Login

russian armor

Why Soviets are OP

PAGES (26)down
8 Oct 2020, 14:21 PM
#321
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Oct 2020, 13:09 PMVipper


Imo that is misconception because when it comes to Soviet we went from commander depended reliance with 2 building and doctrinal units filling the gaps, to a non commander design with 3 buildings while keeping the plethora of doctrinal units and the power level of those doctrinal units and in that design some unit are simply redundant.



During that 2 tier building + doctrinal units design, Penals were still irrelevant. The power level of those 2 other units was so high to compensate for the lack of versatility in tech access.
The whole point of moving out of that design was in order to nerf specific units holding the faction to be in a desirable level.

Not sure where is a misconception. The tier is still composed of 3 pseudo shock units, 2 which became more irrelevant the further the opposing factions received updates. It's "unhealthy" for the game to have snipers and clowncars been meta and the tier is composed of that.

If you want the units inside T1 to be fair, the build time and cost of the tier should never be as high as T2 and should be equiparable to OH T1. You can make Penals into PF 2.0, that would just mean people not using T1 even more.


I'm not opposed to someone proposing changes to Penals. But it's too shortsighted to implement them in isolation without taking a look at the tech + 2 other units and early/mid game transition when using them.
8 Oct 2020, 14:41 PM
#322
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13161 | Subs: 1



During that 2 tier building + doctrinal units design, Penals were still irrelevant. The power level of those 2 other units was so high to compensate for the lack of versatility in tech access.
The whole point of moving out of that design was in order to nerf specific units holding the faction to be in a desirable level.

Not sure where is a misconception. The tier is still composed of 3 pseudo shock units, 2 which became more irrelevant the further the opposing factions received updates. It's "unhealthy" for the game to have snipers and clowncars been meta and the tier is composed of that.

If you want the units inside T1 to be fair, the build time and cost of the tier should never be as high as T2 and should be equiparable to OH T1. You can make Penals into PF 2.0, that would just mean people not using T1 even more.


I'm not opposed to someone proposing changes to Penals. But it's too shortsighted to implement them in isolation without taking a look at the tech + 2 other units and early/mid game transition when using them.

The misconception lies to idea that all soviet openings should be equally viable on all maps regardless of commander.

If one wants a faction where all stock option are viable in all situations than one should lower the number and power of Soviet doctrinal units and have simply add "flavor".

If one wants Soviet doctrinal to be a important one should create room for this unit by designing stock unit that do not cover everything.

For instance the design of Penals being a Semi elite AI unit with AT capability is simply bad...
8 Oct 2020, 15:32 PM
#323
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 967 | Subs: 1



They aren't when you have to put 160mp into tech to get them out.

Which is why, while similar, they are not equivalent to PF. PF design does a much better job overall. Both in utility, smooth scaling, AI and AT. It doesn't mean stronger, but it doesn't feel bad using or facing them.

There's also the fact that getting PF doesn't mean you lock out of getting access to an MG and an AT gun.

If Penals are "problematic" it's only because the tier is composed of them plus a sniper and a clowncar unit.


Even if T1 had some sort of AT\MG even in this case overall correct penal design is bad. Penals are suppose to be stronger mainline inf replacement in their correct desing, but expensive squads are not working early on, because your mapcontrol would be non-existant. Even if T1 build speed\unit production speed would have been lower, this 300MP is just too much to handle.

Penals as unit, is very strong in early game mopping the floor with any other mainline inf, so their cost is justified, because they do and act like a 300MP unit. Point is being this concept is not working.

My idea is, rather then going into a long path of remaking tier unit roster, penals overall power should be a bit streched out from "all strate of the bat" to "from early to mid to late", this will allow them to played as their design intend - mainline inf replacement and become cheaper allowing you to at least be close to 1:1 ratio in terms of units on the field.
8 Oct 2020, 16:31 PM
#324
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



Even if T1 had some sort of AT\MG even in this case overall correct penal design is bad. Penals are suppose to be stronger mainline inf replacement in their correct desing, but expensive squads are not working early on, because your mapcontrol would be non-existant. Even if T1 build speed\unit production speed would have been lower, this 300MP is just too much to handle.

Penals as unit, is very strong in early game mopping the floor with any other mainline inf, so their cost is justified, because they do and act like a 300MP unit. Point is being this concept is not working.

My idea is, rather then going into a long path of remaking tier unit roster, penals overall power should be a bit streched out from "all strate of the bat" to "from early to mid to late", this will allow them to played as their design intend - mainline inf replacement and become cheaper allowing you to at least be close to 1:1 ratio in terms of units on the field.


You are still missing the point.

No one bothers getting T1 when at least one of the 3 units inside is not broken.
If you suddenly cut the cost by 30mp, that doesn't upset the 160mp cost in tech to deploy at the beginning of the game nor the 60mp difference between starting unit value + initial mp Soviet has compared to Axis or any other allied faction.

If you make them "weaker rifles with less scaling and utility", it would be the same scenario we had with OKW vs USF a couple of month/years ago.


