Profile of squippy

the flamethrower isn't the problem, the svt 40 is the problem. The flamethrower can ignore the defensive on

Just as a word of caution; if you made them so effective that they represented a clear advantage over Cons, then one would expect the meta to shift so that T1 is standard and Cons never get built. This is especially likely if they get infantry AT.

We should never be trying to make Penals so effective that they automatically overshadow Cons. At the moment the only real issue that exists with Penals is they are under-used. And that problem is not necessarily going to be solved by taking them a better unit to build in terms of effectiveness for cost.

Frex, if Penals were both buffed and priced to the equivalent of Obers, you might well see more of them. Back-teching to T1 mid-game when you can afford to start fielding elite infantry might easily be seen as worth it.

I'm not offering that as a serious suggestion, only pointing out that bufff/debuff is not really the issue at hand.

Played MoH: Pacific Assault online way back,and it had a mechanic that took me by surprise at first but which made perfect sense; in effect only the attacking side could cap points. This meant that the defending Japanese side would first fight at the outermost defences, and as the match proceeded, would get pushed back to inner defences. The question was whether they could cost the attackers enough tickets that the assault lost momentum and failed.

While that doesn't map to CoH's use of points exactly, I've always thought it was an interesting and clever idea.

Hey, nothing is impossible. I really like the stealth bunkers idea upthread.

I can't see cavalry or melee combat being introduced, because both would require too much work, I think. And look at how people react to the Brits putting up a few structures.

I agree with Aerohank, that Penals are fine for their cost. They add something to your composition, namely cost-effective anti-garrison infantry.

I suspect that if Penals were available in another tech structure, they would be seen more often. As it stands, you only go T1 if you intend to go sniper or clown car; going T1 specifically for Penals simply is not worth it. And if you are going sniper or clown car, that is where you will sink your MP.

If Penals were moved to T2 or T3, which most Soviet players in most games are going to build anyway, then they will be available to more players in more games. Not as "elite" infantry, but as a tool for solving specific problems. If you are on a map with a lot of buildings, or facing off against many MG's, or just want to replace a squad that was wiped, Penals will be there and available to use.

Penals don't need a buff, and Soviets as a whole don't need yet more elite infantry. They just need to be available as as option in more games than they are at present. The down side to this is that T1 would be be even less relevant outside of specific strats. In CoH1, Barracks was always a good option because you needed it to upgrade your basic line infantry, and perhaps the nearest direct equivalent would be to move Molotovs and AT nades to T1. Then going T1 would be more attractive, and Penals would be more available as a consequence. But as things stand, that would be a sizable nerf to Soviets.

I don't think Schultz is making a serious suggestion.

Pigsoup, did you propose Pavlov's House as a 2v2 or 3v3?