[SOV] [1V1] Penals, Guards and Guard motor coordinated tactics

1246789

Comments

  • #92
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Vipper said:
    Since you now you seem to agree to the relevance of the patch notes

    I don't agree. But I'm using your logic. Relic have said Grens are disadvantaged at long range. Therefore they can't be the best at long range. The notes you've cited disagree with your argument.

    You have two options. Accept that either, the evidence you have submitted states in black and white, crystal clear, that grens lose to Riflemen at long range - OR - argue that the post is not relevant, meaning you have no evidence to back your claim that grens are supposed to be the best at long range.

    @Vipper said:
    Although quite irrelevant it is an indication of your knowledge of the game...AI partisan stopped spawning with LMGs several patches ago...

    That's MY POINT. THOSE NOTES ARE NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE THEY'RE OUTDATED. LIKE THE ONES YOU CITED. Have you gotten the picture yet?

  • #93
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,980
    Guys, guys... keep it civil. No need to yell at each other. This isn't a US presidential debate. Now, we certainly have 2 divergent opinions here. Why don't we take a step back and sun up the arguments we have in favour or disfavour of changing Penals and how we could achieve a result that addresses all concerns.

    I for one think that the major Problem with Penals is their performance at long range and their vet bonuses, which make them far too accurate at all ranges. In order to solve these issues, long-range DPS could be lowered and vet reworked.
  • #94
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721
    edited October 2016

    @Lazarus said:
    I don't agree. But I'm using your logic....

    Let me use your logic then. Keep Penal as they are. Move Pgs to T1 (will now call them PG1s) and remove the shcreck upgrade and have a new unit at T2 for ostheer called PG2s. PG2s cost 340MU 120MU and spawn with double shcrek and are identical to current PGS.

    Now PG1s are built from AI tier only and are AI only and are more expensive thus they should be able to beat all allied infantry at all ranges accept units like shock and commandos at close.

    Try that and sea how much fun the game would be...

    As I said you are entitled to your opinion even if it leads to bad game play

    THOSE NOTES ARE NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE THEY'RE OUTDATED. LIKE THE ONES YOU CITED.

    That is because you are confusing specific patch changes that are only relevant to the specific patch with long term design intent as express in the same notes.

    But hell. Lets not extend logic that far. Lets do something really basic. Lets read the WHOLE Grenadier entry from the post YOU cited as evidence.

    Try something even better read the whole patch notes and understand them, I will even help once more:

    "Infantry Combat Tuning
    The intent of these changes is to better define the strengths and weaknesses of each core unit relative to one another. We wanted to better define how each core unit should engage their perspective targets. For example, in a Grenadier vs. Riflemen match up, the Grenadiers want to maintain range. This is now a valid tactic, where in the past it was not. An integral element to this iteration is the introduction of received accuracy in place of raw damage. This was used in instances where additional fire power was not necessary in maintaining the established unit relationships. For example, Grenadier long range fire power is high enough to establish the unit’s relative relationship with other units, allowing us to increase their durability instead. As a by-product of this shift, short and mid range units should have an easier time closing in on their target.
    "

    this are the diagrams

    1.jpg 1007.9K
    2.jpg 750.3K
  • #95
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,773
    Except pg1 would have the best supression platform behind them as well as indirect support behind them all from a cheaper investment (ost t1 is a wee bit cheaper than Soviet t1)

    That would leave the Wehr to compose an army from 6 units conplete with a snare and grenade available (7units if 0cp a 0cp call in is present) vs the Soviet 5, one of which costing more fuel than either faction spent on getting to this point.
    So while I get what you are saying, its completely different.
    Penals are to be carrying the tier because they lack the support the Wehr have

    You are missing that penals can be zoned, an mg42 easily shuts them down and they are helpless against it whereas pgrens might be able to get off a hand nuke of their own on something like a maxim.

