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

1234568

Comments

  • #212
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,595

    @AceOfTitanium said:

    @MCMartel said:
    They're not supposed to be expendable, they're supposed to be soviet elite infantry

    I quote from the in game hud two descriptions for the penals:
    "Penal battalion must succeed in their assaults or die trying" <- expendable right there

    Thats one of the most stupid arguments I have ever seen.
    Since when historical fluff texts have ANY kind of meaning for the balance?

    "Independent thinkers, vicious criminals, and hardened troops serving time for minor offenses are given a chance to redeem themselves through blood--theirs or the enemy's" <-expendable too

    That's still fluff text, not balance excuse.

    And before anyone says "but it says they are hardened troops so penals must be elite infantry" no, I think the developers want to say that back in war some commissars/officers were demoted for "treason" and put in these penal units along side killers and criminals.

    They are elite, because they are 300mp AI specialists who are tier restricted and were made to be soviet stock elite troops, just like obers are for OKW or PGs for wehr.
    End of story.
    Nothing more to it.

  • #213
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,722
    edited November 2016

    @Katitof said:
    ... who are tier restricted

    The majority of stock units are tier restricted (apart T0 units), that is not a drawback Penal have...

  • #214
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Vipper said:

    @Katitof said:
    ... who are tier restricted

    The majority of stock units are tier restricted (apart T0 units), that is not a drawback Penal have...

    Except it is, because all other factions will unlock all their units through their linear tech progression (well, USF excepted but they've got a whole other mess of things going for them). Penals tech restriction is a draw back because it means you won't have team weapon support - including AT Guns.

  • #215
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,722
    edited November 2016

    @Lazarus said:
    Except it is, because all other factions will unlock all their units through their linear tech progression (well, USF excepted but they've got a whole other mess of things going for them). Penals tech restriction is a draw back because it means you won't have team weapon support - including AT Guns.

    Only Wer and UKF have linear progression and having a choice of what you want to unlock is actually a bonus not drawback... Soviet have a choice to unlock as many building as they want and/or fill any gaps with a plethora of doctrinal units. That is a bonus not a draw back.

    I have respond to the no support weapon argument plenty of times pls do not repeat it.

  • #216
    2 years ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588

    @Katitof said:
    They are elite, because they are 300mp AI specialists who are tier restricted and were made to be soviet stock elite troops, just like obers are for OKW or PGs for wehr.
    End of story.
    Nothing more to it.

    Who cares if they are elit or not? or what price you pay for them? Why can a faction build an elite infantry right from the start on the first place?

    Lets make Obers a T0 unit for OKW, and see what happens. They are elit, and they are expensive... so they can legally ruin early game according to this? Honestly, if being an elite unit is an explanation for their current performance, then move them to T3, where they belong.

    Penals flame upgrade is too strong, makes them better than Fusiliers with G43, or PGrens, or Volks with STGs.
    Also their veterancy bonuses are ridiculously strong, and with the flamer they gain xp too fast. How come this was an issue with Volks, and now it is fine with Penals?! On vet3 they have 60% accuracy bonus... thats ridiculous... with flamers i can achieve it extremely fast.

  • #217
    2 years ago
    AceOfTitaniumAceOfTita… Posts: 195
    edited November 2016
    @Katitof I am sorry to break it for you but if you havent noticed this is a game that is based on historical facts and even the developers say they try to be as historically correct as possible while sometimes deviating a bit for balance reasons.

    @RiCE Agree with you.

    The problem here is "elite infantry" in the main faction. Soviets shouldnt have elite infantry unless through a commander. The only faction that has elite infantry is OKW because they are supposed to be a more elitish faction.
  • #218
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Vipper said:

    @Lazarus said:
    Except it is, because all other factions will unlock all their units through their linear tech progression (well, USF excepted but they've got a whole other mess of things going for them). Penals tech restriction is a draw back because it means you won't have team weapon support - including AT Guns.

    Only Wer and UKF have linear progression and having a choice of what you want to unlock is actually a bonus not drawback... Soviet have a choice to unlock as many building as they want and/or fill any gaps with a plethora of doctrinal units. That is a bonus not a draw back.

    I have respond to the no support weapon argument plenty of times pls do not repeat it.

    Except they have no support weapons and no non-doctrinal AT support so... and it's a drawback, not a bonus. It is more expensive tech wise to field a competent infantry army with support weapons for Soviets then it is for literally any other faction. This is irrefutable undeniable fact.

  • #219
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,595

    @AceOfTitanium said:
    @Katitof I am sorry to break it for you but if you havent noticed this is a game that is based on historical facts and even the developers say they try to be as historically correct as possible while sometimes deviating a bit for balance reasons.

    >

    Game yes, balance not. Sorry to burst your bubble, hope you'll get over it.
    If it was based on historical facts, for every P4 you can have, soviets would always have 20-30 T34s, quality of your infantry would be great in early game, but would be crap by late game, while only soviets would keep getting veterans and fights vs UKF or brits would be literally unwinnable for you, because that is based on historical facts.

    Sorry, you can't be historical and equal at the same time, everyone with more then 2 working brain cells knows that.

  • #220
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,722
    edited November 2016

    @Lazarus said:
    Except they have no support weapons and no non-doctrinal AT support so... and it's a drawback, not a bonus. It is more expensive tech wise to field a competent infantry army with support weapons for Soviets then it is for literally any other faction. This is irrefutable undeniable fact.

    Only you are mistaken

    Wer cost of making T1 and T2 is :

    80/10
    100/40
    200/20
    ______/
    380/70

    The soviet cost for having T1 and T2 is:
    160/10
    160/20
    ______/
    320/30

    so NO it is not more expensive to "field a competent infantry army with support weapons for Soviets then it is for literally any other faction."

    and the luck of doctrinal AT is not actually an issue for Soviet BECAUSE they have access to DOCTRINAL solutions as part of their Faction design. So PLS stop using an argument that is simply wrong.

    In addition Soviet are flexible enough to have substitutes to T2 utility in T3, you want AT you get a SU-76, you want indirect fire support you get a SU-76, you want suppression you get a Quad.

    Soviet are able to adapt to most situation, went T1 and you are ahead go straight to T3, went T1 but did not manage to get ahead built T2, went to T1 and want to blob or things went terrible wrong chose a doctrine and call in the unit you need...

  • #221
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017
    edited November 2016

    @Vipper said:

    @Lazarus said:
    Except they have no support weapons and no non-doctrinal AT support so... and it's a drawback, not a bonus. It is more expensive tech wise to field a competent infantry army with support weapons for Soviets then it is for literally any other faction. This is irrefutable undeniable fact.

    Only you are mistaken

    Wer cost of making T1 and T2 is :

    80/10
    200/20
    _______/
    280/30

    Lumping phase tech as part of the cost of the respective tier is incorrect. What if, in 4 v 4s you skip T3 altogether? Does that mean that Phase 2 unlocked nothing? Do you add that cost on to T4 making it even more expensive? The answer is you treat it as any other sidegrade in the HQ. It's just a requirement.

    Your Soviet math is correct.

    Unless of course, you WANT to include the phasing cost, in which case you need to also include the Soviet AT Grenade and Molotov upgrades, seeings as that's part of what the phase unlock pays for - your rifle grenades and your LMGs

    So YES it is more expensive to field a competent infantry army with support weapons for Soviets then it is for literally any other faction.

    Requiring specific doctrines to make a faction playable is not part of Soviet design. It hasn't been a part of their design since USF/OKW were released. You are incorrect in stating that argument is wrong, because that argument is right.

  • #222
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,722
    edited November 2016

    @Lazarus said:
    Unless of course, you WANT to include the phasing cost, in which case you need to also include the Soviet AT Grenade and Molotov upgrades, seeings as that's part of what the phase unlock pays for - your rifle grenades and your LMGs

    So YES it is more expensive to field a competent infantry army with support weapons for Soviets then it is for literally any other faction.

    Actually NO you do not need molotvs and AT grenades to have what you describe as "field a competent infantry army with support weapons", and yes I have calculated both Wer tech (since you can not built T2 without researching T2) and Soviet cost correctly.

    So NO once more "It is NOT more expensive tech wise to field a competent infantry army with support weapons for Soviets then it is for literally any other faction. This is irrefutable undeniable fact.."

    This NOT an " irrefutable undeniable fact" simply admit that your sentence is wrong.

    Requiring specific doctrines to make a faction playable is not part of Soviet design. It hasn't been a part of their design since USF/OKW were released.

    Only Soviets do not need specific doctrines to have access to have call-in units or doctrinal upgrades to conscripts, they majority of Soviet commander have them because the faction is designed that way (to have many and some extremely cost efficient call in units).

  • #223
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Vipper said:
    yes I have calculated both Wer tech (since you can not built T2 without researching T2) and Soviet cost correctly.

    So NO once more "It is NOT more expensive tech wise to field a competent infantry army with support weapons for Soviets then it is for literally any other faction. This is irrefutable undeniable fact.."

    Actually, YES one additional time, seeings as you have incorrectly calculated Wehrs teching in relation to the Soviets. Either you include the molotovs and AT grenades, or you don't include the phasing for rifle grenades and LMGs. This is non-negotiable. Do it or stop talking.

    @Vipper said:
    Only Soviets do not need specific doctrines to have access to have call-in units or doctrinal upgrades to conscripts, they majority of Soviet commander have them because the faction is designed that way (to have many and some extremely cost efficient call in units).

    No.

  • #224
    2 years ago
    @vipper you left out the 40 fuel and 250mp the soviet will need to slend in order to get snare + molitov as well as the sidegrade that grants access to conscripts weapon upgrade, all of which is rolled into the ost teching. Meaning pound for pound the ost OS getting more despite paying less. You cant argue about paying more for tech and ignore the other things that come with it.
  • #225
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,984
    @Lazarus I've got to side with Vipper on this one. In order to have a competent and functional army Wehr has to build both T1 and T2 because you have to have both to have the same choice of units Soviets get when building T1 and T2. Without T2 Wehr is nothing. You can skip T1 but you can't skip T2. So in order for Wehr to be a competent army it needs T2.
  • #226
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,722
    edited November 2016

    @Lazarus said:

    Either you include the molotovs and AT grenades, or you don't include the phasing for rifle grenades and LMGs. This is non-negotiable.

    Since you can NOT build T2 without researching it your claim is simply wrong, the fact that T2 research provides other bonuses is irrelevant.

    Your illogical, stubborn denial of admit of making a mistake is simple proof that there is little point in debating anything with you.

    NO

    Stubbornly deny all you want but out of the 21 Soviet commander 18 have some sort of call in units and from the 3 left 2 have some sort of conscript upgrade leaving 1 with no call in or conscripts upgrades.

    Since you seem incapable of accepting simple facts will avoid debating anything with you. Have a nice day.

  • #227
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,722
    edited November 2016

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    @vipper you left out the 40 fuel and 250mp the soviet will need to slend in order to get snare + molitov as well as the sidegrade that grants access to conscripts weapon upgrade, all of which is rolled into the ost teching. Meaning pound for pound the ost OS getting more despite paying less. You cant argue about paying more for tech and ignore the other things that come with it.

    I did not leave anything out I simply responded to a claim , if one has access to penal and ATG there little reason to tech molotovs and AT grenades to "field field a competent infantry army with support weapons for Soviets then it is for literally any other faction."

    In addition Soviet do not have to tech anything to have competent infantry with support weapons they can get it via doctrines and as I have explain T3 provides most of the utility of T2.

    The claim does not prove anything and is wrong. For instance the USF
    with the same logic in order to have a "field a competent infantry army with support weapons "
    They need:
    200 50 Lieutenant
    200 60 Captain
    150 15 weapon racks
    150 25 grenades
    _______/
    700 150
    and that is far more....

  • #228
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,722
    edited November 2016

    @Hingie said:
    @Lazarus I've got to side with Vipper on this one. In order to have a competent and functional army Wehr has to build both T1 and T2 because you have to have both to have the same choice of units Soviets get when building T1 and T2. Without T2 Wehr is nothing. You can skip T1 but you can't skip T2. So in order for Wehr to be a competent army it needs T2.

    His argument is far worse, he removed the research cost of T2 (because it also unlock lmgs and grenades...) as if one can actually built T2 without researching it...

  • #229
    2 years ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 3,047 mod

    Vipper. Don't multipost. Post your responses in one post.

  • #230
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855
    edited November 2016

    edited

  • #231
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Vipper said:

    @Lazarus said:

    Either you include the molotovs and AT grenades, or you don't include the phasing for rifle grenades and LMGs. This is non-negotiable.

    Since you can NOT build T2 without researching it your claim is simply wrong, the fact that T2 research provides other bonuses is irrelevant.

    Incorrect. It is relevant. Your assertion that it is irrelevant is simply wrong, and irrelevant

    @Vipper said:
    Your illogical, stubborn denial of admit of making a mistake is simple proof that there is little point in debating anything with you.

    I feel you'll find it's your absolute inability to grasp any logical or reasoned argument is impeding the debate. Sort out the man in the mirror before you try to tell me what to do.

    @Vipper said:
    Stubbornly deny all you want but out of the 21 Soviet commander 18 have some sort of call in units and from the 3 left 2 have some sort of conscript upgrade leaving 1 with no call in or conscripts upgrades.

    Still no. You can't say because a doctrine has shocks it counts as filling the AT gap in T1. Your assertion is wrong and your ideas for the Soviet faction are outdated. Please download all patches that have been released since mid 2014 and join us in the current version before discussing balance further.

  • #232
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    I'm not really sure what this thread is really discussing balance wise, some of you are arguing about historical context, others the relation between grens/cons and finally two of you are fighting over the flexibility and tech costs of Wher and Sov.

  • #233
    2 years ago
    MisterBastardMisterBas… Posts: 285
    edited November 2016

    Cons need love, either they get cheaper, or better...Penals are now the core infantry unit, and that is simply wrong..."but, but they dont have AT" sure because AXis factions run around with crazy light tanks within a few minutes so you need AT...(sarcasm off)

    Penals should either go close combat and loose long range combat capability, or be more long range and loose the flamethrower/semi autos...third option is to decrease squad size for one model.

  • #234
    2 years ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588

    @Farra13 said:
    I'm not really sure what this thread is really discussing balance wise, some of you are arguing about historical context, others the relation between grens/cons and finally two of you are fighting over the flexibility and tech costs of Wher and Sov.

    Right... 4 pages out of 8 is totally offtopic. I think this topic could have deserve more...

  • #235
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    So back on topic, looking at the commander and the strength of penals. It's rather telling that people mass them and ignore the use of conscripts who are supposed to protect and support them.

    If they are going to be nerfed, surely it should be recieved accuracy and their close range damage. Pushing them into the long/mid range glass cannons that they were clearly designed to be.

    For the moment, replace the heavy mortar with the incendiary barrage to prevent them countering weapon teams so early, thus preventing a large blob of penals/guard from snowballing to vet 3 and being able to support/protect the t70.

  • #236
    2 years ago

    Them having a flamer means you cannot be anywhere but in the open/yellow to stand a chance. Even if you prepare in green cover/sandbags/buildings you're screwed. As OKW you lose every engagement until (if) Obers arrives.

  • #237
    2 years ago

    I understand that if people have two similar infantry choices (similar role) they will always choose the stronger one and I also understand that when people go tier 1 and build penals they open themselves to light armor attacks, unless they catch the light vehicle out of position and have enough cons with anti-tank grenades in range, so obviously they choose a commander with guards equipped with PRTS anti-tanks rifles to help in that department. Here is where the problem lies, penals being a better version of cons and tier 1 having no anti-light vehicle counter.

    So the solution that I see is to take away the flamethrower and give penals PTRS rifles in tier 1 and make them more of an anti-light vehicle infantry that tier 1 needs and give the option to upgrade guards with PTRS rifles or the DP lmg to give the player more options.

  • #238
    2 years ago
    newshatterhandnewshatte… Posts: 278
    edited November 2016

    @AceOfTitanium said:
    I understand that if people have two similar infantry choices (similar role) they will always choose the stronger one and I also understand that when people go tier 1 and build penals they open themselves to light armor attacks, unless they catch the light vehicle out of position and have enough cons with anti-tank grenades in range, so obviously they choose a commander with guards equipped with PRTS anti-tanks rifles to help in that department. Here is where the problem lies, penals being a better version of cons and tier 1 having no anti-light vehicle counter.

    So the solution that I see is to take away the flamethrower and give penals PTRS rifles in tier 1 and make them more of an anti-light vehicle infantry that tier 1 needs and give the option to upgrade guards with PTRS rifles or the DP lmg to give the player more options.

    Penals are not a better version of cons, they are completely different units. Cons strenght is their AT nade and merge, penal strength is AI and anti garrison.

    T1 does not really need AT because T0 has some AT and su76 can be had quickly, though it would be convenient. The main problem here is that while the T0 AT is there, it just is not convenient because the upgrade and cons cost kinda much for what they do. Especially when you have only 1-2 con squads buying a 150mp 15fuel upgrade that only so few squads benifit from is really meh.

    People get guards as a life saver when they do not have enough cons and their su76 timing is off. Or just because guards are a nice allround squad with a good grenade to have anyways. Guards can also somewhat replace a con squad since they have AT damage/slow.

  • #239
    2 years ago
    @newshatterhand So you only build cons for the snare? I personally find cons a pretty ok anti infantry unit, you have to flank, use them in numbers and always use cover thats the problem, players nowadays are just used to blobing and going around the map not using cover (usf and ukf fault) and then they whine saying that the unit is too weak and other units are overpowered.
  • #240
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,595

    @AceOfTitanium said:
    @newshatterhand So you only build cons for the snare? I personally find cons a pretty ok anti infantry unit, you have to flank, use them in numbers and always use cover thats the problem, players nowadays are just used to blobing and going around the map not using cover (usf and ukf fault) and then they whine saying that the unit is too weak and other units are overpowered.

    Must be the reason why top players use conscripts in every single game, because there isn't much blobbing there.
    Oh wait, they aren't, because its a gimmick unit that isn't good at anything but being a meatshield and mergebots for real infantry.

  • #241
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,722

    @Katitof said:
    Must be the reason why top players use conscripts in every single game, because there isn't much blobbing there.
    Oh wait, they aren't, because its a gimmick unit that isn't good at anything but being a meatshield and mergebots for real infantry.

    Since Penal are OP conscript are used as meatshield and merge bots but that does not actually prove that conscripts are up...

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.