Login

russian armor

State of the Soviets

PAGES (17)down
6 Dec 2019, 15:21 PM
#181
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3



They are not starting. They are consistent, you do not lose other units choosing between the Grenadiers and PanzerGrenadiers. At the Soviets, you adjust your gameplay to the unit that is better at the moment and choose between T2 and T1. Grenadiers and Panzergrenadiers complement each other: Grenadiers main unit and ranged, Panzer Grenadiers melee-medium battles and AT support. In the Soviets, this is divided into commanders: the shock troops - CQC. Guard - AT support. In any case, either the Penalties or the Guard are superfluous.


Well my point is a design where cons are the defensive unit and penals are a niche offensive unit could work. It would have to come alongside a T1 redesign.
6 Dec 2019, 15:38 PM
#182
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 1289



No worries.

The problem with the 7 man upgrades people is that it's simply too good of a package.

You're also ignoring what I said earlier. Grens also need tech to get them to peak performance, by the virtue of having to tech twice; researching battle phase and putting down t1 or t2.


As for Soviets, at this moment in time, you will see an IS2 nearly every time. If you face a Soviet in 1v1 or 2v2 right now, there's no way they're not going IS2, unless matchmaking has a fetish of putting me against people who only go IS2.

The fact of the matter is that Wehrmacht is depednent on the MG42. Your Grens are not going to beat Penals, Sections or Rifleman on their unless its under extremely favorable circumstances.

Even basic cons need an MG42 to counter, because there will always be more Cons than Grens.


I can agree that 7th man can be toned down. But not removed. Cons where non excistant late game far more then grenadiers. Before 300mp penals soviets had no inf presence outside doctrinal inf in the late game.
Grenadier are/where easier to vet up when replaced late game cuz of better long range profile and non doc lmg upgrade.

When grens need tech to reach peak preformance that tech also gives acces tech building lmg rifle nade and multyple units to choose from. You will see more cons then grens because cons start out worse in dps terms. You can gave all the hp and utility in the game but it dont mean jack if you cant deal enough damage yourself.

Penals sections rifles all cost more then grenadiers. Thats why they should not win 50/50 vs those units. T34,s get wrecked most of the time vs a single p4 esp okw p4. Because its cheaper. In both cases you need support or have the numerical advantidge. Nothing wrong with that.

So the Is2 just like tigers and other heavies need a delay.
The 7th man can use a towndown. Imo the vet boost and 7th dude needs to stay and cover bonus can be toned down. Decreased reinforce cost removed or toned down. But at nade and molly no lonfer required at t3.
6 Dec 2019, 15:38 PM
#183
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2



Well my point is a design where cons are the defensive unit and penals are a niche offensive unit could work. It would have to come alongside a T1 redesign.


And this will remain which unit is currently more competitive than other units. There should be one starting infantry unit, and T1 and T2 should give the game styles: T1 - aggressive, T2 - defensive
6 Dec 2019, 15:41 PM
#184
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 1289



And this will remain which unit is currently more competitive than other units. There should be one starting infantry unit, and T1 and T2 should give the game styles: T1 - aggressive, T2 - defensive


I dont see that working on a agressive faction. Cons a short range defensive unit with oorah. Penal an agressive unit with no nades or ai upgrade.

It would require a lot if rework wich will likely be out if scope forever.
6 Dec 2019, 15:44 PM
#185
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3



I dont see that working on a agressive faction. Cons a short range defensive unit with oorah. Penal an agressive unit with no nades or ai upgrade.

It would require a lot if rework wich will likely be out if scope forever.


Why though? 7man cons with less rof bonus, 360mp Penals with flamethrower upgrade. Could work.
6 Dec 2019, 15:48 PM
#186
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2



Why though? 7man cons with less rof bonus, 360mp Penals with flamethrower upgrade. Could work.


to a 7-person whine, do you want to add Penals with a flamethrower whine? There will be talk of God, it’s 6 people with self-loading rifles and a flamethrower. Maybe would make them Mosin and a flamethrower? Then these are steroid engineers, or maybe then we’ll give them PPSh? Then why would the Shock Troops be needed?
6 Dec 2019, 15:55 PM
#187
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3



to a 7-person whine, do you want to add Penals with a flamethrower whine? There will be talk of God, it’s 6 people with self-loading rifles and a flamethrower. Maybe would make them Mosin and a flamethrower? Then these are steroid engineers, or maybe then we’ll give them PPSh? Then why would the Shock Troops be needed?


And who cares about the whining? Axis has plenty of powerful infantry, no reason they should be axis exclusive.
6 Dec 2019, 15:56 PM
#188
avatar of thekingsown10

Posts: 232

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Dec 2019, 13:56 PMMusti

Imagine complaining about Maxims in 2019

On the topic of Soviets, why do people see the need for such drastic balancing measures? why not just roll back some of the changes that made them so strong sine last patch and see where that goes? Just nerf the 7-man upgrade a little (regular reinforce costs? no combat bonus in cover?) and push back meta heavy tanks by 1-2 CPs, and we'll have a basis for something.

No need to throw an entire faction under the bus.


Yes a grossly oversized 6 man weapon team with crazy survivability, with super fast set up time and good suppression with a cone of fire that it should never have gotten in the first place and backed up by 7man infantry squads and soviet ultra early game scout cars that single handidly limit any other strategy being used by an entire faction other than going grenadiers yes unbelievable how anyone can anyone complain about that!!
6 Dec 2019, 15:58 PM
#189
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

All of this whining about 7 man con squad could've been avoided if the devs gave cons DP or SVT non-doctrinal!
6 Dec 2019, 16:44 PM
#191
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833

Cons are not the problem, they easily get out traded by the pfuzz meta as last tourny showed. Even late game and 7man they struggle vs vet pfuzz and obers

Where OKW players struggled was when T70 started doing damage, the unit is broken and no FHT or quad does not even come close to the wipe potential. It's just a no brainer unit and was rushed every single game.
6 Dec 2019, 16:45 PM
#192
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


... or maybe then we’ll give them PPSh? Then why would the Shock Troops be needed?

That is like saying that M-42/Dhsk/120/Guards are not needed because similar units are available stock.

There is plenty of room for many units.
6 Dec 2019, 17:11 PM
#193
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Dec 2019, 16:45 PMVipper

That is like saying that M-42/Dhsk/120/Guards are not needed because similar units are available stock.

There is plenty of room for many units.


Here are just the listed units almost out of the game. I don’t know how it is in 1 versus 1 but in 3 after 3 and above - I do not see these units.
 - Even when the M-42 had a really good buckshot shell, it was limited in team games because the ZiS-3 does a better job. And now with the destroyed ability M-42 again offside.
- DShK is not a frequent guest in the game, although not a bad unit. But at the same time, no better than Maxim - Maxim has a wider arc. The DShK has better suppression but a very small arc and a slow turning speed.
- 120 - almost unused, and therefore there has recently been a topic about it.
- Guard - unnecessary. Penaltis with PTRS completely block this unit. I see this unit once on few dozen battles, apparently due to personal preferences.
6 Dec 2019, 17:15 PM
#194
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Here are just the listed units almost out of the game. I don’t know how it is in 1 versus 1 but in 3 after 3 and above - I do not see these units.
 - Even when the M-42 had a really good buckshot shell, it was limited in team games because the ZiS-3 does a better job. And now with the destroyed ability M-42 again offside.
- DShK is not a frequent guest in the game, although not a bad unit. But at the same time, no better than Maxim - Maxim has a wider arc. The DShK has better suppression but a very small arc and a slow turning speed.
- 120 - almost unused, and therefore there has recently been a topic about it.
- Guard - unnecessary. Penaltis with PTRS completely block this unit. I see this unit once on few dozen battles, apparently due to personal preferences.


Just because certain doctrinal units are not used in certain game mode does not mean they are useless.

Dhsk is a great MG that allows players to have HMG access while going T1 and so on...

Just because Shock troops exist it does not mean that Pssh on stock unit will not work.
6 Dec 2019, 17:21 PM
#195
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Shocks would need a heafy buff though is con ppsh became non doc and I don't think anyone wants that.
6 Dec 2019, 17:42 PM
#196
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Shocks would need a heafy buff though is con ppsh became non doc and I don't think anyone wants that.

Stock PPsh for conscripts is not the suggestion and Shock do not need any buff.

A suggestion is that conscript become a defensive infatry and Penal a cheap offensive one.

As for the 7men I would test redesigning completely. Remove the cover bonus and extra entity, keep xp gain and cheaper reinforcement and make a global upgrade costing fuel.

That way it would still be available to conscript with doctrinal weapons keeping the doctrinal abilities attractive.
6 Dec 2019, 19:45 PM
#197
avatar of Leo251

Posts: 311

Cons are not the problem here.
The real problem is the combo T70 + Penal + T34/85 or IS2 + ZIS3 + SU85.
Sovs have no holes.
6 Dec 2019, 20:18 PM
#198
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Dec 2019, 19:45 PMLeo251
Cons are not the problem here.
The real problem is the combo T70 + Penal + T34/85 or IS2 + ZIS3 + SU85.
Sovs have no holes.


Combined arms has no holes, thats the point of combined arms. Use combined arms yourself and out-micro and out-strategize your enemies.
6 Dec 2019, 21:12 PM
#199
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2



I thought this way too.

Imo cons were never mediocre before, just underused under explored. The 7 man buff incentivised player to try cons and discovered they are pretty solid and hold their own when play to their strengths.

Cos t70 was not touched and 7man comes late. So what filled the gap was simply cons are never mediocre.

I made an old whiner topic about new 7cons vet needs tone down, so thankfully post wc19 findings tally with me.

As for is2, similarly i felt Wehr/axis lack pen and the nerf to axis armor values now puts allies armour ahead in hth. Good now we can consider this too with pro results analysis


I disagree with the first Conscript part. Cons were an overall worse unit, even for the price. Against OST they were kind of okay (talking about 2v2 mode where I have most experience), against OKW they were an absolutely bad choice. When I switched to Penals things were getting a lot easier. Cons vet bonuses are very good, but since the squad itself lacks any upgrade losing a Conscript in the late game is very harsh since you cannot boost its DPS to vet it more quickly. The mobilized Reserves experience buff makes a lot of sense in my eyes. Now with Volks being very slightly nerfed and Panzergrenadiere coming earlier for OST, we cannot directly compare to the very old balance anymore, but in my opinion Cons were clearly a worse choice overall, which is also backed up by the metas in all of the tournaments at that time, just like Cons being a bit overbuffed is (also only my opinion) backed up by the most recent tournament. Of course you are free to disagree.

I think the IS2 is part of a general heavy tank problem. All of them come too early now. Some units might need special adjustments, but the first step should be to push heavies back a little and then see how the meta changes and if/what further changes are needed. Timing is a very big deal, as we could see with a lot of units like the Panzergrenadiere.


Soviets are fine, maybe T1 and maxims need changes to become viable, it’s okw and ostheer that need tostop crutching on heavies and improve. Same with UKF.

Fix heavies (more CP and more expensive) and soviets will be fine.


T1 did not get any major changes in the last patches. T1 was very viable and meta before the patches for a very long time. It now just got overshadowed by a late game low-bleed build using Conscripts.
6 Dec 2019, 22:40 PM
#200
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

Well T1 meant Penals plus the M3 cheese. I think the current meta is a good opportunity to redesign it as an option to coexist in addition to the current Cons meta, not instead of it.
PAGES (17)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

535 users are online: 535 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
13 posts in the last week
32 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50074
Welcome our newest member, GeorgiadfHess
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM