Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.4 Update

and so what even if T1 takes 40 second.

then, in my humble opinion, it should be balanced out with T1's shockness from when units get pumped out of there 1 min into the game till end of early game. KEEP THE THEME PLEASE.

AT first OKW was a specialised faction with limited resources, limitations in many department but advantages in many areas. Did eveything worked? no, but I rather wished Relic stood by their decision and design rather than give OKW semi-same resource, HMG, medium tank....

USF's tanks used to get longer to build which could be more than circumvented with Captain. Now they the idea is just scrapped.

Brit's in alpha had epic abilities but Relic just couldn't stand by their decision and FIX and tweak so now the advertised "epic" abilities are just glorified bombing strike, strafings etc etc.

Everything is getting homogenised now even at a smaller scale. Every SOV tier just has to have some AT. and by looks of it some people even want to homogenise initial build speed of every freakin starting strategies.

and so what even if T1 takes 40 second.

then, in my humble opinion, it should be balanced out with T1's shockness from when units get pumped out of there 1 min into the game till end of early game. KEEP THE THEME PLEASE.

AT first OKW was a specialised faction with limited resources, limitations in many department but advantages in many areas. Did eveything worked? no, but I rather wished Relic stood by their decision and design rather than give OKW semi-same resource, HMG, medium tank....

USF's tanks used to get longer to build which could be more than circumvented with Captain. Now they the idea is just scrapped.

Brit's in alpha had epic abilities but Relic just couldn't stand by their decision and FIX and tweak so now the advertised "epic" abilities are just glorified bombing strike, strafings etc etc.

Everything is getting homogenised now even at a smaller scale. Every SOV tier just has to have some AT. and by looks of it some people even want to homogenise initial build speed of every freakin starting strategies.

Problem is that you must make then tier1 really powerful. Before it was fine because only vehicle they could encounter was 222. Luch came with tier4

So it was m3 < 222 < t70 < oswing < p4 < t34/76 spam < panthers/tiger

But right now when you have really fast luchs and also volks and sturms from minute 0. He is capping with kubel and rushing with those squads on your points. You lose time to get penals and so he will get luch even sooner resulting into gg. Against ostheer its mostly fine but against okw its really punishing

and so what even if T1 takes 40 second.

then, in my humble opinion, it should be balanced out with T1's shockness from when units get pumped out of there 1 min into the game till end of early game. KEEP THE THEME PLEASE.

AT first OKW was a specialised faction with limited resources, limitations in many department but advantages in many areas. Did eveything worked? no, but I rather wished Relic stood by their decision and design rather than give OKW semi-same resource, HMG, medium tank....

USF's tanks used to get longer to build which could be more than circumvented with Captain. Now they the idea is just scrapped.

Brit's in alpha had epic abilities but Relic just couldn't stand by their decision and FIX and tweak so now the advertised "epic" abilities are just glorified bombing strike, strafings etc etc.

Everything is getting homogenised now even at a smaller scale. Every SOV tier just has to have some AT. and by looks of it some people even want to homogenise initial build speed of every freakin starting strategies.

maybe if you had played more that 18 1vs1 games in total you would know that this is a good thing

and so what even if T1 takes 40 second.

I see your point, but if t1 took 40 secs, do you seriously believe anyone would build t1 as an opening build.

Ost could literally have an mg sitting outside your base in that time.

As to the point about At, well I think that allows other commanders other than guard commanders to be viable.

As to the homogenization of build speeds, i don't think they are too similar at all. Okw still builds from t0, and ost will still have units out faster as grens are substantially cheaper. In your own words I am simply tweaking to make balancing more achievable.

Ostheer already got their medkit buff, so it would heal to full HP now, to improve scaling. Ostheer is totaly fine now

True.Show Spoiler

Its snare on one niche unit that is useless apart from snaring/light cars counter.

If that doctrine game snares to all IS and gave them option to became dank hunters, it would be much more used

Indeed but the argument brought across to me was if "brits" had snares, not tommies. Quickest way to balance snares on tommies is only allow engies to pick up piats, that way they can't just chase down tanks alone and gives a gren/pgren style tactics.

maybe if you had played more that 18 1vs1 games in total you would know that this is a good thing

most definitely

@Hector. maybe T1 strat is weaker against OKW than against OST. Maybe if you want to do T1 on OKW you almost have to go guard commander. I do not see anything wrong with that in principle unless T1 strat against OKW is completely without value.

