Comunnity poll for T1/penals design

As the number of different and viable options for penal and T1 design arises, I thought it would be a good idea to give community a poll where they could point the design they like the most.

I want to make the poll as neutral as its possible so if there is anything wrong with it, I would like the mods to change it.

Edit: could any mod edit the 7th option to change misspelled word "lage" into "late"?

I think it would help us the most, we split the options of the poll into 4 groups. So that we know how people perceive Penals.

First group should focus on T1, and the self-sustainability options. For instance:
- Keep Penals OP, as they are (so that a T1 investment is worth it)
- Give T1 access to some AT options (so that they can hold off until T3)
- Make T1 free/ultra-cheap (that way, a T1 will be less of a costly detour)
- None of the above

(That way, we also know how much percentage of the votes we should disregard)

Second group should focus on the AI utility of Penals and scaling (sans Flamers).
Compared to the WBP v1.3

WBP v1.3 UNUPGRADED Penals early game is:
- Too weak - they need a buff
- OK - it's the right spot
- Too strong - they need a nerf somewhere

WBP v1.3 UNUPGRADED Penals late game is:
- Too weak - they need some buff somewhere (scaling/upgrade)
- OK - it's the right spot
- Too strong - nerf something; what?

The third group should focus on flamers, and whether people want Flamer Penals:
- Penals require no flamers at all
- WBP v1.3 version flamers (sprinkled with PPSh) (no received accuracy/no oorah)
- WBP v1.3 version, but with some received accuracy/oorah, so that Penals can close in
- Current version flamer Penals are OK.

(This should also give us a second indication about how much of the poll to take seriously)

The fourth and final group should focus on the AT utility of the tier:
- 2x PTRS/satchel (WBP v1.2) -- homing satchel though; skillshot satchel was a failure
- 2x PTRS/satchel with the ability to upgrade to 3rd PTRS (WBP v1.3)
- 3x PTRS/satchel (all-or-nothing)
- No PTRS - yes satchel
- M-42 at T1
- Zis-3 at T0
- Zis-3 at T3
- No AT options needed

(even if you add conscript PTRS, they are out of scope, so that won't help at all)

Finally, an opinion poll. If you ever built a T1, which one of the following units would be the LEAST likely for you to ever build:
- M3A1
- Sniper
- Penal Battalion

(This should also give us a second indication about how much of the poll to take seriously)

How nice...

Anyway:

Current live design. Give Satchels their AT functionality.

Flamethrower COULD be exchanged for molotovs, but probably not necessary. It'd be better to see if Satchels need an unlock cost than anything.

Also, I think its extremely important to NOT conflate T1 and Penal Battalions together. Penals are in T1, but they are not the entirety of T1. Balancing T1 is a whole other can of worms that requires analyzing T1, early Soviet teching, impacts on 2v2+ and pacing of Soviet T3.

As for T1, the sniper is probably utilized the least for me. It can't use the m3, and it's a waste of manpower early on. Ever since they couldn't clowncar, they haven't been worth it except for maybe a countersnipe. But Ostheer sniper is better at wiping the sniper team with its ability though. Plus there aren't female snipers anymore, so the coolness factor there is gone too.

The m3 scout car becomes useless way fast, but clowncar flamers does have a niche. It's not as pronounced with volksfaust though.

I think it would help us the most, we split the options of the poll into 4 groups. So that we know how people perceive Penals.

First group should focus on T1, and the self-sustainability options. For instance:
- Keep Penals OP, as they are (so that a T1 investment is worth it)
- Give T1 access to some AT options (so that they can hold off until T3)
- Make T1 free/ultra-cheap (that way, a T1 will be less of a costly detour)
- None of the above

(That way, we also know how much percentage of the votes we should disregard)

Second group should focus on the AI utility of Penals and scaling (sans Flamers).
Compared to the WBP v1.3

WBP v1.3 UNUPGRADED Penals early game is:
- Too weak - they need a buff
- OK - it's the right spot
- Too strong - they need a nerf somewhere

WBP v1.3 UNUPGRADED Penals late game is:
- Too weak - they need some buff somewhere (scaling/upgrade)
- OK - it's the right spot
- Too strong - nerf something; what?

The third group should focus on flamers, and whether people want Flamer Penals:
- Penals require no flamers at all
- WBP v1.3 version flamers (sprinkled with PPSh) (no received accuracy/no oorah)
- WBP v1.3 version, but with some received accuracy/oorah, so that Penals can close in
- Current version flamer Penals are OK.

(This should also give us a second indication about how much of the poll to take seriously)

The fourth and final group should focus on the AT utility of the tier:
- 2x PTRS/satchel (WBP v1.2) -- homing satchel though; skillshot satchel was a failure
- 2x PTRS/satchel with the ability to upgrade to 3rd PTRS (WBP v1.3)
- 3x PTRS/satchel (all-or-nothing)
- No PTRS - yes satchel
- M-42 at T1
- Zis-3 at T0
- Zis-3 at T3
- No AT options needed

(even if you add conscript PTRS, they are out of scope, so that won't help at all)

Finally, an opinion poll. If you ever built a T1, which one of the following units would be the LEAST likely for you to ever build:
- M3A1
- Sniper
- Penal Battalion

The problem with such poll is that the results may be flawed. Some people may vote for one thing to be strong in one question and something else to be weak in another question to keep it ballanced. Then another set of people votes completely the other way round, but still ballanced and we loose the information on who wanted what with something else. Then it's enough for some fanboys to come by and it would look like the best option is for example OP penals + good AT in T1 or weak penals with no point to exist.

That is why I decided it is better to split that into multiple options and take only the ones that were metioned in WBP discussions. That way we know exactly what community members like to be matched with what.

I would say: let community vote for now and if it happens to be undecisive or last option will be picked more than any other, then the poll made your way may solve that problem.

How about making T2 lik 40% cheaper if you went T1 and making T1 40% cheaper if you went T2 already?

How about making T2 lik 40% cheaper if you went T1 and making T1 40% cheaper if you went T2 already?

This is always an option for ballance, still, there is a design choice on penals and AT in T1 to be made. Which type of penals listed above you have in mind when you are proposing such change?

Number of Ideas suggestions:

A)The multi-role Penals:
The concept here is that Penal are there to fill the role left by Commander choice. They are not good early but are worth back teching to.

Penal start as a 4 men squad costing 200 manpower with bolt action rifles and balance around grenadiers. The role if one chose to invest in T1 first a decent AI unit with the cost of the building counterweight by cheaper buy cost, and cost efficient via conscript merge.

Available upgrades:
T1 offers 3 different upgrade for Penal once a second building is constructed, but only can be chosen.

Long range upgrade:
1-2 DP become available for 60 MU.

Anti garrison upgrade:
For 60 MP and 90 MU Penal gain +2 member, ourah, 6 PPsh (shock curve) (or 5+1 flamer), AT grenades, molotovs.

Anti light/vehicle upgrade.
For 40 MP and 40 MU they gain +1 member 2 Ptrs conscript model, AT grenades with range 25.

AT in T1 approach:
Goal to make both openings provide some AT
Penal reverted to (JUNE 21st) stat flamer removed satchel replaced by grenade.
Zis moved to T1 improve barrage slightly especially vs garrison,add M42 to T2.
Reason makes both opening viable. Penal are a 280 infantry, zis can counter vehicles and provide indirect fire support help clear garrison.
T2 has access to cheap AT to counter light vehicles that can dominate vs hmgs.

The combined infantry approach:
Goal here is to make 2 types of stock infantry available to Soviet.

1)Penal the aggressive infantry
2) Conscripts the defensive infantry
A new role for Penals and conscripts, Penal are now a cheap flanker anti-garrison unit. Conscripts are now mid range defensive infantry.
Current Cost:
T1 160 MP/15 Fuel

Molotov 125/15
AT grenade 125/15
total 250/30

Changes
Penal cost 200,
Weapon PPsh (at pioneer level),
Abilities: Ourah, ourah scales with veterancy, at vet 0 +10 damage +10 suppression, at vet 1 +5 damage +5 suppression, at vet 2 0, at vet 3 -10 target size,
molotov
vet 1 ability unlock AT grenade
vet 3 Penal can now be redeemed cost 100 MP Penal upgrade with 6 SVT (slightly bellow riflemen level)and become mid oriented.

Conscripts
Target size 1
can no longer ourah
molotov unlock replaced with a normal grenade
AT grenade has more Range
Vet ability "hold the line" -15% R.E. cost 15 MU duration 60 sec.

With these changes Soviet player can choose to invest in conscripts or build T1 and have access to to molotovs and AT grenades without unlocking conscripts upgrades.

Conscript have the role of defending while giving the time to Penals to flank.

Show Spoiler

I think it's too complicated, especially for this patch. It sounds more complicated than 1.3 version. I think that we need small changes that don't change too much but put units in their intended position.

Give penals 6 mosin rifles by default, with correct damage but slitly lower ROF but better long range accuracy, later give them upgrade for 3 SVT40 for 50 muni which will provide slightly better damage then Grenadier G43 with correct SVT40 accuracy stats for close\mid distance.

Leave them their Anti tank satchel but make it unlockable when you builded T2. Dont remove default one.

Regarding backteching - simply make T1\T2 cheaper in terms of fuel and build time when you already had builded T1\T2. This would punish soviets much less for backteching but at the same time wont allow them to have everything against everything at the same time. Wanna have AT guns? Right, go and backtech.

Wanna have fast light amor ? Right, lay mines or call-in guards but at the same time it wont be shit broken with guards bottom and at satchel.

How about making T2 lik 40% cheaper if you went T1 and making T1 40% cheaper if you went T2 already?

