My 2 cents on penals (and guards) right now and with wbp.

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2017, 05:15 AMWaegukin

I haven't used Guards much in the patch because I've been dicking around with PTRS Penals + Shocks (and For the Motherland).

Flamer + PPSH package works nicely now that the squad isn't quite as durable with vet.

PTRS package is mostly a great idea, it compliments Shocks and PPSH cons really well.

The issue now is that Penals have become a sort of do-all unit. Long range, short range, anti-garrison, anti-vehicle, its all in the Penal's repertoire. While I do appreciate stock Soviets having infantry AT since it does open up a few otherwise meh doctrines, I wish Cons had gotten the PTRS instead (out of scope, I know).

• Not commander specific; Shouldn't we want to be encouraging off-meta commanders? PTRS Penals will open up more use of things like Shocks (at least, if they get buffed eventually)
  
• Have 3 PTRS instead of 2
  
• Penal PTRS are weak versus infantry which seriously degrades the performance. With AT Satchels and 3x PTRS, PTRS Penals are a much more dedicated AT squad
  
• The 3 SVT Rifles are only good at close
  
• Do not have durable veterancy bonuses
  
• Get AT Satchels
  
• Come out sooner than Guards and don't require 2CP
  
• Cheaper at 300mp
  

• Anti-everything squad with lots of long range damage. DP's and Guard PTRS murder infantry
  
• Guard Mosin Rifles are better suited for range
  
• Has Grenades to try and punish squads closing in
  
• Is expensive at 360mp and 2 CP's
  
• Doesn't require munitions for PTRS
  
• Gets penetration bonuses with Vet
  
• Gets button
  

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2017, 05:15 AMWaegukin

The issue now is that Penals have become a sort of do-all unit. Long range, short range, anti-garrison, anti-vehicle, its all in the Penal's repertoire. While I do appreciate stock Soviets having infantry AT since it does open up a few otherwise meh doctrines, I wish Cons had gotten the PTRS instead (out of scope, I know).

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2017, 05:59 AMLoopDloop

How come penal ptrs is in scope but cons ptrs isn't? That's partially my gripe with soviets right now: penals are better at everything than cons except for dying. Hell they even do that better with their vet1 passive.

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2017, 06:22 AMTheMachine

Penals are Short/medium range without PPSH Flamer Package anyway. So it doesn't really change their role that much, just throws in the anti-cover/garrison weapon. PTRS penals also don't have the strength of 2x Bazookas or PIAT's, despite the investment, so it's not like you can just spam them against armour. They're more of a support unit, to open up the use of Tier1 against early vehicles, they then continue to provide good defensive anti-vehicle support. The concept of "I'll just solve all my problems with Penal spam because they're so versatile" just doesn't hold up to any scrutiny in competitive play. Play some matches against good opponents and you'll see, they are not Riflemen.



Even if we could, I don't like the idea of non-doctrinal Conscript PTRS. Conscripts are way more spammable and have far more utility than Penals. Cheesy stuff like 7x Conscript spam with PTRS would actually be viable, and that is scary. Anymore than 4x Penals is just suicide.

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2017, 03:32 AMZombiFrancis

Guards have always been about their PTRS. The only times I've seen them actually be strong AI units is when they have no DP-28s and they've dropped all their PTRS. (No DP-28s so they can fire on the move. LMGs are mostly defensive weapons unless used en masse.)

For some reason I remember Penals having flamers and 3x PPSh and it was removed because it was considered way too powerful. I think that was combined with their old vet though.

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2017, 06:18 AMTheMachine

I fail to see how PTRS Penals overlap with guards anymore than half the other Commander call in units.

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2017, 03:32 AMZombiFrancis

For some reason I remember Penals having flamers and 3x PPSh and it was removed because it was considered way too powerful. I think that was combined with their old vet though.

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2017, 15:41 PMelchino7

I was not in alpha, but since beta:
-They used to come from Rapid Conscription (Opieop)
-They were a 360mp unit equivalent in cost with PG at that time. Satchel was a nuke bomb which would wipe any squad in deep snow and kill Penal models as well. Their SVT worked like G43 but they did drop models fast against LMG42/PG. They had the only flamer in the game which didn't explode.
-Not sure about the old veterancy (when OH double HP at vet2) but when they changed it, it remain the same as we have it now (bar the "To the last man". Oorah was at vet1)
-When they removed armor from infantry, they made them 270mp unit from 360mp.

So they basically never saw competitive play cause either T1 was too expensive (we use to start with less mp and tiers had a higher mp/fuel cost) or because they didn't provide anything useful (for flamer you had CE). Penals are suffering the same fate as Su76. No one used them in 3.5 years, so it's hard to adjust and balance it properly.

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2017, 16:08 PMBlalord

Molo's / Omgpop / VonIvan Scout car flamers strategy or sniper clowncar are not agree with you ;D

Update: i misread your text! apologies, but well T1 has always been cool in my opinion, and Penals long range damage was good if merged properly

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2017, 14:56 PMZombiFrancis

I don't think they do. I think they underlap.

I mean, do Penal PTRS affect the viability of pure AI penals into guards? I mean, at all?

Because that's been the problem, (and what the scope was to address). Penals being even more cover-busting short-range AI units with PPSh/Flamers doesn't make Guards at 2 CP any less viable with their free PTRS to save the day against axis attempts to counter.

Current iteration of penal changes may make other doctrines 'less' punishing, but it kinda makes the best/most meta doctrine a little bit better. IMO, PTRS penals is more of an invitation to use Guards than anything, because when is a 'downgrade' upgrade worthwhile in this game?

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2017, 06:18 AMTheMachine

I fail to see how PTRS Penals overlap with guards anymore than half the other Commander call in units.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2017, 02:22 AMZombiFrancis

M4c Shermans are such a lategame unit. Soviets are capable of getting a ton of fuel/map control early on that I've been finding it way easier to rush T4 and get T34s of either variety well before the CPs for M4C Shermans.

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2017, 17:07 PMBIH_kirov_QC

you seem to forgot the whole picture here. Gaurds cost more, and are less effective than live version. Penals are less effective than live version, okw got better healing while going for luchs, etc etc

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2017, 03:06 AMMistah_S

+1.

Its a good suggestion cloth, but with how cheap t34's are, you would have 4 befire you have 1 Sherman.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2017, 03:17 AMZombiFrancis

Yes, this is true, but not my point.

My point is that when a guards commander is chosen there is little reason to get PTRS on penals. Even if both are weakened, it's not going to affect things like the viability of Guard Motor over other commanders. (I also believe the vast majority of instances of Guards being used is in conjunction with Guard Motor. 120mm mortars and self repair t34/85s attacking marked targets are no joke.)