...
As to the homogenization of build speeds, i don't think they are too similar at all. Okw still builds from t0, and ost will still have units out faster as grens are substantially cheaper. In your own words I am simply tweaking to make balancing more achievable.

I guess I am just mad at Relic simply giving up on interesting designs for quick fixes. I do agree that they are not similar but I always think about what they were, what they could have been.

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.

Indeed,

That is why I wrote, they will destroy it, sadly.
P.S: I am top 400 with Soviet 2v2

yeah lets discuss soviet rework upon rework meanwhile wehrmacht is still a pile of stinking shit with weak mainline infantry that loses to EVERY other mainline infantry, no elite infantry, shit tanks, ostwind has worthless damage for being a weaker p4 and AI only, Stugs with armor that a girl could penetrate, sturmpanzer being squishy for being T4 AI only with mediocre damage not to mention T4 costing a fortune to get to... yeaaah penals lets discuss penals because soviets needs more diverse strategic options.

/s

the easiest way to fix the penal problematic is to simply make them a long range unit. remove flamer, add 45mm at gun to T1 to have the wanted AT option. this would finally fix it and make also shocks useful again

yeah lets discuss soviet rework upon rework meanwhile wehrmacht is still a pile of stinking shit with weak mainline infantry that loses to EVERY other mainline infantry, no elite infantry, shit tanks, ostwind has worthless damage for being a weaker p4 and AI only, Stugs with armor that a girl could penetrate, sturmpanzer being squishy for being T4 AI only with mediocre damage not to mention T4 costing a fortune to get to... yeaaah penals lets discuss penals because soviets needs more diverse strategic options.

/s

i have no idea which game you are talking about or you seriously have some big l2p issue

i have no idea which game you are talking about or you seriously have some big l2p issue

u even top100 1v1?

I just feel that lend and leas only tier 1 is to strong with this patch (cons for utility ;penal for every role ptrs for at , flame of close ai and house and penal vanilla for long range dps , + you get half truck and cc guards , wait for 10 cp spam those sherman with all the fuel)

Will 1.5 include the END of ALL callins without tech? ;-) Yes pls k thx.

The reason you are seeing lots of changes back and forth is because of feedback

The problem with penals is that they are an orphan unit from when Soviets got guards or shocks. Now that you are supposed to not need them how do you make them relevant if you do get either? Giving them flames in current patch turns them into a straight upgrade to the engineers and provides them too much utility. Giving them PTRS would make them guards. Instead what they are trying to do is find a niche where the player decides. Do you need a downgraded guards squad? Upgrade PTRS. Do you need potent AI in close in battles? Get flames. Do you like to sit at medium and long range and pick off models? No upgrades. The goal, whether you agree with them or not, is to force the player to make choices.

Why exactly do the Soviets deserve THAT MUCH tactical flexibility built into one, already potent unit?

What feedback instructed Smith and his team to straight up BUFF Penals by giving them more tactical flexibility.

This is completely ridiculous.

This is the LEAST difficult balancing decision ever.

Penals: Long range focus, anti-garrison abilities.
Gaurds: Mid range focus, anti-vehicle abilities.
Shocks: Short range focus, anti-infantry abilities.

Woah! How did I ever come up with those ideas? It's almost as if it's a complete no-brainer, and Smith and his team have absolutely no clue on what they are doing, what they are trying to accomplish, and how they should go about accomplishing it.

It's almost like there already IS many tactical decisions for the player to make, just not "Build Penal, Build Penal, Build Penal. Now what should I upgrade them with?"

Why exactly do the Soviets deserve THAT MUCH tactical flexibility built into one, already potent unit?

What feedback instructed Smith and his team to straight up BUFF Penals by giving them more tactical flexibility.

This is completely ridiculous.

This is the LEAST difficult balancing decision ever.

Penals: Long range focus, anti-garrison abilities.
Gaurds: Mid range focus, anti-vehicle abilities.
Shocks: Short range focus, anti-infantry abilities.

Woah! How did I ever come up with those ideas? It's almost as if it's a complete no-brainer, and Smith and his team have absolutely no clue on what they are doing, what they are trying to accomplish, and how they should go about accomplishing it.

It's almost like there already IS many tactical decisions for the player to make, just not "Build Penal, Build Penal, Build Penal. Now what should I upgrade them with?"

And yet you forgot about scripts...which is the problem. How do we get penals without overlapping scripts when penals can be built at the same time?

Also, since you didn't see it before, the problem with a long range garrison clearing unit is that it is too potent (rifles with flames). Stand at range and your opponent has to close the gap to fight, but once they close they get lit up by the flamethrower, what are other infantry supposed to do?

Another issue to look at, if Penals win long range how does Ost compete early game? Or if penals have anti-garrison with more survivability how do they not become too good on urban maps? Also you make it look like you will get all three units, shocks, guards, penals, when obviously you will have 1 or at most 2 in any game. This means that changes to your simple set up would leave a Soviet player significantly handicapped at some range. Instead the goal is to offer Soviets many tools and allow good decision processes to choose who wins the game, not who has more tools in the toolbox.

Stop acting like balance is obvious, it takes a lot of work to come up with ideas about how to work the game.

And yet you forgot about scripts...which is the problem. How do we get penals without overlapping scripts when penals can be built at the same time?

Also, since you didn't see it before, the problem with a long range garrison clearing unit is that it is too potent (rifles with flames). Stand at range and your opponent has to close the gap to fight, but once they close they get lit up by the flamethrower, what are other infantry supposed to do?

Another issue to look at, if Penals win long range how does Ost compete early game? Or if penals have anti-garrison with more survivability how do they not become too good on urban maps? Also you make it look like you will get all three units, shocks, guards, penals, when obviously you will have 1 or at most 2 in any game. This means that changes to your simple set up would leave a Soviet player significantly handicapped at some range. Instead the goal is to offer Soviets many tools and allow good decision processes to choose who wins the game, not who has more tools in the toolbox.

Stop acting like balance is obvious, it takes a lot of work to come up with ideas about how to work the game.

Hmm, are Conscripts meant to be long range anti-garrison?

Here I was thinking, they were meant to be a cheap, disposable squad with both acceptable anti-tank and anti-infantry abilities. Guess I was totally wrong! /s

Sure, there are problems with a long range + garrison clearing unit. If we pretend that this is a one unit vs one unit game, played in a vaccuum with zero supporting squads, and you know, all the other stuff that occurs in reality in this game..

It's almost as if thinking about where to set up a covering MG completely stops a Penal squad moving in, in their freaking tracks. They also absolutely can't push across open ground towards LMG units either.

Now, onto the bolded part: This is the most ass-backwards reasoning I have yet to hear regarding this.

You want the Soviet's to have a clear choices regarding what units they want to focus on given the combat situations on a given map...

WTF are Doctrines even FOR then?

Basically, what you're saying is this "I want the Soviet's to be completely tactically flexible, regardless of doctrine choice." And to that I say absolutely, unequivocally, jump in a river. It's completely stupid.\

How hard is this really?

"Hmm, close range map with tight spaces and garrisons. I should probably focus on Shocks/Penals, and not so much on Gaurdsman. I should probably be careful in the few open parts of the map."

"Hmm, more open map? Few garrisons? Maybe some guards a few conscripts?"

But apparently, you want to have your cake, the entire fridge, the next door neighbors dinner, and eat it ALL too.

flamethrower on a mainline infantry is the stupidiest thing ever. It worked for penals when they sucked but now they rip everything to shreds and flamethower makes sure that you can't even outposition penals.

when is wehrmahct getting strategic options? Or was assault grenadiers "fixed" now? lol

flamethrower on a mainline infantry is the stupidiest thing ever. It worked for penals when they sucked but now they rip everything to shreds and flamethower makes sure that you can't even outposition penals.

Remember guys! FEEDBACK told us you wanted both the flamethrower upgrade AND a ptrs package as a possibility!

FEEEEEEEEEEEDBAAAAAAAACK.

Remember guys! FEEDBACK told us you wanted both the flamethrower upgrade AND a ptrs package as a possibility!

FEEEEEEEEEEEDBAAAAAAAACK.

well allied fanboys are a majority so ofc they want the whole packages, ask if they want minelaying ability aswell... im sure you get FEEDBACK