Are they ever gonna fix Soviet?

imo the main problem of this game is that around 80% of the population play german, so around 80% of the posts of this forum are "nerf the opposite faction naow!"

100% true.

But the sad thing is, most of them are oldnazis who still wish the 3. Reich back becuz of dem cool uniforms. Look at some profil pictures and you know what's going on with them.

The amount of german biased fanboys is too stronk in this forum. Please learn to adapt and flank it it's so easy!

100% true.

But the sad thing is, most of them are oldnazis who still wish the 3. Reich back becuz of dem cool uniforms. Look at some profil pictures and you know what's going on with them.

The amount of german biased fanboys is too stronk in this forum. Please learn to adapt and flank it it's so easy!

Just leave these forums you are such a moron.

i also find it funny that everyone points to the cone of fire as a stat that makes the mg42/.50 cal so good. this was true a year ago, and may still be true for bad players, but everyone seems to forget the weapon traverse nerf. typically, the mg42 wont even get shots off near the edge of its arc because of how long it takes to rotate. at that point, it can often be too late to reposition as well.

the maxim may have the smallest arc, but it repositions quickly and has a much higher horizontal speed. even if a squad is on the very edge of its arc, the maxim will start shooting at it almost instantly.

this is why, if you can micro your mgs, the maxim is much much better than the mg42 and .50 cal.

QFT
Using MG42 to stop flank is actually harder in higher level, Allies soldier just need to headon it in both edge of the cone, but ultra fast Maxim can just A move another maxim and stop the flank easily.

QFT
Using MG42 to stop flank is actually harder in higher level, Allies soldier just need to headon it in both edge of the cone, but ultra fast Maxim can just A move another maxim and stop the flank easily.

+1 to Wooof and +1 to Porygon! Traverse speed makes the cone redundant.

MG42 balance has gone through a lot of iterations.

Arguably no other unit has been changed as often.

I think a traverse/target swap chabge might be a good next direction to take for it.
Would help it a bit in buildings too.

Only peripheral concern I see is that in conjunction with the wierd target model count strangeness on MG42 both for suppression and dps, thisnmight indirectly disproportiinately increase its effectiveness vs blobs. But meh, blobs should suffer anyways.

As others have pointed out, the benefit of the arc is rather internally negated by the slow traverse and target swap.
Which leaves it essentially still handicapped by its setup time, with little beneficialmcompromise.

And unless Im wrong, its still important to remember that the MG42 crew has Conscript level armor, though their cost is still scaled to Grens. Ost pays more per model for reinforcel, on a unit that is smaller to begin with, even though the stats are no better than a Maxim crews.

That would all be well and fine, if MG42 truly eventually was able to fulfill its role as a true powerful but slow backline/flank wide angle suppressor, as asymmetrically compared to the more tactically flexible and assault durable Maxim "carousel". Unfortunately, I dont think that can fairly and honestly be said to be the case at this time, despite Relics best efforts to laterallyand otherwise asymmetrically help the MG42 find its niche with such changes as the target model count dependant mechanics.

I also think its time to properly mess around with Incendiary Ammo. Its all well and fine that its a V1 ability, but the integral reload timer is very strange in the CoH2 setting, where most abilities are more or less instants (with a cast timer to mitigate, such as on nades). It cant be made a placeable AoE template, because this would enable MG42s to target blind. Instead I recommend its duration is reduced, but it is made a true instant. This would also go someway to help mitigate M3 and light vehicle spam. Infact, I would maybe even go so far as to say, that if Incendiary Ammo was made a true instant, with reduced duration, MG42 might not even need a traverse buff, because once it achieves V1, it would scale significantly enough to area control with the ability, to offset its otherwise slow stats. I think this positively encourages unit preservation and the importance of Vetting too, which although you would think design would favor Ost for, it sort of doesnt...

And unless Im wrong, its still important to remember that the MG42 crew has Conscript level armor, though their cost is still scaled to Grens. Ost pays more per model for reinforcel, on a unit that is smaller to begin with, even though the stats are no better than a Maxim crews.

All Ostheer infantry has the same armor: 1. German infantry armor has been removed in the march deployment patch in favor of more DPS per model. Making 4 vs 6 men squads balanced through DPS per model rather than DPS per model and armor. The MG42 crew dies more or less at the same speed as maxims crews as a result. Both also have a 25% reinforcement discount compared to the main infantry (cons and grens).

Thanks Aero, I missed that patch detail.

But how does a 4man MG42 crew die at the same speed as a 6man Maxim crew, if their stats are the same? The Mg42 crew dies after 4 deaths, whereas the Maxim dies only after 6. Can you explain what you mean, please?

ANdd even with the reinforce cost reduction, it still means that every MG42 crewman is more expensice to reinforce thqn every Maxim member, even though there are less of them to begin with, and theynhave the same survival stats? Can you explain what you mean that thet are the "same" on that too?

Thanks Aero, I missed that patch detail.

But how does a 4man MG42 crew die at the same speed as a 6man Maxim crew, if their stats are the same? The Mg42 crew dies after 4 deaths, whereas the Maxim dies only after 6. Can you explain what you mean, please?

ANdd even with the reinforce cost reduction, it still means that every MG42 crewman is more expensice to reinforce thqn every Maxim member, even though there are less of them to begin with, and theynhave the same survival stats? Can you explain what you mean that thet are the "same" on that too?

Most all German squads have proportionally higher DPS than their Russian counterparts, loosely speaking.

A grenadier squad at mid range will kill 6 men in about the time it takes a conscript squad to kill 4. Generally.

Ranges and veterancy and upgrades all bat this figure about, but that's the base of it.

Brachia:

That may be true of Cons and Grens small arms vs support teams, but its not true of any other unit or effect thoug, is it?

What I mean is that a grenadier squad will kill a maxim crew at more or less the same rate as a conscript squad will kill a MG42 crew. The DPS of these squads is scaled in a way that the killing speed of squads is equal without the need for armor.

If you look at an individual grenadier model and compare it to a single conscript model, you will see that the grenadier has almost 3x the DPS of a conscript at long range, and roughly 2x the DPS at close range. The end results are that 4 grens beat 6 conscripts at long range, lose at close range, and kill eachother at the same speed at mid range.

Other units like snipers and mortars have also been scaled to the 4-6 men squad differences. German mortars and snipers fire much faster than their soviet counterparts. This is why soviets love stealing german equipment, you get stuff that is scaled to deal with 6-men squads while fighting 4-men squads.

Then what reciprocates the desirability of Ost support weapons for capture, against the undesirability of Sov support captures for Ost in turn?

They cost the same to purchase, so its not reciprocated there, atleast.

Know what I mean?

Not only is it an inferior weapon (balanced against 4, not 6, as younpointed out), but it is manned by less models, who cost more to reinforce, and inorder to capture it, the unit must be at full model strength or you lose the parent unit as a separate entity.

Sort of stinks of something a bit, doesnt it?

Then what offsets the desirability of Ost support weapons for capture, against the undesirability of Sov support captures?

The only thing I can think of is the MG42s incremental accuracy. The MG42 is, as far as I know, the only weapon that does more DPS the more models it has to shoot at. So in the hands of the soviets it will do less DPS/supression firing at a 4 men squad compared to when its owned by the germans and shooting at a 6 men squad.

For mortars there is no offset. A german mortar is a prize for soviets to capture, a soviet mortar isn't that big of a deal to capture with germans.

For maxims there is also no direct offset, but its still a nice weapon to pick up even if it won't do as much man-power damage. As the germans you also don't have to worry about it getting rifle naded from long range and it's easier to prevent flanking maneuvers compared to an mg42.

For ZIS/PAK40 guns: One is a field gun, the other a dedicated AT gun. There really isn't any disadvantage for either player stealing it.

Overall I would say soviets have an advantage over Ostheer when it comes to picking up weapons (even non-support weapons). First because german weapons are often superior in their primary role. Second because soviets can lose 2 models in a squad and still pick up a heavy weapon without losing the squad, whereas Ostheer can only do this when they have a full squad.

if you manage to steal a PaK as soviets, it usually means gg, because ti removes ostheer armor from the game pretty much.

if you manage to steal a PaK as soviets, it usually means gg, because ti removes ostheer armor from the game pretty much.

And what do you think it does to soviet and USF armor that don't have nearly as much armor huh?

Aerohank: Yes, I agree with your analysis. Quite comprehensive and objective.

But it still leaves the question of what offsets the desirability of Ost support weapons as compared to the desirability of Sov equivalents.

Maybe make it so that Ost weapons can only be crewed by 4men, by Sov?

They still carry the advantage of "Merge" and a cheaper reinforce, since it is based on the cost of the parent unit that mans it. This offset by the fact, as you pointed out, that Ost is generally designed vs 6man crews, meaning even though Sov gets a better performing weapon by capturing it from Ost, they then have to deal with a stronger small arms DPS as desinged to be part of Ost, as well as the same risk vs other ordnance, at the same rate Ost does anyways with a 4man crew.

I think weve hit upon something here.
Shouldnt Sov captured Ost weapons perhaps be limited to 4man?

To thE Result that you get a superior weapon desgined to be used against 6man, rathet than the 4 younare facing, but commensurately have to deal with a greater risk of losing it because Ost reciprocally, in all its units, is designed tomoperate against 6man, rather than 4man, unit. It doesnt change the desirability of Sov inferior weapons to Ost, but it decreases in proportion the desirability of Ost weapons to Sov. A +1-1=0 sort of equation. Yes, younstill want the Ost weapons, but that is then matched against a higher risk on the field with them, in addition to the relative practical ease of capturing rhem because you dont extinguish the parent unit due to it being larger to begin with.

Dunno about raising the model requorement for capture too, alongside that. 4 and 6 become individasable for equivalency since Ost requires 3 to capture out of 4man units, whereas Sov requires the same 3 out of a 6man unit. I think there is some sense thoug in requiring Sov to have 4man to capture a weapon, owing to the pracricality of how units survive on the field vs various AoE effects (ie: anything not small arms). But imo, somehow, the interbalance of capturing weapons needs to be reconciled in this lineup.

Just doesnt seem right atm.

And what do you think it does to soviet and USF armor that don't have nearly as much armor huh?

actually less armor and more speed is desirable against AT guns for mediums, since AT guns penetrate all sub-200 armor reliably anyway and no medium has more than 200 armor except the Easy Eight and vet 2 P4. USF ATG is the oddball, but that gets HEAT and 70 range at vet 1.

Most of the replies seem to be from people that don't even really have a firm grasp of how Soviets operate...

Soviets are forced to make a choice before the match even begins.

Ex:

-If I go T1 Snipers/Cars then I have to choose XXX Commander as it has Guards. Otherwise I am screwed for AT when the early armored cars hit.

-If I got T2 Maxims/Mortars/Guns then I have reduced capping power so I have to choose XXX Commander as it has Shocks.

Or in Team Games

-I'll just choose the guy with the funny hat because then I get the KV-8 and IS-2 rape machines with their buddy rapoplane.

Obviously these are pretty generic but not uncommon lines of logic for a Soviet player.

You people are bitching that Soviets are a one dimensional army that relies upon unit spam. Have you stopped to consider this is how Relic designed the fucking faction?

When you are forced to build only 2/4 total buildings and get the rest of your units from a Commander doctrine then this is what you get. Soviets are a one dimensional spam army. Ostheer is an extremely versatile army that has way more tools in the box and given the right skill level could probably win even without a commander due to the sheer amount of powerful non doctrinal units. The Soviets on the other hand have one tool: a hammer, and it has to work otherwise they lose.

So yea your gonna see some pretty big fucking hammers, aka maxim spam, truck spam, guard spam, sniper spam, EVERY GAME.

Thank Relic for that. I hate the Soviet design personally.

How predictable that everyone ignores a post like this that makes such good points.

Plus 1 to you sir!

I'm getting really tired of this game. If developers were taking it seriously, at least some adjustments would be tried, even if they don't work. Now with every patch it's "ohhh relic... why"

actually less armor and more speed is desirable against AT guns for mediums, since AT guns penetrate all sub-200 armor reliably anyway and no medium has more than 200 armor except the Easy Eight and vet 2 P4. USF ATG is the oddball, but that gets HEAT and 70 range at vet 1.

This, and a huge plus to Strumming for considering the real effect of peripheral elements.

When it comes to ATGs, penetration is not the issue. Accuracy however, remains to be.
The xommunit at largw has for a long time been supporting better accuracy, and this applies especially to faster and smaller vehicles, and even moreso because it is a low tier cheap counter which allows meta to evolve around it rathet than relying on tiered or callin v3hicle counters. And they are so so vulnerable when uncovered.

Thing about ATGs, is that their penetra4ion and damage, is good, but only so far ss the opponent does not react with micro.
Its not a "nuke", as it would be IRL, but nvm historical accuracy. Ost ATGs have better fire rate, and that is offset by Sov crew sives and Artillery option. But that reallyisnt the issue. Generally you only get 1-2 shots, which hurt, but dont destroy even medium armor. And therafter, you are esposed, and any competent opponent withdraws.

The core problem with AtGs, is the bastards MISS all the goddam time.Im not sure what stat it direcly relates to, but my gut tells me it has something to do with them taking too long to fire. The shots seem to end up "where the unit was", rather than properly tracking to where it is when the shell impacts.

Im a big BIG supporter of almost perfect ATG accuracy, with small diminishing returns related to vehicle size and speed to add a bit of flavor and RNG. I think a design direction towards that would immeasurably improve the meta.

They are so goddam hard to position, slow to move, reasonably expsneive, and most i portantly such a fundamental buffer vs unduly vehicle focused meta, that they really really need to hit when they manage to line up a shot.

@Marco: Except the premise of his logic, is flawed.

All factions have to choose Commanders before a match.

His post, unfairly, represents Sovs traditional call-in potential as a negative, wheras it is actually a core strength of Sov lateral tier structure as compared to Osts linear building progression, and even moreso the WF armies who have further complicated and diverse tiering structures.

The premise of his argument, is false, and one sided. You have to consider the larger picture and recognise where strengths and weaknesses lie for all factions, rathrr than focusing o your own chosen facions strengths as if they where weaknesses.Sov has weaknesses, but what he presents as one, is actually infsct, a strength, compared to other factions.