Did you think why this doesn't work? Weaker Penals early on just pushes people back to Conscripts even more. We already had this design with Penals prior to their rework and even when the tier was stronger (better sniper and situation for M3, people didn't bother with it) the tier was dead. PTRS is rather poor AT and barely holds grounds against light when used aggressively (check Luvnest response).
I do not think that comparison with situation before the July patch is an indication of anything since the soviet faction had completely different design.
I've said in the past that the weapon/abilities for the Penals can be linked to the ones for Conscripts but that's before all the nerfs they have already received.
IIRC, at 160mp, it's not a competitive tech with further weaker units.
MP cost could easily be lower. This design allows earlier access to m3 and sniper compared to
your suggestions after T2.
EDIT: the Gia suggestion MIGHT work but it creates further ramifications and needs adjusting of many more other things than just the core units involved.
or one could simply add a pure AT infatry in T1.
|
I took the liberty of copying this from another thread since I found it be relevant (I hope you do not mind and I can removed if you do not want me to copy it here)
Once again good changes.
A few problems:
M3 change is fantastic. However T1 requires further buffs. T1 is still extremely weak due to the following reasons:
A. The only T1 AT option forces you to give up the Anti infantry strength of your mainline.
B. The AT option itself is bad because it doesn't have enough damage output to avoid getting forced to retreat or at least getting bled before the vehicle is pushed back.
C. You only have very few snares (2 max) and they have very limited range. This is particularly problematic when using the Sniper.
D. ATGuns are the most cost efficient units in the game so there's very little reason not to get ZIS-Guns.
Sanders suggestion of giving the PTRS upgrade three PTRS while increasing the price accordingly would solve problem b. but enhance problem c. All your early AT on one squad would mean that if that squad gets pinned or forced to retreat you are completely exposed.
My preferred solution:
- Move PTRS to Cons, unlocked with T1 build
- Penal AT Satchels get unlocked with AT nade tech
- Possibly give Penals Molotovs
- decreased Penal buildtime
This directly solves Problems C. and A. because a mix of Cons and Penals combined with AT nade tech would lead to normal amounts of snares and Penals no longer have to waste their AI strength by upgrading PTRS. It would also partly solve Problem B. because cons bleed less when getting slaughtered by the vehicle they're fighting. Better Penal Buildtime would give the T1 opening quicker map presence. It would still be significantly weaker than a con opening in this regard.
Penals would now function as a supplement to cons (which from my understanding makes perfect sense thematically). Realistically you'd probably only get 1 (when combined with a sniper) or 2 most of the time because you'll want two PTRS cons for AT. 2 Cons, 3 Penals into T70 would be very manpower heavyy but not unthinkable. Encouraging Con/Penal Combos has the additional advantage that it allows for usage of merge and sandbags which both benefit penals but isn't enough of a reason to mix the two in the current version since Penals don't benefit at all from the at nade upgrade so you might as well just spam cons to make it worthwhile. For the same reason i would at least consider giving penals molotovs.
....
|
I took the liberty of copying your post in this thread since I found to relevant.
(hope you do not mind, let me know if you do and I will removed it)
Had a few games with sov, 7 men arrive way to early and ostruppen is now not really that strong anymore i feel, Essentially at around 5-8 (Whenever t3 is build really) ostruppen fall into complete irrelvancy since the 7men conscripts will push them out of the map, combined with m42/zis and sandbags makes for a horrid opponent to go up against. And incredibly easy to play for sov. The matchup for wehr is insanely difficult now i think. I will test a few more games but the meta is so incredibly rigid. Ostruppen genuinely feel like the only option when playing vs sov rn.
Pls feel free to debate mainline infatry especially conscripts,grenadier,Vg and their relationship in this thread. |
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.
There might be a simpler way for this approach (although their might be simpler design) of a optional t1.
Special Rifle Com. (T1) fuel cost removed now does not count as tech.
Penals are rebalanced starting weaker.
All abilities and weapons upgrade for penal now have a fuel cost. |
No, I am saying conscripts don't cut it and they should be supplemented with proper HMGs or Penal troops. So that the faction does not hinge on T70. The reason why people don't supplement their conscripts is the excessive upgrage cost of Conscripts forcing you to spam them to make them worth their tech investment. Leaving no MP room for Penals/T2 units.
Any issues about conscripts not cutting it can be debated in the other thread about mainline infatry.
As for the T1 it rather dirty cheap since it tech that also provides access to satchel, PTRS, AT satchels with no additional cost.
Since we agree that T1 does not work as intended and that the changes for this patch little actually help it work better, do you that T1 is badly designed? |
Teamgames include 2v2.
The worth of fuel/muni is inversely proportional to the amount of players been added, while manpower is a variable which becomes constant regardless of mode.
If the nerfs to ram goes through, i think all 3 of those tanks brings way more to the table, vanilla or doctrinaly, even if they cost more. At least in what matters and how team games are been played.
Not sure why you always try to reduce everything to a 1on1 comparison of units when the units which supports them around are completely different.
I do not "always try to reduce everything to a 1on1 comparison" and I certainly did not in this case.
The only think I have pointed out is that, contrary to claims T-34/76, does not suck a point you agree (at least in small modes)
In a world where the ELE/ISU/JT doesn't exist, the Su85 is more than enough to deal with everything else and the T34-76 change is perfectly fine.
Why in your opinion T-34/76 any different than Cromwell or Sherman when a Ele/ISU/JT exist?
|
...
You do not have to argue with me, you can argue Elhcino7 who thinks that in 1vs1 the unit is not useless. |
On 1v1 no.
Glad to see we agree. And that was my point all along.
On teamgames it's close to be.
I suspect you mean 3vs3, 4vs4
I you opinion is it less cost efficient in those mods then the Cromwell, Sherman, PzIV? |
It's not as far as team games performance we are talking off.
Lets stop playing gmaes here and you can answer a simply question:
In your opinion do you agree with the claim that T-34/76 is useless without ram. |
|
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? |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
