Soviet Infantry Design

Cons actually get 50% accuracy.
40% at standard vet2 and 10% as bandaid fix for making them viable choice without giving them any weapon upgrade at vet3, which obviously failed at serving that purpose.

Are you sure about the penalty on slot weapons? As far as I know only ostrruppen have one.

Absolute misinformation on my part, sorry about that.

Absolute misinformation on my part, sorry about that.

No problem just wanted to clarify it.

So I'm pretty confused by this proposal. You want to make them a long range defensive squad by removing their PTRS (which perform well at long range and require them to be stationary to fire), giving them more of a rifle with insane moving performance, and nerfing said rifles performance? That just makes them more mobile, and a lot weaker at range.

Like, I'm all for making them less of a generalist anti-everything squad, but your proposed solution doesn't really match your proposed goal.

Honestly, I forgot about the current moving accuracy of the Guards Mosin. Adjusting aforementioned Mosin is just a needed step if you drop a pair of PTRS rifles from the squad.

The intent is to prevent Guards from being a generalist, anti-everything unit, and make them into a long range combat squad. Dropping the moving accuracy on the guard Mosin could be a part of that.

Giving them a long range focus and removing their anti-tank gives them two distinct weaknesses; CQC squads and vehicles. That's two roles you can then allow conscripts to support. Or penals, or a mix of both.

To be fair, the glass cannon niche isn't really common in this game. Falls and penals are probably the only infantry units that fit that design. At the very least, having them be glass cannons keeps them unique. Beyond that, RA doesn't really make sense to me for a squad meant to take losses, that would generally just mean that they become durable and end up not taking losses. It can make you put them into situations with more damage being thrown around, but it probably won't make them riskier to use or make them better thematically. High received accuracy means the squad WILL sustain losses, and to the last man means you at least have some incentive to use them in a way that makes them sustain losses. Again, I'm all for making them more of a high loss squad, but I don't think the proposed solution really pushes that direction. Side note, 4 ptrs would probably too much for reasons that other people have brought up.

The thing with adding more RA to 'to the last man' is it'll only apply after they take at least a few losses. The intent was that it would help make using them to push into fire and do demolitions duty is a little less risky - as they drop models and retreat, they become harder to hit, and the retreating last model or two have a better chance of surviving. A PPSH package does plenty of damage in close as is.

As for the PTRS, upping the cooldown and reload was hopefully enough to offset it. I doesn't need to be a an increase in their overall AT damage, just how much they can do in a single volley.

The intent was that it would help make using them to push into fire and do demolitions duty is a little less risky - as they drop models and retreat, they become harder to hit, and the retreating last model or two have a better chance of surviving. A PPSH package does plenty of damage in close as is.

My understanding was that the intent was not to make their pushes less risky, but to push the idea that the unit is one that shouldn't be scared to take losses. Less of a "this ALLOWS you to go for dangerous pushes with high amounts of damage being thrown around," and more of a "this makes high loss maneuvers OPTIMAL and makes the player WANT to go for them."

My understanding was that the intent was not to make their pushes less risky, but to push the idea that the unit is one that shouldn't be scared to take losses. Less of a "this ALLOWS you to go for dangerous pushes with high amounts of damage being thrown around," and more of a "this makes high loss maneuvers OPTIMAL and makes the player WANT to go for them."

I do appreciate the original intent, but I think it wasn't the best thought through. Because penals use the SVT profile at present, they remain effective at more or less any range. If you're using your penals as high loss assault troops or just as mainline infantry the current generalist SVT will always do a decent job.

If they had the PPSH as standard, you can't opt to hang back with them and just make use of their low damage attrition and high RA. You have to push close with them to get your damage output.

I imagine that if penals were forced into that role, two things would come of it.

A) The RA would be much more beneficial for surviving getting into and out of knife fight range - either to firefihght or simply to throw satchels.

B) CQC damage on the PPSH is already huge and CQC fights are over quickly. Extra damage would be very hard to tune between being overbearing or next to meaningless, depending on the sifuation.

Just food for thought here, but minute 0 ppsh penals combined with a clown car would be incredibly OP vs okw and even vs ost. You think cav rifles in a wc are a nightmare? 6 guys with ppshs and a car with a pre-installed .50 cal is gonna be even worse.

Just food for thought here, but minute 0 ppsh penals combined with a clown car would be incredibly OP vs okw and even vs ost. You think cav rifles in a wc are a nightmare? 6 guys with ppshs and a car with a pre-installed .50 cal is gonna be even worse.

A valid point. A hit on the moving accuracy of the clown car to match the recent dodge truck change would certainly seem in order. Allows flamers to remain more or less as is while stopping ppsh penals from running rough shod over everything.

In an unrelated point, I still think that the unlock order for fausts and flame grenades on OKW should be swapped. But that has its own issues wih making volks less able to abuse infantry sections, but OKW hamstringed against buildings.

A pickle indeed.

A valid point. A hit on the moving accuracy of the clown car to match the recent dodge truck change would certainly seem in order. Allows flamers to remain more or less as is while stopping ppsh penals from running rough shod over everything.

In an unrelated point, I still think that the unlock order for fausts and flame grenades on OKW should be swapped. But that has its own issues wih making volks less able to abuse infantry sections, but OKW hamstringed against buildings.

A pickle indeed.

I like the idea of switching faust and flamenade tech. I honestly almost never even use flamenades before I have a truck set up anyway.

I also agree that the current Soviet infantry design is bad, it requires radical redesign and ordering to get rid of overlapping and ridiculous roles.

I don’t see the Guard at all in team games at the moment

And other threads describe penals into guards meta. Damn this forum.

And other threads describe penals into guards meta. Damn this forum.

And this is true, I do not see the Guard in
team games the game, Penalties perform the AT role quite well, especially AT explosives. Usually people play Penals which are improved on PTRS after the arrival of the Shock Troops or as my typical assembly: ZiS-3 and conscripts AT grenade and Shock Troops as the main infantry.
Show Spoiler
A pure conscript game (even a PTRS conscript who is a good commander) is super rare. Guards are rare.

I also agree that the current Soviet infantry design is bad, it requires radical redesign and ordering to get rid of overlapping and ridiculous roles.

there isnt too much overlap tbh. less so when the new con changes go through.

cons will be very defensive and support. they get great durability buffs with vet and will make better use of cover and merge with the upgrade. defensive

penals are probably the best 0min unit in the game, but lack durability (they get 15% target size reduction at vet 3, that and to the last man, which scales with loses) but a huuuge 60% accuracy buff between vets 2 and 3 offensive
being able to get PTRS allows the to also be defensive AT, at the cost of some of their AI

guards are very heavy infantry, but need to be stationary to make use of that firepower. Heavy generalist

shocks are the most durable squad in the game and come with a sole purpose of head on assaulting enemy infantry positions heavy AI

even if all 4 main squads were available there is a chance that each could find use, sure others can be subbed in, at the cost of efficiency but i call that flexibility rather than overlap.

sure you can slap ppshs on cons have them as a cqb squad, but a single mg burst and they are down for the count.
and penals can fight tanks, but at the cost of AI and they offer no synergy with other units like button does.

the idea is that the jobs can still be done (again, but less effectively) even if you dont have the doctrinal infantry.

the only overlap between penals and cons is the overlap players not wanting to use both are forcing on them. there is room for both!





my only change would be that penals start costing less MP, but with guards mosins and need to buy their SVTs OR PTRS' instead of transitioning between the 2 seamlessly. there should always be a tactical choice in getting AT like there is for literally every other unit that upgrades to it.

my only change would be that penals start costing less MP, but with guards mosins and need to buy their SVTs OR PTRS' instead of transitioning between the 2 seamlessly. there should always be a tactical choice in getting AT like there is for literally every other unit that upgrades to it.

Not a bad idea but it couldn't be Guards Mosins, which are very good rifles. High moving accuracy and 6x 16 damage with only slightly lower DPS would actually be more powerful than SVTs.

Not a bad idea but it couldn't be Guards Mosins, which are very good rifles. High moving accuracy and 6x 16 damage with only slightly lower DPS would actually be more powerful than SVTs.

what about 2 cons, 2 guards and 2 CE?
its kind of all over the place but would be a nice blend of reliable damage and RNG i think

edit or would cons nagants be unique enough when considering the vet buffs penals get to keep them in their own lanes as far as defined roles go?

Rename Penals to Rifles and I'm happy. I hate that they're called penals.

Rename Penals to Rifles and I'm happy. I hate that they're called penals.

Renaming Penals would still feel wrong because they still have Satchels and AT Rifles, which don't feel appropriate for general infantry. Removing those though would change the feel of T1 way too much and deprive the player of early anti-building and anti-vehicle measures.

Guard should be nerfed

at least they should be able to use only one of the two weapon(DP, PTRS)

Using both weapons at once is too OP

It is better to give Soviet users a choice than to remove PTRS from the guard rifle

Top notch analysis with a lot of substantiating evidence there buddy.

Refer to the original post. Guards having AT capacity has been a mandatory crutch for years because soviet infantry play and teching was broken.

I do believe it should change. Not because its op (like, seiously?) But as part of redistributing some of the work of Soviet infantry back onto comscriots.

Guard should be nerfed

at least they should be able to use only one of the two weapon(DP, PTRS)

Using both weapons at once is too OP

Then the DP-27 should be a big buff, and PTRS should receive the ability to "shoot at the tracks", which temporarily stuns tanks.

Then the DP-27 should be a big buff, and PTRS should receive the ability to "shoot at the tracks", which temporarily stuns tanks.

6 man 2 lmg squad already strong

even they have "hit the dirt" skill

It would be good to change their base weapon to SVT if u think they are weak

i dont think so they need stun skill

they already have button vehicle