Profile of Van Der Bolt

I like the idea of reworking gun, cause now it seems ridiculous, when 122mm gun deals the same damage as 76mm or 85mm. IS-2 gun historically, as I know, had exactly that - slow firing high damage gun. Maybe increase damage by 40, and reload time by 1,5 sec will suffice.

And I agree to elchino, that IS-2 could be more popular if it'll be present in other doctrines.

How many games should a player have for each faction so people would listen to his opinion? Give me exact number please, so it would be like a pass-card, and there were no more posts about it.

In the December Patch Relic decided to move Guards and Shock troops to CP1. They made no other changes they simply lowered CP by 1. That made both units OP and Soviets dominated until February.

Imo that is clear indication that there a power limit for each time frame that should not be exceeded. Penals are badly designed exactly because they are too strong for their time frame.

Penal are equal to vanilla paratroopers in target size, number of entities and DPS up to range 20 (paras get allot better close than 20) while they are facing unit designed to fight long range. Paras are a unit from completely different time frame at CP3 and cost of 380.

Imo riflemen are on the edge of the power level for that time frame and the 300MP Penals simply do not belong there. Same but on smaller scale goes for Guards that should be either at CP3 or have their power level reduced to 330.

The fact they can not upgrade with AI weapons can easily be changed if they are toned in power level and price.

Maybe they need toning down, but i think it's very difficult to find proper balance at their current state. I'd better vote for them being reworked and changed to a different role. Some kind of soviet osttruppen, or AT specialist, or cheap but fragile CQC unit for agressive play. I don't know which is better, but IMO giving them a completely different role will bring Cons back to the table. But that's not easy task.

Penals are not mainline inf. Also no infantry deals easly against mediums nor heavies, i mean, if penals could, they would be OPAF. I dont understand why you bring that up.

Thats something useful, in order to scale up into midgame, AT is neccesary. Also you have gathered many penals squad by the time 2-3 of them have PTRS, so their AI hasn't decreased that much, even nothing at all.

If OKM obers could be trained at T0 after 1 SWS is called in, it would be the same thing as penas right now. Expensive but effective.
Man, they only cost 300, its only 20 more that USF riflemen and penals do wreak havok. Its a little overperform IMO.

PGrens with shrecks deal pretty good against mediums. The only threat that PTRS penals bear to mediums and heavies is AT satchel, but it's hard to use vs well microed tanks.

I'd say if u got 2-3 PTRS penals, your AI drops very much, compared to 2-3 penals with no PTRS.

Penals cost even more than most expensive mainlines - rifles and tommies, so they should be wrecking, don't you think? Plus, they cannot buy BARs, Brens, MGs, etc., so they should bear some power without them.

But I do agree that some adjustments must be done to penals. Nor nerf nor buff, but reworking. Now they are kinda simply strong infantry which u should take to win fights. But people complain penals win fights too easy, and playing cons is too hard.

I think that penals are over performing at. Aggressive AI into defensive AT is a fairly risk free transition. You have a strong unit to beat the enemy infantry and built in defense against the usual counter to AI infantry.
Ideally I would have their price reduced and spawn with Mosins with a munitions upgrade to either SVTs or PTRS' as this slows the early game pressure (and improves Soviet map control slightly) but also makes a choice.
...

I'd not say penals are overperforming. They are stronger than most mainlines, yes, but they cost 300MP, so they should be stronger. Also, PTRS gives them some power vs vehicles, but only vs LVs. They are bretty bad vs mediums and heavies. Plus, when they get PTRS they drop significantly at AI. AT satchel is hard to use vs carefully playing opponent. If u take T1, you need to fast rush to T3 to get some reliable AT, or backtech to T2 if your resourse control is not enough, or else you wouldn't be able to counter tanks well.

I'd say penals are not overperforming, but overused. That's mostly because using cons is much more difficult. I thought about making penals something like osttruppen, it may make soviet infantry play more variative.

T-70 had a veery long sight range, but that is being fixed, let's hee how it works.

As for SU-85, it got a time loop when switching from focused fire to normal, and vice versa. The self-spotting is effective, but punishable, cause u can't run away fast. Su 85 has a bad time against raketens, cause it can't spot them in stealth. Maybe reducing the pen for vet0 and vet1 but keeping the vet2 pen is a good idea. But soviets still need good stock tank destroyer, cause they face better armored medium tanks, panthers, tigers and especially brummbars. Zis alone would not fulfill this role, and SU-76 has been nerfed already to not being able to fight heavies good.

Guards are strong, but expensive. And they are not the ultimate unit. They win against mainlines, lose vs ranged elites. Button ability is quite expensive, and is a waste of ammo if your enemy has vehicle smoke.

Seems to me that your argument (and mine too) are all questionable anddepends on the point of view. The problem is, as I think, that there is no common understanding in the community on how should each unit perform in ideal balance.