PPSHs as a global upgrade. Seriously.

@Strummingbird: A global, one off fuel cost upgrade is already unprecedented in CoH2.
If PPSHs where made a universal nonCommander upgrade, it would have to be a muni upgrade PER UNIT, to remain consistent with the existing upgrade scheme in CoH2.

Furthermore, to offset Cons Merge and Oorah, Id expect such a nonCommander upgrade to cost around 70-80 munis per unit, to retain equity.

I think the PPSH avenue is completely the wrong way to approcah this.

Penals. They are the T1.5 unit to look to for upgraded Gren equivalency.

How can a change of PPSHs upgrade be a wrong way to approach the problem regarding PPSHs upgrade?? Do you remember what this thread is about? Once again this is not a balance thread. This is not Cons vs Grens, get this idea out of your head. This is Commanders with PPSHs vs the ones without.

So you suggest using as a basic infantry a unit that costs 360 MANP, has no AT capability whatsoever and its only "grenade ability" takes so long to detonate that everybody just retreats np every time. Penals are just bad now, you hardly ever see them.

Completely offtopic: I think you overestimate Oorah and especially Merge a bit but that is really irrelevant for this topic.

1) PPSH upgrade is the wrong avenue, because it doesn't address the actual issue, which is vetted AND upgraded Grens scaling slightly too hard vs vetted AND unupgraded Cons.

Do you see where the line is? What the actual issue is?
Its the DPS of the LMG upgrade, not the lack of PPSHs, which isn't even a lack, except it depends on Commander choice.

2) If this is not a Grens vs Cons topic, then try to discuss it without mentioning Grens OR Cons. Go ahead, I dare you.

3) If this is a Commanders with PPSH vs Commanders without PPSH discussion, then discuss it as such. PPSH exists on Commanders. If you want PPSH on Cons, then select those Commanders. Simple as that.

3) Yes, I am suggesting that adjusting Penals is a more productive way of addressing the core issue here, than a universal PPSH upgrade to Cons, which does nothing to fix Penals or introduce them to the Meta, and just leads to more Cons spamming. Universal PPSH would just shove Penals even further out of the game.

You state that Penals are rarely if ever seen in the game.
A universal PPSH upgrade to Cons would ensure that Penals become positively EXTINCT.

On that topic, Ive suggested in previous threads that Penal Flamer upgrade is replaced with a PTSR, to allow for early AT, and to remain more inline with their G43-equivalent ranged modus.

4) I'm not overestimating Oorah or Merge. But you can't act like they dont exist. They do, and need to be given consideration and weight for what they are.

5) As I stated in my previous post, changing LMG to G43, and moving the LMG to the Commander slot, would flatten the scaling of vetted Grens, and equalise non-Commander infantry choices DIRECTLY.

Sov could build Penals and Ost can upgrade Grens, to the result of almost identical DPS and survival, at comparable cost (with Penals absorbing the Muni cost as MP).

Adjusting Penals, or/and making G43 universal, instead of LMG, is a more logically direct way of solving this issue, as it addresses the actual upgrade, which is the part that is scaling (not vet), as well as giving an impetus to "fix" Penals.

Your suggestion would just wipe Penals out of existance.

1) PPSH upgrade is the wrong avenue, because it doesn't address the actual issue, which is vetted AND upgraded Grens scaling slightly too hard vs vetted AND unupgraded Cons.

Do you see where the line is? What the actual issue is?
Its the DPS of the LMG upgrade, not the lack of PPSHs, which isn't even a lack, except it depends on Commander choice.

2) If this is not a Grens vs Cons topic, then try to discuss it without mentioning Grens OR Cons. Go ahead, I dare you.

3) If this is a Commanders with PPSH vs Commanders without PPSH discussion, then discuss it as such. PPSH exists on Commanders. If you want PPSH on Cons, then select those Commanders. Simple as that.

3) Yes, I am suggesting that adjusting Penals is a more productive way of addressing the core issue here, than a universal PPSH upgrade to Cons, which does nothing to fix Penals or introduce them to the Meta, and just leads to more Cons spamming. Universal PPSH would just shove Penals even further out of the game.

You state that Penals are rarely if ever seen in the game.
A universal PPSH upgrade to Cons would ensure that Penals become positively EXTINCT.

On that topic, Ive suggested in previous threads that Penal Flamer upgrade is replaced with a PTSR, to allow for early AT, and to remain more inline with their G43-equivalent ranged modus.

4) I'm not overestimating Oorah or Merge. But you can't act like they dont exist. They do, and need to be given consideration and weight for what they are.

What you forget or choose to ignore is that PPSHs will be there in any case. So the issue is NOT "vetted AND upgraded Grens scaling slightly too hard vs vetted AND unupgraded Cons". No, because the Cons will be upgraded as well. In any case. The question is should that mean that you keep picking the same Commander all the time (as you suggest in point 3)? I say no since it kills variability. And that is what the thread is about. The rest of your post is just demagogy (see point 2) ) plus you just keep repeating the same stuff I already refuted so many times.

EDIT: Let me ilustrate my point for you and why this is not about balance but Commander variability. Lets assume LMG upgrade is taken out of the game completely (scary, I know). Would it solve the issue? Hell no! People would still keep picking the same PPSH Commanders since upgraded Cons would be "teh shit", therefore Commander variability would be in the same terrible spot.

So basically your argument is:

"I want PPSH with every Commander because that somehow encourages diversity"

Thats like saying:
"I want Panzer Tactician to be universal, cos that encourages diversity"

Makes no sense dude.

Can you state
A) The problem
B) The solution
C) Why/how the solution fixes the problem

In as concise and specific sentences as you can, please.

So basically your argument is:

"I want PPSH with every Commander because that somehow encourages diversity"

Thats like saying:
"I want Panzer Tactician to be universal, cos that encourages diversity"

Makes no sense dude.

Can you state
A) The problem
B) The solution
C) Why/how the solution fixes the problem

In as concise and specific sentences as you can, please.

Be accurate please: "I want PPSHs upgrade to be non-commander-specific. That encourages variability (or diversity if you prefer the term) since you don`t have to keep picking the same Commander to get the upgrade."

All the answers are in my OP but since since you are my favourite debater and I no longer believe you are a troll I`ll give you a quick tour.

A) The problem: You have to use Conscripts when playing Soviets. (No, Penals are not a valid substitute.) If you don`t have the PPSH upgrade, the Conscripts will become useless. Therefore pick the PPSH Commander every fucking time. That results in boredom. That results in either almost exclusively playing Ostheer (which I do) or not playing the game at all.

B) The solution: Make the upgrade non-commander-specific.

C) How it fixes the problem: All the Commanders become (more) viable. You don`t have to pick the same one every fucking time. You have fun.

BONUS: The difference when comapred to Panzer Tactician is twofold. You don`t need to use the units that are affected by it, neither of them is your very basic practically unskippable unit. However you most likely will use them because they are good whether you got the upgrade or not which brings me to the second difference: Not obtaining the upgrade doesn`t make the affected units useless "by any stretch of the imagination" to use the famous quote.

honestly, im going to have to agree with nullist here. making ppsh a non-doctrinal upgrade doesnt encourage diversity. it may make more commanders "viable", if by "viable" you mean better. the word viable implies that any doctrine that doesnt have ppsh isnt useable, which simply isnt true. maybe for your play style you require ppsh, but it isnt a requirement to win by any means.

currently there are already 3 doctrines that give ppsh. every other doctrine except 2 gives some sort of elite infantry. this is because conscripts should be replaced with elite inf. now you could make the argument that these 2 doctrines (NKVD and urban defense) need ppsh or elite inf, but they are already viable as they are. people use them and win with them as they are now.

so i fail to see why youve concluded that ppsh are mandatory for a doctrine to be viable. what youre asking for is just a flat out buff for all soviets, which really is not needed. with how cheap the upgrade is, you would never see a conscript without a ppsh.

Well as I see it there are two problems here. One is that Cons louse their survivability in the late game, and another is that nobody is using penals.

I really like the solution for the Cons that Strummingbirds sugested in his first post with the global PPSH upgrade for 200MP and 60F. People sugest that if we give this to Cons no Peanls will be build. They are never build as it is. In my opinion they must be made to fulfil the uique purpose. People will never build T1 to get just a bit better anti inf unit if they can use that fuel for faster tacking and geting say T70. Also another problem is if you make penals cheap and T1 fast building than people will never build Cons, so they should be made to fulfill completely different roles in the game.

I sugest to give the Cons PPSH global upgrade as Strummingbirds sugested in his first post for 200MP and 60F, and make Penals as a counterpart to PanzerGrenadiers. Give them better DPS, better survivability and give them a possible upgrade with 2 bazukas. In this way both units would have a unike purpose on the battlefied and people would have more variety with their tactics.

I know the sovites didnt have much bazukas in WW2 but there were some used that were given to them as part of Lend-Lease, and some were given to them during the Operation Torch.

Any thoughts?

honestly, im going to have to agree with nullist here. making ppsh a non-doctrinal upgrade doesnt encourage diversity. it may make more commanders "viable", if by "viable" you mean better. the word viable implies that any doctrine that doesnt have ppsh isnt useable, which simply isnt true. maybe for your play style you require ppsh, but it isnt a requirement to win by any means.

currently there are already 3 doctrines that give ppsh. every other doctrine except 2 gives some sort of elite infantry. this is because conscripts should be replaced with elite inf. now you could make the argument that these 2 doctrines (NKVD and urban defense) need ppsh or elite inf, but they are already viable as they are. people use them and win with them as they are now.

so i fail to see why youve concluded that ppsh are mandatory for a doctrine to be viable. what youre asking for is just a flat out buff for all soviets, which really is not needed. with how cheap the upgrade is, you would never see a conscript without a ppsh.

I say non-PPSH Commanders cripple you so much they aren`t really viable, you say they are. Fine that is your opinion vs mine, no problem.

However when you say I just ask for a flat-out buff to all soviets that simply is not true, especially if you consider I accepted suggestions for increasing the price as part of the upgrade change and even encouraged others to think of ways to make sure this stays balanced. Disagree with me, that`s fine but do not put words in my mouth. I never asked for a buff of any kind.

@Ptah
I would agree with the global PPSH upgrade. However the Penal change I think has 2 issues 1) bazookas are already a Pgren thing... 2) the change would mean the Penals and Guards would be basically in the exact same role, wouldn`t they? That would seem a bit redundant. Generally I agree the Penals need to change somehow though.

Your arguments are based and founded on the following premises and logic:

"Sov are useless without Cons.
Cons are useless without PPSH.
Therefore all Commanders without PPSH are useless"

These are false premises, which lead to false conclusions.

I dont wanna sound like trolling but when I see the same 3-4 persons posting around 80% of all posts on this website, keeping saying the same bullshit, the game's community very poor state doesnt make me wanna give this game another chance tbh.

(The huge "P2W" crying drama gave me a good laugh tho. FIFA14'FUT is clesrly P2W, yet there are constantly over 200k players online for the PC version only.)

Your arguments are based and founded on the following premises and logic:

"Sov are useless without Cons.
Cons are useless without PPSH.
Therefore all Commanders without PPSH are useless"

These are false premises, which lead to a false conclusion.

At least I was consistent, you change your reasoning and arguments in every new post just as fast I refute your old ones. And this isn`t even original, you stole it from wooof few posts above.

BUT NEVER MIND THAT ALL.

I was joking before and I am deadly serious now. I have a new proposition altogether. Lets replace the PPSH upgrade with Armored Vehicle Detection. I think that would be splendid.

@Strummingbird: A global, one off fuel cost upgrade is already unprecedented in CoH2.
If PPSHs where made a universal nonCommander upgrade, it would have to be a muni upgrade PER UNIT, to remain consistent with the existing upgrade scheme in CoH2.

Unprecedented in Coh2 in terms of actual weapons only- molotovs and ATNades are fuel cost abilities (and to an extent, weapons). It would certainly not be unprecedented in the Coh franchise though, and from what I've heard people aren't averse to- and some welcome- the idea of fuel cost upgrades back again.

Admittedly weapon upgrades are still munition-only for the soviets and germans right now. It probably detracts from the game that this is so, though, given that the BAR + other rifle upgrades + supply yard + sherman upgun versus german fuel-consuming veterancy was an interesting dynamic that I always enjoyed playing with and watching in Coh1 casts.

Furthermore, to offset Cons Merge and Oorah, Id expect such a nonCommander upgrade to cost around 70-80 munis per unit, to retain equity.

I daresay I made a point about why there does not need to be an offset with regards to such abilities- because conscripts and flanking are the core of the soviet army, while the entire german T1 is the core of the german army. See my first post on this thread for more.

The idea of Penals acting as the core late-game infantry (which I believe is what you're proposing) just doesn't work, because-
1. Soviet tech structures take very long to build.
2. Soviet tech structures are relatively expensive, even the SWC.
3. As a result, given that it is either T1 OR T2 for the Soviets, almost never both, you'll only see the building Penals come out of in half your matches, let alone the penals themselves.
4. You still need conscripts to start the game- building off penals alone, or even transitioning from conscripts to penals later, just isn't feasible. Spending manpower and fuel on tech structures late game for unvetted anti-infantry infantry just doesn't cut it, imo, especially with call-in infantry in most doctrines. If you can make use of penals well, or players better than I can, then all power to them- I'll try to learn from that.
5. Therefore, Penals, as they are, a pure anti-infantry infantry unit from a tier that doesn't fit into everyone's build order, costly for their initial ability and somewhat fragile without veterancy for cost, and without most of the utility that conscripts or grenadiers provide, or the adaptability that panzergrenadiers or AT support that Guards provide, or raw survivability and damage that Shocks provide, are left high and dry without a niche in most of the games I've had the fortune to observe and play in.

AT rifles for Penals is an interesting idea, I'll grant you that, but AT nades are still much more useful as the game progresses from what I've seen. Even against vetted halftracks, guard AT rifles aren't the main draw- it's the button + AT nade from conscripts, or button + AT gun.

DISCLAIMER though- I am by no means good at this game- or even decent, actually. These comments are made from my limited understanding and observations of the game as it is now, and observing other people play on their streams. If someone could care to correct any mistakes I make (maybe penals have a niche I failed to notice and take advantage of?), I would be appreciative.

You weren't asking me, but I'll give it a shot-
Cost- 200MP/60F would seem reasonable. About the price of a shock unit- the T70- not too little, so the german player can capitalize on seeing PPSHs with the appropriate counter (another MG?)- but not too much such that it becomes impractical.

What tier? After all conscript upgrades from the HQ, and after one of the two tiers (T1 or T2) are built. So that's 150 fuel- 25+25+40+60- from the start of the match, minus 40(?) fuel the soviet player starts with.

How many? 2 seems about fine currently. 2 PPSHs means conscripts still lose handily to Grenadiers with the LMG, but they put up a good fight and can win with a well placed molotov.

How do you justify it? Soviet teching places more emphasis on the Conscript as the mainline fighting unit, as seen from it being the only combat unit out of T0 and all other tiers taking a long time to build. This is as opposed to the Wehrmacht, where the T1 building is quick to finish and built right at the start usually, and provides a balanced mix of units that should supplement each other. Observe the rifle/volk dynamic in coh1- the rifle was better than the volk, and significantly better with BARs, but wehr T1 was balanced to american T1 because wehr T1 was built with the whole combined arms thing- MG, infantry, sniper- working together to fight american barracks with only one main fighting unit- the rifleman.

What does that mean in this context? The conscript squad could be better than the grenadier in terms of utility, and approach it it terms of combat strength, because the soviet system forces the soviet player to rely on the conscript alone for the early game whereas the german system promotes the use of the entire T1- not grenadier spam alone.

Ladder page? http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198047219124

+1, perfect reply. Although, I find PPSH to be terrible and hardly find it worth upgrading. HTD is way more useful than PPSH.

Also, Penals are utter trash. They are only good for their satchels which might wipe squads due to command lag. They lose HORRIBLY to LMG grens for cost.

A better change is to just improve Penals and also decrease the build time of T1 and T2 buildings.

We need to start a petition for replacing PPSH upgrade with Armored Vehicle Detection. Oh yeah I want to get up in this bitch and detect those armored vehicles like there is no tomorrow. I am seriously guys.

The reasoning is simple. In this thread we learned that PPSHs are either useless and not neccessary or totally OP. Possibly both. So you either don`t need them or shouldn`t have them. Maybe you don`t need them and shouldn`t have them in the first place! In any case they must go, that much is clear. The choice of replacement is a simple one. It`s not like which one of the Spice Girls you want to impregnate. No, the only possibility is AVD. If we force it down the throats of ppl enough Relic will have to actually look into it and make it into a decent ability. That is unless it is OP, in which case let me know.

This is an interesting discussion and it does comeback to something I tried to suggest during the early beta stage. In my opinion atm the game lacks a bit of depth due to the fact there is almost no reason not to spend your fuel on teching up. There are no fuel upgrades (apart from the two for cons for the soviets). In vCoh you had wehr global veterancy, supply upgrades, global sherman and rifles upgrades. You had to choose to either invest fuel in upgrades and stay at a lower tier for longer or fast tech up.
Personally I like the idea of having ppsh as a global fuel upgrade and so should the 85 model of the t34. It's basically the same tank with a redesigned turret. There are a lot of possibilities for fuel upgrades for both sides. Ofcourse this will change the balance by quite a lot and this is why I'm not going into specific details and numbers/cost
Frankly, I think that too many commander abilities that should have simply been fuel upgrades were added to justify the bland commanders we have now (not counting the new 4).
in vCoh commanders had a huge impact on the way you play. While it still might be true to the soviets, it's definitely not the case with the Ostheer. I say relic should redesign them, make less of them have more impact.

This is an interesting discussion and it does comeback to something
Personally I like the idea of having ppsh as a global fuel upgrade and so should the 85 model of the t34. It's basically the same tank with a redesigned turret. There are a lot of possibilities for fuel upgrades for both sides. Ofcourse this will change the balance by quite a lot and this is why I'm not going into specific details and numbers/cost
Frankly, I think that too many commander abilities that should have simply been fuel upgrades were added to justify the bland commanders we have now (not counting the new 4).

QFT, well said