    Also, the whole "range advantage" thing caters to close range units so hard its not even funny anyways, I have (not even kidding) had commandos charge across no cover and a road width of negative cover vs an lmg gren and vanilla gren in green without losing a model and push them both off

    Like rifles there is no reason they cant be good at all ranges, especially since that is their 1 job and they cost more and do less but not using cover should be punished harshly.
  • #96
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721
    edited October 2016

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Like rifles there is no reason they cant be good at all ranges, especially since that is their 1 job and they cost more and do less but not using cover should be punished harshly.

    And here you are wrong once more, Rifles lose to Gren in far and cover...Penal beat them easily and by vet 1 they break even with lmg Gren..

    Relic has comes the conclusion that being able to gain advantage by relative position improves the infantry fights. Penals are exception and that is why they are currently badly designed they should be fixed and have a performance similar to other infantries.

  • #97
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,773
    I said good at all ranges, costing more than rifles, doing less than rifles and requiring a tech unlike rifles means they should be better than rifles, who are already better than grens.
  • #98
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    ...who (rifles) are already better than grens.

    Once more you are wrong Rifles lose to Gren, all you have to do is test it...

  • #99
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,773
    Not in any realistic scenario they dont, I dont need to sit for 100 instances at max range and scribble down what happens because in a real match rifles will walk past the grens effective range into one they are more comfortable and eat them. I know this from countless games. And again, penals > rifles in AI becauae thats their whole thing. There has been alot of discussion lately as well about how grens need their lmg just to manage vanilla rifles, because rifles > grens because 280>240.
    You are so stuck up on the fact that grens will beat a cheaper, unspecialized unit in a specific, unrealistic scemario you are forgetting that penals are not rifles, they are bigger, and better because they are more expensive and more refined.

    Look at sturms who also cost 300MP, they are good fighters at mid/close, theu repair, they can build stuff, they repair, they ignore cover and they can get AT.. Now take away all of that except their ability to fight and suddenly they need to be able to fight better because being kited by cons who are 60MP cheaper but a hell of alot more versatile in unacceptable
  • #100
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721
    edited October 2016

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Not in any realistic scenario they dont, I dont need to sit for 100 instances at max range and scribble down what happensbecause in a real match rifles will walk past the grens effective range into one they are more comfortable and eat them.

    and the same should simply apply to Penals and you should not object to it since according to you it is not a realistic scenario...
    If you want since Penal are 7% more expensive and can not get AT make them perform 15% better than Riflemen far. (they would still lose to Grens...)

    Look at sturms who also cost 300MP, they are good fighters at mid/close, theu repair, they can build stuff, they repair, they ignore cover and they can get AT..

    And Sturm will lose to at long range to most infantries not because they can do other stuff also but because they are better designed. (by the way PG who can only fight as in your theoretical question and can do non of the above while costing 340 also lose at max range)...and you are wrong once more Sturm do not ignore cover...

    I have explained why the price tag is non argument when it comes beating units in all ranges...

    I have also explain Relics thinking that units that perform good at all ranges are badly designed.

    ...but if that continues to be your issue lower their price to 260 and make the lose at long range...

  • #101
    2 years ago
    YoghurtYoghurt Posts: 74
    edited October 2016

    In the current state of the game, the penals should maybe have little bit higher xp requirements for veterancy. Otherwise I think they are in a good spot. The flamethrower is kinda necessary so I wouldn't remove that ever. The dps, at this point is necessary vs okw infantry, volks and sturms. But they are overperforming a little vs un-upgraded grenadiers. So if you bring down UKF's sappers, and Sections, USF's Riflemen, and OKW's Volks and sturms into balance with cons and grens, then penals can get brought down there as well, along with a small cost decrease. There is some fine tuning that needs to be done. There are many factors involved, weapon upgrades, vet, and the stats of the units. But I feel like the basic infantry of the newer factions are not as well balanced.

  • #102
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017
    edited October 2016

    @Vipper said:
    Now PG1s are built from AI tier only and are AI only and are more expensive thus they should be able to beat all allied infantry at all ranges accept units like shock and commandos at close.

    Close but no cigar. PG1s in T1? They have mortar support for starters, and a readily available MG. So you've not used my logic. You've talked some nonsense and made no argument.

    @Vipper said:
    That is because you are confusing specific patch changes that are only relevant to the specific patch with long term design intent as express in the same notes.

    Special pleading. Your notes are outdated. So are mine. They both count or neither do.

    @Vipper said:
    Try something even better read the whole patch notes and understand them, I will even help once more:

    "_Infantry Combat Tuning
    The intent of these changes is to better define the strengths and weaknesses of each core unit relative to one another.

    You have indeed helped once more. Observe.

    "_Infantry Combat Tuning
    The intent of these changes is to better define the strengths and weaknesses of each core unit relative to one another

    strengths and weaknesses of each core unit

    core unit

    core

    Congratulations. You've given me more ammo against you. Penals and PGs are not the core infantry combatants of their respective armies. Once again, the very post you've cited says you're wrong.

    So lets recap.

    Evidence that Grens should beat Penals at long range:
    One line in patch notes that says Grens excel at long range and do "highest damage of tier"

    Evidence against Grens beating Penals at long range:
    Those are old patch notes that are no longer relevant
    Penals have been changed since those notes were written
    The cited notes explicitly state that Grens will lose to Riflemen at long range
    The cited notes are explicitly only talking about the core mainline infantry combatants.

    That's 1 for, 4 against for those of you keeping score.

    Come up with something of substance or concede defeat. Those are your only options.

  • #103
    2 years ago
    AceOfTitaniumAceOfTita… Posts: 195
    edited October 2016
    I think the soviet faction big problem is depending on commander call in. I also think that every faction should be able to support it self without any comander. The better way to solve this problem is to take a radical aproach and by radical aproach I mean:
    1) Make cons mid range only and with the flamethrower upgrade, after all they have everything to be a medium range unit and use oorah + flamethrower to clear hmgs and therefore be the core unit of the soviet faction. I read somewhere in this topic that cons are kind of rubish at mid range, to fix that I would suggest giving them more rate of fire to compensate the not so good acuracy.
    2) With the cons change the faction needs a long range unit and there is where the penals come. Take out the satchel charge and put it as a commander ability for cons, make them long range and probably give them the option to have PTRS anti tank rifles because if you go tier 1, besides the cons snare, there isn't much anti tank capability.
    3) And now you may think "but now guards are almost useless" and to fix that I wouldn't make penals too good, I would make them an ok kind of infantry and guards an elite kind of infantry. And also take the PTRS anti tank rifles off guards and make them an upgrade along with the existing one so you have the option to focus in an anti tank role or anti infantry role.
  • #104
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721
    edited October 2016

    @Lazarus said:
    Come up with something of substance or concede defeat. Those are your only options.

    I have explained to you Relic's aim to make relative position have an impact on the outcome of fight. I have also explained that allowing players tools to change the outcome of a fight by using the weakness of the enemy units and the strengths of your units make game play more interesting.

    A Penal vs Gren or Penal vs VG has little interest because the outcome is predictable. The later will lose if they stay and fight at range and they will lose if the player that controls Penal decided to close in. That is bad design and out of Relic's design intent.

    So lets recap.

    Instead of understanding Relic's logic and how that would improve the game you have turned a balance debate into "competition" where you have to "win" and I have to be "defeated".

    You are entitled to your opinion. So am I, so is Relic.

    And Relic has shown it's intent to nerf the Penal. Instead of "obsessing" in "defeating" me it would be better use of your time trying to find ideas that would a Penal nerf viable. It is also better use of my time not to debate with someone who is intent is simply to "defeat" me. But have a nice day...

  • #105
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721

    @AceOfTitanium said:
    I think the soviet faction big problem is depending on commander call in. I also think that every faction should be able to support it self without any comander.

    That was the intent when Relic designed the soviets. Mediocre core units but a wide variety of efficient to very efficient call in units. With the improvements to T-34 and Su-85s commander dependents have been reduced...

  • #106
    2 years ago
    AceOfTitaniumAceOfTita… Posts: 195
    edited October 2016
    @Vipper I should have said "...depending way too much...", but do you agree with my radical changes? Cons and penals should be as I said + squad models shouldn't survive that long specially in nevative cover but the soviet player should be able to have lots of squads kind of like an ostroppen play style with cheap reenforce and rapid reenforce to compensate the quick dying models. But in the other hand have the soviet infantry call in be a tiny bit stronger than grenadiers/volks/PG. I don't see any other way to solve the problems that this game has unless Relic makes this kind of radical changes.
  • #107
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Vipper said:

    @Lazarus said:
    Come up with something of substance or concede defeat. Those are your only options.

    I have explained to you Relic's aim to make relative position have an impact on the outcome of fight. I have also explained that allowing players tools to change the outcome of a fight by using the weakness of the enemy units and the strengths of your units make game play more interesting.

    And I have explained that your explanations don't hold up to scrutiny. Submit actual evidence relevant to the current state of balance, or submit that you've got nothing of value to say on the subject.

  • #108
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721

    Flamers at squad with many entities have been proven problematic...My suggestion for redesing can be found at page 1 at post 25...

  • #109
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721
    edited October 2016

    @Lazarus said:
    Submit actual evidence relevant to the current state of balance,...

    The fact that, the majority of infantry units are actually designed to be strong at some range and weak at others should give a you clue. The design works good in most cases and can work for Penals.

    PLS stop telling me what to do.

    The facts are simple and right in front of your face Penal current performance is so problematic that Relic included them in poll along with the USF mortar a unit that is clearly broken.

    It up at you to acknowledge the facts or continue to try to "defeat" me in a debate, I have little interests in arguing for the sake of arguing.

  • #110
    2 years ago
    @Vipper You make a good point and to fix that I will resort to a bit of history. In ww2 the USSR had pretty lack of modern or lack of equipment to provide to all its soldiers, that's why right in the first mission cut scene of the soviet campaign you see a large number of cons charging (they had no other option) and some of them were lacking rifles. So why should cons have the ability to upgrade to have AT snares? Cocktail molotov is fine because it isnt much of military equipment. And seeing as I suggested that penals could have the option for PTRS and there is a Siz gun in tier 2 the soviets would be able to counter armor almost from the start. Now that I think of it, cons shouldn't even get flames because engeneers already have the option to get them plus they have the cocktail molotovs.
  • #111
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Vipper said:
    The fact that, the majority of infantry units are actually designed to be strong at some range and weak at others should give a you clue.

    Excellent. The fact that you had to qualify that with "The Majority" and didn't just outright say "ALL" should give YOU a clue.

    @Vipper said:
    It up at you to acknowledge the facts

    I've said nothing but fact. It is a fact that Penals are AI specialists. It is a fact your evidence is out of date. What other facts could I possibly need in this argument?

  • #112
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721

    @Lazarus said:
    What other facts could I possibly need in this argument?

    The simple fact that Penal are in a list with major balance issues. I have nothing to add. bb

  • #113
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Vipper said:

    @Lazarus said:
    What other facts could I possibly need in this argument?

    The simple fact that Penal are in a list with major balance issues. I have nothing to add. bb

    That doesn't mean anything - especially if you go ahead and look at how almost nobody voted for it. You haven't added anything for about 3 pages but that hasn't stopped you yet.

  • #114
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721
    edited October 2016

    @AceOfTitanium said:
    @Vipper You make a good point and to fix that I will resort to a bit of history.

    Since you mention history imo thematically Penal better suit the role of cheap Ostruppen like infantry and conscript of better quality infantry and that is what I have actually suggested in that link.

  • #115
    2 years ago

    @Vipper Not really, Cons are supposed to be citizens, people in general that were forced to join the army and fight for their country and penals were more constituted of demoted officers (because stalin was paranoid with treason) and criminals, therefore this unit should be a better quality infantry.

  • #116
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721
    edited October 2016

    @AceOfTitanium said:
    ...penals were more constituted of demoted officers ..and criminals, therefore this unit should be a better quality infantry.

    True but on the other hand those troops where many times used as expandable troops in suicide missions by their superiors. My suggestion tries to recreate that feel.

    It also tries to make merge and rapid conscription better balanced.

  • #117
    2 years ago
    @Vipper Hmm that is actually a good point. Then cons should be a long/medium range and penals medium/close range but since they are expendable they shouldn't have the flamethrower upgrade but instead the coquetel molotov without upgrade requirement. I still dont like the cons anti-tank nade tho, maybe mines should be a bit cheaper but weaker versus medium/heavy tanks.
  • #118
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,773
    I miss the days of 1 second satchels that always killed at least the guy who threw it....
  • #119
    2 years ago
    @thedarkarmadillo #Expendable xD
  • #120
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721
    edited October 2016

    @AceOfTitanium said:
    @Vipper Hmm that is actually a good point. Then cons should be a long/medium range and penals medium/close range but since they are expendable they shouldn't have the flamethrower upgrade but instead the coquetel molotov without upgrade requirement. I still dont like the cons anti-tank nade tho, maybe mines should be a bit cheaper but weaker versus medium/heavy tanks.

    that is close to what I have proposed to test, the proposal is a bit old and might need refining :

    This is qoute from Coh2 org where it was originally posted before the Penal patch

    "Let me start by saying that this is conceptual idea so any number presented here might be off and and I focused more on the idea and not numbers.

    Problems:
    Penals have been proven rather difficult to be useful. When compared to conscripts they have far less utility, are more expensive and they even come with a tech cost.

    They are compared to conscript a more elite troops although that does not fit their historical role.

    Aim: To make penal a unit that see more usage and better fits it history. Historically they where used more like cannon fodder than "elite" troops.

    How to: By reducing the utility of conscript, by giving a new role to Penal and by retaining the flexibility of Soviet tech.

    Faction changes:
    Penal move to T0 conscripts move to T1.

    Changes to conscripts:
    Conscripts can no longer ourah or merge, the Molotov is replaced by a grenade (with or without a tech cost). Some price adjustments or performance (size DPS) might be needed.

    Changes to Penal:
    Cost down to 200, they get ourah (vet 0 or vet 1), Molotov, satchel, maybe AT grenade or satchel becomes easier to use vs vehicles and merge. They can also benefit from other doctrinal abilities like "hit the ground" and rapid conscription returns Penals.

    Other abilities the benefit less from cover yellow green and garrison (80-90%) they also are penalized less from red and take reduced suppression (80-90%). Could even get better firing modifier while firing on the move.

    They come with 3 mosin 3 PPsh (a bit worse than conscripts at mid maybe better at range 0) (could be 6 PPsh or 3PPsh +3 old SVT).

    Their role is to frontally attack the enemy using their molotovs and satchel and to reinforce other units via merge.

    Problem: Forces Soviet to go T1 to have access to conscripts
    Solution: AT certain level of veterancy (vet1 or vet2) Penals can "redeem" themselves and for 40 manpower be upgraded to conscripts.
    If T2 is built conscript can be built at HQ and/or Penals can be redeemed.

    As I posted in begging this is only conceptual approach and there might be flaws in it. But in my opinion and gives penal a viable role, it gives Soviets more starting options and make them feel more like the WWII Soviet army that did use cannon fodder tactics..."

  • #121
    2 years ago

    There is definitely flaws but there is one particular thing that I like:

    @Vipper said:
    They come with 3 mosin 3 PPsh (a bit worse than conscripts at mid maybe better at range 0) (could be 6 PPsh or 3PPsh +3 old SVT).

    This way penals can perform their role of rushing enemy positions and garrisons and clearing them with the coquetel molotov and PPsh. I really like the 3 PPsh and the 3 SVTs and with this penals become a mid/close range unit and cons can be a long/mid range unit.
    But then if the player goes penal tier they will lack some kind of anti-tank (since cons wont have anti-tank nades) to solve this I would be forced to give the PTRS to cons as an upgrade since they are a kind of a low production cost rifle, the reason I refuse to give the cons and penals any equipment besides molotov is because they are light infantry meaning they basically only have their rifle to fight the enemy and I would make the satchel a commander ability because it is quite strong.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.