[Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback

Could cover generation be removed from the SU 76 (just like the UC) so you can’t find it by seeing the green cover positions it generates

Could cover generation be removed from the SU 76 (just like the UC) so you can’t find it by seeing the green cover positions it generates

This please. Seeing it during Tightrope's video was pretty cringe.

Yes they are. Their semi elite status makes arrive to early and it has been attempted to balance them with long build time that does not work the same across game modes while they fail miserably in "anti light vehicles" role only to be frustrating for both user and opponent with their satchel charges and AT satchels charges.

They're literally inferior to USF Riflemen but cost 20MP more and don't get AI upgrades.

Can we finally stop this clownery with pretending that penals have anything to do with elite infantry?

The only thing they have to do with elite infantry is from back in the day, where picking a doctrine with guards or shocks REPLACED penals with them in T1.

Being better then cons doesn't exactly warrant elite status as that bar is placed rather low and cons are much more cost efficient then penals anyway, especially in late game.

We know that certain someone around here is absolutely batshit terrified of the possibility that penals might get a well deserved buff, but lets not pull random semantical terms out of arse to "prove" that penals do not need the buffs for both, late game scaling and AT late game scaling.

A pretty based and redpilled way of buffing T1 would be to automatically unlock snares from HQ once T1 is built. That way if you go T1 you get snares for free and you can build Conscripts for some stopgap AT until a T3 light vehicle or M42/Guards from doctrines.

They're literally inferior to USF Riflemen but cost 20MP more and don't get AI upgrades.

Penals vs Riflemen

EHP
480 vs 412

DPS 10/20/35
26.6/18.7/10.8 vs 24.1/14.2/8.49

Cost per model
50 mp vs 56 mp

This is my opinion about the Winter Balance Patch update for the Soviets, with a team-game (mostly 4v4) perspective in mind:

Combat Engineers:

I have no problem with reducing the accuracy of the combat engineers, since they are rarely useful in battle anyway, with the exception of when they are equipped with flamethrowers, which shouldn't be affected by the reduction in accuracy (the accuracy change only affects their rifles, right?).

M3 Scout:

The intention of these changes seems pretty good, since the M3 almost never survives very long in a 4v4 team game environment, even with careful attention. I suppose that if an infantry squad can kill the 240 hp, 3.8-armored M3 in approximately the same amount of time as it would take that same infantry squad to kill the 200 hp, 5.4-armored M3, this change will be a success.

Maxim:

These changes seem reasonable. The extra suppression is probably a good idea, considering how hard the Maxim struggles to suppress 2-3 infantry squads, one of which always seems to be able to get up to the front and throw a devastating grenade, no matter how well you micro the gun to suppress each squad. I'm not sure about the retreat speed, though, but we'll see.

ZiS-3 Field Gun:

Let's be honest about this nerf: In addition to giving team weapons more time to react, it will also give every infantry squad 50% more time to react when being barraged. Since this ability will be much less effective vs. team weapon and infantry squads alike, its cost should be correspondingly reduced.

Special Rifle Command:

This build-time reduction is definitely appropriate to offset the map control issue which seems to plague every T1 build in a 4v4.

Penal Battalion:

I'm all for the faster reinforcement and increased survivability, but what's the point in helping this underperforming unit out only to reduce it's accuracy by 50% at Vet 3? I might as well just play with conscripts for the late game. It becomes too expensive to reinforce Penal Battalions in the late game anyway, especially considering that they don't fare much better against elite infantry than Vet 3 conscripts do. This is still an expensive, lackluster AI unit in the late game.

M5 Half-Track:

This appears to be a gigantic anti-air nerf to the M5. I'm ok with this if it brings the anti-air capabilities closer to the Sd.Kfz.251/17 Flak HT, but something should then be done to improve the survivability of the cargo planes which deliver the fuel drops given to the Soviet Lend-Lease and Industry Tactics commanders.

SU-76:

This change is interesting. I usually just go for SU-85's in 4v4 team games, considering how fragile the SU-76 tends to be, but I'm not opposed to this change.

T70:

If the AI ability is being weakened, why isn't the penetration being increased? The T70 is already worse vs. armor than the Luchs. If you want to take away the Soviets' light tank anti-infantry capability, its ability to damage vehicles should be improved. An alternative balancing option that I saw someone introduce here would be to give the Conscripts the 7 man upgrade ability at T3 instead of T4, so that the Soviets don't fall too far behind against superior Axis infantry (it's a real struggle to keep up with Panzergrens, Grenadiers with LMG's, Volks, Fallschirmjagers, Obersoldaten, etc.). I think this is a reasonable way to compensate for the weakening of the T70 as a strong anti-infantry option for the Soviets.

T34/76 and T34/85 Ram Ability:

Why would you ever want to incentivize players to sacrifice their vetted tank crews to do the job of ramming enemy vehicles? There is a reason that generals aren't typically on the front lines; they are too valuable to be in that position. So why would you want to send your vetted (and therefore more-valuable) T34's in to ram and likely be destroyed? Axis tanks generally have more hit points and armor than their Allied counterparts. While I rarely use ramming anyway, I still find this to be a puzzling change.

Katyusha:

As I mentioned in my post regarding the changes to the USF faction, I'm ok with the rocket artillery nerf, so long as it is equally applied to all factions. On an individual level, my problem with weakening the Katyusha is that it is already incredibly fragile and unagile to begin with. I usually do not make more than one Katyusha in 4v4 matches, because they routinely get knocked out by random LEFH shots (even despite constantly moving them to avoid counterbattery follow-up shots), tank intrusions, and even Fallschirmjager drops.

SU-85:

This makes no sense at all to me. Regardless of the justification for this nerf being the reduction of armor on Axis tanks, the armor on Axis tanks is still incredible. Good luck penetrating a Tiger, Elefant, Jagdtiger, or King Tiger, or even Panther head-on. You might reply, "just flank them!", but this is obviously not always doable against skilled opponents who cover their flanks with mines and/or AT guns. Furthermore, SU-85's are absolutely not great for flanking, as the maneuverability of their case-mate design leaves them horribly vulnerable during such attacks. I think whoever came up with this change needs to take a good hard look at 4v4 late-game matches which are chock full of Panthers, Tigers, King Tigers, Jagdtigers, Elefants, etc. For most non IS-2, non-ISU commanders (all but four of the Soviet commanders), your primary option for taking on these behemoth Axis tanks is the SU-85. This brings me to another point: Why aren't SU-100's a late game option for the Soviets? They were certainly used in the war against the heaviest Axis vehicles, but they have not been given as an armor-tackling option in COH2. I don't get it.

ISU-152:

This is the one single Soviet tank, given to only two commanders, which can be used to fight back against the strongest of the superior Axis infantry and armor. It highly vulnerable to flanking attacks already. Is it really necessary to reduce its rear armor to 110?! The ISU Piercing Shot modifications (including the bug fix) are welcome changes, and I'm alright with the HE round shortening, but I simply do not understand the need to reduce the armor on this super expensive, super late-entry tank down to 110. The tank should be available at an earlier CP and/or have its cost reduced to reflect these nerfs. It's bad enough it has to deal with Elefants, Jagdtigers, and King Tigers, which have more hit points/armor than the ISU already.

Again, to touch upon the rear armor reduction, I've asked other players what they think about the ISU's nerf. They made comments along the lines of 'well, what difference does it make if the rear armor is reduced. It was getting penetrated reliably by Panthers from the rear anyway.' If the ISU was getting reliably penetrated by Panthers from the rear anyway, then what was the point of making this tank even more vulnerable to weaker Axis vehicles?! It's as if the engineers of this balance patch don't take 4v4 matches into consideration at all for the Allied factions, which already struggle late-game against superior German infantry, armor, and artillery...

Conclusion:


I'm ok with some of the changes, and certainly remain open-minded about them, but I just can't understand the nerfs to the tank destroyers and ISU-152. Every single OKW commander can call-in a King Tiger in the late game. It is not uncommon to see multiple Elefants fielded by multiple Wehrmacht players in the late game. What's the point of making it harder for most Soviet commanders to deal with Axis armor? You are pushing more players to go for the IS-2 and ISU-152 commanders and neglect the commanders who aren't equipped with heavy tanks (which is most of the them!). KV-1 and KV-8 tanks, though "heavy," don't count here because they are not very good solutions at destroying heavy Axis armor.

