State of the Soviets

Soviets are simply too strong lategame.

That's due to permanent buffs for Soviets and nerfs especially to Ostheer.

7 men squads + 6 men weapon crews are strong enough. Couple that with gimmicks like the ZIS barrage, ISU-152 that can rule supreme, way too potent KV1s, 60 range tds and an insane IS-2 and you get a super strong lategame faction.

Now consider that Ostheer was nerfed hard enough anyway. With brummbär nerfs (not allowed to counter AT guns), veterancy nerfs to vehicles (vet 2 on the StuG doesn't do much for example) and no decent artillery (Panzerwerfer can kill one weapon crew on a perfect hit but can't cover an area; LeFH was overnerfed aswell) and you can not counter Soviet lategame.

The IS-2 is way more suvrivable because there is no 60 range td with high pen (StuG is 50 range, JPIV for OKW has no pen).

In short: The Soviet in general has too much staying power on the field and can not be pushed off.

The solution: Buffs to Ost T4 at the very least, especially to the Panzerwerfer (maybe even a redesign). Ost needs some decent artillery options that can break a stalemate with the russians, 105mm and Werfer don't cut it. OKW needs some vet redesigns, especially for the JPIV (more pen).

I think the upgrade is mostly fine, the implementation is fun and unique. Given how (probably slightly over-)effecient it has made the Soviet late game, I'd probably just tone down either the reinforcement cost reduction (from 17 to 18/19) or decrease/remove the cooldown bonuses.

It is not fine. If you watched the games, the 7 man upgrade comes about 15+min mark and the squads were quite vet up. Meaning stock cons are more than enough to hold their own without the upgrade. People just didnt try them enough. At least top players showed cons are viable, even without ppsh upgrades!

Leaving the upgrade as it is, or a pity 1 cost nerf OR decrease bonus. Means Grens stay at clear losing ends late game. Like how much to reinforce grens? Their lmg is worthless against cover Cons. Lmg worthless chasing squads. 7man are much easier to stay alive and will eat fresh grens for brekkie. Rifle nades are like scratch against Sov squads.

Soviets are simply too strong lategame.

LeFH was overnerfed aswell) and you can not counter Soviet lategame.

Both ML20 and LeFH were over nerfed. This might have been a good idea for 3v3 and 4v4 but in 2v2 this change had negative consequences. Why should turtling playstyles (on both sides) be rewarded? Makes no sense especially because most 2v2 maps are way too small and narrow and you can't outmanoeuvre people.

Make the IS2 and all other heavy tanks 40-60 fuel more expensive and everything will be much better.

It is not fine. If you watched the games, the 7 man upgrade comes about 15+min mark and the squads were quite vet up. Meaning stock cons are more than enough to hold their own without the upgrade. People just didnt try them enough. At least top players showed cons are viable, even without ppsh upgrades!

Leaving the upgrade as it is, or a pity 1 cost nerf OR decrease bonus. Means Grens stay at clear losing ends late game. Like how much to reinforce grens? Their lmg is worthless against cover Cons. Lmg worthless chasing squads. 7man are much easier to stay alive and will eat fresh grens for brekkie. Rifle nades are like scratch against Sov squads.

Where were you during testing? And to say cons where enough but people dint try hard enough is BS. Bye this logic you dont try enough with ost, their entire roster is sollid including doctrines.

They could not attack any inf nor hold them off their dps late game was pathetic when compared. At one point they got a redicoulous 60% rec acc buff with vet only to allow a snare attempt.

All that utility and recc acc evaporated in the late game except oorah and at nades. So worth 240 mp muni drain vet time high mirco and side tech.
Bundles brums and even rifle nades can one shot them. Pgrens volks obers mop the floor with them, no f×××× given. Volks have very simaler levels off utility but beat them at every stage off the game.
Cons are only more durable if you dont take grenades and ai upgrades into account.

It can still keep the identity of a high armored durable beast. It doesn't need 375 armor for that though when Axis tank destroyers have either low penetration (JP4/StuG) or low range (StuG) / DPM (Panther). ~340 armor would still be a lot higher than the Tiger I's, at least relatively (lower pen weapons firing at it). While giving Axis more viable options (increasing the effectiveness of Jagdpanzer IV / StuG / Panther) to fight it than only the Tiger I.

Not to mention it has gotten a significant firepower increase (against both infantry and vehicles) so it's much more well rounded now, and doesn't need overcompensatingly (and unhealthy) high armor anymore. High armor will be good enough.

Stug im sure is low range + low pen in category.

Where were you during testing? And to say cons where enough but people dint try hard enough is BS. Bye this logic you dont try enough with ost, their entire roster is sollid including doctrines.

They could not attack any inf nor hold them off their dps late game was pathetic when compared. At one point they got a redicoulous 60% rec acc buff with vet only to allow a snare attempt.

All that utility and recc acc evaporated in the late game except oorah and at nades. So worth 240 mp muni drain vet time high mirco and side tech.
Bundles brums and even rifle nades can one shot them. Pgrens volks obers mop the floor with them, no f×××× given. Volks have very simaler levels off utility but beat them at every stage off the game.
Cons are only more durable if you dont take grenades and ai upgrades into account.

I posted my views after the buff. Search my history.

As for in game, in my 2v2 games, yes i see less Cons before. I also thought Cons are unviable from what i read on forums complaints. I believe other players back then thought so too.

But after watching the Wc19. Cons were holding their own BEFORE spending for upgrades. Against Volks, against Grens. AFTER spending the upgrade, they hold too well, too well more than Grens for sure.

So i guess i am wrong. Top players showed Cons do work as they are intended before buffs were really needed.

Stug im sure is low range + low pen in category.

I'm sure that's literally what I said.

low penetration (StuG)
low range (StuG)

I think lowering the is-2s armour is a good move. Increasing the panthers pen with vet would also be a nice change for the general armour match up. All factions should be able to face all units without doctrines and at the price of the panther I don't think it's unreasonable for it to better face heavy armour

I posted my views after the buff. Search my history.

As for in game, in my 2v2 games, yes i see less Cons before. I also thought Cons are unviable from what i read on forums complaints. I believe other players back then thought so too.

But after watching the Wc19. Cons were holding their own BEFORE spending for upgrades. Against Volks, against Grens. AFTER spending the upgrade, they hold too well, too well more than Grens for sure.

So i guess i am wrong. Top players showed Cons do work as they are intended before buffs were really needed.

You are right that cons work until late mid game without doctrines or 7th man. They idea was that doctrinal inf needed to replace them at that point. Problem was those doctrinal inf where even more expensive then counterparts. Sovs where hooked or addicted on doctrines just to be viable after 15 minutes at launch.

But cons do fall short once vet 3/5 kicks in along side earlier ai upgrades and armour from axis. also axis armour bar the stug is a lot better at dropping con models then a t34 or a quad and while m5 quad can supress when stationary it dies in 2 shoot and because of supression it wont kill models fast. Unlike an ostwind wich will obliterate cons.

In the late game cons drain your mp from reinforcing while dropping very little enemy models in return. Their snare has shorter range thus oorah is kinda mandetory for the snare to connect. So its overal more expensive to snare with cons wich is their only real use without 7tm man or doctrines. So without either of those cons always trade bad with anythjng they do. Economicly unviable is the term is was looking for.

That said the 7th man can use a slight tone down. The is2 and all heavies need delays.

What you said for 6man late game cons, apply to 4man grens. Except grens have even less utility, cost more to reinforce and their faust needs line of sight and has longer delays and they are up against higher dps infantry.

So Cons now get late game buff while grens get none. The RD for RA i wont say is comparable to the free buff of 7men and its vet bonus.

It is always a buff here for Axis, but needs another nerf somewhere...

What you said for 6man late game cons, apply to 4man grens. Except grens have even less utility, cost more to reinforce and their faust needs line of sight and has longer delays and they are up against higher dps infantry.

So Cons now get late game buff while grens get none. The RD for RA i wont say is comparable to the free buff of 7men and its vet bonus.

It is always a buff here for Axis, but needs another nerf somewhere...

Grens dont drop as many models and dont require constant ammo to be vaible. Those higher dps inf are quite a bit more expensive as well. Only reinforce cost for grens is high, but they do more damage at range from relative safety.

Yes grens have a higher chance to get wiped but vs soviets its the lowest chance. But grens have a easier time staying at range. Have an actual upgrade early on. They have a good mg, good med to close range troops covering for them regardles of tech choice or doctrine. Grens have their faust from the start and gain lmg rifle nade gradualy with liniar tech. 2 extra ways to reinforce out of base, 3 ways to heal instead of one in both cases like sov non doc. Get a damage reduction at vet 3 like elite inf.

Grenz get their buffs earlier on in the game where cons just get lolotov and at nade. A slight toning down on the 7th man may be in order nothing more for cons.
Grens can maybe get the recc acc back next to damage redution. Is worth looking in too at least.

i don't get it... is2 in game performance doesn't appear to soak up much damage at all, not as effectively as other heavies in the game.. yet that seems to be the primary issue talked about here

i don't get it... is2 in game performance doesn't appear to soak up much damage at all, not as effectively as other heavies in the game.. yet that seems to be the primary issue talked about here

It has the same armour as the KT with more speed and lower pen enemy counters (excluding the heavy case mate TDs, but imo every faction should be able to fight all threats without a commander) makes the is-2 quite potent.

i don't get it... is2 in game performance doesn't appear to soak up much damage at all, not as effectively as other heavies in the game.. yet that seems to be the primary issue talked about here

The IS2 is very durable because it doesn't face 60 range high penetration TDs. Of course with armour/penetration it's a lot about RNG. You can have a P4 pen an IS2 twice in a row if luck is on your side. Especially due to how rear armour works in COH2. Often times shots from the front that are slightly angled end up counting as rear armour hits.

The IS2 is very durable because it doesn't face 60 range high penetration TDs. Of course with armour/penetration it's a lot about RNG. You can have a P4 pen an IS2 twice in a row if luck is on your side. Especially due to how rear armour works in COH2. Often times shots from the front that are slightly angled end up counting as rear armour hits.

Again, the JP IV needs better penetration and the StuG needs a better vet 2 bonus (vet 2 is almost useless). This would already go a long way to balance allied heavy tanks.

Again, the JP IV needs better penetration and the StuG needs a better vet 2 bonus (vet 2 is almost useless). This would already go a long way to balance allied heavy tanks.

OKW Tiger is just as OP as the IS2 in 2v2. Maybe even more so. All heavy tanks will be nerfed soon in regards to CP and hopefully AI firepower, in addition to that lowering the IS2 armour to 340 sounds like a good idea because it is indeed a bit too high at the moment.

JP4 and Stug both already have 100% penetration against every USF and SU non-doctrinal vehicle at max range. They also have 100% penetration vs Cromwell, Centaur and Firefly. If we buffed their penetration they would just become way too OP

Again, the JP IV needs better penetration and the StuG needs a better vet 2 bonus (vet 2 is almost useless). This would already go a long way to balance allied heavy tanks.

JP4 can penetrate 100% of the time almost all of its intended targets, only exception is easy8.
If there is something bigger, JP4 is not intended counter to it.

The IS2 is very durable because it doesn't face 60 range high penetration TDs. Of course with armour/penetration it's a lot about RNG. You can have a P4 pen an IS2 twice in a row if luck is on your side. Especially due to how rear armour works in COH2. Often times shots from the front that are slightly angled end up counting as rear armour hits.

why are we talking about a p4?

what is going on here?>

OKW Tiger is just as OP as the IS2 in 2v2. Maybe even more so. All heavy tanks will be nerfed soon in regards to CP and hopefully AI firepower, in addition to that lowering the IS2 armour to 340 sounds like a good idea because it is indeed a bit too high at the moment.

JP4 and Stug both already have 100% penetration against every USF and SU non-doctrinal vehicle at max range. They also have 100% penetration vs Cromwell, Centaur and Firefly. If we buffed their penetration they would just become way too OP

That is simply cherry picking stats to create a distorted impression.

The stock Comet/Churchill have 290/240 armor and then there are allot more high armor doctrinal tanks and commanders that have them available to allies than there to axis.

Stug/JP have 59% and 70% vs Comet/Churchill.

The FF has 81% chance to penetrate a Panther (highest Ostheer stock unit) max range and SU-85/M36 has 85%.

Vs a brumbar 88% and 92%.

The only stock unit with high armor is the OKW KT.

Increasing the penetration of JP/Stug might make the "way too OP" but it would bring them inline with allied TDs that are already "way too OP" that not only have higher penetration but they also get penetration bonus with veterancy.

Imo IS-2 armor (and other similar units) could easily have their Armor greatly reduced and move to veterancy bonus instead.