Why Soviets are OP

Volks nades equal soviet flamer. Rifle Grenades are strong but they don't pose a fundamental balance problem. ZIS Guns do because they guarantee you indirect fire with no trade offs.

That is completely irrelevant in regards to what I have said and it is what Hannibal said, factional flavor difference.

If its so overpowered in your eyes, play soviets and get rank #1 already, because it is not going to change.

But I did give short explanations? Some of it is just self evident to anyone who plays the game. I don't need to make calculations to prove that soviets float ammo because it's an obvious fact you can deduce from playing the game. Same with a lot of the other issues.

That's the issue: you are 100% convinced by it and therefore conclude you must be 100% right since everything is self evident, which is often not the case.
Example: your ammo point.
I just gave you a quick calc showing that Sov have roughly the same ammo need for their mainline (at least when playing T2), they just spend it later (however I forgot the Ost medic bunker). Apart from mainline upgrades, why do Axis suddenly need more ammo? They do not. Axis have quicker access to nades, but if you spend ammo on nades instead of mines then this is a choice.
The ammo difference up to the midgame is about 1 mine.

Also your point about popcap - that's a mere statement. Your point about the normal T34 is the same and I would even say factually wrong since all P4s are much stronger in survivability. Other point are as I already said faction flavor, just like Axis get stock access to elite infantry for example. If I want to explain how Obers are OP vs Allies a mere 'they exist' is not a good argument. I'd rather have to explain how they completely shut down Allies play with very few counters and deduce that they lack a weakness or something. But this is missing in many of your points.

Volks nades equal soviet flamer. Rifle Grenades are strong but they don't pose a fundamental balance problem. ZIS Guns do because they guarantee you indirect fire with no trade offs.

For the zis the trade off is not having any real nades. No bundles no normal nades stock. Not having a retreating or snare capable at gun.

The range on inc nades is longer. They have a far greater chance to throw them on an hmg facing frontaly then cons ever will. Cons can however use sprint and outflank an hmg. But the molly has shorter range and a long throw animation below vet 2.

That is completely irrelevant in regards to what I have said and it is what Hannibal said, factional flavor difference.

If its so overpowered in your eyes, play soviets and get rank #1 already, because it is not going to change.

What kind of logic is that? Your rank is relative to other people playing the same faction. I'm obviously not a good player so how could I get rank 1 when much better players can use the same op faction. "Factional flavor difference" affects balance and gameplay what you call it really doesnt matter.

What kind of logic is that? Your rank is relative to other people playing the same faction. I'm obviously not a good player so how could I get rank 1 when much better players can use the same op faction. "Factional flavor difference" affects balance and gameplay what you call it really doesnt matter.

It is what it is.
It is not going to change.
Multiple people already explained you why multiple times, covering your eyes and ears harder isn't going to erase balance facts they have presented.
OKW will always be allowed to put trucks forward, ost will always have 4 man grens without doctrine, ZiS will always have barrage that is effective if you chose to idle in range for the barrage.
It was already balanced multiple times, it lost wipe potential for consistent damage.
Chances are close to 0 that we'll get another patch.

Stop putting half-dead weapon teams in front of ZiS guns.

That's the issue: you are 100% convinced by it and therefore conclude you must be 100% right since everything is self evident, which is often not the case.
Example: your ammo point.
I just gave you a quick calc showing that Sov have roughly the same ammo need for their mainline (at least when playing T2), they just spend it later (however I forgot the Ost medic bunker). Apart from mainline upgrades, why do Axis suddenly need more ammo? They do not. Axis have quicker access to nades, but if you spend ammo on nades instead of mines then this is a choice.
The ammo difference up to the midgame is about 1 mine.

Also your point about popcap - that's a mere statement. Your point about the normal T34 is the same and I would even say factually wrong since all P4s are much stronger in survivability. Other point are as I already said faction flavor, just like Axis get stock access to elite infantry for example. If I want to explain how Obers are OP vs Allies a mere 'they exist' is not a good argument. I'd rather have to explain how they completely shut down Allies play with very few counters and deduce that they lack a weakness or something. But this is missing in many of your points.

Soviets are not an ammo starved faction and can spam mines without much trade off. It's simple as that. If you deny this I recommend watching any soviet game of the last 7 years.

I can't mathematically prove that OKW pop cap is worse than soviet because you can't really assign an objective value to units. I'm still correct tho. It's not even controversial among people who play the game as far as I know. My point about P4 and T3476 still stands. They take the same amount of pak shots and generally fulfill the same role. The differences really only come into play when they encounter each other.

It is what it is.
It is not going to change.
Multiple people already explained you why multiple times, covering your eyes and ears harder isn't going to erase balance facts they have presented.
OKW will always be allowed to put trucks forward, ost will always have 4 man grens without doctrine, ZiS will always have barrage that is effective if you chose to idle in range for the barrage.
It was already balanced multiple times, it lost wipe potential for consistent damage.
Chances are close to 0 that we'll get another patch.

Stop putting half-dead weapon teams in front of ZiS guns.

It doesn't matter whether there will be a patch. That's not the point. Forward OKW trucks and 4 men grens are not a problem. You can't avoid ZIS Barrage if you don't want to just have your mgs idling in front of your base. Multiple people have explained absolutely nothing. The one person who responded and actually plays the game made good points that align with what I said.

the T-34-76 would be good if it arrived earlier than the panzer 4... but expensive sov teching means they arrive at around the same time while the T-34 doesnt have the same anti tank as the panzer 4

t34/76 is the most cost efficient tank in the game and zis gun is op, there isnt really something to argue about that.

If you want to disagree with GiaA's statement that soviet is OP i suggest you start mentioning healing and ostruppen

Soviets are not an ammo starved faction and can spam mines without much trade off. It's simple as that. If you deny this I recommend watching any soviet game of the last 7 years.

OKW can spam mines just as much if they don't throw flame nades left and right.
If you will see cons using molos and oorah as often as OKW throws flame nades, you would not see any greater number of mines. If soviets pick any weapon upgrade doctrine or elite infantry, OKW ends up having more muni to spend around as shocks constantly throw nades, guards aren't exactly muni light and SVTs and PPSHs have similar cost, except you'll see more cons then volks therefore more muni for them.
The only 2 REALLY muni starved factions are UKF and USF.

I can't mathematically prove that OKW pop cap is worse than soviet because you can't really assign an objective value to units.

What do you think stats like cost, build time and yes, pop cap are exactly?
These are literally objective values of units based on their potency in relation to rest of the faction roster as well as other factions archetype of same or similar role.

I'm still correct tho. It's not even controversial among people who play the game as far as I know. My point about P4 and T3476 still stands. They take the same amount of pak shots and generally fulfill the same role. The differences really only come into play when they encounter each other.

Bad players complain about everything.
I can't see how you are "being correct" on a list that makes good players cry from laughter.

And the sole fact that you still firmly believe you are right, despite what other people have presented in response is a testament to the fact that you are nowhere near the personal ability to use units to their strengths.

That same T34/76 argument is fundamental proof.
T34 is anti infantry tank that can only be a meat shield for real AT units, P4 can contest and beat all allied stock meds, in case of OKW P4 its not even a contest.
The amount of PENETRATING shots might be the same, but you are completely oblivious to the fact that T34 will ALWAYS be penned by AT units and P4s can actually bounce them and that lil difference alone completely disassembles your already very weak argument.

t34/76 is the most cost efficient tank in the game and zis gun is op, there isnt really something to argue about that.

If you want to disagree with GiaA's statement that soviet is OP i suggest you start mentioning healing and ostruppen

Yea, everyone's busy arguing minor details but no one mentions the elefant in the room.

t34/76 is the most cost efficient tank in the game and zis gun is op, there isnt really something to argue about that.

If you want to disagree with GiaA's statement that soviet is OP i suggest you start mentioning healing and ostruppen

well cheap at 90 fuel doesnt mean its the best or the most cost efficient... its very lethal infantry and it wrecks heavies in ram + offmap combos... but the P4 is much better vs vehicles and arrives earlier/at the same time as the T-34 due to teching cost... the sherman on the other hand has a good gun superb HE self repair and directable smoke...

yes the T-34 is a good tank but its impact is reduced because of expensive sov teching...

OKW can spam mines just as much if they don't throw flame nades left and right.
If you will see cons using molos and oorah as often as OKW throws flame nades, you would not see any greater number of mines. If soviets pick any weapon upgrade doctrine or elite infantry, OKW ends up having more muni to spend around as shocks constantly throw nades, guards aren't exactly muni light and SVTs and PPSHs have similar cost, except you'll see more cons then volks therefore more muni for them.
The only 2 REALLY muni starved factions are UKF and USF.




What do you think stats like cost, build time and yes, pop cap are exactly?
These are literally objective values of units based on their potency in relation to rest of the faction roster as well as other factions archetype of same or similar role.




Bad players complain about everything.
I can't see how you are "being correct" on a list that makes good players cry from laughter.

And the sole fact that you still firmly believe you are right, despite what other people have presented in response is a testament to the fact that you are nowhere near the personal ability to use units to their strengths.

That same T34/76 argument is fundamental proof.
T34 is anti infantry tank that can only be a meat shield for real AT units, P4 can contest and beat all allied stock meds, in case of OKW P4 its not even a contest.
The amount of PENETRATING shots might be the same, but you are completely oblivious to the fact that T34 will ALWAYS be penned by AT units and P4s can actually bounce them and that lil difference alone completely disassembles your already very weak argument.

Penetration is unreliable and not a real argument. You can't expect a p4 to bounce ZIS guns unless you wanna take a massive gamble. T34/76 does the same thing for way less fuel cost. No one with a good understanding of the game has disagreed with me so far. All I've seen is forum warriors bringing up arguments that are compeltely detached from reality.

Penetration is not a real argument

That's a good way to discredit yourselfs there. Penetration is one of the major things that has been/is used in pretty much every balance update this game has had so far. So it is a good argument to bring up.

Penetration is unreliable and not a real argument.

what?

That's a good way to discredit yourselfs there. Penetration is one of the major things that has been/is used in pretty much every balance update this game has had so far. So it is a good argument to bring up.

I need to elaborate: In practice armor doesn't really make that much of a difference when it comes to mediums because you cannot expect your tank to bounce ATGun shots. So you still have to calculate with 4 shots -> dead when making decisions. Armor onyl comes into play when the mediums battle each other 1v1 or one gives chase to the other. Both of these situations don't happen frequently.

OKW can spam mines just as much if they don't throw flame nades left and right.
If you will see cons using molos and oorah as often as OKW throws flame nades, you would not see any greater number of mines. If soviets pick any weapon upgrade doctrine or elite infantry, OKW ends up having more muni to spend around as shocks constantly throw nades, guards aren't exactly muni light and SVTs and PPSHs have similar cost, except you'll see more cons then volks therefore more muni for them.
The only 2 REALLY muni starved factions are UKF and USF.

id say thats not true, okw cant really afford to spam mines. not because of munition requirements but pio availability. Sturms are already overtaxed with sweeping, repairing etc as a single unit. Soviets usually have two engies (and dont need a sweeper against okw) that can be on the battlefield alot longer thanks to merge and therefore have more time to plant mines. add trip wires on every mainline and i would argue that you cant keep up with soviet mine spam as any faction.

btw... at what point in time did UKF become muni starved?

well cheap at 90 fuel doesnt mean its the best or the most cost efficient... its very lethal infantry and it wrecks heavies in ram + offmap combos... but the P4 is much better vs vehicles and arrives earlier/at the same time as the T-34 due to teching cost... the sherman on the other hand has a good gun superb HE self repair and directable smoke...

yes the T-34 is a good tank but its impact is reduced because of expensive sov teching...

saving 30-50 fuel compared to their axis counter parts goes a long way. Yes they are not even close to the best medium but reaching a critical mass adding other t4 vehicles is very easy, ram and cap on top makes them very versatile.
IM not sure about this, but isnt the p4 and t34 usually out around the same time cause soviets get a t70?

I need to elaborate: In practice armor doesn't really make that much of a difference when it comes to mediums because you cannot expect your tank to bounce ATGun shots. So you still have to calculate with 4 shots -> dead when making decisions. Armor onyl comes into play when the mediums battle each other 1v1 or one gives chase to the other. Both of these situations don't happen frequently.

soo are we arguing about penetration or armor? because your argument has 0 application on the major advantage of the Panzer 4 over the T-34 (which is penetration)

saving 30-50 fuel compared to their axis counter parts goes a long way. Yes they are not even close to the best medium but reaching a critical mass adding other t4 vehicles is very easy, ram and cap on top makes them very versatile.
IM not sure about this, but isnt the p4 and t34 usually out around the same time cause soviets get a t70?

while agree they are effective when mass they would still lose to an equivally priced mass of panzer 4s pretty handedly... where the T-34 really excells at is fighting panthers and tigers due to ram + offmap/AT nade/SU-85 combos... but against panzer 4s? the T-34 is actually not efficient...

yeah the soviets get the T-70... after being bullied for 20 minutes by the lack of weapon upgrades and the impotent machinegun (airborne soviet need not apply)

soo are we arguing about penetration or armor? because your argument has 0 application on the major advantage of the Panzer 4 over the T-34 (which is penetration)

Penetration and Armor literally go hand in hand. What I said goes for both.

Penetration and Armor literally go hand in hand. What I said goes for both.

soo if penetration is soo useless along with armor in your eyes then id love for axis tanks to have 0 penetration and armor... after all penetration and armor is just a useless stat and they will do fine without it...