The Penal Problem

The idea that the cost of fully reinforcing a squad instead the cost per entity is rather flawed.

When we are talking about small arm fire what matter is effective HP and cost per entity.

They may cost more to reinforce, but not only are they better, but because they are better they'll actually be losing many less models and killing more models also. So the increased reinforce cost almost certainly balances out. (EDIT: When testing in-game, I discovered both actually only seem to require 25 manpower to reinforce each model... not the 28 you alleged for Penals)

Using ballpark figures from one of my in-game tests, 5 Penals vs 6 Volksgrenadiers (using these values since they have not yet lost any models and thus we only care about build cost right now) at mid range (since mid-range is typically a good approximation of a fight that starts at long range but closes to mid, without giving the AI room to be stupid... and is not even the Penals' strong point, which is close-range), the survivors ranged from:

Min: One 6-man Penal squad and four one-man Penal squads (needing 20 reinforces to reach full force)

Max: Two 5-man Penals and three one-man Penal squads (needing 17 reinforces to reach full force)

I'll be generous and assume on average 19 reinforces for Penals will be required after a battle with equal initial MP investment. I am also assuming, for the sake of argument, that both players micro perfectly and pull out their one-man squads before they get wiped.

In both situations, the Volks had six 1-man squads (needing 24 reinforces to reach full force)

Volks cost: 24*25 = 600 MP
Penals cost: 19*25 = 475 MP (if I somehow fluffed up, which I didn't, then 19*28 = 532 MP)

This means, in a prolonged war of attrition, Penals are 1-(475/600) = 0.208333... ~ 21% more cost-effective than Volksgrenadiers.

Even assuming I fluffed up and that Penals do actually cost 28 MP to reinforce, then Penals are only 11% more cost-effective than Volks. But since in a prolonged fight, reinforce costs matter more than initial costs, Penals > Volks still.

What are your plans for Soviet early game once Penals are nerfed then? Currently maxim is trash and cons are not much better. Are you suggesting we nerf penals and then move on to playing USF / UKF?

I thought reinforce cost work like this :

(Unit Cost / 2 ) / Units in Squad

Therefore

Penal reinforce cost = ( 300 /2 ) / 6 = 25

Volksgrenadier = ( 250 / 2 ) / 5 = 25

So penals cost 20 % more to purchase and 25% more to reinforce ( assuming you are reinforcing from 1 man )

no it's not.

check reinforce cost in game to see urself.

What are your plans for Soviet early game once Penals are nerfed then? Currently maxim is trash and cons are not much better. Are you suggesting we nerf penals and then move on to playing USF / UKF?

Either bother to read the latest posts, or don't make a post of your own. I have twice in this thread conceded that the Maxim and Conscripts could do with a buff in order to add a bit of diversity to the Soviet early game. Penals are too good, and they are in stark contrast to, say, conscripts, which are next to useless without the PPSh upgrade.

My suggestion, I will re-iterate, is to reduce Penal's stock accuracy, but beef up their vet buffs so they can retain their usefulness into the late-game. My other suggestion was to improve the Conscripts' viability, perhaps by making them cheaper so they're more useful in the early game.

I mean, even now late-game you do have shock troops and guard rifle infantry to fall back on.

no it's not.

check reinforce cost in game to see urself.

the problem with penals are:

OP early game, they beat grens and volks at all ranges even if you get the upper hand in any engagement.

Late game, not as OP they begin to lose to vetted and upgraded axis infantry.

I personally hope the early game effectiveness gets nerfed along with some lategame buffs for this unit

I can ensure you, vet 3 penals beats all osteer infantry. And FFS, armor percing mg can't pined penal. 25 reinforcement cost. Such bs

It's about COMPLAINING FIRST, hiding behind anonymity, not looking for self criticism and just blaming the game.

We can say the same thing about the current balance "team". The very same guy who created the penal problem in the first place.


The difference being, they can now nerf any unit they cast the blame on.

if we only had had some kind of beta, let's say 6 months, in which we could'vetested the penals...

DonnieChan defending the current state of penals? Why am i not surprised?

yeah sry for the 28 mp reinforce cost, was wrong.

still, i made some game with soviet to refresh it and penals still don't look OP to me because of their versatility.

one mg42 in the right building is enough to counter 2-3 penals, not even speaking of the bleed from osther sniper with its insane rate of fire.

usually, when making a penal opening i found that my opponent had number superiority (more squad) on the field which in good hand was devastating. (learn to flank)

i say it again, no issue with penal to me.

Mgs in building get flanked and satcheled. Or just killed by the flamer engie clown car combo. Or if in the open just sniped.
Mgs are frankly the worst idea as OH vs Sov t1 play.

Regardless if Penal can be counter or not they are badly designed:

1) They come to early for the Punch they have. For instance PF who have around the same DPS far come at CP 2 and need a 90 mu upgrade.

2) Their weapon are far too accurate for ROF at far (and become even more accurate with veterancy) so they can wipe retreating units.

3) The DPS curve is way to linear meaning that they can have "relative positioning advantage" over most enemy infantry.

4) Their reinforcement time and cost are bypassed by merge.

5) Their PTRS do too much deflection damage making viable vs Heavy supper heavy tanks.

6) Their weapon upgrade, demo charges and AT snare have no tech cost.

These factors combined make the game with or against them boring.

(and this not a allied axis issue because I can write similar list about how VG are also badly designed. Actually if VG were not equally badly designed the flaws of the Penal would be far more obvious).

Regardless if Penal can be counter or not they are badly designed:
4) Their reinforcement time and cost are bypassed by merge.

If people are actually using conscripts to merge, I don't think that's a bad thing at all. That's, like, actual conscripts being used as intended.

5) Their PTRS do too much deflection damage making viable vs Heavy supper heavy tanks.

Deflection damage on infantry AT is one of the major factors that limits most vehicle's staying power. Now that there's no volkschreck there isn't much of an axis equivalent. (Schrecks didn't bounce much anyway, which further compounded matters, but still.)

6) Their weapon upgrade, demo charges and AT snare have no tech cost.

Agreed. I love the sticky satchel functionality. (Well sorta, I was glad they managed to make it 1 ability, but that bugged out so they went back to the different versions that I could always make.) But it's a pretty powerful ability as a deterrent alone. IMO satchels and demos could've had a tech cost, some sort of demolitions package. AT nades and molotovs could easily get merged into a single grenade package to make room for it.

We can say the same thing about the current balance "team". The very same guy who created the penal problem in the first place.

The difference being, they can now nerf any unit they cast the blame on.

Guess what happens when you can only alter a certain aspect of a faction and your scope is limited to nerfing the cheese which makes that faction relevant. The difference is that i don't see Penal/T1 opening as problematic as the previous styles of SU play (maxim spam or even guard spam for 2v2+) which was confined to playing one or 2 commanders (right now Lend lease is strong, but viability of other commanders is there and not "auto lose").

Take into account that OP is mostly complaining with a 3v3/4v4 gameplay in mind without a clue at what rank he is playing. I've never seen more than 4 Penals (3 been standard) and all the talk about map capping, garrison and cover control lose all meaning on those modes (one of the weakness of opening with T1) as shown in the replays i put up.

Once cons are buffed, i don't mind seeing the AT package locked behind the AT nade upgrade on base nor their on the move performance nerf (as in the mod).

PD: not sure what you are trying to prove, when the 2 CE + 3 Penals + Sniper/Clowncar been a standard. Also top25 vs top300 is not equal.

Guess what happens when you can only alter a certain aspect of a faction and your scope is limited to nerfing the cheese which makes that faction relevant.

You recognize that you can't fix the greater problem and avoid obscuring the issue with unnecessary changes? The last thing you do is take the problem out of context to try and make it fit into a new scheme of definition.

The difference is that i don't see Penal/T1 opening as problematic as the previous styles of SU play (maxim spam or even guard spam for 2v2+) which was confined to playing one or 2 commanders (right now Lend lease is strong, but viability of other commanders is there and not "auto lose").

They never were "auto-lose". Guard motor just dominated because it was the best of the Guard commanders. Not going for a guards commander was risky because the Guards timing with PTRS.

And it wasn't until the maxim was nerfed to oblivion that the DSHKa entered as the go-to choice.

