Login

russian armor

Radical T0-T1 Restructure Proposal:

29 Oct 2013, 04:27 AM
#21
avatar of Furyn

Posts: 35

The problem with Penals isn't their timing, it's their role and perhaps cost. They are an expensive main line infantry unit that still gets beat by LMG Grens. The Flamethrower upgrade encourages going in close meaning the Penal squad is going to take a ton of damage due to it's low armor. The flamethrower upgrade needs to go and get replaced with either a light AT option or a DPS boost capable of countering LMG Grens. Either that, or give them a muni upgrade "body armor" increasing armor.

But hey, I like your out of the box thinking. Clearly, Penals (and T1 in general) could use a hand.
29 Oct 2013, 05:27 AM
#22
avatar of Turtle

Posts: 401

I also think that Germans having to build the T1 building at the start is just a hold over from older RTS games.

However, just because they have to do that doesn't mean it's as much of a disadvantage. T1 gives Germans a nice set of units covering a variety of roles. Soviets either have to rely on conscripts, or build a slow and costly building from the start.

The devs can time things well enough so it's not that much of an issue.

While many traditionalists hated Dawn of War 2 (DoW2), I liked DoW2's HQ building with a robust Tier 0 right at the start of a match.

You got right into the fighting with a diverse and interesting set of units.

Part of the reason why conscripts got such powerful abilities like Oorah was that they needed them since they would often be going it alone for a chunk of the early game. It's also why MG42s had to be nerfed as they were.

Oh and if the OP's suggestion is to be used, then Grens would also have to lose the ability to build bunkers. One of the effects of having to build T1 is that bunkers are delayed. But, if at the start, an early gren could run up to a position and get a bunker down early enough to be a significant delay. Say what you want about bunkers, they do serve as a useful delay. Even the best players build them for that purpose when there's enough resources.
29 Oct 2013, 08:39 AM
#23
avatar of GreenDevil

Posts: 394

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Oct 2013, 15:46 PMNullist
There is a marked disparity in Ost and Sov T1 cost (and subsequently, buildtime), presumably because Sov has Cons at T0, but Ost has to build T1 as the first thing he doesmso as to be able to field anything other than Pios.

Its always struck me as retarded that one faction has to build something right off the bat, whereas the other, does not.
But the problem does not end there. The most serious repercussion, is what it does to Penals. Their timing is off, as a result of this split. Whereas Ost can laterally tech to LMGs, through Muni, Sov is hampered at this early point by sheer MP costs.

My radical proposal:
-Move Grens to T0.
-Increase Ost T1 cost/buildtime to roughly the same as as Sov T1.
-Attach LMG to T1. No T1, no LMG. G43 should be largely unaffected due to CP2 timing.

Result?
-Grens and Cons are largely unaffected. Grens and Cons still hit the field at the same rate, and cost, in relstion to each other.

-Penals hit the field at around the same time as Grens get LMG upgrade.
(Afterthought here, Small problem here, may lead to Penal spamming...)
This because this doesnt change the Muni income rate, so LMG upgrade is still timed by Munis, as it is now.
BUT, and here is the genius, it does mean Sov is not hampered by an immediate MP deficit, in relation to Osts current cheaper T1. Meaning onfield unit capacity is roughly equal, at any given point.

Thats it. Simple, eh?

Problems though:
-Makes the factions "the same" in terms of immediate builds. But as I already stated, the "difference" we currently have, in Ost having to build immediately (albeit at lesser cost) is a retarded and artifical one to begin with. And is largely simply a result of Grens not being T0, as Cons are.
-The relative extra cost to Ost for a more expensive T1, needs to be deducted from future tiers, in some shape or form, so that atleast the total overall cost of building all 4 tiers, remains roughly equal.
-Ost and Sov starting resources would have to be adjusted, preferably, equalised.

TLDR: Problem is in the T0-T1 faction split.

What do you guys think?

Please try to refrain from personal attacks and overt negativity, as even though there may he something absolutely centrally flawed in my proposal that Ive overlooked, that is glaringly obvious, that makes me look like a complete tard, Im only trying to help and do what I can to improve the game.

------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT ADDITIONS
- LMG now attached to T1.


Why not buff cons and move them to rifle command and get rid of Penals altogether making them a doctrinal 0CP call in for 320mp each? Then make the Rifle Command the same price/build time as Ost T1?

Furthermore Tov's, AT Nades and DP28's can be added as Global Upgrades for fuel and MP out of the special rifle command. DP28's could be the answer to LMG's, being similar in effectiveness as the vCoH BAR and give it a Vet 1 ability that is armour penetrating. Healing should be a left at the HQ, but a fuel cost added to boot.

Then make Cons 260mp each and Grens remain at 240mp, but this will work because Cons should be buffed to beat Grens anyway. This will make Ost support their Grens with an MG42 that also needs a buff to its suppressing ability.

Oh and did I mention, fixing the input lag?
29 Oct 2013, 15:40 PM
#24
avatar of Jinseual

Posts: 598

buffed cons with mgs and armor piercing ability.....that is too much buffing. + pure infantry vrs infantry battles should also be equal because the soviets have easier access to their support weapons than the americans.
29 Oct 2013, 15:42 PM
#25
avatar of =][=mmortal

Posts: 215

I'm tempted to say I don't agree this is the right approach Nullist.

I agree its pretty lame how fast soviets can control the t0 early map by rushing a engineer to your fuel cutoff and sitting in a building while their subsequent cons move to push you off your fuel, while simultaneously capping their own side of the map--that is the death spiral that leads to many a ostheer defeat. Langres, winter kholdny, semois etc are perfect examples

However I still believe that this can be addressed through removing a handful of buildings from the maps before drastically changing the t0 meta

Moving grens to t0 implies that the first german engineer is just going to rush a fuel to mirror the soviet gameplay and its going to be a con vs gren slugfest. This derails the faction design because while soviets have oorah, molotovs, at nades at t0 and htd/ppsh at 1cp, germans will be giving up the MG42 and delaying rifle nades.
29 Oct 2013, 17:26 PM
#26
avatar of undostrescuatro

Posts: 525

t1: snipers,scoutcar, machine gun.
t2: penals, mortars, atgun.

they even have the same uniform penals and mortars.
29 Oct 2013, 17:30 PM
#27
avatar of JohanSchwarz

Posts: 409

I agree its pretty lame how fast soviets can control the t0 early map by rushing a engineer to your fuel cutoff and sitting in a building while their subsequent cons move to push you off your fuel, while simultaneously capping their own side of the map--that is the death spiral that leads to many a ostheer defeat. Langres, winter kholdny, semois etc are perfect examples

However I still believe that this can be addressed through removing a handful of buildings from the maps before drastically changing the t0 meta


Building location is not the problem. Building cover bonuses and Soviet molotovs (and Ostheer's lack of an equivalent building clearing grenade) are.

Don't even bring up assault grenades; that's doctrinal, expensive, and extremely ineffective.
29 Oct 2013, 17:55 PM
#28
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
Some people argue its Penal timing, I argue its T0-T1 artifical split, some people argue its Penal reinforce cost, others that its Penals being shit as a unit, and still others that fuck Penals I want Cons with PPSH.

Unfortunately we havent come any closer to a solution, and cant even seem to agree on what the actual problem with Penals, is.

No offence to anyone (as this includes myself also), but we look like a bunch of retards tbh.
Arent making any progress at all.
29 Oct 2013, 18:42 PM
#29
avatar of undostrescuatro

Posts: 525

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Oct 2013, 17:55 PMNullist
Some people argue its Penal timing, I argue its T0-T1 artifical split, some people argue its Penal reinforce cost, others that its Penals being shit as a unit, and still others that fuck Penals I want Cons with PPSH.

Unfortunately we havent come any closer to a solution, and cant even seem to agree on what the actual problem with Penals, is.

No offence to anyone (as this includes myself also), but we look like a bunch of retards tbh.
Arent making any progress at all.


penals are not a shock unit. they are kind of like prority targets. and they punish those that decide to pick them as priority.

put a penal in cover and let them shoot at other units. they have big dps at long range.

if a german closes in with grenadiers he will die. if he closes with pgreen they will get flamed and when closing in a simple satchel retreat can make short work of them.

the problem is that they suck at doing other things like actively chasing. or dealing with vehicles. if you could choose bewteen flamers or At, or pphs or perhaps the weapon guards get option they would be optimal.
29 Oct 2013, 21:04 PM
#30
avatar of =][=mmortal

Posts: 215

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Oct 2013, 17:55 PMNullist
No offence to anyone (as this includes myself also), but we look like a bunch of retards tbh.
Arent making any progress at all.


Implying the devs arent just doing their own anyway behind the scenes regardless of what we recommend :p
30 Oct 2013, 06:54 AM
#31
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned


Implying the devs arent just doing their own anyway behind the scenes regardless of what we recommend :p


Implying I thought they arent ;)

30 Oct 2013, 12:24 PM
#32
avatar of karolus10

Posts: 45

I think that penal squad's should be affected by conscripts upgrades (AT grenades) or had some other form of AT.

Also an good thing would be single DP-28 (no button) as T1 building upgrade (for MP, fuel) affecting penal squad and conscripts.
30 Oct 2013, 12:32 PM
#33
avatar of OnkelSam
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 1582 | Subs: 4

I like asymmetrical design. The teching structure of both factions doesn't have to be identical at all. It only adds depth...

Soviets start with a T0 unit which has to be upgraded with global upgrades to become useful.
Ostheer puts teching into unit unlocks and upgrades are for individuals. I am fine with that.

If you want to change timing on stuff you can just touch build times, teching times, etc.
If you think a unit itself is too weak for what it does, change the unit.
I don't think it needs a restructuring of the tech layout for things to work. It only results in more symmetrical design, reducing the differences of factions.
30 Oct 2013, 13:27 PM
#34
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

soviet infantry system is darn confusing.

the infantry system that soviet use, almost similar wehr's in vcoh. cheap troops designed to be replaced later by better infantry squads.

but it is implemented like US infantry system. Global upgrades means they more or less perform as a generalist infantry squad, which then contradict their initial design, while elite infantry call ins supplement infantry AT or increased AI capabilities. this is alot like US riflemen + rangers/airborne. except then US rifles had BARs to deal with german infantry.

so now I cannot replace these guys for better infantry squads because I need their abilities. yet while I retain them, they become massive manpower sinks because of their utter uselessness in combat after using their abilities. for a 240mp unit, this is quite unacceptable.

so what is the front line infantry for soviets then? a gimped conscript squad that cannot dps? or expensive elite infantry call ins?
30 Oct 2013, 13:29 PM
#35
avatar of =][=mmortal

Posts: 215

Why the conscript hate? They are perfectly useful units as the game goes on. If they werent, people wouldn't be doing 4-5 conscript openings as a matter of course. As if they had another inf unit to choose from tho :p
30 Oct 2013, 14:03 PM
#36
avatar of MetaStable14

Posts: 95

I've thought about the problem some more and I'm going to retract my thought that reinforcing cost is a problem.

Penal squads are an approximate equivalent for an lmg upgraded gren squad (both in unit stats and the time-cost of resources required to make them). However if you have these two units fight each other (assuming neither squad is completely wiped), over the course of many engagements the lmg gren squad is a cost effective solution to penal squads because of the difference in reinforcement cost.

However penal squads can also take on pgren squads either from range or with the flame upgrade for close quarters. If the penal squad had a lower reinforcement cost it becomes a cost effective solution for fighting pgrens over time - I don't think that is right either.

Perhaps penal troops should be faced with a decision to upgrade to either a flamethrower or the guards' antitank rifles? This would leave them the choice of being either effective against light vehicles or effective against infantry. It would remove the "necessity" of guards for T1-T4 play. Thoughts?

I know penals weren't the thread topic per se but since we are talking about them a lot I felt it could be stated here.
30 Oct 2013, 14:26 PM
#37
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
Thats fine Meta. My proposal is primarily an attempt to even out T1, so Penals provide Sov with AI infantry in conjuncrion with Osts lateral Gren upgrading to LMGs with Munis, by equalising T1 cost/build.

TLDR: Was trying to fix Penals with this, because from the way I view the current T0-T1 split, its actually squeezing Penals more than anything else.

30 Oct 2013, 15:23 PM
#38
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

Why the conscript hate? They are perfectly useful units as the game goes on. If they werent, people wouldn't be doing 4-5 conscript openings as a matter of course. As if they had another inf unit to choose from tho :p


useful if they have ppsh/molotovs and vet saving them from utter domination from german infantry.
30 Oct 2013, 15:50 PM
#39
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post30 Oct 2013, 15:23 PMwongtp


useful if they have ppsh/molotovs and vet saving them from utter domination from german infantry.


Unupgraded Grens vs Unupgraded Cons, is fine and establishedly balanced though.
30 Oct 2013, 20:23 PM
#40
avatar of c r u C e

Posts: 525

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Oct 2013, 15:50 PMNullist


Unupgraded Grens vs Unupgraded Cons, is fine and establishedly balanced though.


Put in the LMG upgrade and the balance is gone to hell...
And please don't say the answer is Penals
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

787 users are online: 787 guests
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49082
Welcome our newest member, 23winlocker
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM