since they are pretty boned.

I do like the AT satchel though.

The AT satchel is ZombiFrancis' and Firesparks' lovechild. We just got influenced one way or another, and now we joined those ideas together in a single button.

Why exclude the 250 halftrack from the list of light vehicles subject to this change?

Relic wants to play it safe. Thus they restricted the scope to only stock light vehicles and overperforming doctrinal units. Probably they don't want another USF-mortar like debacle, and we respect that decision.

We have changes lined up for 250, but we didn't manage to get them greenlighted.

Any chance that Dshk and M4C call in will be patched? It's a pretty broken doctrine against okw.

Call-ins are out of scope sadly, and so are Maxim/DShK.

If something hasn't been touched so far in WBP, it probably won't be touched at all until the patch goes live. We are entering the 2nd, and final half of the WBP when we want to finetune the changes we have already made, as well as providing alternatives.

If something is less no-brainer OP than UKF Airlanding Officer heroic charge, then it won't get greenlighted. That's because no-brainer OP UKF Airlanding Officer heroic charge changes weren't greenlighted either.

If something is more no-brainer OP than heroic charge, then please inform me of that ability (even artillery cover has a downside, which is the munitions cost).

I actually don't like the penals for a different reason, I think the PTRS on penals just suck. In a 1v1 with good players you will never see this upgrade, it completely wastes an expensive 300 mp squad. No real player will use the ptrs penals when you have the superior options to:
-tech t2 and get zis
-use guards instead
-rush a t70
-use cons atnades

I suspect you are correct, although it is too early to say. However, lower down the ranks, say 200+ where players are not as skilled with postioning and reading the game ( compared to the pros ) I think PTRS penals offer a huge safety net and will certainly be a no brainer upgrade.

It's not worth trying to force an at role onto the penals when there are so many other better options already available to soviets. PTRS specifically clashes so much with guards, why not just swap penals and guards if you want the PTRS

I think the goal is to make t1/t3 a viable strategy as well as making soviets less reliant on guard commanders, which I fully support. But it should't be so effective that it allows a player to punch above their weight and also be effective on any map.

It would be more acceptable to either a) Add a ptrs upgrade to t0 which costs fuel, either on its own like usf weapon racks or combine it with At nade upgrade. b) Add an upgrade to t1 that allows Guard squads to be built from t1 or a separate Ptrs penal squad.

This puts in place a meaningful choice because it requires tech, fuel and a separation of unit roles as opposed to building 4 penals then upgrading them according to what units opponent fields.

Relic wants to play it safe. Thus they restricted the scope to only stock light vehicles and overperforming doctrinal units. Probably they don't want another USF-mortar like debacle, and we respect that decision.

We have changes lined up for 250, but we didn't manage to get them greenlighted.

Thanks for the reply. I really appreciate your work for the WBP and your activity on the forums.

Don't confuse choices with meaningful choices. Teching for upgrades ( eg USF weapon racks ) is not the same as just upgrading an existing squad once you see a vehicle. This is the problem so many people have with ptrs penals. There is no forward thinking or planning. The soviet player can go any t1 build and as heavy as he chooses, all the while knowing he just has to keep 80 muni in reserve in case an AC or flame HT turns up.

As to the notion that you have to make a choice between AI penals and AT penals, well thats a weak argument since you can just buy another penal to replace the the one you upgraded or you can just get say 3 AI penals then upgrade the 4th penal with PTRS.

...

agree. although i disagree with the fact that SOV T1 needs an AT but if we are gonna add in the AT, we should add meaningful choices. I think a good example is AEC and Bofors where there is a tradeoff. I think CoH2 lacks in that department severely.

what if there is a choice between flamer/ppsh and PTRS upgrade like there is between AEC and Bofors? 100mp and 10fu cost-ish. although since 160mp 20fu for a ATG is considered a fortune by so many, maybe just have 200mp as the price.

Don't confuse choices with meaningful choices. Teching for upgrades ( eg USF weapon racks ) is not the same as just upgrading an existing squad once you see a vehicle. This is the problem so many people have with ptrs penals. There is no forward thinking or planning. The soviet player can go any t1 build and as heavy as he chooses, all the while knowing he just has to keep 80 muni in reserve in case an AC or flame HT turns up.

As to the notion that you have to make a choice between AI penals and AT penals, well thats a weak argument since you can just buy another penal to replace the the one you upgraded or you can just get say 3 AI penals then upgrade the 4th penal with PTRS.

Its F***ing braindead.

I am not disputing there is an issue with t1 and a lack of At, and the problem is not easy to solve given the restrictions of the patch, but those people (including the mods) that continue to claim there are choices being made or sacrifices being made when upgrading PTRS need to really consider if they are truely being impartial or if they are arguing their case to support the changes they made in the mod.

It is just as retarded as Strum pioneer or PG taking a/multiple panzershreck out from their pocket suddenly on the field. When is this QOL feature registered as axis's patent and Soviet is not allowed to enjoy it?

Conclusion:Axis is fucking braindead since release.

It is just as retarded as Strum pioneer or PG taking a/multiple panzershreck out from their pocket suddenly on the field. When is this QOL feature registered as axis's patent and Soviet is not allowed to enjoy it?

Conclusion:Axis is fucking braindead since release.

Sturms are not spammable due to their expense and their faction's light tank cannot fight evenly with any other factions light tank.

Panzergrenadiers have to be teched to and their faction has no light tank.


Do you remember all the allied complaints about Shreks on Volks? So OKW lost their handheld AT on mainline infantry. Now all allied factions can have double handheld AT on their mainline infantry.

Thats what's braindead.

Sturms are not spammable due to their expense and their faction's light tank cannot fight evenly with any other factions light tank.

Where is puma?Where is Luch? lollllllll

Panzergrenadiers have to be teched to and their faction has no light tank.

Weapon rack have to be teched to and pick up at the base while axis can suddenly equip handheld AT on the field.

Do you remember all the allied complaints about Shreks on Volks? So OKW lost their handheld AT on mainline infantry. Now all allied factions can have double handheld AT on their mainline infantry.

Thats what's braindead.

Simply because we all know that the performance of one panzer shreck is even better than two bazooka and you even don't enjoy any QOL as ally even you have to invest more and side tech for weapon rack and pick it up at home. Yet, OKW still have their handheld AT on a beginning unit and able to suddenly equip on the field, I don't see any problem on penal having 3 PTRS suddenly equip on field.

At close range, cover is already irrelevant. It gets ignored by all weapons at ranges 10 and below. By clumping up in cover, you are throwing yourself to the AoE. Precisely like the Tommy Grenade example.

Next time a flamer Penal squad comes for you, step out of cover, chin up, and murder them as they approach.

And while you're out of cover, the other 5 models in the squad (and any other nearby squad) are wrecking you.


And the Penals can happily sit in cover because the OKW have no flamethrower. OKW can't clear garrisons well and with penal-flamers everywhere, they can't even USE garrisons.


But it's ok because after 115 fuel they can have a Luchs and counter the T1 play. Oh, wait...

The AT satchel is ZombiFrancis' and Firesparks' lovechild. We just got influenced one way or another, and now we joined those ideas together in a single button.



Relic wants to play it safe. Thus they restricted the scope to only stock light vehicles and overperforming doctrinal units. Probably they don't want another USF-mortar like debacle, and we respect that decision.

We have changes lined up for 250, but we didn't manage to get them greenlighted.



Call-ins are out of scope sadly, and so are Maxim/DShK.

If something hasn't been touched so far in WBP, it probably won't be touched at all until the patch goes live. We are entering the 2nd, and final half of the WBP when we want to finetune the changes we have already made, as well as providing alternatives.

If something is less no-brainer OP than UKF Airlanding Officer heroic charge, then it won't get greenlighted. That's because no-brainer OP UKF Airlanding Officer heroic charge changes weren't greenlighted either.

If something is more no-brainer OP than heroic charge, then please inform me of that ability (even artillery cover has a downside, which is the munitions cost).

I inform you now. It's SCAS. With 80% cost of P47 but dealing 200% above damages of P47.
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDpshDhnTlk&t=2s

Able to kill its counterpart, isn't it more no-brainer op?

Quick preview:
[Smart Choice]OPSCAS:
https://goo.gl/mPlEV2

[Dumb Choice]Rubbish P47:
https://goo.gl/ZU8NJy

agree. although i disagree with the fact that SOV T1 needs an AT but if we are gonna add in the AT, we should add meaningful choices. I think a good example is AEC and Bofors where there is a tradeoff. I think CoH2 lacks in that department severely.

what if there is a choice between flamer/ppsh and PTRS upgrade like there is between AEC and Bofors? 100mp and 10fu cost-ish. although since 160mp 20fu for a ATG is considered a fortune by so many, maybe just have 200mp as the price.

Therefore I hate axis that getting all the stuffs in tech tree without making any choice to even pick a commander.

And while you're out of cover, the other 5 models in the squad (and any other nearby squad) are wrecking you.


And the Penals can happily sit in cover because the OKW have no flamethrower. OKW can't clear garrisons well and with penal-flamers everywhere, they can't even USE garrisons.


But it's ok because after 115 fuel they can have a Luchs and counter the T1 play. Oh, wait...

Where is ur flame nade and stuka and isg? They are all non doctrinal. As long as the soviet player picks T1 ,you dont have to face garrisoned mg. However, usf have to face garrisoned (the most op mg in game) MG42 and MG34 with only two non-doctrinal option which is mortar (being nerf into the ground while being more expensive than the ost one) and pack howitzer.

reinforce
penals 162
folks 125 with 0 tech price.
And some claim that penals must be overall equal to folks. Are those braindead?

reinforce
penals 162
folks 125 with 0 tech price.
And some claim that penals must be overall equal to folks. Are those braindead?

Well, the correction is:

Penals: 25 per model

Volks: 25 per model

And never take reinforcing from 1 model to max as and indication of certain units costing more as reinforcing at 1 model means something terrible has happened.

Well, the correction is:

Penals: 25 per model

Volks: 25 per model

And never take reinforcing from 1 model to max as and indication of certain units costing more as reinforcing at 1 model means something terrible has happened.

Therefore, I simply dont understand why rear echelon costs the same as volks and penal per model while having such awful performance.