That's actually a pretty good idea. Since the discount would only apply to T1 and T2 it wouldn't take away from rushing for T3, but ease having to go and backtech.

However, at the same time T1 and T2 are pretty cheap. They cost as much or less than a lost engagement. It's the cost of reinforcing a couple squad. That discounts like 60 something manpower and 4-8 fuel.

I think it's too complicated, especially for this patch. It sounds more complicated than 1.3 version. I think that we need small changes that don't change too much but put units in their intended position.

If it too complicated for this patch simply revert to before (JUNE 21st) move zis to T1 and M42 to T2...

And PLs revert the PTRs deflection damage boost...

I like the idea of a Soviet T1 for snipers/M3 in the early game + cons with their AT nade to protect the sniper/stall for T3

OR being able to backtech to T1 in the late-game for sniper/penals (good long range AI unit)

As I explained in a different thread already I think that Soviets don't really need AT in T1 and should have to tech T2 if facing massive light vehicle play.
The tiers are very cheap and yes some allied fanboy will complain that the manpower cost is too high... well ask any ostheer player how much T1+T2+AT-gun costs.
If you get caught by a LV unprepared you SHOULD NOT be able to further push the axis opponent. This is partly the reason why axis LV are shitty atm. 222 and luchs are in fact really good units but the enemy has good counters which are easily accessable. (AT-partisans , guards, Zis-3, handheld AT in general is just an upgrade away for most factions)...

Axis need the short period of breathing room when their LV hits otherwise they will have a very hard time. One mistake as axis is often enough whereas the allied player can still push if he does not prepare for enemy LV...

I think someone already came up with this idea:

- replace penals with guards: this guard squad wont have PTRS, and DP 1928 can be researched as soon as T3 is built.

- penals which can be called in by commanders who were former guards commanders, are now fitting the same role as the British Tank Hunter Infantry Sections from this British Crocodile commander

This is always an option for ballance, still, there is a design choice on penals and AT in T1 to be made. Which type of penals listed above you have in mind when you are proposing such change?

No, becasue if T2 would be cheaper (once T1 built) you just tech for ZiS so no need for AT in T1.

Simple solution without messing up.

I think someone already came up with this idea:

- replace penals with guards: this guard squad wont have PTRS, and DP 1928 can be researched as soon as T3 is built.

- penals which can be called in by commanders who were former guards commanders, are now fitting the same role as the British Tank Hunter Infantry Sections from this British Crocodile commander

which unit would you nerf then?
if they stay the same as in the live-version nothing changes except you replace penal/guard blob with guard/penal blob ...

which unit would you nerf then?
if they stay the same as in the live-version nothing changes except you replace penal/guard blob with guard/penal blob ...

Penals of course, to the WBP 1.0 standard. Then everything changes. You can go shocks for example. You can go for any other doctrine that has no guards. It makes playing as and vs soviets much more interesting.

The problem here is not ballance, its that it needs a change in meta commanders. Relic probably won't allow this.

No, becasue if T2 would be cheaper (once T1 built) you just tech for ZiS so no need for AT in T1.

Simple solution without messing up.

Sure, then what kind of penals? Live? WBP 1.0? WBP 1.0 with late game upgrade?

which unit would you nerf then?
if they stay the same as in the live-version nothing changes except you replace penal/guard blob with guard/penal blob ...

When I swapped Penals with Guards in my old test mod (It was either Test Batch. or Let's Test! I don't remember...) Guards didn't get PTRS unless there was a Guards(now Penal) commander chosen.

They didn't get their grenades until molotovs AND AT nades were researched.

The Guards were also slightly nerfed in terms of received accuracy and moving accuracy (Set to be scaled to match riflemen), and their DP-28s were locked behind T3.

So the answer is Guards. And penals had their flamethrowers, which left the unit in a rather situational case that was almost identical to Assault Grenadiers. I thought that was fitting.

Ultimately though the resulting feeling from the tests was that T2 was the reason T1 was overshadowed. That AT gun option is so crucial.

*edit*
Show Spoiler

I felt that what can be done for penal patch is this

Why not just give an upgrade choice build in the T1 building between the flamethrower or PTRS for X amount of MP and Fuel. That makes the player choose and decide what upgrade choice they could use for their own strat, like the upgrade choice for either a Bofos or AEC for the britz, once chosen it could never revert back.

And the PTRS's penal are a little too strong, and could decimate any mid tier tanks like the P4, i would strongly suggest that the range for the satchel would reduce around 30% of it's default range so that it would reduce more onto charging in and throw. And also i would also strongly recommend that giving them 2 PTRS would be good enough as the satchel charge is already a good ability on late game.

cheaper t1 and t2?

160mp 10fu and 160mp 20fu too much?

Why do we want to mess with faction design?

Soviet have more starting option than any other faction and some of them are bound to be better than others...

Having cheap access to all 4 Soviet buildings mess with faction design for no good reason.