Poll: Do Soviets need a major faction redesign?
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Also, wehr is not as muni starved as USF or even OKW, so its not really an argument either.
And I am implying that axis infantry scales better and is useful in late game because of better vet and upgrades in OKW case or just upgrades in wehr case, trying to argue that is like trying to argue that sun is cold, you simply won't go far.
And obviously muni is more important for wehr then sov(unless guard doctrine is selected), because soviets have NOTHING except mines to spend that muni aaaaand we're going back to the right thread, which is bad design of soviet faction, over reliance on doctrines and lack of "punch" and scalability of stock units.
Posts: 400
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.
Then it is a game mode issue, in 1v1 nobody loses squads to rifle nades, and people lose weapon teams to molotovs. That's it, really (probably due to close combat happening more frequently, it seems rather logical to me that there isn't much space in team games).
PS: Thinking about it, it is maybe due to the fact that Axis may have more ammo to play with in teamgames too, but in 1v1 one can't be throwing away 30 ammo that often to turn the tide of a skirmish between squads. I mostly see them used to destroy buildings since the last patch, which it surprisingly does well.
What if I told you that axis playing without upgrades is like allies playing without call-ins? AKA it just doesn't happen. You can theorycraft about it all you want, but axis doesn't play without upgrades and implying they do is completely void argument that have no base in actual gameplay.
Also, wehr is not as muni starved as USF or even OKW, so its not really an argument either.
And I am implying that axis infantry scales better and is useful in late game because of better vet and upgrades in OKW case or just upgrades in wehr case, trying to argue that is like trying to argue that sun is cold, you simply won't go far.
And obviously muni is more important for wehr then sov(unless guard doctrine is selected), because soviets have NOTHING except mines to spend that muni aaaaand we're going back to the right thread, which is bad design of soviet faction, over reliance on doctrines and lack of "punch" and scalability of stock units.
I am the one theorycrafting when you step into the thread, and claim that Wehrmacht 240mp represents less than Soviet 240mp. lol, just lol. Obviously, upgrades make grenadiers scale better, but if you let your opponent upgrade all his grenadiers squads with lmgs in the first place, you deserve to lose. That's it, really.
Not saying it never happens, but saying that upgraded grenadiers verse un-upgraded conscripts winning is unfair, is like saying "wtf my one IS2 was destroyed by two Tigers" or the like. I'm not trying to go anywhere with it, as i absolutely do not care about USSR in this game. But when i read things like "conscripts have no utility", then i step in and clean the mess. They do, and no, they are not useless.
Posts: 2053
but if you let your opponent upgrade all his grenadiers squads with lmgs in the first place, you deserve to lose.
I completely forgot about the SU ability to block enemy munitions purchases!
But seriously, what? Your paragraph would have been fine without that ridiculous statement.
Posts: 3293
Posts: 400
I completely forgot about the SU ability to block enemy munitions purchases!
But seriously, what? Your paragraph would have been fine without that ridiculous statement.
Really ? Do we play a different game ? What's the usual number of grens squads fielded in a game ? 4 to 5, maybe more. At what point in the game can you realistically reach that 240-300 ammo needed to upgrade them all ? Probably never, or the game is long enough, that the upgrade is no longer giving Wehrmacht the upperhand in every fight (i do agree that it gives grenadiers scaling, but you can't have all your squads upgraded by 10 minutes into the game, or if it happens, then you deserve to win the game, as it requires having BIG ressource income, and the map control coming with it). Hope my point is clear with a bit of explanation (which was obvious to me when i worded it the first time).
Posts: 281
. I'm not trying to go anywhere with it, as i absolutely do not care about USSR in this game. .
If you don´t care about soviet in this game why you are at this tread in the first place?
you can't disscus a faction if you don't care about that faction.
Posts: 400
If you don´t care about soviet in this game why you are at this tread in the first place?
you can't disscus a faction if you don't care about that faction.
Fair enough. Have fun.
Posts: 2053
Really ? Do we play a different game ? What's the usual number of grens squads fielded in a game ? 4 to 5, maybe more. At what point in the game can you realistically reach that 240-300 ammo needed to upgrade them all ? Probably never, or the game is long enough, that the upgrade is no longer giving Wehrmacht the upperhand in every fight (i do agree that it gives grenadiers scaling, but you can't have all your squads upgraded by 10 minutes into the game, or if it happens, then you deserve to win the game, as it requires having BIG ressource income, and the map control coming with it). Hope my point is clear with a bit of explanation (which was obvious to me when i worded it the first time).
Usually 3 grens with LMG's is all you need. I see 3 grens with LMG's roaming around very often in my games and in other people's streams. So "never" is an overstatement. The upgrade always helps grenadiers in battle with other infantry at nearly all courses of the game. Just getting your first gren an LMG is cumulative in your progress on holding the line and getting your other grens an LMG.
I am arguing against your statement that Soviets can prevent gren LMG distribution. I am saying that that is much, much, easier said than done.
Posts: 400
Posts: 513
Really ? Do we play a different game ? What's the usual number of grens squads fielded in a game ? 4 to 5, maybe more. At what point in the game can you realistically reach that 240-300 ammo needed to upgrade them all ? Probably never, or the game is long enough, that the upgrade is no longer giving Wehrmacht the upperhand in every fight (i do agree that it gives grenadiers scaling, but you can't have all your squads upgraded by 10 minutes into the game, or if it happens, then you deserve to win the game, as it requires having BIG ressource income, and the map control coming with it). Hope my point is clear with a bit of explanation (which was obvious to me when i worded it the first time).
Lmao congratulations on voiding all your future comments on this forum
Posts: 665
i really like someone's idea of upgrades within t3/t4 structure.
i think it went like:
basic t3/t4 structures are cheap but they have to be upgraded to get t34/su85s out.
i think this would make sov mid game vehicles like t70, su76, or even quad m5 out earlier for more interesting mid game for sov.
i really like it for if i wanted su76 to support for t34, i can do it cheaply but if want to utilize t34 +su85, probably one the most effective combo, you need to invest more etc etc.
Yes, that worked for the Panzer Elite back in CoH1, I'm pretty sure it would for the Soviets. Keep the cost for a fully unlocked tier 120 fuel, but make it 60 to build a tier and 60 to unlock its big unit, and buff the T-34 and SU-85 accordingly. The long-discussed swap between T-70 and SU-76 could also work, the latter needs a buff however.
I have a feeling that Soviet's T1 and T2 are fine, minus the overpowered snipers that need a nerf while conscripts/penals could use a little love. The problem is that their T3 and T4 just aren't competitive, which leads into call-ins being widely favored because not only are they cheaper, they are also more effective.
As VonIvan said, Soviets are a powerful faction... if you cheese and stick to a couple of tried and true builds. Try to use anything other than cookie cutter units, and unless you outplay your opponent, you will see why those units aren't cookie cutter. This sucks and needs to change.
Posts: 923
[This regards history, and yes gameplay > history. just feel alot of people aren't aware of why the comparison is an apples and oranges situation]
Basically the 76mm upgrade for the Sherman is equal to upgrading the Pz-IV to a long barrel, remove the old gun, slap on an other. Loads of Shermans were upgraded like this.
The redesign to the T-34 also changed the entire turret which meant a bigger turret ring had to be made in the chassis; a gunner was added which made them more effective thanks to commanders not multitasking as much, fixed problems with the transmission meaning the driver didn't need the radio-operator some willpower and powerful kicks to shift gear, the electrical engine for the turret was replaced, working conditions for the loader was improved, the airfilters were changed and the radio was moved.
T-34/76s were never upgraded to T-34-85s, it is more of a new tank built on the same principles and using (almost) the same chassi. But the 85 was so much more than just the gun, so having an muni upgrade to the 76s to 85s would be quite weird.
Not saying adding the 85 as an unlockable when X,Y and Z are true is a bad idea, just that 76s should not upgrade to 85s.
If you wish to respond to this, send me a PM and we can make a new thread for it.
Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9
Feel free to ignore [or mods delete if you find it poor or too off-topic] but just laying my mind down why the M4 Sherman 76mm upgrade from vCoH should not be equated to upgrading the T-34/76 to T-34-85.
[This regards history, and yes gameplay > history. just feel alot of people aren't aware of why the comparison is an apples and oranges situation]
Basically the 76mm upgrade for the Sherman is equal to upgrading the Pz-IV to a long barrel, remove the old gun, slap on an other. Loads of Shermans were upgraded like this.not multitasking as much, fixed problems with the transmission meaning the driver didn't need the radio-operator some willpower and powerful kicks to shift gear, the electrical engine for the turret was replaced, working conditions for the loader was improved, the airfilters were changed and the radio was moved.
T-34/76s were never upgraded to T-34-85s, it is more of a new tank built on the same principles and using (almost) the same chassi. But the 85 was so much more than just the gun, so having an muni upgrade to the 76s to 85s would be quite weird.
Not saying adding the 85 as an unlockable when X,Y and Z are true is a bad idea, just that 76s
The redesign to the T-34 also changed the entire turret which meant a bigger turret ring had to be made in the chassis; a gunner was added which made them more effective thanks to commanders should not upgrade to 85s.
If you wish to respond to this, send me a PM and we can make a new thread for it.
Interesting PoV, somenBjorn. Honestly expressed and well-thought out (IMO). There is no reason at all to delete your post.
Please, by all means, start a thread, especially if you are prepared to moderate it
Posts: 2070
Feel free to ignore [or mods delete if you find it poor or too off-topic] but just laying my mind down why the M4 Sherman 76mm upgrade from vCoH should not be equated to upgrading the T-34/76 to T-34-85.
[This regards history, and yes gameplay > history. just feel alot of people aren't aware of why the comparison is an apples and oranges situation]
Basically the 76mm upgrade for the Sherman is equal to upgrading the Pz-IV to a long barrel, remove the old gun, slap on an other. Loads of Shermans were upgraded like this.
The redesign to the T-34 also changed the entire turret which meant a bigger turret ring had to be made in the chassis; a gunner was added which made them more effective thanks to commanders not multitasking as much, fixed problems with the transmission meaning the driver didn't need the radio-operator some willpower and powerful kicks to shift gear, the electrical engine for the turret was replaced, working conditions for the loader was improved, the airfilters were changed and the radio was moved.
T-34/76s were never upgraded to T-34-85s, it is more of a new tank built on the same principles and using (almost) the same chassi. But the 85 was so much more than just the gun, so having an muni upgrade to the 76s to 85s would be quite weird.
Not saying adding the 85 as an unlockable when X,Y and Z are true is a bad idea, just that 76s should not upgrade to 85s.
If you wish to respond to this, send me a PM and we can make a new thread for it.
But going back to your original point, gameplay>realism, then i could also say T34/76 should be upgraded somehow using tech, or at least put the T34/85 as a nondoc unit. Having the T34/85 would really solve many issues with the Soviet faction's reliance on commanders.
Posts: 371
Posts: 2053
But...
Its still ever so slightly better than the t34/76, and the problem with soviet tanks like these is that they are very identical, but the former would become never used even if it is only slightly weaker.
What one well-achieved characteristic of Ostheer teching is that the gap between teching for the panther and Panzer IV is pretty huge, and both tanks have noticeable differences. Unfortunately, T4 is viable at no point in a 1v1.
Soviet teching sucks that even if you bought the other final tier, getting anything for spending the unnecessary fuel feels like the improper way to award Soviets with a better tank. I just hate the Soviet tech tree.
In a mod, I made a KV-1 available after both T3+T4 are built, and even though i made it cost nearly as much as a panther, it had a pretty huge impact in the game, even with the extra fuel needed to achieve it (dat run-on). At least instead of a call in meta, one could save the fuel to tech to receive the KV-1 in that case.
But... In the reality, at least i would wish a Su-76 and T-70 switch, and the Su-76 made into a lite SU-85, but only good for destroying medium tanks. (I played around and made the su-76 as long of a reload as the puma, gave it 140-150-160 pen, but kept damage and survivability the same. I reduced range to 50, and made it cost a little more manpower.) With changes like that, i was satisfied that it more fit the role of a glass cannon without making the su-85 redundant.
Posts: 2742
But I just want me some Supply Yard action again.
Posts: 2070
I believe the t34/85 callin has 800 health and *slightly* more armor than the regular t34. I guess i can mod about a T34/85 that is available after all tiers are built, and only has t34/85 gun stats (i guess for personal observation on how a scenario like that can play out).
But...
Its still ever so slightly better than the t34/76, and the problem with soviet tanks like these is that they are very identical, but the former would become never used even if it is only slightly weaker.
What one well-achieved characteristic of Ostheer teching is that the gap between teching for the panther and Panzer IV is pretty huge, and both tanks have noticeable differences. Unfortunately, T4 is viable at no point in a 1v1.
Soviet teching sucks that even if you bought the other final tier, getting anything for spending the unnecessary fuel feels like the improper way to award Soviets with a better tank. I just hate the Soviet tech tree.
In a mod, I made a KV-1 available after both T3+T4 are built, and even though i made it cost nearly as much as a panther, it had a pretty huge impact in the game, even with the extra fuel needed to achieve it (dat run-on). At least instead of a call in meta, one could save the fuel to tech to receive the KV-1 in that case.
But... In the reality, at least i would wish a Su-76 and T-70 switch, and the Su-76 made into a lite SU-85, but only good for destroying medium tanks. (I played around and made the su-76 as long of a reload as the puma, gave it 140-150-160 pen, but kept damage and survivability the same. I reduced range to 50, and made it cost a little more manpower.) With changes like that, i was satisfied that it more fit the role of a glass cannon without making the su-85 redundant.
Yeah it might hurt the T34/76 so changes could be made. THe ideal situation would be to replace al T34/76 with the T34/85 and the T34/76 would either be a call-in unit or something like that.
I truly believe if the T34/85 be nondoc, then things would be a lot better for the Soviet Union. SOme doctrines without call-in tanks would actually be playable because you could still use the T34/85 as your main tank.
Although that makes SU85 redundant.. but i still think it would be okay.
Posts: 18
In CoH1 the USA had a brake on teching called the Suppy Yard. You had to build this to be able to build T3 and T4. So Soviets could have something similar. A new building wouldn't be necessary, it could just be an upgrade in their HQ. (Call it 'Escalation' or something, and borrow an icon from the German HQ. They won't mind.)
The point is, this would allow the cost and time to build Soviet T3 and T4 to be reduced. The first one built would cost the same in resources and time, but the second would be much cheaper, which allows a greater variety in late game.
How's that?
Posts: 2070
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.1110614.644+11
- 4.640231.735-1
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.921406.694-1
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.17146.788+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
4 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, kiddroofing
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM