Penal design and role since day 1 is a more powerful infantry that comes early, but can't operate effectively without con support.
On this we more or less agree.
Believe me, a LOT of people tried them, tried building strats around them. That do include a number of TOP players who played with them for some time and all came to the same conclusion-they are not worth it in that state.
I find this difficult to believe, stated as simply as this. They only cost 30MP more than cons: how are they "not worth it"? The ability to buy a flamethrower on them alone is worth more than that - after all, they only cost 45MP per model, while CE's cost 50 each and have much less combat and staying power.
People don't go for T1, because units there do not perform cost effectively. That is all.
What I think you're ignoring is the OTHER costs of T1. Going T1 delays your AT nades or your Zis or your T-70, because all of them require the fuel you just spent on T1. Therefore, the failure of this strategy is not necessarily simply because Penals are not able to whip Obers with one hand tied behind their backs; there are other relevant factors.
|
Well, I know that you DO NOT want to buff them and believe that moving useless unit to another tier will somehow make it less useless.
No, you do not know that, because I have said no such thing. I have only objected to buffing them to the point that they render Cons useless.
...I need units that actually can stand up to axis infantry early game AND scale into late game. I don't want to be forced for a doctrine only to get working infantry, its bad enough I need to do it if I want working armor.
... and that sounds exactly like what you are arguing for: more powerful infantry that come out early.
I agree with you on that one, but the accessibility is NOT an issue here.
...The problem is you're paying premium price of tier and are delivered subpar options in return...
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Which is why I suggested that if Penals were simply moved to a tier that Soviet players are likely to build, they may get more use - not because they are more powerful, but because they are available.
Price of T1 or penals was never any issue, it was always about penals NOT delivering much in return for the price ever since march deployment patch was introduced.
And I'm pointing out that I think you're wrong about that; I think their price is fine for their effectiveness, and that we don't see the because so few people go T1, and those who do are doing it for snipers and clown cars... as I already explained. |
Cool.
Can we now buff penals to make it more attractive for players?
I have not said you CAN'T buff them. I've said that buffing MAY not be the best way, and that buffing them to point of replacing Cons would be futile. So what are you objecting to?
Penals would be superior combatants to cons, but why wouldn't they? They are AI specialists in AI tier, they cost more then cons, but cons would still be needed for AT support and map presence.
Seeing as you seem to be wholly unaware of what I actually suggested, I'll reiterate; I worry that you would have to give Penals a mega-buff for them to be so attractive as to prompt players to spend Fuel to build T1; and that if they are so attractive, they may overshadow Cons.
I've already proven to you with multiple examples that because faction overall does fine it doesn't mean that 100% of the units are fine. I find it hilarious that you even attempt to discuss that.
It's quite difficult for you to "prove" a point that I made myself. I did not say that "100% of the units are fine"; I said that buffing and debuffing are not the only ways that a unit can be affected to make it more accessible. |
Cool, so can we revert 222 buff as ost did ok without it?
...snippage. The 222 was buffed to make it more attractive for players, not to displace an already existing unit. The fact that this could be done and was done without making the faction significantly more powerful is great.
So, they solved the aesthetic problem without having too significant effect and overall power parity. That's precisely the sort of approach I'm suggesting for Penals, as opposed to one that makes Penals inherently superior to the stock infantry.
We see IS-2 or T34/85 every single game, which means T34/76 is in perfect spot.
As someone who opened a thread asking if the /76 needs love, your attempted reductio ad absurdam cuts no ice. The /76 is NOT in a good spot as evidenced by the fact that it is so seldom seen. Again, that needs a much more delicate approach than simply "buff the unit", because Sovs are doing fine. |
|
I'm not against that, but there are circumstances in which the satchel is already useful against the bigger tanks. Something as slow as a KT with engine damage can easily be caught by Penals with a satchel. It's just too situational to be really considered "AT". |
YMMV with MGs against infantry because infantry don't actually get suppressed until given a new move command.
...
If you keep giving orders to the unit while under fire, they will drop to the ground once that suppression its. The only thing that breaks this is being pinned, as it disables the abilities.
I don't believe this is true. I've definitely seen infantry get suppressed with my giving them further orders. It's just that grenades are still available to suppressed units (not pinned). They an be suppressed before you give the grenade order, and it will work fine. And that explains the ability to move in with the intention of grenading as you described. |
|
None of which MATTERS because Sovs are performing well in the charts and in tourneys. So whatever issue this is, it's fundamentally AESTHETIC and not one of balance.
If it turn out that when something is done about Maxims, Soviets fall off, THEN it will be time to proposes boosts to Cons or Penals or something else. That is not the case now. |
Cons are already never build, because they don't work, unlike maxims.
Clearly untrue. Either way, you should, and probably do, know that the over-effectiveness of Maxims is to be looked at. Just as once before it was Maxims that were never built.
Rest snipped; as I've already indicated, the wipe-resistance of cons alone makes them arguably better than any other late game infantry. |
also, why shouldn't a more expensive and tier locked unit overshadow the t0 utility knife in combat?
Actually, I said more or less the opposite; that you might see more Penals if they were equivalent to Obers in effectiveness and price, because back-teching to get an elite infantry unit is worthwhile.
All I'm getting at is that any effort to enhance Penals to the point that they functionally *replace* Cons is just going to reproduce the same problem.
We should be looking to make Penals viable along side Cons. |
the conscript have their own problem with insufficient firepower. Ultimately, a unit's biggest measure of balance is against the axis units, not each other.
Being internally balance means nothing if all of them are useless against the axis. It would just end up on a curious tale of destructive inter service rivalry.
I think you missed the point; if Penals were just better cons - which would be the case if they had AT etc. - then you could end up where Cons never get built, and you;re back to the same problem: one of the units in the roster has no function. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
