Poll: Do Soviets need a major faction redesign?

Interesting discussion, it appears there's pretty strong agreement that Soviets need to be changed heavily in some way. How much though is split about 50-50.

I think one of the problems for the Soviets is the essential fragility of their units, 6 man squads only count vs snipers, the rest of the time, the damage inflicted on each other is roughly equal. This means that if you have squads brought down to one man and retreating, then the damage inflicted on them is greater compared to a German squad brought down to one man.

Now 6 men are less survivable? It greatly increases the survivability versus Snipers and any kind of explosion, tank and artillery alike. Sovs have two men more dealing damage.

Sovs can recrew a weapon and you are not brought down to that single man who instantly has to retreat, like the Germans.

6 men on any weapon crew are also annoying. Usually if you catch a German weapon crew off guard, it will go down. I´ve lost count on how many Maxims run through two squads of Grenadiers just to make it out alive. The bitter thing is that throwing away those crew weapons really does punish you.

That´s definitely not a disadvantage. If anything the survivability of Russian infantry is higher than that of the Germans.

4 men squads are usually brought down to that one man faster than 6 men squads - eventually wiping the squad and vet.

Russian infantry is all but fragile.

More survivability isn´t needed. What´s annoying about playing them is the restrictions. There is no non doctrinal omni purpose tank (T-34/76 doesn´t really count). There´s either Shock troopers or AT infantry, not both. This is incredibly restricting and dull.

Well their German counterparts have more hps,are usually more accurate and have higher dps,so the german and the soviet units have a similar survivability but soviets survive longer against sniper,due to the fact they have more men.
I think there isnt a problem with the survivability of soviet infantry
but rather the lack of variety and strenght of soviet units.
I mean such a weak infantry(talking about Cons)just cant be a core unit of a faction since it doesnt offer any utility past midgame without relying on your Commander choice,also i think they already su.ck in the early with their horrible accuracy and 8% more received accuracy.

I mean such a weak infantry(talking about Cons)just cant be a core unit of a faction since it doesnt offer any utility past midgame without relying on your Commander choice,also i think they already su.ck in the early with their horrible accuracy and 8% more received accuracy.

No utility ? molotovs and AT grenades are quite interesting, on top of being able to spread all around the map to cap-harass Axis positions. That and the easy weapon recrewing + merging a fighting support weapon make it an all around decent core infantry squad. They are somewhat "AOE proof", "Sniper proof", and are a nightmare for Axis weapon teams (molotovs) and light vehicles (AT grenade).

USSR needs definitely a change, but i wouldn't describe the faction as broken or UP as it is now. Definitely not.

PS: also i would like to add something that could also change the way you see the Conscripts units: damage decay over the course of a fight is quite smoother with larger units in general: losing one man is a ~16% decrease in squad dps output, while a Grenadier squad losing one soldier has its damage suddenly dropping by 25%, and it gets worse with each loss (same goes for Cons, but as i said, it is smoother).

Molotov and AT have to be researched at HQ.Grens can do the same stuff without the need of researching it (´nade instead of molo.) and i feel like molotovs are only good against support weapons because mobile infantry can just dodge the molotov easily.Recrewing and merging weapons is the only thing i like about this dudes.Upgrades that makes them somewhat useful in later stages of the game (ppsh,htd,repairkit) are only commander abilities.
Maybe they arent as bad as it may sound but i really hate this unit as a core infantry.This guys would be great support units for a lower price or something.

Molotov and AT have to be researched at HQ.Grens can do the same stuff without the need of researching it (´nade instead of molo.) and i feel like molotovs are only good against support weapons because mobile infantry can just dodge the molotov easily.Recrewing and merging weapons is the only thing i like about this dudes.Upgrades that makes them somewhat useful in later stages of the game (ppsh,htd,repairkit) are only commander abilities.
Maybe they arent as bad as it may sound but i really hate this unit as a core infantry.This guys would be great support units for a lower price or something.

Rifle nade requires teching to T2, costs 30 ammo (in a faction that needs ammo for everything already), and are dodged as easily as molotovs. I'm not saying Grenadiers are a bad unit or anything (obvisouly not, they are probably the sole reason that Wehr still has a chance in the current state of the game), i just try to point out that Conscripts are not as bad as you feel they are. I actually have watched quite a few games recently, with top-tier USSR players fielding mostly conscripts squads throughout the game (and winning, also versus top-tier Wehrmacht players). Versus Oberkommando on the other hand, there is maybe a problem, but i focus my playing and spectating time on Wehrmacht mostly, so i would probably say bullshit (and thus prefer to stfu, unlike many people on this forum).

No utility ? molotovs and AT grenades are quite interesting, on top of being able to spread all around the map to cap-harass Axis positions. That and the easy weapon recrewing + merging a fighting support weapon make it an all around decent core infantry squad. They are somewhat "AOE proof", "Sniper proof", and are a nightmare for Axis weapon teams (molotovs) and light vehicles (AT grenade).

USSR needs definitely a change, but i wouldn't describe the faction as broken or UP as it is now. Definitely not.

PS: also i would like to add something that could also change the way you see the Conscripts units: damage decay over the course of a fight is quite smoother with larger units in general: losing one man is a ~16% decrease in squad dps output, while a Grenadier squad losing one soldier has its damage suddenly dropping by 25%, and it gets worse with each loss (same goes for Cons, but as i said, it is smoother).

are you seriously suggesting a cons spam tactic?

Ohh god I remember the time in Alpha when seeing an ISU as german was like "hm yeah whatever" but if you saw an SU-85 you was like "ok gg you win".

are you seriously suggesting a cons spam tactic?

I'm not suggesting anything, i'm just saying they aren't as bad as you guys are crying them to be. Gonna ignore the arrogant tone of yours, for the sake of conversation. You know, you could just try to spectate a few top tier 1v1 USSR games, and see for yourself if Cons are completely useless. Guess you gonna like it.

I mean i guesss you can con spam and outnumber all the troops on the field...

You mean againt equally expensive grenadiers that tear cons a new one with LMG or cheaper volks that loose at vet0 and then stomp over cons on higher vet?

Numerical superiority applies exclusively to infantry number within a squad, nothing else and not always as OKW also have 6 men squads that perform infinitively better.

How to fix soviets

buff t-34/76
buff su-85
buff su-76


Soviets = fixed.


Conscripts are fine, penals are slightly underperforming perhaps, shocks are fine, gaurds are slightly underperforming as both AT and AI and of course partisans and irregurals are underperforming... Not to mention some lackluster commander abilities here and there...


The soviet faction design is a different topic, if you don't like it, simply make a mod and that's it.

lets try and keep it clean guys... I think we can all have a discussion without coming to blows I think anyways not totally sure .

You mean againt equally expensive grenadiers that tear cons a new one with LMG or cheaper volks that loose at vet0 and then stomp over cons on higher vet?

Numerical superiority applies exclusively to infantry number within a squad, nothing else and not always as OKW also have 6 men squads that perform infinitively better.

Bolded important text.

You're welcome.

Rifle nade requires teching to T2, costs 30 ammo (in a faction that needs ammo for everything already), and are dodged as easily as molotovs. I'm not saying Grenadiers are a bad unit or anything (obvisouly not, they are probably the sole reason that Wehr still has a chance in the current state of the game), i just try to point out that Conscripts are not as bad as you feel they are. I actually have watched quite a few games recently, with top-tier USSR players fielding mostly conscripts squads throughout the game (and winning, also versus top-tier Wehrmacht players). Versus Oberkommando on the other hand, there is maybe a problem, but i focus my playing and spectating time on Wehrmacht mostly, so i would probably say bullshit (and thus prefer to stfu, unlike many people on this forum).

easy to dodge rifle nades? long range = low risk, dont need to run out of cover and into the open to throw a nade. long range = no telltale signs of nading, dont have to move out of cover. fast(er) animation.

teching to t2? its free, stop kidding urself. tagging it to t2 only means its available later and has no cost of its own whatsoever.

30ammo? decent changes to squad behavior in cover just indirectly megabuffed rifle nades. squad wipes and shaving off 3 + men per 30muni is a good deal.

How to fix soviets

buff t-34/76
buff su-85
buff su-76


Soviets = fixed.


Conscripts are fine, penals are slightly underperforming perhaps, shocks are fine, gaurds are slightly underperforming as both AT and AI and of course partisans and irregurals are underperforming... Not to mention some lackluster commander abilities here and there...


The soviet faction design is a different topic, if you don't like it, simply make a mod and that's it.

t34 does not need any buffs. it's fine as it is.

buffed t34s + industry tactics spam = gg

easy to dodge rifle nades? long range = low risk, dont need to run out of cover and into the open to throw a nade. long range = no telltale signs of nading, dont have to move out of cover. fast(er) animation.

teching to t2? its free, stop kidding urself. tagging it to t2 only means its available later and has no cost of its own whatsoever.

30ammo? decent changes to squad behavior in cover just indirectly megabuffed rifle nades. squad wipes and shaving off 3 + men per 30muni is a good deal.

Now bring me replays of any decent players losing 3+ men on rifle nades, then we can speak. Long range = lower risk indeed, but it also means longer time to see its trajectory and plan a dodge. I can agree to disagree with you, if you absolutely think rifle nades are OP. I'm not saying molotovs are OP, they bring a lot of utility to an otherwise average squad. The same goes for AT nades, those upgrades give Conscripts a way to keep usefulness all game long, even if their fighting strength gets behind past 10 mins. As i said, i spend quite a lot of time watching 1v1 of top tier players, and i see much more weapons teams wipes with molotovs than squad wipes with rifle nades. It's ok, different points of view (and probably different game modes too, you are mainly a team player, right ?).

Bolded important text.

You're welcome.

What if I told you its not munition that makes units hit the field but that other resource that is equal or lower for axis?

What if I told you its not munition that makes units hit the field but that other resource that is equal or lower for axis?

What if i told you that those squads are roughly equal if that munition upgrade is not being bought ? And that 60 ammunition for Wehrmacht is a lot. I could even go as far as saying that Ammo is equal or lower for Soviets, it would accomplish the same rethorical argument that you are using. Basically, you try to imply that 240mp for Axis is < 240mp for Soviets, and i am saying that 60 ammo for Axis > 60 ammo for USSR. You know what, let's just ignore eachother, we will never agree on anything.

Now bring me replays of any decent players losing 3+ men on rifle nades, then we can speak. Long range = lower risk indeed, but it also means longer time to see its trajectory and plan a dodge. I can agree to disagree with you, if you absolutely think rifle nades are OP. I'm not saying molotovs are OP, they bring a lot of utility to an otherwise average squad. The same goes for AT nades, those upgrades give Conscripts a way to keep usefulness all game long, even if their fighting strength gets behind past 10 mins. As i said, i spend quite a lot of time watching 1v1 of top tier players, and i see much more weapons teams wipes with molotovs than squad wipes with rifle nades. It's ok, different points of view (and probably different game modes too, you are mainly a team player, right ?).

yes, im a 2v2 player. there's alot less room to move around, a lot more bullshit to deal with there. i havent said anything was op, i disagreed with your notion that they are as easily dodged and gave a couple of good reasons why.

give me replays on molotovs turning the game over by constantly squad wiping or let me lower my standards, show me replays of molotovs being difficult to dodge.

and with that 3+ men losses, its happening pretty frequently, maybe watch a couple of high ranked 2v2 ussr teams and try to keep up.