Guards vs Airborne Long Range

And how did the obers do in light cover? And in no cover? Pretty confident they spank guards in both of those situations, the guards would need their prone position every time

Not to mention, obers literally have a doctrinal upgrade that let's them ignore cover bonuses

Exactly, if Guards ain't winning neither are the other LR squads as they all have very worst RA except for commandos. And even that is about the same, Guards have a Target size of .66 while having 6men while Commandos are 5 man with .65 target size. The point I am making is that Guards will perform the best regardless of no cover/light cover/heavy cover. Why is the generalist better at the LR job instead of the dedicated specialist.

And since you mentioned IR STG, they at least have to move in for maximum damage vs any of these squads, at max range they will lose despite the cover bonus.

But lets take that example and look at it from a different perspective. Lets compare IR STG vs any of the allied Elite short range squads. Out of Paras/Airborne/Shocks/Rangers/Commandos/AssGuards they will most likely lose to Shocks/Rangers due to durability and Paras if Tactical Assault is used. The others are gonna lose due to camo detection and AssG being a bit weaker overall. I would assume most would consider this fair trade off as they hit the field earlier and are cheaper overall. Yet since they are all short range they all have the great equalizer in the lucky nade.

To sum up what I am saying is Guards long range Performance is BS as they have utility, EHP, DPS, along with the potential to merge with conscripts. Guards should be toned down.

The performance between the other LR squads should be looked at as they aren't quite as balanced as the short range squads.

Video

Guards win 50%, Airborne 0%, Commandos with camo 25%, Paras 25%

To sum up what I am saying is Guards long range Performance is BS as they have utility, EHP, DPS, along with the potential to merge with conscripts. Guards should be toned down.

The video shows that guards need heavy cover AND prone position to beat the Obers. And even then it's still a close fight. Guards would clearly lose in almost every other situation

If that's really a problem then get rid of the prone position ability. Or give it more drawbacks besides being stationary

Like others have said, I think the main issue with guards is the doctrines they are on. Guard motor is unquestionably OP and Mechanized support is still really strong even after getting nerfed. I think guards on their own are fine

The video shows that guards need heavy cover AND prone position to beat the Obers. And even then it's still a close fight. They would clearly lose in almost every other situation

If that's really a problem then get rid of the prone position ability. Or give it more drawbacks besides being stationary

Like others have said, I think the main issue with guards is the doctrines they are on. Guard motor is unquestionably OP and Mechanized support is still really strong even after getting nerfed

I think we are coming close but missing each other. In any situation the Guards lose so should the other Elites, however they have a situation as you described that has a 50% chance of winning. The generalist should not be able to outperform the dedicated squad especially in a easily replicable situation as both VG and cons can lay down coverage.

The doctrines themselves are a separate issue, they overperform due to how well the Abilities synergize with each other. Mark Target>Button>ISU152 is a nightmare to go against. But none of the abilities buff Guards in AI performance so not only do you have a unit that can pressure all infantry up to Obers you also have a Unit that can apply some sort of pressure to every enemy vehicle.

To show what I mean, lets replace long range squad for Long range Squad. If you place Airborne Guards for Regular Guards in Airborne Tactic it literally becomes even more powerful than Guards Motor. AT Strafe is back on the menu due to AT Strafe, while mid game is buffed even further due to additional INF presence instead of having to get a AT gun.
OR we can look at Terror Tactics which is already another great commander but more for team games. Button plus heavy bomb drop is now available against tanks. Little to no AI is lost due to Guards performance.

But if we look at it from the opposite and place Airborne into ANY of the Guards commanders it is an immediate downgrade.(Would probably actually help with balance)

But if we look at it from the opposite and place Airborne into ANY of the Guards commanders it is an immediate downgrade.(Would probably actually help with balance)

Perhaps prone position should be removed from guards then and given to airborne guards only? Idk if that solves everything, but I think it directly addresses the point your making here

I think USF paras can do okay vs obers with their abilities. The suppressing fire is pretty good, will at least force the obers to cancel it out with their smoke

Perhaps prone position should be removed from guards then and given to airborne guards only? Idk if that solves everything, but I think it directly addresses the point your making here

I think USF paras can do okay vs obers with their abilities. The suppressing fire is pretty good, will at least force the obers to cancel it out with their smoke

I agree with both statements.

I have tried to think of different solutions such as giving them the same camo as PPSH, better vet, or better DP base stats. I think your right in giving Airborne firing positions would solidify them as the LR soviet squad, maybe make Button a VET1 ability for Guards to smooth out their utility.

As both squads can perform suppressing fire that would be hilarious to see.

If regular gaurds are so good or even op why dont we see them in every game?

I dont see them every game. I havent seen them deciding games on their own. They are good no doubt but far from op. They are just the best elite generalist imo.

They are 2cp 360 mp and need a 100 or 120 muni upgrade for 2 weaker lmg's and to use their snare. Wich in turn is the easiest to break out off. Ptact or smoke in others ways.
Gaurds cant fire their lmg's or pts on the move. In short to do anything they need to be stationary unlike obers and other elite inf. Making them easier targets for arty and forcing them to move punishes them more.

What do obers cost nowadays? It isent 400 mp anymore as i recall. 360 or 380? Their lmg when fully teched is a 100 muni.
Their cost difference isnet so great that gaurds should auto loose every engagement vs obers. In most scenario's obers will win wich is fine.

I do agree the synergie in doctrines is where the issue lies. Not with guards them selfes.

The current performance of PTRS is bugged and should be fixed.

This is simply not a balance issue.

If regular gaurds are so good or even op why dont we see them in every game?

I dont see them every game. I havent seen them deciding games on their own. They are good no doubt but far from op. They are just the best elite generalist imo.

They are 2cp 360 mp and need a 100 or 120 muni upgrade for 2 weaker lmg's and to use their snare. Wich in turn is the easiest to break out off. Ptact or smoke in others ways.
Gaurds cant fire their lmg's or pts on the move. In short to do anything they need to be stationary unlike obers and other elite inf. Making them easier targets for arty and forcing them to move punishes them more.

What do obers cost nowadays? It isent 400 mp anymore as i recall. 360 or 380? Their lmg when fully teched is a 100 muni.
Their cost difference isnet so great that gaurds should auto loose every engagement vs obers. In most scenario's obers will win wich is fine.

I do agree the synergie in doctrines is where the issue lies. Not with guards them selfes.

Guard Motor Coordination is the most picked doctrine in 1v1. They are a staple in most elite players load out for a reason. If you watch any cast you can hear audible groans or complaints that soviet is going with the same old thing.

Yes, Guards are 2CP 360MP but their upgrade is only 75 muni.
Airborne are also 360Mp with 100 muni upgrade for similar or worse long range performance while also lacking any AT capabilities.
Paratroopers are the 360MP squad with the 120 muni upgrade.

The issue isn't that Guards can compete with Obers, it is that they do a better job of competing with Obers while also providing AT support as a Generalist unit vs the aforementioned dedicated long range squad.

Button isn't a problem in and of itself, the issue arises when you have an overperforming squad that also has this ability which then synergizes well with Mark Target and T3485/ISU152.

You said Guards aren't the issue, tell me which Soviet Elite is better than them. The Guards version of a commander is always better than the shocks version and if you replace Assault/Airborne Guards with Reg Guards the entire commander gets better.

Honestly. Sandbags cover to cover fight between late game units is silly. Extremely silly. I can't remember when was the last time I fought green to green cover with vet3 paras/rifles against obers, grens....

The only realistic scenarios are:

Late game vet3+ units: Yellow crater cover
Starting engagements: Yellow map cover and green cover

Sandbags cover is only realistic in early game and MAYBE 1v1s mid to late game. Pure late game, it's quite silly to test sandbags as they won't survive for long.

Guard Motor Coordination is the most picked doctrine in 1v1. They are a staple in most elite players load out for a reason. If you watch any cast you can hear audible groans or complaints that soviet is going with the same old thing.

Yes, Guards are 2CP 360MP but their upgrade is only 75 muni.
Airborne are also 360Mp with 100 muni upgrade for similar or worse long range performance while also lacking any AT capabilities.
Paratroopers are the 360MP squad with the 120 muni upgrade.

The issue isn't that Guards can compete with Obers, it is that they do a better job of competing with Obers while also providing AT support as a Generalist unit vs the aforementioned dedicated long range squad.

Button isn't a problem in and of itself, the issue arises when you have an overperforming squad that also has this ability which then synergizes well with Mark Target and T3485/ISU152.

You said Guards aren't the issue, tell me which Soviet Elite is better than them. The Guards version of a commander is always better than the shocks version and if you replace Assault/Airborne Guards with Reg Guards the entire commander gets better.

Guard motor is a complete doctrine. It has gaurds, 120mm, t34 85, self repair, mark target. This is the reason its picked, all options bring something valuable to the table.
So if you disagree please explain how just having guards makes a doctrine viable, as their as doc with gaurds wich arent so good or even bad depending on the game mode.

Shocks are as good but in different situations. Always map dependend. But since we only have laney and open maps wich are picked or used in tournies shocks or any other cqc squad have next to no use.
Gaurds in all their forms are the only long range squad soviets have. And with only open and laney maps they work excelently.
Again they need to be immobile to do anything, force them to move and you already stopped them. they drop weapons almost like bread crums. If the ptrs is bugged it should be fixed, but i never noticed it.
I do stand corrected on the cost of the upgrade. Would have sworn it was 100 at least.

If they are so OP why isent every wiped penal or cons squad replaced by guards in many games?
If they cant or rather shoudnt be allowed to stand up to obers in even a few situations should we buff their at power? Wich in the late game is limited at best imo. As button is more valuable then the ptrs in the late game imo. But axis magic escape card ptact hard counters it.

Honestly. Sandbags cover to cover fight between late game units is silly. Extremely silly. I can't remember when was the last time I fought green to green cover with vet3 paras/rifles against obers, grens....

The only realistic scenarios are:

Late game vet3+ units: Yellow crater cover
Starting engagements: Yellow map cover and green cover

Sandbags cover is only realistic in early game and MAYBE 1v1s mid to late game. Pure late game, it's quite silly to test sandbags as they won't survive for long.

While I do agree that it is silly to test sand bags for late game, all testing is done under ideal situations that are not 100% replicable in game. Fire fights are started at the same time for both squads which hardly ever happens, one unit usually needs to get in position before it starts firing so that one will most likely lose if units are fairly evenly matched. Using only light cover will most likely just show Obers dominating all the LR squads as the other units have worse EHP compared to guards. I will not pretend to understand the RNG system but I would assume using green cover allows the fight to take longer so that RNG can smooth out compared to testing several light cover battles were a lot of the fight depends on if Guards get favorable RNG with PTRS.

Guard motor is a complete doctrine. It has gaurds, 120mm, t34 85, self repair, mark target. This is the reason its picked, all options bring something valuable to the table.
So if you disagree please explain how just having guards makes a doctrine viable, as their as doc with gaurds wich arent so good or even bad depending on the game mode.

Shocks are as good but in different situations. Always map dependend. But since we only have laney and open maps wich are picked or used in tournies shocks or any other cqc squad have next to no use.
Gaurds in all their forms are the only long range squad soviets have. And with only open and laney maps they work excelently.
Again they need to be immobile to do anything, force them to move and you already stopped them. they drop weapons almost like bread crums. If the ptrs is bugged it should be fixed, but i never noticed it.
I do stand corrected on the cost of the upgrade. Would have sworn it was 100 at least.

If they are so OP why isent every wiped penal or cons squad replaced by guards in many games?
If they cant or rather shoudnt be allowed to stand up to obers in even a few situations should we buff their at power? Wich in the late game is limited at best imo. As button is more valuable then the ptrs in the late game imo. But axis magic escape card ptact hard counters it.

So for Guard motor if your replace Guards with Shocks/AssG/Airborne Guards do you think it is better or worse?

The maps have favored long range squads for a while now, and as you said most maps are lany and open so it is fairly unimportant when Shocks are good because it ain't happening often enough for it to pay off.

You are still making wrong statements about "Guards". AssGuards are not long range so they do not come LR in all their forms. Airborne Guards do not need to be immobile to fire their LMG. While they do drop weapons their weapon drop rate was reduced significantly. I do not mean to come off as snarky but you seem to talk about "Guards" as if they aren't completely different from each other.

What is many games? Are you talking about games you play or games you watch? I would place more emphasis on higher ranked players as they know how to handle in game situations best. So using tightrope as an example when he lost a squad(Guards) he replaced it with more Guards. Hell he even titled the video "Guards make Soviets easy mode" where he uses the team focused Guards commander with howi and bomb drop which is probably the worst one for 1v1.

It is pure foolishness to replace Penals with more Penals in the lategame. You should be replacing them with either cons or Guards where cons can merge and damage engine while Guards help create the chance to snare the vehicle due to PTRS and button. Point being that there is more to Guards performance than just commander abilities or raw DPS.

So for Guard motor if your replace Guards with Shocks/AssG/Airborne Guards do you think it is better or worse?

The maps have favored long range squads for a while now, and as you said most maps are lany and open so it is fairly unimportant when Shocks are good because it ain't happening often enough for it to pay off.

You are still making wrong statements about "Guards". AssGuards are not long range so they do not come LR in all their forms. Airborne Guards do not need to be immobile to fire their LMG. While they do drop weapons their weapon drop rate was reduced significantly. I do not mean to come off as snarky but you seem to talk about "Guards" as if they aren't completely different from each other.

What is many games? Are you talking about games you play or games you watch? I would place more emphasis on higher ranked players as they know how to handle in game situations best. So using tightrope as an example when he lost a squad(Guards) he replaced it with more Guards. Hell he even titled the video "Guards make Soviets easy mode" where he uses the team focused Guards commander with howi and bomb drop which is probably the worst one for 1v1.

It is pure foolishness to replace Penals with more Penals in the lategame. You should be replacing them with either cons or Guards where cons can merge and damage engine while Guards help create the chance to snare the vehicle due to PTRS and button. Point being that there is more to Guards performance than just commander abilities or raw DPS.

Your are right i had ass gaurds lumped in as i thought they needed an upgrade and they start with rifles. But havent played or seen them in ages. I have airborne guards as something different.

GM will be worse off esp of you switch guards rifle with shocks and ass gaurds unless map pools change. With airborne gaurds only a bit worse.

My main faction by far is soviets. When watching games high or low level i select them also if soviets are being played or not.
I dont see gaurds rifles running rampant and breaking games. I dont even see them used every game even in high level games. Mostly a single squad at a time is used, and replaced when lost. Sometimes i see two at the same time.

And yes replacing penals with penals late game is stupid, my point was about guards being so op why arent they replaced with gaurds but mostly with cons?
This is an indicator things are fine balance wise.

What people including you are doing right now is using a single game and a single bunch off sationary tests as the whole and single argument that something is op when nothing changed on that unit in quite a while.
This is a bad way to do this.

axis op~！！！！！！！

And yes replacing penals with penals late game is stupid, my point was about guards being so op why arent they replaced with gaurds but mostly with cons?
This is an indicator things are fine balance wise.

What people including you are doing right now is using a single game and a single bunch off sationary tests as the whole and single argument that something is op when nothing changed on that unit in quite a while.
This is a bad way to do this.

I think we are pretty much on the same page, however you will keep the cons because late game they will be the meat shield and can merge in with your guards squad to keep MP cost down while keeping their staying power.

I think you have a misconception about me, I am also a Soviet main. I watch several 1v1 matches by different casters, a Guards commander is a staple of almost every Soviet player. I personally literally go out of my way to not use Guards commanders and go for Airborne/AssG/Shocks. I have posted several games were I attempt to not use cons/Guards to various degrees of success. In 1v1 I got to about top 200, I have switched to 3v3 and got to top 100 but I mostly float at 200. Keeping Penals and switching to reg guards would make most of my matches quite a bit easier in terms of micro. The AT performance obviously helped as I did not have to upgrade PTRS on my penals allowing me to keep pressure. But, in my own experience I couldn't really explain why I could pressure units at long range when in my mind Guards were worse the Airborne. The video helped explain that they were doing full damage even behind green cover. At the time Guards hit, there will be plenty of green cover over the entire map allowing them to build vet faster than they should and bleeding their opponent faster than they should be as their is that bug with the PTRS. What happens if that bug is ever fixed remains to be seen.

Full disclosure: I am ranting because LMG Airborne/LMG Paras are some of my favorite units.

Honestly. Sandbags cover to cover fight between late game units is silly. Extremely silly. I can't remember when was the last time I fought green to green cover with vet3 paras/rifles against obers, grens....

The only realistic scenarios are:

Late game vet3+ units: Yellow crater cover
Starting engagements: Yellow map cover and green cover

Sandbags cover is only realistic in early game and MAYBE 1v1s mid to late game. Pure late game, it's quite silly to test sandbags as they won't survive for long.

My thoughts exactly.

Especially how PTRS/Shrecks/Tank Shells can onehit destroy most covers.

Guard motor is a complete doctrine. It has gaurds, 120mm, t34 85, self repair, mark target. This is the reason its picked, all options bring something valuable to the table.
So if you disagree please explain how just having guards makes a doctrine viable, as their as doc with gaurds wich arent so good or even bad depending on the game mode.

Shocks are as good but in different situations. Always map dependend. But since we only have laney and open maps wich are picked or used in tournies shocks or any other cqc squad have next to no use.
Gaurds in all their forms are the only long range squad soviets have. And with only open and laney maps they work excelently.
Again they need to be immobile to do anything, force them to move and you already stopped them. they drop weapons almost like bread crums. If the ptrs is bugged it should be fixed, but i never noticed it.
I do stand corrected on the cost of the upgrade. Would have sworn it was 100 at least.

If they are so OP why isent every wiped penal or cons squad replaced by guards in many games?
If they cant or rather shoudnt be allowed to stand up to obers in even a few situations should we buff their at power? Wich in the late game is limited at best imo. As button is more valuable then the ptrs in the late game imo. But axis magic escape card ptact hard counters it.

While I agree with your sentiment, saying Shock Troops have no place in laney maps makes abundandly clear your inability to use them correctly. They have 15muni Smokes (which is the cheapest buyable smoke that I know of) so that you can throw and get close to your enemy. Even on full laney maps (2v2) like Crossing, Fields, Wolfheze good Shock plays prove crucial.

I think we are pretty much on the same page, however you will keep the cons because late game they will be the meat shield and can merge in with your guards squad to keep MP cost down while keeping their staying power.

I think you have a misconception about me, I am also a Soviet main. I watch several 1v1 matches by different casters, a Guards commander is a staple of almost every Soviet player. I personally literally go out of my way to not use Guards commanders and go for Airborne/AssG/Shocks. I have posted several games were I attempt to not use cons/Guards to various degrees of success. In 1v1 I got to about top 200, I have switched to 3v3 and got to top 100 but I mostly float at 200. Keeping Penals and switching to reg guards would make most of my matches quite a bit easier in terms of micro. The AT performance obviously helped as I did not have to upgrade PTRS on my penals allowing me to keep pressure. But, in my own experience I couldn't really explain why I could pressure units at long range when in my mind Guards were worse the Airborne. The video helped explain that they were doing full damage even behind green cover. At the time Guards hit, there will be plenty of green cover over the entire map allowing them to build vet faster than they should and bleeding their opponent faster than they should be as their is that bug with the PTRS. What happens if that bug is ever fixed remains to be seen.

Full disclosure: I am ranting because LMG Airborne/LMG Paras are some of my favorite units.

I understand you avoiding gaurds if i seems to make the game to easy or they are not your fav unit. I did very much the same and avoided the maxim in its golden days.
But imo unlike guards currently the golden age maxim felt like cheating.

Guards have been concidered fine for a long time. To my knowlidge nothing changed for them in a long time as well. So i just dont get this stating they are op basicly out of the blue.
But bugs need to be fixed.
But also as their at power isent bad but not good or great in the late game and that they can do ai a bit better then most expect in certain situations makes it mostly fine imo.

While I agree with your sentiment, saying Shock Troops have no place in laney maps makes abundandly clear your inability to use them correctly. They have 15muni Smokes (which is the cheapest buyable smoke that I know of) so that you can throw and get close to your enemy. Even on full laney maps (2v2) like Crossing, Fields, Wolfheze good Shock plays prove crucial.

If it was so easy and managable then more including high level players would do it more often. But they dont.
It probably also requires a second shock squad or mortar to make the smoking and closing work.

While I do agree that it is silly to test sand bags for late game, all testing is done under ideal situations that are not 100% replicable in game. Fire fights are started at the same time for both squads which hardly ever happens, one unit usually needs to get in position before it starts firing so that one will most likely lose if units are fairly evenly matched. Using only light cover will most likely just show Obers dominating all the LR squads as the other units have worse EHP compared to guards. I will not pretend to understand the RNG system but I would assume using green cover allows the fight to take longer so that RNG can smooth out compared to testing several light cover battles were a lot of the fight depends on if Guards get favorable RNG with PTRS.

But it's not. Not really.
Green cover adds DMG reduction and RA reduction, while yellow only RA reduction.
People generally use cons sandbags as they are large enough to fit all unit sizes (4-7). That in itself is silly as only cons can build them. Generally you should use the sandbags that are available to you:

USF: 2x tank traps. One vertical, one horizontal. Or one commander sandbag.
OKW: Sandbags
.... etc.

The only real reason people use the cons sandbags is because it's the least RNG-y. All models are behind cover, equally. As opposed to craters where one unit can be outside of the crater. Of course, you can always add more craters.

That's the only way people should test late game units. Sc*ew sandbags. Nobody fights sandbag to sandbag at vet2+ ober timing. Nobody. You can maybe get away with some tank trap placement on the edge of the map, covering a far VP point.

Spawn 10 calliopes (create best craters from my exp). Instant cooldown and barrage each about 2-3 times in a large area. Send vet3+ units and let them duke it out there. Most realistic scenario, but the hardest one to pull off as it takes some time and you can't just create 20 sandbags around the test map and drag units behind and call it a day. Of course, you will see something people don't want to see, and that's what you have written.
Obers dominating everything. There is a reason why, when you see 3x ober blobs you call in rocket arty and not 4 guards or 4 paras or 4+ whatever. Nothing can or will survive obers in realistic scenarios. And that way you can also test assault squads. On large crater filled areas.

Spawn shock troops. Put obers in yellow cover. Rush obers point blank and see who wins. Not some silly sandbag to sandbag at 10 range shootout .....as I've seen some tests. Obers and falls against rangers and shock troops on test range map, range 5 and 10. Sandbags in front of each, down the line and seeing the results. I mean, that has got to be the worst case of primacy of intelligence I've seen.

You can easily start firefights at the same time from a crater filled map. It just takes more time to set it up.
And using green cover does not smooth out the RNG. Well, it shouldn't at least. Smoothing out the RNG seems like a weird thing. How do you smooth out something quantized? (eg. each shot is one quanta that will either hit or miss depending on different parameters). You can smooth out something continuous. Heck mathematicians je*k off to smooth functions.
Smoothing out is usually done through enlarging the number of test cases. Larger population, a nicer distribution (Gaussian in this case)