State of the Soviets

-I'll argue that all AA should work at the same power level as the Quad. While you can field AA on teamgames, it's a luxury and a conscious decision on 1v1.

-AA can't counter single payload planes in a real game. You don't have free vision and by the time you can see the plane it already has delivered it's payload and it's already leaving the map. If you actually kill it, there's a high chance the plane will crash towards your units.

-AA can't counter most of the time recon planes. Same as single payload planes. There's also a bug which is probably there since game release, on which planes will keep giving vision after they crash in direction North East.

-AA real job is to counter LOITER PLANES.
With this in mind, there are some AA platforms which have decent to great AA capabilities but they lack turret rotations which might make them sometimes unable to fire at all.

I agree with all of this.
Also the usf AA is absolute ass at shooting planes...

Where’s the Soviets weakness? Let’s see:

If you get an AT gun, its rate of fire is abhorrent and you likely won’t get the killing blow on the light vehicle.

ZIS gun a weakness? Wow, most players would like to get a pak with super strong barrage.

No need to be sarcastic. The problem of Soviets isn't so much a single unit but the combination of good units overall, which leaves Soviets with no disadvantage.

It comes down to the question of what makes a good faction? I would say the following aspects (I marked every aspect for the Soviets with school grades (A - F):

1. Cheap units
a) Upfront unit cost (Soviet units are amongst the cheapest in the game) A
b) Reinforcement cost (Soviet infantry is amongst the cheapest to reinforce, Elite inf is a bit more expensive) B
c) Do Upgrades have to be researched? (This is actually a weakness since Molotovs and AT-Nades have to be researched) D

2. Firepower
a) DPS (Soviet infantry maintains a decent DPS) C
b) Wipe potential (Best wiping potential in the game due to big and cheap guns, 120mm mortar, Zis barrage, good mines, T-34/85, KV 8, ISU 152, smaller Axis Squads) A
c) Range (two 60 range TDs, Soviets are good here) A
d) Artillery options (Best artillery options in the game, 152mm, 120mm mortar, B4, Kat) A
e) Flexibility of their units (the abilites are good on some units like the ZIS and bad on others like the T-34 capping ability) C

3. Durability
a) Large squad sices (Soviets have the largest squads and the largest weapon crews) A
b) High HP and armour on vehicles (Again, excellent grades for Soviets, KV1s that can take more hits than Panthers, a great performing IS-2 and of course KV-8s that can dominate Paks even midgame). A

Now where exactly is Soviets weakness? They EXCEL at cost, firepower and durability of their units.

You are overselling some of the points. Like, how do the Soviets have A for wiping potential when they have horrible on the move DPS units and no grenades? Soviets wiping potential comes purely from the T70 and from late game units, and they are worse at wiping squads than the USF units are.

And durability gets an A, eventhough the toughest stock tank is a T34/76 that has barely any armor, no blitz and no smoke.

There are also catagories that you have not mentioned in your list, like infantry based AT options(worst of all factions), forward retreat options (worst of all factions), on the field healing and reinforcement options (worst of all factions). Fortification options (not great).

Now, I don't think Soviets are weak by any strech, but they are not this complete faction with no weaknesses that sticks out above all other factions either.

No need to be sarcastic. The problem of Soviets isn't so much a single unit but the combination of good units overall, which leaves Soviets with no disadvantage.

It comes down to the question of what makes a good faction? I would say the following aspects (I marked every aspect for the Soviets with school grades (A - F):

1. Cheap units
a) Upfront unit cost (Soviet units are amongst the cheapest in the game) A
b) Reinforcement cost (Soviet infantry is amongst the cheapest to reinforce, Elite inf is a bit more expensive) B
c) Do Upgrades have to be researched? (This is actually a weakness since Molotovs and AT-Nades have to be researched) D

2. Firepower
a) DPS (Soviet infantry maintains a decent DPS) C
b) Wipe potential (Best wiping potential in the game due to big and cheap guns, 120mm mortar, Zis barrage, good mines, T-34/85, KV 8, ISU 152, smaller Axis Squads) A
c) Range (two 60 range TDs, Soviets are good here) A
d) Artillery options (Best artillery options in the game, 152mm, 120mm mortar, B4, Kat) A
e) Flexibility of their units (the abilites are good on some units like the ZIS and bad on others like the T-34 capping ability) C

3. Durability
a) Large squad sices (Soviets have the largest squads and the largest weapon crews) A
b) High HP and armour on vehicles (Again, excellent grades for Soviets, KV1s that can take more hits than Panthers, a great performing IS-2 and of course KV-8s that can dominate Paks even midgame). A

Now where exactly is Soviets weakness? They EXCEL at cost, firepower and durability of their units.

I agree mostly but disagree on a few points.

In case off allies and soviets in particular their doctrinal units are always counted as if they where stock. That gives the false impression sov have no weakneses. Ost however docs are all but ignored. example ost squads are 4 men there for squishy, they have 5th men doctrinal option. They have auras to make them more durable and are rarely taken into account or at all. Keeping the premise of weak squads.

First their wipe potential/fire power.
The units u mentioned all doctrinal besides the zis. Stock sovs dont excel at wiping outside the t70 and katty. They lack nades and their dps being decent stock lowers wipe potential substationaly. Only doctrinal inf such as shock and gaurds can. Zis barrage ws nerfed to prevent one shot wipes.
Their mines are capped at 2 models per
squad. Since only the sniper is less then 4 men the wipe potential is very very limitid unles ost dont retreat/reinforce on time.

Durability/reinforce cost.
Their inf is more durable but they face more dps orented inf with powerfull nades. In both dps and nades sov are lacking compared to other factions, they have a C tops. Sov also drop way more models then any other faction in the game. So their cost to reinforce are cheap to compensate. Unlike high armour with high hp you can always bleed with any gun but AT focused guns.

Sov only have high armour in doctrines. Wich until revently where used very little because they did very very lil damage got wrecked by at (old kv1) or missed so much it was irrelevant (is2/kv2)

Sov only have high armour in doctrines. Wich until revently where used very little because they did very very lil damage got wrecked by at (old kv1) or missed so much it was irrelevant (is2/kv2)

Are the soviet doctrines that offer high armour not part of the problem?
Frontline shock rifle offers
- Eite infantry with GREAT wiping potential
- good offmap arty that works well against team weapons
- 2 doctrinal tanks

Armored Assault offers
- radio intercept that gives you a huge advantage in sniper play
- 2 doctrinal tanks
- super strong off map

The T34/85 and IS-2 close EVERY weakness the soviets have in their tank department.
Where is is the trade off of these doctrines? Ost has Strategic Reserves that offers 2 nondoc tanks but dont have off map arty / airstrike. Pershing gives USF a heavy tank but heavy cav offers no strong off map either.
You mentioned rightfully "German infantry" that gives you 5 men squads and erases the glaring weakness of the Wehrmacht. But what do you think would happen if we include a TIger in this doctrine?
Its highly problematic if commanders turn the faction design around and take away nearly faction specific weaknesses. Thats why the IS-2 needs to be toned down.

Are the soviet doctrines that offer high armour not part of the problem?
...

That is a problem with commander design. Commanders with Super heavy tank should have less potent other abilities so the total power of commanders should be at similar levels.

...

3vs3, there will be 2 Quads outcounter everything. They perform like 4 Ostwinds, that isn't normal. Simplly test it.

The quad would be fine with smaller range, so it can't shout over the hole map with that stats.

Are the soviet doctrines that offer high armour not part of the problem?
Frontline shock rifle offers
- Eite infantry with GREAT wiping potential
- good offmap arty that works well against team weapons
- 2 doctrinal tanks

Armored Assault offers
- radio intercept that gives you a huge advantage in sniper play
- 2 doctrinal tanks
- super strong off map

The T34/85 and IS-2 close EVERY weakness the soviets have in their tank department.
Where is is the trade off of these doctrines? Ost has Strategic Reserves that offers 2 nondoc tanks but dont have off map arty / airstrike. Pershing gives USF a heavy tank but heavy cav offers no strong off map either.
You mentioned rightfully "German infantry" that gives you 5 men squads and erases the glaring weakness of the Wehrmacht. But what do you think would happen if we include a TIger in this doctrine?
Its highly problematic if commanders turn the faction design around and take away nearly faction specific weaknesses. Thats why the IS-2 needs to be toned down.

No. Its just that the heavies come to early accros the board.
The trade off is much higher cost for those tanks and inf. The offmaps are not cheap for their effect. Its not that the t34/85 comes at t34/76 price level.
Sov callin inf comes a lot later. Ost has 2 that come at 0cp. While less effective over the course of the game they do cover earlier inf weaknesses of ost nicely.

This to me seems like nitpicking. Ost has 2 scouting ability/upgrade next to an elephant in a doc. 2 off maps in a other. Scouting and strafes in an other. Blitz in many docs effecting all vehicles including the vehicle in the doc it comes with. Strengtening their stronger vehicles and greatly increasing sit awareness and using off maps more easy.

Heavy tanks should be 30-50 fuel more expensive.

-I'll argue that all AA should work at the same power level as the Quad. While you can field AA on teamgames, it's a luxury and a conscious decision on 1v1.

-AA can't counter single payload planes in a real game. You don't have free vision and by the time you can see the plane it already has delivered it's payload and it's already leaving the map. If you actually kill it, there's a high chance the plane will crash towards your units.

-AA can't counter most of the time recon planes. Same as single payload planes. There's also a bug which is probably there since game release, on which planes will keep giving vision after they crash in direction North East.

-AA real job is to counter LOITER PLANES.
With this in mind, there are some AA platforms which have decent to great AA capabilities but they lack turret rotations which might make them sometimes unable to fire at all.

Yep, and that has to be fixed. ^^

Please leave my meat grinder alone.

Armored Assault offers
- radio intercept that gives you a huge advantage in sniper play
- 2 doctrinal tanks
- super strong off map

The T34/85 and IS-2 close EVERY weakness the soviets have in their tank department.
Where is is the trade off of these doctrines? Ost has Strategic Reserves that offers 2 nondoc tanks but dont have off map arty / airstrike. Pershing gives USF a heavy tank but heavy cav offers no strong off map either.
You mentioned rightfully "German infantry" that gives you 5 men squads and erases the glaring weakness of the Wehrmacht. But what do you think would happen if we include a TIger in this doctrine?
Its highly problematic if commanders turn the faction design around and take away nearly faction specific weaknesses. Thats why the IS-2 needs to be toned down.

Maybe we could replace the T34/85 in this doctrine with a M4C Sherman. It's a bit less all purpose but still a good tank so it wont want armored assault such an all round obvious choice.

-I'll argue that all AA should work at the same power level as the Quad. While you can field AA on teamgames, it's a luxury and a conscious decision on 1v1.

Fielding the Quad, specifically, is a luxury in a 1v1. Ostwinds are not, Centaurs are not, and one could argue even the USF and OKW AA HTs have their place in the meta. Only the M5 is absolutely 200% removed from the 1v1 meta.

So I really have no issue with it being the best since its basically useless for any other purpose in the late game and rare to appear earlier in any case.

Fielding the Quad, specifically, is a luxury in a 1v1. Ostwinds are not, Centaurs are not, and one could argue even the USF and OKW AA HTs have their place in the meta. Only the M5 is absolutely 200% removed from the 1v1 meta.

So I really have no issue with it being the best since its basically useless for any other purpose in the late game and rare to appear earlier in any case.

Then there should be no problem even if it was the worse...Unit is simply Op.

It should have its cost reduced and performance adjusted maybe down to 50 MU?

Then there should be no problem even if it was the worse...Unit is simply Op.

It should have its cost reduced and performance adjusted maybe down to 50 MU?

I don't really see why it needs changing at all tbh. It's not like the soviets get access to pintles on their tanks (doctrinal IS-2, M4C and ISU-152 notwithstanding) or light vehicles to otherwise fulfill AA purposes, so in team games it fits a niche nothing else will. If it is the opinion of the community that the M5 is too good by itself than sure, but so far I haven't really seen that to be the case; everyone just wants other AA to be on it's level, which I don't really agree with in any case.

I don't really see why it needs changing at all tbh. It's not like the soviets get access to pintles on their tanks (doctrinal IS-2, M4C and ISU-152 notwithstanding) or light vehicles to otherwise fulfill AA purposes, so in team games it fits a niche nothing else will. If it is the opinion of the community that the M5 is too good by itself than sure, but so far I haven't really seen that to be the case; everyone just wants other AA to be on it's level, which I don't really agree with in any case.

Quad shoot down planes way too fast, faster than any other AA, it can shoot down loiter planes before they fire a single shot. It is as simply as that.

Since it is one of the few AA soviet get one can simply lower the MU cost and lower the performance.

By the way the quad is a solid unit even for ground fights.

Actually planes need an overhaul and replacing the critical with HP was a step in right direction so it should get the go ahead.

I would take ti a bit further and make planes harder to shoot down but have the take "suppression" reducing their effectiveness.

Or make it little bit more expensive, maybe 50mp and 10fuel more BUT remove the mun-price, for that let it spawn as Quad.

Add the soviet-truck in HQ, build-able if T3 is set. This vehicle can be the refresh point, as M5.

-> call in M5 become so more unique, but can also be upgradet to Quad.