Profile of Firesparks

Maybe I was not clear enough having flat weapons profiles does not make weapons bad, it makes small arm fire fight "bad" and that is why weapon profiles where introduced.

Wanting to equip a "Soviet" unit with "USF" weapon ignores faction design. Riflemen have a very good weapon and great weapon upgrade because the whole faction is designed around them, so giving the same weapon to a Soviet squad is not necessarily a good idea.

Trying to "fix" SVT by increasing the far DPS is actually turning into a better version of guards Mosin, (the number you suggested are close that weapon at range above 15 far better closer) so:

(why edit a weapon to much a weapon that already exist in game when these 2 weapons use different weapon profiles?)


You would end up with a Penal squad with around 30% more DPS the riflemen at VET3 so:


The are around 6 different version of the M1 in the game, with different properties...so its probably as common as other weapons...

Weapon profiles a great improvement in COH2 and Relic should try to follow them a much as possible. If Penals need to become a long range unit they should use the bolt action Mosin...

why shouldn't the penal get a good weapon? It's clear from their flamethrower upgrade that they are meant for killing infantry. It's clear the the penal lack the versatility of line infantry like rifleman or conscript, so the penal should be a dedicated anti-infantry unit.

Line infantry like the conscript and rifleman are versatile because they are expected to face all manner of threats and be able to contribute in any situation. The conscript's versatility is not the problem, the penal's lack of strength is the problem.

The penal have better offensive veterancy than the rifleman, while the rifleman have better defensive veterancy. Don't just complain about the penal's advantages over the rifleman and ignore the advantages the rifleman have over the penal.

and there's only 3 variants of m1 garand in use in multiplayer. the m1 garands used by the rifleman, the m1 garand used by the weapon crew, and the scoped m1 garand used by the pathfinder.

The weapons used by the ranger, rear echelon, and paratroopers are called m1 carbine. I would't use the term "m1 garand" to refer to the m1 carbine because that's grossly inaccurate. The m1 carbine was a different weapon developed by a different person working at a different company.

Seeing as how the rifleman make up the bulk of USF's, their m1 garand's are easily the most commonly seen semi-auto rifle.

the guard mosin is such a non-factor in the game they are not worth mentioning. guards are always going to be upgraded with the dp-28.

Guards stay useful & don't need changes, and Penals don't clash with Guards when upgraded

guards and penal have never clashed. The guard is a generalist unit while the penal is anti-infantry. Even if the satchel get a snared effect, the PTRS and dp-28 still make the guard distinct from the penal.

That's a simple tuning pack I put together to test changes to Soviet T1. Play the AI or grab a friend and try out some T1 modified Guards action.

the problem I see with the idea is that the guard doesn't need changes, and as I used before guards and penal are different enough that such changes are unnecessary.

According to the file extracted from the editor mid range for penal_troops_svt_rifle_mp is set at 16.

17.5 for penal_troops_svt_rifle which is not used in multiplier games...

And exactly my point once more. Penal need better accuracy mid not far. If one gives 200% more accuracy far the benefit at range 20 would be only around 14% while the DPS total weapons area profile would be increased dramatically. On the other hand if one increase mid range accuracy by 15%-20% the weapon would benefit at range 20 about the same, without dramatically increase the performance.

Or one could move that mid distance at 20 for similar results...

Received accuracy becomes rather irrelevant at point blank and that is why shocks perform so good because the relay on their armor and not their Rec. acc. . On the other hand mid to far Rec. acc. works better...

what's with this absolute refusal to buff the penal's mid-long range?

the penal's 20 meter performance is affect by both its mid range and long range dps. Yes, it's a lot more weighted toward the mid range performance since it's closer, but the long range performance still have effects on it.

If all you do is buff its 16 meter performance, the svt's 20 meters performance is still going to be weighted down by its abysmal long range dps.

You need to buff both its mid and long range in order to have worth while effects. Just buffing either long range or mid range is not going to be enough.

you could double the svt's long range dps and still be individually weaker than the rifleman.

and received accuracy is still important at close range. None of the nonsniper weapons in the game have high enough native accuracy to negate received accuracy at close range.

Incidentally, the main reason why the tommies have poor close range dps is due to the enfield's relatively low close range accuracy. The tommy is only ~60% accurate verus the grenadier's ~75% accuracy


there's also the question of surviving the approach. There's no doubt of the effect of received accuracy if you compare the ranger (.80 target size) against the paratrooper (1 target size). The ranger last significantly longer.

Odd test...

When I've tried it PIVs easily solo Bofors.

Schwerer on the other hand solos Cromwells.

was the bofor using the improved emplacement bonus?

the conscript's main failing at late game is really their dps. They can't contribute any firepower, merely their lives.

the lack of any weapon upgrade really cripple the conscript late game. This is also why people spam maxim for the firepower instead.

Think we are starting to run in circles and we might have to agree to disagree. My point are:
1)Penal DPS is not abysmal up to range 20, they even out DPS the riflemen up to a range close to 15.
2)An increase in DPS will have to be O.P. for the unit cost since they are the only soviet infatry that has a tech cost to make them attractive and then the unit will overpeform even more in AI DPS due the huge accuracy vet bonuses. (they need a different vet bonuses and ability). For these reasons the unit is very difficult to balance.
3)Thematically the role of an "elite" unit does not fit Penal battalion. A "cheap" otsttruppen unit type unit is missing from the Soviet army, fit the Soviet and Penals thematically.


The reason these unit are missing from the Soviet army is faction design. They are designed to fill the gaps with Doctrinal units....
On the other hand what they are missing both stock and doctrinal is a "cannon fodder" unit.


No this is not what I am suggesting. If you read the posts a bit more carefully you would see that the suggestion is that, instead of trying to balance Penals as an "elite specialized" unit it worth trying to give them a different role, that of a cannon fodder unit type. Reasons see above.

What make the osttruppen awesome is not just their low reinforcement cost, it's their insane cost efficiency in cover. The ostturppen have amazing long range dps for their cost and can trade effectively against allies troops. Even the british tommies have trouble winning long range engagement against the osttruppen.

In additional, the osttruppen enjoy the support of the best selection of support weapons in the game.

The conscript just bleed manpower because they are basically meatshield. The osttruppen are more fragile compared to conscript but can contribute to the fight without needing to perform suicidal charge. The osttruppen's long range dps allow the german to use them conservatively and defenisvely, while the conscript have to reenact the opening scene from enemies at the gate.

Why shouldn't the soviet get an effective non-doc elite infantry anyway? having two meatshield troops is not going to help the soviet. this new penal and new conscript are just going to be serving the same role unless the conscript get turn into guards.