Ost vs Soviet core redesign discussion

Hey guys I just wanted to create a thread for some healthy discussions on ways to change the Ost vs Soviet factions to better represent actual small unit action battles of the eastern front. We do have to keep the discussions within the confines of the coh2 world so let's try to suggest changes that could easily be made by the developer without coding a whole new game. Also long novels of text with arguments on tactics and doctrine are welcome if they are formatted in a reader friendly manner.

The end goal of this discussion would be to create an authentic atmosphere for the players to be immersed while playing either faction in the coh2 world. Small children may want to skip this thread as it will require a lot of research and experience in ww2 history..

Let me get the discussion started. Should both factions have 4 man squads? As we all know 6 man squads have cover issues and make balancing much harder between factions. Could the game benefit from a scenario where one german squad could be equal to two conscript squads? Is this not authentic? Let the fight begin!

Well,

6 man squads did not have any issues to get into cover back in VCoH.

Relic just needs to fine tune their animation system for the models. It makes units jump around, crawl, hit the dirt too much thus repositioning them out of cover instead of holding their ground behind the safety of cover to return fire.

Therefore I'd argue with your perception that it is the number of models, be it 6 or 5 man squads that create balance issues on that aspect.

Also the game is not really a simulator but it's quite authentic save the SU+USA in the same team blunder. CoH 2 is not a strategy game but a tactical one, centered around company level operations, we assume the role of a Captain or Major.

During WW2, at the Platoon and company level the standard german squads revolved around the MG34/MG42 as source of concentrated and overwhelming firepower which consisted of the following members:

- Squad Leader (NCO) MP40
- Machine Gunner (Private) MG 34/MG 42 and Pistol
- Assistant Gunner (Private) Pistol
- Three Riflemen (Privates) Rifles
- Horse leader for Horse, cart and trailer (Private) Rifle.
(Germans squads were rarely outfitted with multiple SMGs as the Assaults Grens are, usually just one.)

Which equals in game to an MG42+ Grenadier Squad, I thus I think it's authentic.

A soviet infantry squad was based around the rifleman and consisted of 11-12 men.

- 1 Squad leader, an NCO armed with a rifle
- 2 Soldiers armed with SMGs
- 6 Soldiers armed with rifles
- 1 Machine gunner with an LMG, and pistol sidearm
- 1 Assistant gunner armed with a rifle
(Note that as the War progressed it was shortened to around 9 men and the distribution of SMGs increased a lot. Still predominantly rifles, but distribution varied widely from 50% to all the squad having SMGs)

In game its represented by 2 conscript squads, one of them upgraded with PPSH-41s. Again it's pretty authentic save the lack of any NCO for conscripts, as all models look the same and DP-28 upgrade for cons.

Conclusion, 2 in game squads = 1 real life squad in WW2.

In my opinion no need to change squad sizes, it would rather upset balance than improve it. On one hand 4 man squads for both Soviets and Ostheer remove asymmetry from the factions (reducing authenticity). On the other hand 9 or 12 man squads like in real life introduce pathing issues,cover issues and the need of single model AI for optimal occupation/distribution of the space and each model performing a different combat role such as MP40 dude closing in and MG42 setting up (Too complex, it's a technical nightmare).

Cheers.

^^Answering this: impossible. It´s more feasible to make 5 men grens (obviously reducing DPS) rather than reducing number of conscripts.

Theres a lot of changing it should be done which is not worth the effort: merge, support weapons, German support weapons ROF, sniper, etc. all take into consideration that Soviet has 6man squads.

If this thread was made a couple of months ago, it may had been interesting seeing other opinions. Seeing that on 2 days we have 2 new factions added, its kinda unnecesary.

Just rifle formations: The Soviets were much more powerful than the Germans outside of the division and in a synergistic sense. There were more of them, for one. The Germans, man for man, were more powerful than the Soviets inside of the division.

The key combat difference between the standard rifle formations of the two sides was in ammunition. The ooB was different, but not massively. Germans had a better communications/signals net and motorized AT guns & command elements while the Soviets had less. Soviet mortars were either medium or heavy, while German mortars (excluding 50mm platoon, which were removed in 41') were medium. German infantry divisions initially had Infantry gun batteries supporting their battalions but these were taken out after Barbarossa ended, and then were reissued on a priority basis.

Soviet divisional artillery guns were mostly light (76mm) while German divisional artillery were mostly medium and heavy (105mm/150mm). German artillery performance was also more effective.

The German infantry battalions used about twice the tonnage of supplies per man vs. Soviets and this extended to their ammunition.

The big killers were mortars and artillery (inflicted most of the casualties). Under German infantry doctrine, they were to pin/fix enemy troops in place, and then do the real damage with mortars and tactical artillery fire. The Germans took this doctrine very seriously and used more MG ammunition belts than anybody else in the war.

The Soviet rifle forces had many of the same functional class of weapons but did not have as much ammunition. Their machineguns, mortars, and light artillery could not run as frequently as the Germans but they had a lot more submachineguns for close combat.

Armored formations: Tank corps, mech corps vs. PzD

Soviets generally outnumbered the Germans in tanks but were badly outnumbered themselves (often by a factor of 2 or 3 or more) in motorized and mechanized infantry (a key disadvantage).

The mech corps fared better but the Tank corps were very reliant on external units for infantry support. So often what happened was the initial breakthrough would have the help of the rifle corps but the exploitation and subsequent tactical maneuver/meeting engagements would involve small numbers of Soviet mobile infantry + larger numbers of Tanks vs. larger numbers of German mobile infantry + smaller numbers of Panzers.

Everything CoH2player said is very informative, and after reading it it just confirms that the core design of the Ostheer and Red Army is authentic.

Soviet divisional artillery guns were mostly light (76mm) while German divisional artillery were mostly medium and heavy (105mm/150mm). German artillery performance was also more effective.

Zis-3 76 barrages and SU-76 barrages make the bulk of soviet artillery in coh2. The only artillery gun the ostheer has in coh2 is the 105 mm LeFH 18 and it's arguably the most effective and performant howitzer compared the 152mm soviet ML-20, as it fires more than twice as many shells thus actually hitting more often, and has longer range. I feel the ML-20 underperforms and rarely hits, thus no one uses it that often.

The key combat difference between the standard rifle formations of the two sides was in ammunition.

Ostheer is much more ammunition hungry in-game, every german unit has some sort of ammunition based ability that can be used regularly in each engagement, be it armour piercing rounds, panzerfausts, target weak point, rifles grenades and so on. Soviets only use molotovs and AT grenades regularly, Zis Barrages if they go T2. So the Ostheer player is consistently using it's abundant/superior ammunition, whereas russians usually float until they unlock artillery barrages or air support.

The big killers were mortars and artillery (inflicted most of the casualties). Under German infantry doctrine, they were to pin/fix enemy troops in place, and then do the real damage with mortars and tactical artillery fire. The Germans took this doctrine very seriously and used more MG ammunition belts than anybody else in the war.

Pinning a squad with an MG42 squad in game and then targeting it with a mortar is a good tactic, even recommended by the loading screen tips.

Soviets generally outnumbered the Germans in tanks but were badly outnumbered themselves (often by a factor of 2 or 3 or more) in motorized and mechanized infantry (a key disadvantage).

Indeed, i think they could add Tank Desant (Tank riding) for the Soviet faction as the lack of halftracks and mechanized infantry forced the Red army to improvise with specially trained tank riders that accompanied/supported tank offensives, they took a lot of casualties as they were very exposed. Maybe in game, tank riding infantry should have an increased accuracy received penalty? Tank riders are confirmed for the USA on Western fronts they could easily implement it to the Soviets.

Still I think the Soviet faction is more mobile in CoH 2 with all the M3 and M5 usage compared to SDKFZ 250 or 251 usage. 251 Mechanized groups call-in is just not worth the price atm and the 250 halftrack is only used as a mobile reinforcement point unlike the M5s used to transport flammers, guards, or shocks offensively. So, it's not very authentic when it comes the portraying the mechanized capabilities of real life WW2 armies.

6 man squads did not have any issues to get into cover back in VCoH.

And you're immediately wrong. Riflemen jumping out of cover was one of the chief complaints about the American faction, and I'm not sure if it was ever even fixed.

And you're immediately wrong. Riflemen jumping out of cover was one of the chief complaints about the American faction, and I'm not sure if it was ever even fixed.

True , a couple of models would occasionally reposition themselves a bit away from cover by walking not jumping during firefights. But It never happened systemically that I would consider it an issue. Also the fact that both factions could deploy sandbags helped with cover a lot and it only took a couple of secs compared to the super slow Russian sandbag wall.

haven't played VCoh in months (So I don't remember the animations that much), but It happens a lot more often on CoH 2 especially if any mortar rounds, explosive rounds, MG incendiary rounds land near them as they go nuts and start crawling, kneeling, jumping etc. If I remember correctly rifles only crawled if suppressed by either MGs, hitting a mine, and jump around when fired by flakpanzer rounds.

Still I don't think the issue is 6 man squads vs 4, it's the animations and model positioning which seems more finicky in coh 2, maybe it's because there are more animations or because that are more things that force a reaction from units thus triggering an animation. All this also applies to 4 man squads, there's always a model that breaks formation eventually.

Tank riders are confirmed for the USA on Western fronts they could easily implement it to the Soviets.

Let me remind you that we have seen both, sherman and USF whole tech and none of it had tank riders.

I have to disagree, to me the ML20 is ultra accurate, it happened to me in a game, ask Aerohank, every shell it fired, 4, it landed on to something, pak40, sdkfz250, or mg42, I find it superior than the lefh18, for sure.

I feel that Soviets could do with non-doctrinal medium to heavy (122mm perhaps...) tubed artillery... slow to reload and less accurate, but it should be there. Soviets just don't do anything better than Germans (particularly in the area of armour and AT options, one of the particularly silly decisions with the Soviet faction) and I think non-doctrinal tubed arty would define the Soviets as a faction for laying down the hurt on enemy infantry and seperating them from their tanks.

Also: cheese tactics.

The M3 needs to go, it's simply silly, I hate using it and when I see a teammate using it, it's really effective, but I feel dirty.

Grenades: Just give us the F1, simple and easy.

Armour: SU-85 needs to be changed, my suggestion would be to make it doctrinal, buff it a bit and place it where the T-34-85 was, it turn, make the T-34-85 non-doctrinal and/or an upgrade. The Soviet AT options needs to able to, with some skill, and non-doctrinally, deal with non-doctrinal German armour when it's reaching critical mass. Something that Soviets IMO simply cannot do because of their limited options (SU-85 or ZiS-3 are just too immobile...)

I have to disagree, to me the ML20 is ultra accurate, it happened to me in a game, ask Aerohank, every shell it fired, 4, it landed on to something, pak40, sdkfz250, or mg42, I find it superior than the lefh18, for sure.

I dont care about any artillery these days. Lefh, ML-20, katyusha, panzerwerfer, it ALL sucks. For 600 mp, you can pull out something much more cost efficient. Static targets are useless as simple bombings will blow it up, and because map widths vary, ... its just wierd. Some maps you can fire at the enemy base literally from inside your base, and some maps you have to move it 1/4ths of the way up the map to hit the enemy, in which i assault it with panzers and it dies in 3 tanks shots. Panzerwerfer and katyusha - does not even have to be said. Whenever someone says an artillery did something - Great! My cheaper shock troopers wiped 2 grenadiers, and i didnt lose it to a stuka dive bomb or light artillery off map. I laugh at the B4, unfortunately. The crew sights the gun TWICE, and turns so slow - hey, why dont the lazy gunners help out? Anyways, my panzer assault leaves them useless.

Not directly related, but I get eternal laughs out of remembering how Ost Weapon teams used to actually be 3man.

Some Sov fans used to rant so hard that that was "fine and balanced".
Heres a thread from about 1yr ago (July 2013), and that was a tame one compared to many others at the time and all the way since launch on the topic:
http://www.coh2.org/topic/5198/mg-42-4-man-squad

Just goes to show how important it is to filter whos posts and opinions you even bother reading, yet alone answering to...

On actual topic:

Rather than worrying about model numbers, Id prefer if at this point some more work was put into improving model dispersal and cover finding. I dont know if its even possible anymore, but some code to prevent models piling directly ontop of each other (such as when exiting buildings, vehicles) and occassionally when moving, would reduce some aggravating lucky wipes. Somekind of hard code to force models to always be atleast a minimum distance from each other.

As far as "core redesign" goes, if design would theoretically start from scratch, Id have liked to see somekind of concrete diminished return mechanic on AoE effects. There is no escaping the fact, that a smaller unit that otherwise has good stats vs small arms, becomes a proportionately much larger liability when those stats are made obsolete vs explosive/flame effects which ignore infantry armor. Though it is true that a more numerous model unit has a larger dispersal on the field, and is therefore more likely to be winged by an explosive, it can still soak and better retain combat effectiveness than a smaller unit whos cost/stats are weighed towards small arms resistance.

In the same way that for example MG42s effectiveness is directly related to how many models it is firing at, I would like to see something similar working on AoE effects. The rate of diminishing returns can, I think, be scaled in such a way that it it equalises the vulnerability of larger squads to AoE, without unfairly forgetting that a larger unit is slightly more likely to take a winging shot, due to a larger footprint on the map.

Not directly related, but I get eternal laughs out of remembering how Ost Weapon teams used to actually be 3man.

Some Sov fans used to rant so hard that that was "fine and balanced".
Heres a thread from about 1yr ago (July 2013), and that was a tame one compared to many others at the time and all the way since launch on the topic:
http://www.coh2.org/topic/5198/mg-42-4-man-squad

.......

I didn't read your link, however:

Game has changed a lot in a year, if I remember correctly, a year ago conscripts could flank HMG team shoot at point blank range at it for 2 min before someone notices MG42 team has been flanked.

It would still retreat back to base with 2 out of 3 models left.


So, don't dig up 1 year old threads as some sort of proof

Well, no, you are wrong.

The initial dmg received increase modifier, came much later.
And then, much after that, that was changed to an accuracy modifier.

Nor was conscript, or grens, significantly changed in their dps output at all in that entire period.
Ost support teams also always, since launch, had Con level armor.

Thats what makes it so hilarious, if you remember the actual sequence of changes.

Back then, if you thought it was 2mins before a Cons hurt a MG42, it was much more than that for a Gren flanking a Maxim, as it was basically 4Grens vs the equivalent of 6Cons, vs 6 Cons firing on the equivalent of 3 Cons on the Ost Support team (not to mention the Maxim just carouselling to own them either on the spot or in soft retreat actions). Plus an Oorah in the face rush with a Molotov.

Sorry, but your facts are wrong. Its hard to believe, but thats how ridiculous the situation was, and even moreso, how ridiculous discussion on it was.

Well, no, you are wrong.

The initial dmg received increase modifier, came much later.
And then, much after that, that was changed to an accuracy modifier.

Nor was conscript, or grens, significantly changed in their dps output at all in that entire period.
Ost support teams also always, since launch, had Con level armor.

Thats what makes it so hilarious, if you remember the actual sequence of changes.

Back then, if you thought it was 2mins before a Cons hurt a MG42, it was much more than that for a Gren flanking a Maxim (not to mention the Maxim just carouselling to own them). Plus an Oorah in the face rush with a Molotov.

Sorry, but your facts are wrong.

My facts?

I didn't give you any facts

My facts?

I didn't give you any facts

Case in point.

Just false, misinformed and unsupported "opinions".

Case in point.

Just false, misinformed and unsupported "opinions".

Sorry dude, I didn't realize you were some sort of fanboy/troll (I read some of your previous posts)

Carry on, wayward warrior

The irony is strong, in this one.

>>Claims it took 2 mins to kill 3man, 1 armor Ost Support Team
>>>Yeah, that must be why Relic changed it to 4man!