Why Soviets are OP

I'm not saying what is more reliable, I'm saying overall. Not pin pointing the specific ranks or gamemodes, to begine with, because it differs.

But regarding oppenings:
Full cons, full penals, Flame M3, sniper(s), Maxim spam and mix of mentioned.

Lol. Every factions has that then.

OKW: Full Volks, 221 opening, Full Fusiliers, Sturmpio spam, Kubel\Spio duo
Ost: AssGrens, MG spam, OSttrupen, Grens, Sniper(s)
Usf: Pathfinders, Rifles, RE spam, WC51, Assault Engineers
UKF: MG spam, IS spam, Assault Sections, UC

HOW is that different? That's the dumbest point here.

So I dont consider this an aurgument that stock soviet units suck, because they are not ment to be played only with stock units to begin with.

You know why? Because SOV has shortcomings that can and should be exploited by the opponent. Meaning that it has a weakness. And being reliant on commanders is already a sign that's it's not all perfect.

Good that you have said "imo".
Otherwise you would actually have to provide a proof that would magically contradict the data Syphon collected for couple of months, compiled and provided in a thread and prove exact opposite to what he has presented.
And with that "imo" of yours, its just another, completely irrelevant, random opinion of yours.

Read what he wrote about how to interpret the data and where it is specifically stated that it should not be used as a factons' strength benchmark.

I look forward to OP doing this for each faction. Really get the fanboy juices flowing all around

It comes down to this:

I think there can be little doubt that Soviet vs OKW is skewed towards soviets.

Soviet vs OH is harder to judge and I don't doubt for a second that in automatch Osttruppen and maybe even AssGrens dominate. But imo wehr is forced into closing the game early on otherwise they're fighting an extreme uphill battle due to the reasons mentioned in op. This goes beyond reasonable asymmetrical balance imo.

Then the faction is not OP (though u mention the intent of the title is to bring up discussion) but rather poorly designed.

SU vs OKW match up been skewed (in your opinion) would mostly be attributed to OKW problems rather than needing SU changes (IMO)
SU vs OH match up atm, i don't think there's a huge uphill battle till we talking about games making it pass the 25/30 min mark and Soviets manage to get on equal footing and have everything upgraded without losing vet on their units. At that point i don't think it's imba but rather than Soviets have an easier execution.

What i found amusing is that you are suggesting nerfs towards Soviets at the key moments they are at their weakest furthering increasing the problem.

Soviets ARE OP - a fact in my OPINION

I'm sure you realise the problem in logic behind this.

Read what he wrote about how to interpret the data and where it is specifically stated that it should not be used as a factons' strength benchmark.

Still holds infinitely more value then "I have said so" of yours and GiaAs.

Still holds infinitely more value then "I have said so" of yours and GiaAs.

It only proves you draw conclusions from sth that should not be used this way. The author of those stats explained how wrong drawing such conclusions is. Yet, you are still convinced. Hard to comment past this point.

I have repeated already in a few exchanges we had so far that by accusing me of not using stats you should at least use the stats that prove your points. Not the stats which not only not prove it but specifically warn against such way of using them. I keep following all tourneys and look through stats and play all factions. I know what I'm writing about.

I'm sure you realise the problem in logic behind this.

I do Just made it milder this way. Cost vs efficiency is probably the biggest strength of the Soviets. Many units can give a player so much more than they pay for if used correctly. Not that the Brits are inferior here. It seems that there has been some kind of power creep among allied faction racing for the crown of being better than other allied factions. At the same time axis were sort of left in the corner not really joining in into the merry dps boost festival.

@Moderation
Whatever happened to that rule that prohibited having a threat in balance section if OP doesn't use evidence or stats?

I actually thought this was a necro thread because it had 100+ posts when I first saw it like an hour ago. I'm surprised it got over 100+ posts inside 24 hours. Forum had been rather quiet these last few weeks. While I think you have a valid point on the OP lacking evidence in the original post, I think after a few pages we did see some decent pieces of stats regarding the zis gun and 34/76 talk.

I think one of the biggest issues of the forum and posts like these is everyone gets so lost talking about 15 different units and talking points trying to validate or invalidate OP. Threads are typically much more productive when they talk about a few things at a time.

Why Soviets Brits are OP

Other than 6 man support weapons soviets are a generally rounded faction with strong late game that relies on superior numbers or tank destroyers/kv-2.

I think von nailed soviets pretty good right here. I think there is some points to be made about their munition float and then their manpower starvation, but in a quick take this is it.

I think after a few pages we did see some decent pieces of stats regarding the zis gun and 34/76 talk.

I think one of the biggest issues of the forum and posts like these is everyone gets so lost talking about 15 different units and talking points trying to validate or invalidate OP. Threads are typically much more productive when they talk about a few things at a time.

Shouldn't it be on the OP to set up a thread for such a discussion? The stats you referenced were drawn out by the community following a number of "nuh uhs" and "cause I say so" s from the OP.

When the thread starts with nothing but a list of whine you end up with multiple pages of people talking about 15 units and talking points.

A little structure goes a long way

Lol. Every factions has that then.

OKW: Full Volks, 221 opening, Full Fusiliers, Sturmpio spam, Kubel\Spio duo
Ost: AssGrens, MG spam, OSttrupen, Grens, Sniper(s)
Usf: Pathfinders, Rifles, RE spam, WC51, Assault Engineers
UKF: MG spam, IS spam, Assault Sections, UC

HOW is that different? That's the dumbest point here.

More like:
OKW: Full volks or full fusiliers. Kubel is not a game changer.
Ost: Osttruppen\MG spam\Grens\Fast PGs
USF: Pathfinders\Rifles, WC51 (broken rapemachine btw)
UKF: IS\UC, AIC\UC, IC

Now stop being overprotective looking for betrayals of the Rodina, and understand that other factions in general are predictable and it doesnt matter what you do, you can rely on the fact that your standart build would be most likely enouth to fight it.

Only soviets, can fuck you up early game by simple fact that they chose something that you didnt see was coming. But its mostly OKW situation, because of its problems, not soviet ones.

If you just want to hear or prove that soviets are UP\balanced from me or prove this to me, then it would be better to end this conversation right here. I'm not stating they are OP, nor that they are balanced, nor that they are UP.

You know why? Because SOV has shortcomings that can and should be exploited by the opponent. Meaning that it has a weakness. And being reliant on commanders is already a sign that's it's not all perfect.

It signs nothing. Relic made faction in this way. If you dont like it, create time machine and tell Relic from the past that their concept is shit.
Their shortcomings are covered by commanders, because again, faction works this way, if you dont like picking commander and then tell stock soviets have shotcommings, then its your own problem at this point. They do have problems, but it has nothing to do with how faction works, nor this problems should not be adressed at some point.

I didnt say they dont have weakness and neither I said they are OP. They are in general more balance then UKF\USF in terms of powerspikes. But it doesnt change the fact that they are some shitty aspects and blandly OP\poorly balanced aspects.

Commanders should never be a requirement. It's hilarious to read "the soviet will fuck you up of you didn't see what they build coming" being followed by "if you didn't pick a certain commander and thus lack tools tough shit that's your problem" certainly doesn't read as genuine....

Shouldn't it be on the OP to set up a thread for such a discussion? The stats you referenced were drawn out by the community following a number of "nuh uhs" and "cause I say so" s from the OP.

When the thread starts with nothing but a list of whine you end up with multiple pages of people talking about 15 units and talking points.

A little structure goes a long way

The structure OP chose I just don't like. For reasons I said above, I think people get lost in the "here's 15 OP things in this faction" and a lot of times the retort is "ok, well this faction gets these 15 things so....." I don't think there should be 15 different threads for each talking point, but I think the "grand scheme of things" threads aren't great either. Then comes the other issue of having cross thread details and multiple people engaging in select threads only and you have a nice spaghetti mess that not even the balance team could read if they wanted too.

Yes it should be on OP to make the best and hopefully most productive thread possible, but it should also be on the people participating in the threads to not destroy the thread by page 2 with back and fourths.

Yeah the forum isn't too good for skim reading and honestly takes some effort to jump into a thread 100+ posts in where 25 of those posts have 7 different quotes, each replying to a different question or point made etc. Mixed in with another 50 posts of back and fourths of "no ur wrong cause i'm good at game" and "no u".

I think the major disconnect between forum goers here though is something people are not stating. Everyone is putting their experience into their posts as their main source but no one tells each other what that source is. Be it 1v1s or 4v4s. Be it rank 40 or rank 2000. I know there were a few people stating their 1v1 and 2v2 experience, think it was CreativeName but just remembering off my head atm. But other than that no one else really does it. I think that would help a lot with disconnects on back and fourths. T34/85s are one of the best mediums in 1s and 2s probably. In 4s though with mass AT walls, elephants, panther spam etc, they're still ok, but no where near where they are in 1s and 2s.

The structure OP chose I just don't like. For reasons I said above, I think people get lost in the "here's 15 OP things in this faction" and a lot of times the retort is "ok, well this faction gets these 15 things so....." I don't think there should be 15 different threads for each talking point, but I think the "grand scheme of things" threads aren't great either. Then comes the other issue of having cross thread details and multiple people engaging in select threads only and you have a nice spaghetti mess that not even the balance team could read if they wanted too.

Yes it should be on OP to make the best and hopefully most productive thread possible, but it should also be on the people participating in the threads to not destroy the thread by page 2 with back and fourths.

Yeah the forum isn't too good for skim reading and honestly takes some effort to jump into a thread 100+ posts in where 25 of those posts have 7 different quotes, each replying to a different question or point made etc. Mixed in with another 50 posts of back and fourths of "no ur wrong cause i'm good at game" and "no u".

I think the major disconnect between forum goers here though is something people are not stating. Everyone is putting their experience into their posts as their main source but no one tells each other what that source is. Be it 1v1s or 4v4s. Be it rank 40 or rank 2000. I know there were a few people stating their 1v1 and 2v2 experience, think it was CreativeName but just remembering off my head atm. But other than that no one else really does it. I think that would help a lot with disconnects on back and fourths. T34/85s are one of the best mediums in 1s and 2s probably. In 4s though with mass AT walls, elephants, panther spam etc, they're still ok, but no where near where they are in 1s and 2s.

In my experience here the better structured and less ranty threads generally fare better at devolving into crap shoots than the wide net "faction is bad" type ones. Like I said when I resumed this thread, I didn't bother reading past the 2nd page because it was almost all garbage up to that point. I was incredibly surprised the thread even remained to be honest as, while SOME decent discussion lies in the cracks, for the most part its somewhat of a shit sandwich as a whole.

I guess what I'm saying is the opening post sows the ground for the quality of discussing to follow. The higher standard of OP the better caliber of replies. Generally of course.

Commanders should never be a requirement.

Then what is your proposal? Soviets are not Ost\UKF\OKW\USF who pick commander as an option. Half of the soviet units, which counterparts other faction have as stock, comes from commanders. This is faction design. Good or bad, thats how it is.

Sure we can make half of the commander units be stock side tech.

I also think that guards\shocks with proper ajustments could have been made into stock units, where you select either to unlock one of two. T34\85 could have been made into T4 grade, where for additional fuel upgrade it could have replaced T34\76.

But it wont happen, even because it will be a mess to balance and almost all commanders would have to be remade.

It's hilarious to read "the soviet will fuck you up of you didn't see what they build coming" being followed by "if you didn't pick a certain commander and thus lack tools tough shit that's your problem" certainly doesn't read as genuine....

If you re-read it, you will see that I was refering to early game oppenings and builds. And I also didnt say "certain" commanders, I said commanders.

Soviets are made to be played with commander picked, because most of their units are locked behind commanders. Even cons grades locked behind commanders.

Balance team tried to move away from this, by giving cons 7 man grade, by making Penals into semi-elite inf and giving stock AT grade. But soviets will always be faction which requare commander to be picked. Its in its core.

I'm not saying what is more reliable, I'm saying overall. Not pin pointing the specific ranks or gamemodes, to begine with, because it differs.

But regarding oppenings:
Full cons, full penals, Flame M3, sniper(s), Maxim spam and mix of mentioned.

maxim spam is asking for a spanking... the soviet sniper isnt as good as it was anymore... penal opening trades any lategame potential... 4x cons + 1/2 flamer and flamer M3 (against okw) seems like the only real viable opening the soviets have

snip

the fact that the soviets are rated low on the tournament/automatch means that youre wrong

snip about commanders

the soviet commander issue could be fixed though...
The main holes in the soviet line are
1. reliance on a commander for a decent weapon upgrade
2. reliance on a commander for a strong medium
3. reliance on a commander for a working machinegun
4. reliance on a commander for elite infantry


this can be fixed by
1. making the 7 man build come earlier + increased combat stats to match the DPS of an LMG upgrade... the T-70 can be nerfed slightly to balance it out in return
2. removing ram and adding APCR rounds to the T-34-76 (kinda like the US AT gun)
3. buffing the maxim by giving it proper suppression (and to stop assuming that a maxim with good suppression would be OP)
4. this one can be fixed in a number of ways... a penal AI upgrade with smoke or a commander rework to give elite infantry to most doctrines that dont have it etc...

This is faction design. Good or bad, thats how it is.

and that is exactly why the soviets are THE worst faction in the game

4. this one can be fixed in a number of ways... a penal AI upgrade with smoke or a commander rework to give elite infantry to most doctrines that dont have it etc...

Give a nondoctrinal PPSh squad with Conscript PPSh's or a new weaker PPSh if necessary. But I just say this because it still bugs me that the faction known for their heavy use of SMG's in real life actually has the lowest number of SMG's of all 5 factions (zero without doctine).

Give a nondoctrinal PPSh squad with Conscript PPSh's or a new weaker PPSh if necessary. But I just say this because it still bugs me that the faction known for their heavy use of SMG's in real life actually has the lowest number of SMG's of all 5 factions (zero without doctine).

that or we can replace cons PPSH with cons SVT then replace 7 man with 6 ppsh for 60muni ... (3x ppsh sucks)

that or we can replace cons PPSH with cons SVT then replace 7 man with 6 ppsh for 60muni ... (3x ppsh sucks)

I have a couple ideas for it, another one was to have 3 branching mutually exclusive upgrades.

• Regular Army: Add 1 DP-28 to every Conscript Squad
  
• Shock Army: Add 2-3 PPSh to every Conscript Squad
  
• Reserve Army: Add +1 model to every Conscript Squad
  

I have given a lot of thought on what to do with a PPSh squad (whether it is even compatible with this) or what would happen to the doctrinal PPSh, but I haven't ever set on anything solid. I just want to see more PPSh's (and DP-28's)

I have a couple ideas for it, another one was to have 3 branching mutually exclusive upgrades.

• Regular Army: Add 1 DP-28 to every Conscript Squad
  
• Shock Army: Add 2-3 PPSh to every Conscript Squad
  
• Reserve Army: Add +1 model to every Conscript Squad
  

I have given a lot of thought on what to do with a PPSh squad (whether it is even compatible with this) or what would happen to the doctrinal PPSh, but I haven't ever set on anything solid. I just want to see more PPSh's (and DP-28's)

that is a bad design decision.