Login

russian armor

Penals, the Elephant in the room

PAGES (8)down
8 Dec 2020, 08:52 AM
#1
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13376 | Subs: 1

Since JUNE 21st 2016 when Penals where first buffed they become one of the most controversial units.

After spending sixth months in totally broken state where Penal where sprinting around burning everything up they where patched again and ended up with PTRS.

Now after year the problem started to resurface and multiple buff are introduced for them.




I think it is time to finally address the Elephant in the room and admit that Penal are simply BADLY designed and adding more bandaids in pile of bandaids will simply not solve the problem.

Power Creep
When first Patched Penal completely dominated the meta and continued to do so for years which is unhealthy for the game. As result conscripts received a number of buff so that they now dominate the meta. The change in Ostheer that made Ostruppen more viable was the "coup de grace" since although they could keep up against the Penal they could simply out cap the.

Now there a number of planned buff on Penals. In sort penal dominate meta, so conscripts are buffed, conscripts are dominating the meta so Penals are buffed. This is vicious circle of power creep in purest form and it should simply stop.


Identity issues

Does anyone really know what Penal are supposed to be?

Are they supposed to be a mainline infatry?
If so why to have "semi-elite" having a power level higher than riflemen when riflemen where already designed to be OP because the whole faction was designed around them?

Are the supposed to an "alternative mainline"?
Is so why are they not designed as PF a unit that start weaker but can upgrade? Why to they get satchel instead of grenades

Are they supposed to be an Anti-light vehicle unit?
Then why do they have snare that only suitable VS heavy tanks?

Are they supposed to an antitank unit? So why do they have all this AI at start and get more accuracy bonuses?

Neither the riflemen model nor the PG are suitable for Penal. The difference between USF and Soviet are so many that it does not work and the number of PG units is allot smaller so again it does not work.

Penal need to get specific role and be designed around that role.


If T1 has issue penals simply can not be the solution to all of them.


The design that one should build only Penal or only conscripts (and do to regardless of commander or map) is simply not feasible.

The idea that T1 and T2 should be equally viable for all map and commanders is again not feasible.

Can we pls adress the elephant in the room and redesign the Penal giving them a specific role to fill and create a strategy around T1 and stop with the baindaids?


8 Dec 2020, 09:27 AM
#2
avatar of Aarotron

Posts: 563

Imo the original issue when they were first given at satchel kit was more about that conscipts sucked back then and callin sherman was meta. If cobs were buffed to same extend back then, sherman meta would still have been prelevant. So no issue was more about the sherman call in being busted and cons not being worth it.
8 Dec 2020, 09:40 AM
#3
avatar of Fire and Terror

Posts: 303

Well this is hardly a buff to penals, just alittle reinforce time, cost reduction in the lategame and the ptrs upgrate might actually give them a chance against FHT.

Currently there is no reason to pick them over guards in the lategame.

I personally think a slight buff to the lategame performance aint gonna do much.

@Vipper its too late to come back from the power creep, you basically have to address every sqad now. Just slighty adjust the grens and be done with it
8 Dec 2020, 09:41 AM
#4
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17636 | Subs: 9

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 08:52 AMVipper

Does anyone really know what Penal are supposed to be?

Yeah, AI specialists with good early game and underwhelming scaling late game or AT specialists.

Are they supposed to be a mainline infatry?
If so why to have "semi-elite" having a power level higher than riflemen when riflemen where already designed to be OP because the whole faction was designed around them?

Because they arrive later and cost more.

Are the supposed to an "alternative mainline"?
Is so why are they not designed as PF a unit that start weaker but can upgrade? Why to they get satchel instead of grenades

Because they arrive later and cost more and they will never be a con clone with different vet and upgrade.

Are they supposed to be an Anti-light vehicle unit?

Like all other anti tank infantry, they are supposed to be anti ALL vehicle unit. This is why they just got PTRS buffs.
Then why do they have snare that only suitable VS heavy tanks?

Because of how PTRS works, it was explained 100 times already, but lets go 101 just for you:
PTRS does not deal 80-120 dmg per shot, therefore lacks burst, PTRS units can be pushed around until killed by pintle MGs and main gun of meds and they can do nothing about it.
Satchel prevents that.

Are they supposed to an antitank unit? So why do they have all this AI at start and get more accuracy bonuses?

Because PTRS is not burst weapon, because its on expensive squad, because they were nowhere near effectiveness of any other AT squad.

Neither the riflemen model nor the PG are suitable for Penal. The difference between USF and Soviet are so many that it does not work and the number of PG units is allot smaller so again it does not work.

And yet, it does now with recent changes.
Penal need to get specific role and be designed around that role.

They just got.
AI specialist and AT specialist, depending on upgrade.

If T1 has issue penals simply can not be the solution to all of them.

Why?
Neither M3 nor sniper will offer AT or late game scaling from this tier.

The design that one should build only Penal or only conscripts (and do to regardless of commander or map) is simply not feasible.

Its not designed like that, you would know that if you actually played soviets at any decent level.
Penals are completely destroyed by mid and late game without support of other infantry.

The idea that T1 and T2 should be equally viable for all map and commanders is again not feasible.

Why?
You don't seem to complain about BGHQ buffs OKW is getting nor do you insist on one of USF tiers being much weaker then other.
There is no logical reason why T1 and T2 would NOT be viable choices in most situations other then personal agenda and fear of facing this tier.

Can we pls adress the elephant in the room and redesign the Penal giving them a specific role to fill and create a strategy around T1 and stop with the baindaids?

We are addressing them at this very moment.
Bad units require buffs.
Their role is AI specialist without upgrade and AT specialist with upgrade.
They will still bleed horribly in late game, they just won't cause so much attrition in the process anymore.
Its very simple.
No idea why you struggle so much.
8 Dec 2020, 09:48 AM
#5
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

I'm very glad they are receiving some smaller changes buffs amongst other changes to the faction; Soviets early game feel much more fun to play against and with in the current test builds, it feels less like the faction has only one standard build. They don't need specific roles as long as they fit within the game, meta and balance, which they are with the ongoing changes. I' also change and buff other Sov main infantry so that they can better fit in. Good that you support these changes and buffs so that they better fit in!
8 Dec 2020, 09:48 AM
#6
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2691 | Subs: 1

The problem with Penal builds is the rediculous side tech cost of conscript upgrades.

If you are planning on getting a few Penal troops with conscript support, your conscripts become super expensive due to their side tech cost. Making it a completely unviable build so you are better off going pure penals and using them to replace cons. So you only end up mixing them if you have something like tank hunters doctrine so you can skip the upgrade cost.

Fix the conscript side tech and suddenly the issue is no more.
8 Dec 2020, 10:05 AM
#7
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13376 | Subs: 1

The problem with Penal builds is the rediculous side tech cost of conscript upgrades.

Not really, Penal are simply badly designed and implemented keeping features from varius stages of their desing.


If you are planning on getting a few Penal troops with conscript support, your conscripts become super expensive due to their side tech cost. Making it a completely unviable build so you are better off going pure penals and using them to replace cons. So you only end up mixing them if you have something like tank hunters doctrine so you can skip the upgrade cost.

Fix the conscript side tech and suddenly the issue is no more.

But conscripts is not the problem Penals are so "fixing" conscript tech cost will simply buff conscripts and make them even more attractive.
8 Dec 2020, 10:12 AM
#8
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Give release COH2 Penals with flamer and 6 G43 like Rifles. You can't powercreep if you "nerf" them back to what they originally were.



jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 08:52 AMVipper


Power Creep
When first Patched Penal completely dominated the meta and continued to do so for years which is unhealthy for the game. As result conscripts received a number of buff so that they now dominate the meta. The change in Ostheer that made Ostruppen more viable was the "coup de grace" since although they could keep up against the Penal they could simply out cap the.

Now there a number of planned buff on Penals. In sort penal dominate meta, so conscripts are buffed, conscripts are dominating the meta so Penals are buffed. This is vicious circle of power creep in purest form and it should simply stop.


Small correction. Power creep was necessary due to how strong were all new released factions.

OH received buffs to be able to account for USF release.
SU required buffs in some units in order to account for OKW and OKW post rework. Specially when the strong SU units were been nerfed/removed from the game (2x sprinting snipers and maxim spam).

Conscripts didn't received buffs due to Penals suddenly replacing them. They required buffs in the same way OH needed their MG42 buffed and moved to T0.

Conscripts were fine as long as the faction had overwhelming number of wiping tools outside of their infantry. Hint: they were nerf/removed from the game.

Identity issues

Does anyone really know what Penal are supposed to be?

If T1 has issue penals simply can not be the solution to all of them.

Can we pls adress the elephant in the room and redesign the Penal giving them a specific role to fill and create a strategy around T1 and stop with the baindaids?


I agree with this. With the exception been that the elephant in the room is the whole tier 1 and not Penals.
But the mod balance team has cornered themselves when adjusting the tier and what has been given to other factions.

Snipers were nerfed from having sprint + double man squad and they are receiving further nerfs on this patch. Don't expect anything extraordinary to happen here, specially when a lot of people hate playing against them.

M3A1: the unit was niche to dead against OH pre rework and useless post rework. Unit was good pre OKW rework and niche post rework. Useless post PF rework and T1/Flak HT buffs.



8 Dec 2020, 10:17 AM
#11
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13376 | Subs: 1


I agree with this. With the exception been that the elephant in the room is the whole tier 1 and not Penals.
But the mod balance team has cornered themselves when adjusting the tier and what has been given to other factions.

Snipers were nerfed from having sprint + double man squad and they are receiving further nerfs on this patch. Don't expect anything extraordinary to happen here, specially when a lot of people hate playing against them.

M3A1: the unit was niche to dead against OH pre rework and useless post rework. Unit was good pre OKW rework and niche post rework. Useless post PF rework and T1/Flak HT buffs.

T1 is also an issue and I do mention it my OP but the part of the problem is that Penal are used as solution to all T1 problem.

If T1 needs and anti vehicle infatry and the doctrinal solution are not enough than simply make Penal a dedicated anti vehicle infatry or add a "new" anti vehicle infatry instead of trying to create a single unit that is supposed to do everything from providing superior AI, to Anti light to Antitank.
8 Dec 2020, 10:24 AM
#13
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Given the current state of the game and from my awesome 5 minute thought full rework redesign plan which has no flaws whatsoever or any chance of backfiring this is what i came with. /s

---Support weapon company (T2) becomes T1. No further changes.

---Special Rifle comp (T1) becomes T2. Cut cost by half.
-New T2 requires T1 and it becomes an optional tier. T3 requires T1 and T4 requires T3.
-Penals becomes analog to PG once again (increase cost and buff). Maybe balance them around been a 5 man squad and not sure how historically correct could be to give them zooks cause that would solve the gap of Soviets having a real AT infantry unit to deal with heavy TDs in team games now that we plan on nerfing ram (and probable in the future IL2).
-Sniper can be given utility buffs.
-M3 can see further buffs now that it arrives at a later timing.

8 Dec 2020, 10:25 AM
#14
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2691 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 10:05 AMVipper

Not really, Penal are simply badly designed and implemented keeping features from varius stages of their desing.

But conscripts is not the problem Penals are so "fixing" conscript tech cost will simply buff conscripts and make them even more attractive.


Conscripts are so 'attractive' because they are the least bad option to go with. The Soviet faction still completely hinges on the T70 to carry them through the midgame and only very late on do Conscripts become good. Having a stronger early game with Penals and/or a proper HMG or buffed conscripts might actually be enough to justify the nerfs that the T70 received, and it might also lead to some nerfs to 7-man cons down the line.
8 Dec 2020, 10:25 AM
#15
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17636 | Subs: 9

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 10:17 AMVipper

T1 is also an issue and I do mention it my OP but the part of the problem is that Penal are used as solution to all T1 problem.

Neither snipers nor M3 will hold the line or provide anti tank support for the tier and no amount of "redesigning" these will change that. Penals are workhorse of the tier and always will be as long as the utility, self sufficiency and combat potential of remaining units will keep getting nerfed over and over.

If T1 needs and anti vehicle infatry and the doctrinal solution are not enough than simply make Penal a dedicated anti vehicle infatry or add a "new" anti vehicle infatry instead of trying to create a single unit that is supposed to do everything from providing superior AI, to Anti light to Antitank.

Why?
Why it works for any other strong AI unit with AT upgrade, but not for them?
8 Dec 2020, 10:29 AM
#16
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13376 | Subs: 1


Neither snipers nor M3 will hold the line or provide anti tank support for the tier and no amount of "redesigning" these will change that. Penals are workhorse of the tier and always will be as long as the utility, self sufficiency and combat potential of remaining units will keep getting nerfed over and over.

If one unit is only good out of 3 then that is simply bad design.


Why?
Why it works for any other strong AI unit with AT upgrade, but not for them?

Only it does not, neither riflemen or IS or VG work well with AT weapons. As of PG their are not mainline infatry and only 1-2 is usually build.
8 Dec 2020, 10:31 AM
#17
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13376 | Subs: 1

Given the current state of the game and from my awesome 5 minute thought full rework redesign plan which has no flaws whatsoever or any chance of backfiring this is what i came with. /s

---Support weapon company (T2) becomes T1. No further changes.

---Special Rifle comp (T1) becomes T2. Cut cost by half.
-New T2 requires T1 and it becomes an optional tier. T3 requires T1 and T4 requires T3.
-Penals becomes analog to PG once again (increase cost and buff). Maybe balance them around been a 5 man squad and not sure how historically correct could be to give them zooks cause that would solve the gap of Soviets having a real AT infantry unit to deal with heavy TDs in team games now that we plan on nerfing ram (and probable in the future IL2).
-Sniper can be given utility buffs.
-M3 can see further buffs now that it arrives at a later timing.

Even that is an improvement over the current design.
8 Dec 2020, 10:34 AM
#19
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13376 | Subs: 1



Conscripts are so 'attractive' because they are the least bad option to go with. The Soviet faction still completely hinges on the T70 to carry them through the midgame and only very late on do Conscripts become good. Having a stronger early game with Penals and/or a proper HMG or buffed conscripts might actually be enough to justify the nerfs that the T70 received, and it might also lead to some nerfs to 7-man cons down the line.

Then penals is not a real solution but just a sweep that moves problem under the rug.

Funny thing is that you claim conscripts "do not cut it" while many people claim that the same applies to both VG and Grenadiers. So if all mainlines infantries do not cut then "semi-elite" simply to belong in the same time frame.
8 Dec 2020, 10:37 AM
#20
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17636 | Subs: 9

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 10:29 AMVipper

If one unit is only good out of 3 then that is simply bad design.

Fully agree.
Lets come up with ideas how to buff sniper and M3 in soviet thread together.

Only it does not, neither riflemen or IS or VG work well with AT weapons. As of PG their are not mainline infatry and only 1-2 is usually build.

Rifles work very well actually, having AT nade and all and vet making them very durable, allowing them to stay longer in combat under small arms fire. RETs are simply cheaper and that's all, but it does not mean rifles are not viable for the role.

VGs have no AT, PFs do, but I don't see anyone complaining about them despite initial(including mine) concerns.

I have no idea why you would ever mention IS at all, knowing how they function other then "for the sake of an argument.

It does not matter how you want to label PGs, they are, just like Penals, an AI specialist with AT upgrade.
You can't pretend they don't count just because of different weapon profile and other semantics, I have never said "rifle infantry", I said "strong AI infantry".

And spamming penals isn't exactly a viable move at all either, you will have 2-3 penals maximum with 3 already being a stretch.
PAGES (8)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

United States 22
New Zealand 12
United States 1

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag shadics ARG.
  • U.S. Forces flag TüMe
  • Ostheer flag The101stAirBorne
  • Ostheer flag Clororaa
uploaded by TüMe

Board Info

243 users are online: 243 guests
11 posts in the last 24h
83 posts in the last week
836 posts in the last month
Registered members: 37759
Welcome our newest member, liesemoor123
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM