Another poll about some changes regarding WFA doctrines

???

OKW 350 + 300 = 650
OST 450 + 200 - 80 = 570
USF 400 + 200 = 600
UKF 350 + 280 = 630
SOV 390 + 170 - 160 = 400

OKW starting mp 350

Usf starting mp 400

Not unit + starting mp

Starting mp is starting mp, not my issue if you don't get it.

350 is the bare minimum, both OKW and UKF received buff to starting mp exactly because beyond that point such amount was too low.

Okw starts with the bare minimum mp a faction can get.

???

OKW 350 + 300 = 650
OST 450 + 200 - 80 = 570
USF 400 + 200 = 600
UKF 350 + 280 = 630
SOV 390 + 170 - 160 = 400

I like how okw gets 1.5x the amount of mp as Soviet along with sturms AND cons that can scale. Good balance. Guise. good balance...

Edit. Wrong multiple for the math

OKW starting mp 350

Usf starting mp 400

Not unit + starting mp

Starting mp is starting mp, not my issue if you don't get it.

Actually, starting MP standard is 500.
From that starting MP, cost of starting unit is subtracted.
3 factions are getting BONUS EXTRA MP, meaning they have more total resources at start then other factions.
A faction that gets MOST, +100, is OKW. OKW got this massive bonus so they can instantly start building another unit, same thing for UKF, but again, UKF got that value at only 60 MP if memory serves me right.
Ost get bonus MP as well, but its lower value then OKW and they have it pretty much "just because" at current point in balance.

So yes, OKW has most starting MP.

Imo Penal battalion would be in much better place design wise if they followed P.F. design and had a separate upgrade for their AI and AT.

Then their cost and built time could be adjusted.

Imo Penal battalion would be in much better place design wise if they followed P.F. design and had a separate upgrade for their AI and AT.

Then their cost and built time could be adjusted.

We can talk about that when cons are on the level of volks in terms of combat capability.

PFs are fully optional.
Penals, with maxim gutted out of existence and cons being impotent without ppsh doctrine, are not.

Actually, starting MP standard is 500.
From that starting MP, cost of starting unit is subtracted.
3 factions are getting BONUS EXTRA MP, meaning they have more total resources at start then other factions.
A faction that gets MOST, +100, is OKW. OKW got this massive bonus so they can instantly start building another unit, same thing for UKF, but again, UKF got that value at only 60 MP if memory serves me right.
Ost get bonus MP as well, but its lower value then OKW and they have it pretty much "just because" at current point in balance.

So yes, OKW has most starting MP.

3 factions are getting this bonus because their starting unit reduced their mp pool too much.

I don't know from where that "500" comes, stone age ? All factions starting mp pool + startinh unit cost surpass that.

Okw gets the bare minimum of starting mp pool. The total value may be higher and i never claimed otherwise, but their starting mp is lower than other faction due to the starting unit, as a matter of fact.

Mp is a resource, mp pool refers exclusively to the starting mp resource you get.

End the derailing now

We can talk about that when cons are on the level of volks in terms of combat capability.

PFs are fully optional.
Penals, with maxim gutted out of existence and cons being impotent without ppsh doctrine, are not.

Actually no we should talk about it right now if it PF is a superior design that can improve the game.

If Penal is superior design lets make PF a Penal clone locked behind fist truck being built.

Pls stop making silly claims T1 is optional and so are Penals.

Actually no we should talk about it right now if it PF is a superior design that can improve the game.

If Penal is superior design lets make PF a Penal clone locked behind fist truck being built.

Pls stop making silly claims T1 is optional and so are Penals.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh. T1 is optional if you don't want to win. The alternative is the worst core infantry in the game by a large margin or maxim spam. At the very least penal play has a bit of give and take.
Don't get me wrong I want the same changes as you do for penals, but the alternatives are simply not viable at this time against 50% of the factions Soviet can match against. Cons don't scale properly and maxims are a 1 trick pony, and that one trick is literally cheese because unless you cheese with them they simply do not function properly. Soviet are in a poor state with the exception of penals (who again, I'd like to see changed because winning with a crutch is still relying on a crutch)

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh. T1 is optional if you don't want to win. The alternative is the worst core infantry in the game by a large margin or maxim spam. At the very least penal play has a bit of give and take.
Don't get me wrong I want the same changes as you do for penals, but the alternatives are simply not viable at this time against 50% of the factions Soviet can match against. Cons don't scale properly and maxims are a 1 trick pony, and that one trick is literally cheese because unless you cheese with them they simply do not function properly. Soviet are in a poor state with the exception of penals (who again, I'd like to see changed because winning with a crutch is still relying on a crutch)

Building T1 is one option for the Soviet, building Penals is another option.

It might be the best option but it remain an option, claiming differently is silly.

Or one could claim that JLI is not optional either since it also a very good option also.

Now pls lets do not fill this thread with silly arguments.

My point is actually different, if Penal are better designed than PF, simply copy that design which has been tested.

If something is mandatory for a win at competitive level, its not really an option.
Patch after patch after patch after patch have proven that correct, especially with ever changing soviet early game balance where always 2 out of 3 options were non viable choice for memes, not winning the game.

If we ignored balance completely, you'd be right. Its an option as you can build it or not. But we can't ignore balance, we can't ignore state of conscripts, we can't ignore state of maxim, that means the "option" is not really optional if you're interested in rank higher then 500 in 1v1 or 2v2.
So you're wrong for the reasons thedarkarmadillo mentioned.

Arguing against that is equal to pure denial of current state of balance of soviet early game.
Not all games happen through spreadsheet and theorycraft and forum warrioring, some actually happen in games, where you need to take the REAL possibilities based on current balance of available units, not semantical theorycraft over the meaning of word "optional".

....
Not all games happen through spreadsheet and theorycraft and forum warrioring, some actually happen in games, where you need to take the REAL possibilities based on current balance of available units, not semantical theorycraft over the meaning of word "optional".

You are actually describing yourself.

If you do not know the meaning of the word "optional" pls do no use it, and don't start a semantic war about it.

Building Penal is optional end of story and it is quite irrelevant to my point.

If the current design of PF is superior to that Penal it would improve the game to apply to Penals.

Penal could easily have SVT as weapon upgrade or PTRS as upgrade similar to PF.

Yeah, in semantical way it is optional, I've already said that you're right about semantics.

In balance and meta way, you have no option if you don't want to lose the game.
Bring cons and maxims to a usable level and THEN penals will become actually optional.

If you have an option to drink a poison or an apple juice and you are fully aware which is which, is it really an option? I suppose you would consider that option and just drink the poison only to prove that
'choice' exists.

Having to choose between SVT and PTRS would still allow to play with Penal they would simply become cheaper and build faster and become better designed.

This a completely different issue of conscripts and maxim performance.

Show Spoiler

Show Spoiler

Show Spoiler

Also, let me be clear here: I'm talking about current version of Pfusies (280mp/6-man/2cp) not the modded 250/5.

You are messing so many things up.
First "i wont go into "what range is best range" discussion but you went into saying that pfusiar are "best" figters far and close range. The latter is wrong. G43 are a simple flat upgrade with great dps on the move its not a CQC weapon, otherwise bring shock troops to the fight and see what happens.
Pfusies models drop faster than 4 Man IS behind cover and thus its dps drops linearly with each model killed. But IS are more durable and even more behind cover. Thats why they are "weak".

Then you move into the 6 man fragile concept. Again pfusies are fragile meaning their models drop faster than others in the same category. "wipeability" of 6 man squads is low, everyone knows that but only you use semantics to twist arguments.

Finally that fantastic list of yours to say that pfusies are "premium" inf... you basically compare pfusies to cons. Any inf is elite compared to cons. Still no mention to 1v1 engagements (means they loose a very few of them), vision? (are they supposed to be blind now?), their grenade is a joke (it should be a decent one tho), any of it makes any sense.
Premium (above average performance) is not what pfusies do currently

Firstly, chillax bro, this is a discussion, not a battle, so stop acting like you're trying to prove something in court.

Now then

First "i wont go into "what range is best range" discussion

And I didn't.

but you went into saying that pfusiar are "best" figters far and close range

I never said they were best fighters at any range, in fact I didn't even use the word "best"
What you wanted to say, without being an ass and putting words in my mouth that is, is "you compared their long range DPS to Penals and 4-man IS" (which is very comparable) and "you also compared their close range DPS to PPSH-Cons" (which, again, is comparable)
Whether or not you consider Penal far DPS/Con close DP to be the good or bad is your thing entirely

The latter is wrong. G43 are a simple flat upgrade with great dps on the move its not a CQC weapon,

Check the DPS curve of the G43s. Stationary they near match Con-PPSh (again, G43s lose out quite a bit at ranges 6-10), on the move (which, surprise, CQB units often are) G43 out-DPS Con-PPsh

otherwise bring shock troops to the fight and see what happens.

Because thats a sensible thing to do (and say), comparing a 280mp generalist mainline to 360mp close-range AI specialist.

Pfusies models drop faster than 4 Man IS behind cover and thus its dps drops linearly with each model killed. But IS are more durable and even more behind cover. Thats why they are "weak".

I was purely comparing their DPS Curve, not intricacies behind PF/IS matchup, that's a completly different issue.

Then you move into the 6 man fragile concept. Again pfusies are fragile meaning their models drop faster than others in the same category.

I didn't know you referred to their RA, and how fast they drop models.
Anyway, do they drop faster than others in their category? Others like what? Penals? (same RA) Rifles? (0.97 RA, basically the same unless you want to split hairs over that 3% difference) throw in some 6-man elites (Paras, Guards) and you'll find 1.0 RA is fairly standard "in their category", definitely not "fragile". "but only you use semantics to twist arguments" XD

vision? (are they supposed to be blind now?)

So, higher than everage vision and ability to fire flares is not an advantage over regular mainline inf that doesn't have it?

their grenade is a joke (it should be a decent one tho)

That was an error that is going to be fixed.

A design like Penals is also something that could be implemented for pfussies.

Right now the squad stock barely win against RIFLEMEN at 30-35 range.
Nobody said that they should be volks level of cost efficency here, but what is a Fussies build supposed to do against Brits ?
Nobody will use them at the current state imho

Firstly, chillax bro, this is a discussion, not a battle, so stop acting like you're trying to prove something in court.
...

*Quotes 8 times and elaborates in all the semantics like a proper lawsuit is in place

Maybe leading with the example will do great in this kind of situations...

Still the point is Pfussies are more a patch to broken pants rather a brand new ferrari premium style infantry.

Having to choose between SVT and PTRS would still allow to play with Penal they would simply become cheaper and build faster and become better designed.

This a completely different issue of conscripts and maxim performance.

Gutting units stock performance for the sake of "I don't like its stock performance" is not the reason either.

And no, its not different issue, its directly correlated, because penals are used not just because "penul op" meme, but because nothing else is viable alternative. I know you have a raging hate boner for every single soviet unit that doesn't require at least 60 muni investment to actually work, but for that move to even be viable consideration, penals would have to arrive at the same time as cons do as there would be absolutely no reason to ever go for them if they arrive later, cost more and still perform as shitty as cons since I hardly doubt you'd give them guards Mosins. Unless, you want to make SVTs stronger then they currently are, actually justifying that move and delay.

Gutting their early game, even though going penals equals to giving up map presence already doesn't make much sense from any pov.

Gutting units stock performance for the sake of "I don't like its stock performance" is not the reason either.

I explained the reason and it was not "I don't like its stock performance", pls stop trolling.

And no, its not different issue, its directly correlated, because penals are used not just because "penul op" meme, but because nothing else is viable alternative.

That is simply a gross exaggeration.
The argument that Penal need to be OP because the alternatives suck makes no sense in this case because then PF should be even more OP since the alternative does not suck and because they would be a waste of slot.
In the end of the since in your opinion Penal are so well designed you should have no objection of cloning PF after Penals and having the start with 6 G43s (SVT level) and the ability to upgrade to 2 PTRS+sachel.

Gutting their early game, even though going penals equals to giving up map presence already doesn't make much sense from any pov.

It does not make sense only in your point of view.

Have a nice day
Bye bye.

Gutting units stock performance for the sake of "I don't like its stock performance" is not the reason either.

And no, its not different issue, its directly correlated, because penals are used not just because "penul op" meme, but because nothing else is viable alternative. I know you have a raging hate boner for every single soviet unit that doesn't require at least 60 muni investment to actually work, but for that move to even be viable consideration, penals would have to arrive at the same time as cons do as there would be absolutely no reason to ever go for them if they arrive later, cost more and still perform as shitty as cons since I hardly doubt you'd give them guards Mosins. Unless, you want to make SVTs stronger then they currently are, actually justifying that move and delay.

Gutting their early game, even though going penals equals to giving up map presence already doesn't make much sense from any pov.

The only problem with penal performance is how powerful they are so soon. If pgrens came in T0 they would be too strong because they come too soon (March deployment pios anyone?) so reducing the MP cost and adding a munitions path kills like 3 birds at once: super powerful unit from the word go, awfully slow Soviet start and great AI that can transition into a counter for its own counter.

Its just simply a bad design.. Cons need something REGARDLESS of penals (maxims too) but penals should be readjusted.
This isn't a matter of "penals op" it's a matter of "penals op FOR THEIR TIMING"