As for changes not addressed in this patch, leaving Soviets without access to counterbattery on their ML-20's is a questionable imbalance, in my opinion, which is also of historical inaccuracy. Furthermore, why does the T34-85 get 800 hp but the KV-1 only get 675 hp? If the health of a tank is related to its weight, the KV-1 should surely have more than the T34-85, not less. The KV-1, despite the addition of the hull-down mode, is still not in a great place. It is hard to justify getting one of these in a 4v4 team game over an SU-85 or KV-8, because it is just not very good at dealing with enemy armor and isn't particularly stellar against infantry, either. A boost to at least 800 hp would make this unit more usable, even if the price has to go up a little bit. 675 hp is just too low for a heavy tank. The armor on it is great, but it's still getting reliably penetrated by Panthers, so it's not always the best way to spend fuel in a 4v4.

As for the B-4, it needs some help. There is a reason people only use it for the memes. If you don't get lucky with it, you've wasted a lot of manpower and population. It performs consistently worse than the ML-20's. I'm not saying that there is no value to it, as the front-loaded damage and ability to finish off armor pieces is an intangible that isn't always reflected in total-damage-done values and comparisons. I just think that something needs to be improved about it or it doesn't always make sense to employ it in a serious game. Aside from being knocked out even more easily than before the last bug was fixed (regarding its hit box), it's too easy for Axis players to take it out with LEFH counterbattery fire or a recon/flare and direct-strike. One idea I had is the introduction of a tractor or towing vehicle which can slowly move it from place to place. While this would leave the piece just as vulnerable to bombing runs and counterbattery fire, it would at least make the B-4 less of a giant, sitting-duck target during idle times. Furthermore, it would be historically accurate - it was indeed towed and moved around during WWII. It was not a stationary, immovable piece as it is in COH2.

As for the Soviet heavy mortar, I have played against it recently and have definitely felt it when it hits my squads, but I have to say I am damaged much more heavily on the whole by the smaller Soviet mortars. When I am playing as the Soviets, I notice the same thing; I generally get more kills with the smaller mortars, which arrive on the battlefield earlier, are cheaper, and have a faster fire rate. I think that the heavy mortar is underperforming, and some of the expert players I have discussed this with feel the same way. I've also noticed that elite Soviet infantry, such as the Airbourne Guards and the Assault Guards, don't seem to be performing all that well considering how late they become available (CP3 or so). Fallschirmjager come at CP 2 and fare much better in combat. Perhaps some changes are in order for these units, which rarely seem to be worth making. For example, it usually makes more sense to just use SVT Conscripts with the Airbourne commander instead of paying the higher price for the Airbourne Guards. I like the Airbourne Guards, but feel that their strafe call-in is not the most useful ability, and their high price and late entry into the game just doesn't encourage me to use them very often. The Assault Guards don't seem to be particularly good at any given range against other elite infantry, and the high cost associated with their half-track pairing and late-entry doesn't bode so well for them. I'm sure I'll think of more issues with the Soviets over time, but these are the issues salient in my mind for the time being.

Penals vs Riflemen

EHP
480 vs 412

DPS 10/20/35
26.6/18.7/10.8 vs 24.1/14.2/8.49.

I love how you just put units in a vacuum and call it a day. Per model, rifles are better + nades + weapon upgrades. Get a grip with reality please.

merge retains target size hence one really shouldnt use it outside of combat situations...

The target size iirc is 1.087 or something like that for cons. Compare the less than 9% chance increase to get hit over RA of 1 penals in exchange for saving 20% on reinforcement costs (5mp per head) and even more if 7 man you'll find that merge is plenty well enough for penals.
What's more penals get more bite as models drop starting at vet 1 meaning that mp saved, even with the slightly more mp bled turns very well into dead germans.

In elite infantry merge is worse off, on everything else the mp saved more than offsets the staying power reduction - especially if you bring more cons to keep em fresh.

I love how you just put units in a vacuum and call it a day. Per model, rifles are better + nades + weapon upgrades.

I have not put unit in vacuum, and I did not even said that one unit is better than the other, I simply provided stats.

If in your opinion "Per model" comparison is more relevant feel free to provide the stat but keep in mind that one does not build "model" but squads.

Get a grip with reality please.

I suggest you start reading more carefully and follow your own advice and " Get a grip with reality please".

I love how you just put units in a vacuum and call it a day. Per model, rifles are better + nades + weapon upgrades. Get a grip with reality please.

Rifles are not better strate of the bat. Thats the whole point of penals problem. Their price of 300MP is completly justified by the timing and amount of power they get from the get go.

You cant make penals cheaper or more awaible without changing their power they start with.

The fact that they are more or less useless now, is the mere consequence of them being just too expensive for early game.

And the fact that they dont scale is the consiquence of them being almost at their full combat potential from the get go.

"Certain ppl" proposing buffs for penals on top of their current perfomance, which is just absurd, considering that we already had whole new penal meta and we know how it ended.

I wish the Mobilize Reserves upgrade on T3 was cheaper. It's too expensive so that people never both getting it early and instead just go T4. This could help Soviets in the mid game dealing with superior Axis infantry and now a nerfed T-70. If the T-70 dies early then you are screwed and don't have much recourse. It's not like you can play Soviets with going T4 now since it is also required for call-in tanks.

I also think PTRS penals are so lacklustre late game against anything bigger than light tanks. I think PTRS Penals should have more late-game scaling with a second PTRS upgrade giving them 4x PTRS total unlocked after T4. That was the original design idea for PTRS Penals. Especially with Shreks been buffed, PTRS Penals are so underclassed. Not enough damage against Tanks and 4 SVT Penals have not enough damage or survivability against other infantry squads. It's the worst of both worlds. Guards are a much better than PTRS Penals because they retain good infantry damage with DP's and Grenade.

If T34 ram need Vet,I think it should remove debuff,just stun itself and target,or give itself and target engine damage

I'm not sure the M5 needs such a huge AA nerf, from 10% to 2.

It might have decent capabilities at 10 buy nowhere near the centaur, which justifies shredding planes via its larger fuel cost...

There's no reason to make M5 weaker just because it's a Soviet vehicle.

AA should be nerfed to about 6%, not 2.

I'm not sure the M5 needs such a huge AA nerf, from 10% to 2.

It might have decent capabilities at 10 buy nowhere near the centaur, which justifies shredding planes via its larger fuel cost...

There's no reason to make M5 weaker just because it's a Soviet vehicle.

AA should be nerfed to about 6%, not 2.

It's AA is also based on bringing a plane down per bullet it spits out with the Quad firing around 25 rounds at max range. That's why it demolishes aircraft at 10%.

It's AA is also based on bringing a plane down per bullet it spits out with the Quad firing around 25 rounds at max range. That's why it demolishes aircraft at 10%.

I think he's right, 4% or 6% would be favourable. Tightrope's testing seemed to show that the Quad was less reliable than the OKW Flak Half-Track or Centaur (Side Note: It also showed the M15 AAHT is completely broken and doesn't shoot half the time, this should be investigated.). Considering the Quad is the Soviet's sole Anti-Aircraft unit and will not be supported by 222's or Pintle MG 42's, it does need to be a bit stronger to grant the faction relatively equal anti-aircraft coverage.



Timestamp: 6:23

ISU has lower damage and terribly higher rate of fire compared to German tank hunters, while SU-85 armor penetration nerf, T-34 ram nerf and FAB nerf bring another big issue to collective game modes.

The USF has rocket planes and Jacksons, capable of penetrating armor with great damage output even on it's first vet. Brits are inferior on these terms, because Firefly's rate of fire and armor penetration values are low, and basically, Firefly without the Tulip upgrade isn't capable to fight Ele/Jagd at all. QF 17 pounder is pretty situational thing.

IMO, the ISU problem could be solved by implementing it's purely AT and HE-less version in the game.

As a QoL feature, would it be possible for the KV-2 to have a range radius similar to artillery units when using its stationary mode ability?

AA should be nerfed to about 6%, not 2.

Seeing Tightrope's analysis video, the adjusted performance is perfect. Why would it need to be three times that? That would be almost as broken as it is on the live version.

It's AA is also based on bringing a plane down per bullet it spits out with the Quad firing around 25 rounds at max range. That's why it demolishes aircraft at 10%.

The nerf was perfect, the unit performs now like it should.

For what do you need more AA as Allii? Germans air-attacks arn't that powerful and are still easy to counter.