And the cheese that was supposed to be fixed wasn't even Maxim spam originally, it was that Penals had too much synergy with Guards. The issue was : 6man super accurate anti-cover/garrison unit with the a 2CP panic PTRS squad for the first units not weak to anti-cover/garrison units.

That is no longer the situation now, but the actual issues, Soviet conscripts and Soviet T2, are pretty much unchanged and we're still skating around trying to define the issue through Penals.

If people are actually using conscripts to merge, I don't think that's a bad thing at all. That's, like, actual conscripts being used as intended.

It is not a bad thing, but compared to other faction that do not have marge make Penals even more powerful.

It also make the reinforcement cost (that come with the new cost) and time (that come with a later patch)increase that Penal received ,to counter weight, their strength a less effective measure.

Deflection damage on infantry AT is one of the major factors that limits most vehicle's staying power. Now that there's no volkschreck there isn't much of an axis equivalent. (Schrecks didn't bounce much anyway, which further compounded matters, but still.)

Difference of PTRS is that it has around 100% accuracy vs vehicles so it has guaranteed damaged which received a very significant buff in one of the last patch for no particular reason.

The change is even sort of reverted in the MOD:

PTRS (all variants)
We find that the long aim-time of the PTRS prevents it from performing its intended anti-vehicle role adequately. We are somewhat reducing the aiming time, while reducing deflection damage.
- Deflection damage reduced from 20 to 15

Either bother to read the latest posts, or don't make a post of your own. I have twice in this thread conceded that the Maxim and Conscripts could do with a buff in order to add a bit of diversity to the Soviet early game. Penals are too good, and they are in stark contrast to, say, conscripts, which are next to useless without the PPSh upgrade.

My suggestion, I will re-iterate, is to reduce Penal's stock accuracy, but beef up their vet buffs so they can retain their usefulness into the late-game. My other suggestion was to improve the Conscripts' viability, perhaps by making them cheaper so they're more useful in the early game.

I mean, even now late-game you do have shock troops and guard rifle infantry to fall back on.

Or you could give penals some sort of an upgrade that's mutually exclusive with the PTRS upgrade like DPs for late game after corresponding nerfs. It would give them a role at least, as sort of guards-lite, which they already are anyway (but better).

Or you could give penals some sort of an upgrade that's mutually exclusive with the PTRS upgrade like DPs for late game after corresponding nerfs. It would give them a role at least, as sort of guards-lite, which they already are anyway (but better).

Or that. That would be fair, considering that any Axis infantry you send against Penals need some kind of expensive muni upgrade to make them viable competition for the Penal hordes, either G43s, STG44s or MG42s.

You recognize that you can't fix the greater problem and avoid obscuring the issue with unnecessary changes? The last thing you do is take the problem out of context to try and make it fit into a new scheme of definition.

Penals were brought to the see the light after 3+ years prior to the later rework/nerf of cheese. I preferred a non AT version of Penals but this is what we got.
Giving some love after not seeing any competitive play whatsoever was not unnecessary (it was overtuned through prior vet changes/flamethrower changes). Finally nerfing maxim spam was not unnecessary.

If you have balance been achieved through every side having their biggest cheese/OP things canceling out the other factions OP/cheese and you are only allowed to touch basically 60% of the stuff... It was ought to happen.

They never were "auto-lose". Guard motor just dominated because it was the best of the Guard commanders. Not going for a guards commander was risky because the Guards timing with PTRS.

Show Spoiler

And it wasn't until the maxim was nerfed to oblivion that the DSHKa entered as the go-to choice.

Show Spoiler

And the cheese that was supposed to be fixed wasn't even Maxim spam originally, it was that Penals had too much synergy with Guards. The issue was : 6man super accurate anti-cover/garrison unit with the a 2CP panic PTRS squad for the first units not weak to anti-cover/garrison units.

That is no longer the situation now, but the actual issues, Soviet conscripts and Soviet T2, are pretty much unchanged and we're still skating around trying to define the issue through Penals.

Show Spoiler

Putting emphasis on the bold part, IMO Penals can be a minor issue (as requiring slight changes) but not a problem as OP or others claim. People complain cause it's all they see.
The problem with SU is not with Penals but adjusting T2 and conscripts (long overdue).

DonnieChan defending the current state of penals? Why am i not surprised?

Do me a favor and count how many penal threads this forum has. Just do it