Many people complain that grenadier are not viable.
Others claim that VG become weak in mid game.
Some others that Conscripts are not good enough.
(There are some that claim riflemen are also bad but...)
If 3 out 5 mainline infatry are UP does that mean that problem lies elsewhere? |
Calling a solution that works "not a real solution" is just you being too prideful to change your opinion on Penal troops.
There are many units that don't cut it by themselves but require other units to supplement them to make the faction as a whole operate properly. See main battle tanks supplemented by TDs for example. There is no reason why making combined arms play work better than single unit spam is 'not a real solution'.
What you are suggesting is to buff conscripts because Penal do not cut it. That does not make sense.
Grenadier do not cut and they are simply replaced by osstruppen/assault grenadier not supplemented.
VG do not cut so people simply play Ostheer.
Once more if 3 out 5 mainlines infatry do not "cut it" the problem lies elsewhere and they should not be buffed, but this a debate for another thread. |
The strong points of Soviets are been nerfed. The game would be in a much better state if ISU/ELE/JT were removed from the game but in this patch only the ISU get's nerfed while the tools given to counter those heavies are been tone down as well without giving any proper alternatives.
And that irrelevant to T-34/76 performance. It has been argued that T-34/76 is useless without ram. My point is that this in not the case and the unit cost efficient with or without ram. |
Fully agree.
Lets come up with ideas how to buff sniper and M3 in soviet thread together.
Great then stop disagreeing with my every post and start making suggestions.
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.
Regardless of what you claim AT riflemen are not popular.
If PF designed is the correct one then it should be implement to Penal also because PF are UP when they are build.
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".
You are the one arguing semantics here not me I am simply pointing out that PG and Penal are used differently. Penal building include 3-4 Penal available from 1 while PG come later and only 1-2 are usually build. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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.
|
The problem is not that vet makes ram usseles. Its that you need vet to kill your unit in the hope it does enough to the enemy. Ram better give some garantees other then suicide. Like main gun destroyed on the enemy tank and the t34 next to the stun.
Ram used to destroy the enemy gun and it was op/frustrating. This feels like the rant about Sherman's HE shells, Ram is an extra ability T-34/76 gets it does not have to be a great option in all cases.
Now its nerfed and put behind vet. A double nerf. I believe i read that the t34 should be able to back away after ram. It will still be a dead t34 9/10.
The simply do not use the ability is you do not think you will get an advantage out of it. |