The limit factor is not just the unit cost. Penals also have less synergy with snipers (Conscripts with sandbag + AT nade with hoorah protect them better).
A single PTRS Penals is not gonna cover the whole map and is way easier to circunvent than an AT gun. Going for 2 of them, means that your sole AI till you manage to put out T3 is possible your CE + a single Penal.


You can make plenty of suggestions regarding Penals, people will keep playing Conscripts into T2. Specially when you fail to grasp why they are not been used against OH.
8 Oct 2020, 17:34 PM
#325
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 967 | Subs: 1




Well if you put this way, then no matter what you actually do cons+t2 would always be preferable, at least for 1v1. I'm still not a fan making doc units into a basic army.

In any case soviet chose betwen T1\T2 was always an unnecessary gimmic in desing, considering even in its best days all main point of soviet T1 was an abuse and cheesing, be it 2 men sniper\sniper in m3\flame m3.

Then whole T1\T2 should be rethinked, maybe with whole tech cost ajustements, T1 and T2 would be requared to get T3, in this case T1 would be a stable part of teching and roster, meaning it would be easier to ajust as a part of teching rather then optional chose.
8 Oct 2020, 18:13 PM
#326
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



Well if you put this way, then no matter what you actually do cons+t2 would always be preferable, at least for 1v1. I'm still not a fan making doc units into a basic army.

In any case soviet chose betwen T1\T2 was always an unnecessary gimmic in desing, considering even in its best days all main point of soviet T1 was an abuse and cheesing, be it 2 men sniper\sniper in m3\flame m3.

Then whole T1\T2 should be rethinked, maybe with whole tech cost ajustements, T1 and T2 would be requared to get T3, in this case T1 would be a stable part of teching and roster, meaning it would be easier to ajust as a part of teching rather then optional chose.


Well... reminder that USF never had a mortar or OKW an MG nor PIV (they lost the ST). So it wouldn't be a first when you add units to fill the holes of a faction.


TBH, after wasting so much time and patches on Penals, i don't think it's worth to try to rework them for the X time. It's fun to theorize, but if we are pragmatic, the only thing possible of changing is small adjustments on other areas. M3A1 receiving changes simil to Kubel/HT. Teching and timing.

Or maybe i'm wrong and someone in te WC2020 discovers a magic to make them work and defeat the Osstruppen openings.
8 Oct 2020, 21:42 PM
#327
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Swap penals with guards. Boom. T1 is actually attractive, but will absolutely require conscript support. Penals as a call in at say, 1 CP give a bit more bite to t2 and can be balanced at their cost without the thought of a 160mp initial tech buy in.

Its drastic and completely unthought out but let's talk about it...
8 Oct 2020, 21:50 PM
#328
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Swap penals with guards. Boom. T1 is actually attractive, but will absolutely require conscript support. Penals as a call in at say, 1 CP give a bit more bite to t2 and can be balanced at their cost without the thought of a 160mp initial tech buy in.

Its drastic and completely unthought out but let's talk about it...


IB4 OP OP.


8 Oct 2020, 22:16 PM
#329
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1602 | Subs: 3

Make Penals faster to field
Make Penals slightly cheaper to reinforce
Tone down 7 men Conscript upgrade a bit further (but perhaps let it come earlier)

So, T1 attractive again.

I also think backteching to T2 just costs too much after going T1. Maybe reduce cost of both T1 and T2 by 40mp and add it back to T3.
9 Oct 2020, 17:20 PM
#330
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1460

I think it's not the question of penals as much as it is the question of not getting a decent AT.
So:
You go T1 you get a sniper, penals and clown car.
Sniper is ok, good AI.
Penals are great off the bat but expensive and require and upgrade for AT capabilities. The said AT capabilities are weak and scale very poorly into the late game.

You go T2 you get maxim which is OK for conscript synergy. It's the weakest of the MGs but it still gets the job done most of the time.
You get ZiS. The main selling point. Without the ZiS you really really need an SU85 for P4s unless you go for KV1s or T34-85s.
And having a good mortar is also not bad vs blobs as the soviet mortar has a great pack up time.
Conscripts + penals will bleed a lot of MP vs OST T3 and OKW tanks.

I don't know if this would work but rework penals from the AI specialists, which are just too expensive for the timing they should be in and scale poorly into the late game with expensive reinforce, poor AT (great AT nade but super short range) and loss of AI with upgrade -> to AT specialists (sort of). Give them two PTSR rifles right of the bat with a possibility to upgrade to 3 PTSR rifles + tank nade.
Then the non-existence of ZiS would not cripple you against a 13 minute P4 and you would still have Conscripts for AI, sniper and T70, while conscripts + 2 penal squads would be have synergy against AT while being able to be bled against opponents that are not caught off guard. 2 penals would wield 6 PTSR rifles combined. PTSR as such is really weak vs anything heavier than mediums.
The downside is obvious. Penals would perhaps completely deny light vehicles play, unless OKW/OST uses their lights very carefully.

