Soviets - A core faction discussion

Again, relying on a call in to fill that much needed long range damage role. What you are describing wongtp is the tactic I am using currently minus the maxim's plus 2 snipers. I play like brave heart.

Time for a bump.

I spent some time with a fellow bear doing 2v2's as Soviets. The OKW vs Soviet balance is so broken that in my opinion it's close to the levels of the Small Weapons profiles introduction patch.

Much cheese is required to win games.

So what has changed since this thread was created?

The Katusha, a much needed band aid to defeat (not just deflect) superior infantry blobs came to light as a very good unit. It was hammered back into the ground 11 days later.

What does the future hold?

It's not looking bright. Relic is toying with the idea of nerfing Soviet support teams such as the Maxim. Additionally, and interesting enough, the OKW support Gun snipes models with reliability and the walking Stuka has received a buff. Is a perfect storm brewing?

To be determined.

Soviets need to be reviewed as an entire faction.

Wow this is a great topic! I'm happy there is much discussion regarding their playstyle and balance.

I also agree that Soviets need to be changed. I have only played a fraction of the games you guys have played so i don't have anything to add.

I agree that conscripts and penals should be changed however. Penals should behave like a conscript squad, cheap and not too heartbreaking to lose. It seems like whenever i am playing against the OKW (maybe this applies to OST as well), i always have to keep up the pressure, even if i have taken the Vps. I think this is because conscripts can't really compete lategame (but are they suppose to?). Once the OKW troops charge in, you better make sure you can pin them/arty them.

Hello, I would like to expand on the topic.

IMO, I think Soviets in this game are one of the most frustrating factions to play. This would be good if the faction itself was rewarding in it's play style however that is completely not the case.

Reason 1 (Infantry): They have no core infantry unit that is capable of late game scaling. Their only options are extremely weak early game infantry, and the doctrinal elite infantry. They have nothing in between, and in addition, none of their infantry has reliable penetration DPS for Armor.

Reason 2 (Bad Tech Structure): An extreme lack of options comes from the Soviet's tech. Not only are their tech far more expensive than other factions, most of their tech very rarely complement each other, sometimes even under-performing. This forces them to take more predictable builds rather than them being able to diversify their builds. Not only that, but because Soviets have the highest cost of Tech structures in the game, countering something has almost twice the opportunity cost compared to other factions (time and resources).

Examples:
good builds = T1 to T4 (AI and AT both covered), T2 to T3 (AI and AT both covered)
Bad builds = T1 to T3 (Lack of AT), T2 to T4 (Lack AI Vehicles)

Reason 3 (Doctrines): Rather than complementing their playstyle, Soviet players RELY on doctrines. Typically these doctrines have an infantry (shock, gaurd) and a tank (85s or heavy) call-in. Doctrines without these two are never used, ever. This actually eliminates about 50% (?) of doctrines from ever becoming viable (NKVD, defensive, partisans, irregulars, etc.). This is a problem tied only to Soviets, diversity is killed because of this.

Reason 4 (Advantages in the wrong area): Support weapons and M3. Sure, it might be balanced currently, but I'm pretty sure absolutely no one finds facing these types of cheeses and spam fun. If the Soviets are going to be portrayed as a Hollywood Enemy at the Gates faction, then they should at least have the glorying trait that they had in the movie. Infantry. Right now, they are so unappealing to build, in addition, conscript upgrades cost FUEL... So... Maxims anyone? Anything given to conscripts would be good, squad size increase upgrade, non doc weapons, anything. They are so bad right now (same with penals).

Giving M3 a non cheese role:
M3 - give a ferry ability for transportation purposes, kind of like a supply line from base. 2 options, Units fully reinforced, or units fully reinforced and healed. Basically, it sets a rally point for troops after they healed or reinforced to directly get transported to the front line. Soviets were famous for their Tank riding. This can compensate. Over drive on that car is just stupid.

Time for a bump.

Since the last patch the ZiS has received a ninja nerf. No other changes to note.

This thread has also spawned a bunch of other relevant threads that cover the material of my observations.

- SU85 balancing
- T70 & SU-76 balancing
- Conscripts & Penals (and a lot of other awesome ideas) balancing

i actually find going T2 to T4 not bad on some maps. Usually i can hold down the fort with just T2 units such as mortar, MG, and AT gun. Since i play 4v4 exclusively, the Katyusha is quite good on maps where Axis blobs a lot (probably ever damn map!!!). The SU85 can shut down early armor as well. The only problem with this build order is that it is fuel heavy

i actually find going T2 to T4 not bad on some maps. Usually i can hold down the fort with just T2 units such as mortar, MG, and AT gun. Since i play 4v4 exclusively, the Katyusha is quite good on maps where Axis blobs a lot (probably ever damn map!!!). The SU85 can shut down early armor as well. The only problem with this build order is that it is fuel heavy

Puma spam can be a serious threat to that strategy, a good flank and you can lost all your T4 units in just seconds.
Luckily, most axis players prefer bigger tanks. Even so, I'd only build T2/T4 in narrow maps like Rails or Kharkov.

I find T2 to T3 the most conservative tech order, although T1-T2 + call-ins is also useful.

Puma spam can be a serious threat to that strategy, a good flank and you can lost all your T4 units in just seconds.
Luckily, most axis players prefer bigger tanks. Even so, I'd only build T2/T4 in narrow maps like Rails or Kharkov.

I find T2 to T3 the most conservative tech order, although T1-T2 + call-ins is also useful.

yeha that is true about puma or any early vehicle that is fairly speedy that can get around your T2 units. T2 to T3 is nice and conservative i agree. There is a nice timing period where you can get one or two T34s out before Axis can get out a medium tank. If u have a great superiority in this phase, then it becomes easier to win. However, once this crucial phase is over and Axis starts putting out the Tigers, Panthers, and KT, then it becomes an uphill battle.

On a side note At least Soviets have many "cheese" strats to stay competitive. The only USF ones that work with consistency is elite rifles spam or M1919 blobs. Plus even in those strats after the 20 minute mark the game becomes a sheer cliff of a challenge.

Back on topic Relic has noted in the past they want Soviets to be inflexible. Unfortunately to combat this decision the call in meta came about. People use guards and shocks to cover the poor excuse of base infantry while waiting for call ins because having a " more expensive yet more powerful" combined arms is not actually effective. Honestly there is really no way of really fixing this problem without a faction redesign which will never happen. Just simple profile tweaks will continue to have other side effects that get re-nerfed and back to square one.

there's no need for a faction redesign, just a simple tech cost scaling. soviets needs discounts in tech costs when it comes to t3 and t4, t1 and t2 to a smaller extent.

make t3/t4 into a single factory building for 120mp/60 fuel but unable to field any units yet. from here on, the player can choose to field t3 or t4 units at another cost of 120mp/60fuel. then he can choose to upgrade for the leftover tier for 120mp/60fuel again.

WFA faction takes tech cost balance and throws it out of the window. okw has cheap techs with buildings that give very powerful bonuses like free healing, free repairs and a flak cannon. USF gets a combat unit with heavy weapons for free when teching.

all these advantages forces ost/soviets to rely largely on call ins, cheese tactics, tech skips in order to remain militarily and economically competitive. it hits soviets slighter harder because of generally inferior units compared to ostheer.

Back on topic Relic has noted in the past they want Soviets to be inflexible.

Well, I still got the quote:

the Soviets were designed to lack flexibility both in their unit functionality and tech progression. To make up for this, they are given units which are very effective at one specific role (Sniper, Shocks, SU-85, etc.). This applies to their tech as well, the general idea was to see the player build one T1/T2 building followed by one T3/T4 building. In team games, this can be a bit more flexible as you have other players to provide you some buffer.

At least the lack of flexibility is what they got right, because with WFA armies the "very effective units" part went down to the trash.

Anyways, you can see, that most good players nowadays will simply skip getting conscripts and getting 2 of them or so.

Then proceed to make 4 maxims or 3 snipers. And when you face such a strategy, sure IT is beatable, i'm not complaining about balance here, ask to yourself. IS this FUN? Is this fun playing againts? Is this what COH is supposed to be all about?

No. It is not.

Well, sadly, soviets have to rely on such dumb strategies because core soviet infantry is horrible, and even elite infantry, gaurds are rather mediocre.

The soviet faction doesn`t need a complete redesign but needs some kind of changes to limit the cheesiness and allow for a straight-up combined-arms play. The biggest cheese that needs adressing is imo multiple snipers into call-ins. It not only presents a balance issue but also produces passive, boring and frustrating gameplay - on both sides I might add. The biggest obstacle in the way of straight-up play is imo a lack of effective regular infantry force since conscripts don`t cut it currently.

I propose two possible solutions.

First:

Simply set a limit of having max 1 sniper squad on the field at any given time. 1 sniper can add a flavour to the game without making it completely sniper-centric and eliminating most of regular infantry skirmishes.

At the same time make conscripts a bit more effective and scalable at least into mid game. They need to be able to better hold their own in combined arms situations against other factions.


Second:

This one is a bit more creative which means a bigger change that is obviously harder to implement. It limits the soviet cheesiness while preserving multiple snipers playstyle and improves soviet infantry situation without adressing conscripts performance directly.

I suggest moving sniper out of tier 1 and into Urban Defense Tactics commander instead of incendiary artillery. Same cost, same stats, 1CP, multiple snipers allowed. I think it would synergize well with the rest of the abilities and create a unique commander. Going for multiple snipers would now entail opportunity costs because the doctrine would be strong early/mid game but would not offer any call-in armor or elite infantry besides snipers.

At the same time Irregulars would be finally made relavant to the game. They would move to tier 1 and would be changd in stats and cost to provide soviets with long-range non-doctrinal non-elite infantry. They would fill a similar role to wehr grenadiers, they might even get a muni upgrade (weapon or ruvivability) to improve they scalability. They should of course not be an exact copy of grens, they should just fill a similar role. They should not get any AT snare ability imo and should be pretty bad at close range, that`s where conscripts come in to fill the gap. I`ll leave the exact picture of the new irregulars to your imagination. (Lastly the Soviet Reserve Army commander would get whatever instead of irregulars, lets say guards or shocks or DShK but it doesn`t matter.)

The cheesiness and perceived "easyness" of most Soviet strats just makes the faction boring to play.

At least the lack of flexibility is what they got right, because with WFA armies the "very effective units" part went down to the trash.

Soviet Conscript/(Guard/Shock) spam into doctrinals is still probably one of the most effective and solid strategies in the current meta.

The OKW vs Soviet matchup is probably one of the more one-sided matchups at the moment. There isn't really that much you can do as the OKW vs Maxims and Snipers in the early game. T34/85s 10CPs in make fairly short work of anything which may eventually come out to counter soviet-early-tech units.

Soviet Conscript/(Guard/Shock) spam into doctrinals is still probably one of the most effective and solid strategies in the current meta.

Try it against OKW and see how that goes. It basically gets completely destroyed by both fusiliers and mg34s, ie. 99% of the okw games you face.

The OKW vs Soviet matchup is probably one of the more one-sided matchups at the moment. There isn't really that much you can do as the OKW vs Maxims and Snipers in the early game. T34/85s 10CPs in make fairly short work of anything which may eventually come out to counter soviet-early-tech units.

Please. Volkspam is extremely effective against both maxims and snipers. It's true that you'll have a bad time if you try to rely on raketen as AT as okw against soviet call-ins, every time I've tried it has failed, but why would you? Just use infantry to completely shutdown soviet infantry, and use your fuel purely on anti-tank vehicles (or a sturmtiger if you want to play trolly as it's extremely good against anything), except for a single Luchs if opponent is not teching T3/T4 at all and doesn't have multiple ZiS.

Simply set a limit of having max 1 sniper squad on the field at any given time. 1 sniper can add a flavour to the game without making it completely sniper-centric and eliminating most of regular infantry skirmishes.

And Soviet T1 was never seen again. Sniper is literally the only long-term investment in the tier, penals are just bad at any point in time and M3 only has value within the first few minutes of the game. A single sniper and M3 is not worth skipping out on ZiS and maxims.

Try it against OKW and see how that goes. It basically gets completely destroyed by both fusiliers and mg34s, ie. 99% of the okw games you face.

Guards/Conscripts beat Volks/Fusiliers in an equal-skill engagement. Shocktroopers? Even better. Like, a conscript spam trumps a Volks spam 100% of the time. Conscripts are better at every range in equal cover except at ultra-long (And it's very, very difficult to get long range engagements in 1v1s). Guards school both Fusiliers and Volks hard with the LMG upgrade at all ranges except short when fusiliers have G43s.

Please. Volkspam is extremely effective against both maxims and snipers. It's true that you'll have a bad time if you try to rely on raketen as AT as okw against soviet call-ins, every time I've tried it has failed, but why would you? Just use infantry to completely shutdown soviet infantry, and use your fuel purely on anti-tank vehicles (or a sturmtiger if you want to play trolly as it's extremely good against anything), except for a single Luchs if opponent is not teching T3/T4 at all and doesn't have multiple ZiS.

Completely shut down soviet infantry? What? Dude, OKW main-line inf is horrible against the Soviets. Volks really don't shut down Guards/Cons by themselves at all. Volks sure as hell don't counter snipers and Maxims if the map is right either.

I'm with Cruzz on this. It's almost exactly what I see in team games.

Your thread is titled a core faction discussion, and you refer to a complete Sov overhaul in your thread many times, but you seem not to be actually suggesting any complete overhauls in detail. Though the OP is long, its just a subjective description of units, in a vacuum, that ends with just a few actual suggested changes.

Napalms Balancing Recommendations

• PPSH becomes a unlock ability when the Soviet's build T3 or T4. This will allow conscripts to serve a purpose beyond AT nades come late game. Will this ever happen? Doubtful.
  
• Penals receive a weapons profile update between the range of 15 and 35. This will help fill the gap of non-doctrinal infantry which are decent at range. Even .3 a SVT will make a difference and further define the roles of Conscripts vs Penals.
  
• T70 to get a fuel cost reduction. From 70 to 60.
  
• SU76 becomes a mobile ZiS with the same weapons profile as the ZiS. I still wouldn't build this unit due to no serviceability but at least it fills a role.
  
• SU85 is revisited given Blitz's reintroduction and the Puma. A surviveability buff would go a long way to making this unit something to be feared.
  

.

1) This has been discussed since launch. Among the reasons why this is not possible, are that Cons are a 6man unit and what that equates to in durability, especially mid-lategame, as well as their native Merge and Oorah.

2) Penals are indeed a persistant "squished" unit that also has been a point of discussion since launch. Even tier cost changes did not result in the entry of this unit to meta. Personally, Id suggest around a G43 equivalent profile with mid-long range impetus (and perhaps less moving accuracy)(also as mitigated towards smaller model count units) as native, and a full spectrum of upgrade options to choose 1 from, as 1) 2xPTSR 2) 2xDPs (which btw need buffing) 3) Flamer+full PPSHs. This way Penals can form a flexible non-callin option alongside Guard/Shock Commanders AND non- infantry callin Commanders, to fill in the "gap". Im ok with them keeping Satchel in all variants.

3) Im not sure why you include this. I suppose perhaps T70 could use a slightly (and your change is quite small) earlier window vs OKW as a subsequent interbalance change since WFA launch. Perhaps it the cost decrease was met with an equally small reduction in AI efficacy so as to make it earlier vs OKW, but not raise the old AI spectre vs Ost?

4)In aperfect world, yes. I think the SU76 basivally being a mechanised and lightly armored ZiS, as you propose, "makes sense". But from an Ost perspective, I chafe at the thought, cos it makes Stug seem quite shit in comparison. This is a very difficult unit to fit in. Suggestions have been made to swap SU76 with T70, but have met with very interesting and diverse reactions. Many prominent players where concerned with T70/SU85 builds, which is not something I personally saw problems with, but I have to defer to their more experienced judgement. I was more concerned with walls of SU76/ZiS builds that can both facepunch armor, and lay down a continuous barrage of indirect saturation AI fire. That was rebutted by stating its actually already possible, and hasnt happened, which is true, though it sounds powerful on paper. SU76 is definately a unit I would like to see more discussion on.

5)Can you elaborate on why SU85 should be buffed universally, just for purposes of engaging especially this specifically mentioned Puma unit? I ask this, because it seems to me, that though SU85 can deliver terrible dmg when positioned against a Puma, the Puma is actually, by its nature, a SU85 counter. Know what I mean?

On a general note to yourself, I appreciate how exhaustive your OP is. The graphs are priceless, and I took the time to really look at them. Thanks for including those.

I also appreciate how younhave cultivated this thread. Youve consistently updated with changes and have controlled your temper to sometimes negative reactions. As seems to have become an informal policy on CoH2.org (and which I applaud, though I dont know its origin), the idea of "OP moderates his own thread" has come very true here. Well done on that. Especially on such a volatile subject with fanbois abounding on all sides.

I "get" what you mean with your comprehensive analysis, unit by unit, of every Sov option. But I have to render some critique here. I sincerely wish you would take time, and make it a point, to play more Axis. You clearly care about balance, and are prepared to go the extra mile in your posts to deliver as full a picture as you can. But there is a certain, undeliberate, but still there, incipient and accidental bias in your unit analysis that belies a faction specific perspective that has developed in a "vacuum" without having to face the units you detail, from the otherside.

Anyways, I hope I have managed to present my opinions conducively, and supportively of the effort you have taken.

It wasn't a request to buff it specifically for the puma. The puma is part of a broad threat of medium armor mobility that had been removed and then reintroduced. The puma is performing on the level of a medium tank with the mobility of a light tank. Medium Ostheer tanks gain super speed with blitz at vet1. These mobility threats make the slow clumsy su-85 bad at doing it's single role.