why shouldn't the penal get a good weapon?
I never claimed that they should not have a good weapon. On the other hand why do they need a weapon that does not follow weapon profiles and it is good at all ranges?
If they need far DPS they should use a bolt action rifle or LMG
If they need a mid DPS weapon they should use a semi automatic
If they need a close weapon they should use SMG
If they need to able to upgrade and fulfil different roles they should change weapons.
It's clear from their flamethrower upgrade... It's clear the the penal lack the versatility...
flamer mean anti garrison...
I don't necessary mean anti-infantry, it could mean that they need more utility or more roles...
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.
Soviet have access to loads of call-in infantry, making them stronger will simply have to increase their price and compete with the call-in infantry...
...and ignore the advantages the rifleman have over the penal.
Already answered this:
Riflmen 5*80/0.97= 412
Penal 6*80*1= 480 16% more EHP...
VET 3
Riflmen 5*80/(0.97*0.77*0.80)= 669 7% more EHP
Penal 6*80*/0.77= 623
Happy now?
...I would't use the term "m1 garand" to refer to the m1 carbine because that's grossly inaccurate. ..
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.
Actually you used the term: "the m1 garand, the most common semi-auto rifle (carbine) in the game" but if weather M1 is most commonly use semi automatic rifle has little to do with Penals...