I mean, going penals in teamgames is ok and quite good. I, however, can not speak for 1v1 and how that change would affect it. Just my 2 cents for 2v2+. I'm sure somebody will correct me and point out the holes so please do.
14 Oct 2020, 04:33 AM
#331
avatar of StrategicMidget

Posts: 9

I would love to see a stock soviet unit comparable to Frontovik from the campaign, perhaps from their T4 building?

That or making the current doctrine SMG upgrade stock as an alternative to 7 man upgrade and either improving the doctrine ability to a 6x smg or perhaps x2 DP.

Playing largely axis, I can understand the frustration of the zis barrage, especially if you are running a build that relies on your MG42 to prevent being swarmed by infantry. The zis barrage will force a relocation of the mg, which means you cannot hold in that same position as any decent soviet will push you the moment you pack up.

My gut feeling is to make the ability a vet 1 type ability but I feel that might be too oppressive. What might be better would be reducing the team for the zis down to 4 from 6, so that you can at least punish out of position Zis guns a little more easily, that way the barrage remains strong but at least the damn things are not sponges that are far more survivable compared to other at guns.
14 Oct 2020, 08:19 AM
#332
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 1260

I would love to see a stock soviet unit comparable to Frontovik from the campaign, perhaps from their T4 building?

That or making the current doctrine SMG upgrade stock as an alternative to 7 man upgrade and either improving the doctrine ability to a 6x smg or perhaps x2 DP.

Playing largely axis, I can understand the frustration of the zis barrage, especially if you are running a build that relies on your MG42 to prevent being swarmed by infantry. The zis barrage will force a relocation of the mg, which means you cannot hold in that same position as any decent soviet will push you the moment you pack up.

My gut feeling is to make the ability a vet 1 type ability but I feel that might be too oppressive. What might be better would be reducing the team for the zis down to 4 from 6, so that you can at least punish out of position Zis guns a little more easily, that way the barrage remains strong but at least the damn things are not sponges that are far more survivable compared to other at guns.


Making the zis gun 4 men will make it usseles. Its facing units with higher dps and strong nades. Its overkill imo. The zis is fine concidering soviets lack stock nades. And six men is the faction trait.

A flanked zis is in serious danger dispite 6 men. Pgrens are far more leathal to a zis then penals are to a pack or raketten on the flanks. Flametrack as well imo. Nothing wrong or broken imo.
14 Oct 2020, 09:39 AM
#333
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13161 | Subs: 1

Zis's barrage cooldown is very low, it should be increased to be at least inline with the SU-76.
14 Oct 2020, 09:40 AM
#334
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17583 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Oct 2020, 09:39 AMVipper
Zis's barrage cooldown is very low, it should be increased to be at least inline with the SU-76.

Its the opposite.
SU-76 cooldown should drop now that it costs muni.
14 Oct 2020, 09:42 AM
#335
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13161 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Oct 2020, 09:40 AMKatitof

Its the opposite.
SU-76 cooldown should drop now that it costs muni.

Find the time between barrage for the two units and then post pls.
14 Oct 2020, 09:43 AM
#336
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Oct 2020, 09:40 AMKatitof

Its the opposite.
SU-76 cooldown should drop now that it costs muni.


mate, nobody uses SU76s anymore. They look good on paper, but they're meme units ingame.
14 Oct 2020, 13:48 PM
#337
avatar of MarcoRossolini

Posts: 1040

Maybe it's just that I'm a meh tier player but I really the SU-76 for teamgames, more survivable and better utility than the T-70 with teamgames being more compressed and with more AT. Indispensible on the thin maps where one MG can lock down an entire side.
14 Oct 2020, 14:22 PM
#338
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



mate, nobody uses SU76s anymore. They look good on paper, but they're meme units ingame.

I actually saw one yesterday used pretty well! One soviet went T70 and the other su76. Bugger was vet 3 by the time we brought it down. Barrages for days.
Obviously a one off isn't testament but it was neat seeing it and playing against it for a change.
14 Oct 2020, 14:48 PM
#339
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273


I actually saw one yesterday used pretty well! One soviet went T70 and the other su76. Bugger was vet 3 by the time we brought it down. Barrages for days.
Obviously a one off isn't testament but it was neat seeing it and playing against it for a change.


yeah, that's cool I'd rather have the units buffed so they see more play than homogenizing them with other units to balance them out on paper.
16 Oct 2020, 09:45 AM
#340
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2241

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Oct 2020, 09:40 AMKatitof

Its the opposite.
SU-76 cooldown should drop now that it costs muni.


nice joke...but lets get back seriously. The Zis barrage cool down is mostly ready whenever u need it. and cost the same like a grenade. it seems the barrage has even shorter reload cd than a grenade. Which is awefull since it wipe better than a grenade and have much more range. Much more.

look at brummbar. its barrage has more cd than a lefh.
zis barrage should have cd from 50sek
PAGES (26)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Oberkommando West flag Oziligath
  • The British Forces flag T.R. Sidewinder
uploaded by Oziligath

Board Info

79 users are online: 1 member and 78 guests
Willy Pete
40 posts in the last 24h
264 posts in the last week
727 posts in the last month
Registered members: 34986
Welcome our newest member, muchab97
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM