5 things that are destroying balance right now

Ostwind can win T34 in straight up 1v1 fight which seems really odd.

It is not just odd, it is quite rediculous, yes the ostwind costs more but it does a good job vs infantry, light tanks such as the t70. and a Really good job vs all vehicles/aircraft.

I have started seeing more german players spam 2-3 ostwinds aswell as paks/shreks, so much AI and AT, the only thing that army comp struggles with is the soviet heavy tanks which in 1v1s you do not see very often as all soviets who are not confident in winning choose HtD doctrine, ( i myself tend to go with the heavy mortar and t34/85 doctrine as it requires more skill)

1.) It is not different to the Russian AT-gun in terms of anti tank, the only thing making the russian one better (in my opinion) is the Artillery Barrage ability.
A Panzer IV can drive by a russian At-gun and destroy it almost as fast as the T34 destroys paks.
edit: scratch that, Paks are way better vs tanks due to higher firerate than the Russian ZIS

2.) I don't get this, people seem to forget that 2 T34 cost as much as a Panther and are not nearly as strong.
The thing making it strong is that German player underestimate how fast they can hit the field (if the Russian plays right) and are often not prepared to deal with them.

3.)Conscripts are quite nice with PPsH and hit the dirt, yes, but don't forget that grens are also nice with G43 or mg42.
And MG42 are not doctrinal while PPsH and Hit the dirt are.
Additionally, it actually costs more to reinforce a conscript squad from 1 member to 6 than it costs for the Grens from 1 to 4, so "cheap" is not really true.

4) If you flank an MG make sure you get as close to it as possible and if it turns to you run through it on the opposit site.
Had no issues with flanking Maxims or MG42.

5)Some good cheaper mines won't hurt for both factions tbh.

1a. Panzer IV requires heavier fuel investment than the T-34. P4 is 115 fuel, plus 25 for first tier, 35 for second, plus another bunch for the building.
T-34 building I believe is 90 fuel, and the 50 fuel for the first building is ignored because Russians start out with that amount, whereas Ostheer do not. Your "first" P4 will hit the field sometime after the "first" T-34/76, giving the Russians a distinct advantage if you choose to go head-to-head Medium Tank vs Medium Tank. Don't forget that T-34/85s require no fuel investment whatsoever, in regards to demanding building being built. This allows a 50-fuel headstart on the tank race.

1b. You're basing Paks being better vs tanks than ZiS based on rate of fire? ZiS play a role as AI with barrage, Pak does not. This allows the Soviet to gamble on that field presence, whereas the Ostheer will have to choose between early PGrens or Pak-40.
The thing about a T-34 build, is that there are no visible markers to warn the Ostheer player that it is indeed coming, unless 120mm Mortar/Guards are spotted, but that is only in the case of T-34/85s. This leads to the situation where the ZiS is on the field, Tank or no Tank. The Pak-40 will -only- make an appearance after it is confirmed to the player that Tanks will be coming. It is entirely possible for a Soviet player to instead go for SU-85s, which will make Pak completely and utterly useless, leeching away pop and MP income.

2. If the Soviet is fielding a T-34 in the same timeframe as the Ostheer is fielding a Panther, something is seriously wrong in the game. Panther requires 50 fuel for tech, another.. 35? For the building. That's already the price of a single T-34, meaning realistically 3 are on the field in the time the first Panther hits the battlefield, and this means the Ostheer did not get a StuG/P4. If he did, that is another 3 minutes before Panthers can even be teched for.

3. PPSh gives 2 weapons for 20 munitions. G43 is 2 weapons for 60, G42 is 1 weapon for 60. You can easily field 3 Cons with PPSh-41s for the same price as 2 grens with a total of 1 MG-42 or 2 G43s. Ontop of this, G43 build means weak artillery counters and a reliance on Armor to do the heavy lifting in the event that Field Artillery is built.
The most obvious and only feasible counter to Hit the Dirt PPSh-41 conscript spam, is a StuG, Ostwind or Panzer IV to simply drive over the little jerks, as they cannot move out of the way of the crushing treads.

4. The Maxim has no de-setup time. Running close to a properly-microed Maxim is tantamount to suicide, and a dual-maxim build for this reason provides some incredible field presence at relatively low cost.

Ostwind can win T34 in straight up 1v1 fight which seems really odd.

Yes if the two are shooting at each other without micro. Can't the T-34 instead fire, manouvre, fire again and so on, as it does more damage -per- shot, and depriving the Ostwind of free hits plays against its weaknesses?

It is not just odd, it is quite rediculous, yes the ostwind costs more but it does a good job vs infantry, light tanks such as the t70. and a Really good job vs all vehicles/aircraft.

I have started seeing more german players spam 2-3 ostwinds aswell as paks/shreks, so much AI and AT, the only thing that army comp struggles with is the soviet heavy tanks which in 1v1s you do not see very often as all soviets who are not confident in winning choose HtD doctrine, ( i myself tend to go with the heavy mortar and t34/85 doctrine as it requires more skill)

2-3 Ostwinds? Paks aswell as Shreks? The game you're describing should see the Soviet field an ISU-152 after sacrificing enough Manpower to afford the CPs. Or IS-2s for that matter, coupled with Incendiary artillery to harass emplaced infantry AT weapons.

At most you should be investing a single SU-85 once you've seen the Ostwind, fuel-wise, and then invest on ZiS Field Guns, banking on the Manpower investment and hoping you can hold on to your fuel atleast. Spending munitions on mines instead of barrages adds another layer of wasting the Ostheer's time

Ostwind can win T34 in straight up 1v1 fight which seems really odd.

I've never lost to Ostwind with a T34 you just have to keep facing the front armor in the right direction (micro). Also a Ostwind can't depress its main gun low enough to hit any target right next to it so the T34 won't get hit once it gets in point blank range but can still fire its gun.

Id add to this list Ostheers almost complete lack of unit based indirect fire/artillery options, as compared to Soviets.

Id add to this list Ostheers almost complete lack of unit based indirect fire/artillery options, as compared to Soviets.

Are you saying this in regards to SU-76 and ZiS Field Gun?

Id add to this list Ostheers almost complete lack of unit based indirect fire/artillery options, as compared to Soviets.

Not only that but look at the stats of the mortars on CoH2stats!
Unless I am reading the stats completely wrong or if the stats aren't correct, the Russian mortar's barrage is more accurate and the mortar can move quicker after it. Their autoattack is pretty equal but the Russian one can once more move quicker after it.

And I'm not talking about the 120 mm mortar but about the difference between their standard 240 MP mortars. Needless to say that the Russian mortar has more crewmen, making decrewing it much harder and keeping vet on it much easier.

I'm increasingly starting to think that Soviet crewmen should simply have only 60 or so health instead of the full 80 every other infantryman has.

Please someone tell me I am wrong and just reading things into the numbers... I've had two games today where I needed to take out zis field guns and maxims and my mortars proved insanely inadequate and their weapon crews very resilient to even flanking G43 Grenadiers and Panzergrenadiers.

Yes, as nondoctrinal indirect/artillery options, made worse by Panzeewerfer beinf inexplicably t4 and early access to doctrinal 120mm mortar.

Ostheers only equivalents are both doctrinal in the form of early mortar HT, which though it has good mobility, is inferior in terms of survival, cost and dmg output to the 120mm, and Howitzer which is late game and immobile.

Pripyat may be a shit map overall, but this kind of imbalance in indirect makes softening bridgeheads and crossings veryndifficult for Ostheer,mwhereas Sov can blanket the predictable positions of the enemy on the other side of the river with impunity and no indirect reprisal, leaving flanking as the only option, which again, is all the more predictable.

Thr net result of this indirect fire asymetricity, is it pidgeons Ostheer into overt and predictable tank actions that have to advance through predictable avenues. There is no sufficient basis for a "hangback and lob artillery at them" play, either for softening defenses before an assault, or for blanketing fire on likely enemy support weapon positions.

Id remove Barrage from ZiS and put a munitions cost on SU76 Barrage to even the odds in indirect fire options.

Yes, as nondoctrinal indirect/artillery options, made worse by Panzeewerfer beinf inexplicably t4 and early access to doctrinal 120mm mortar.

Ostheers only equivalents are both doctrinal in the form of early mortar HT, which though it has good mobility, is inferior in terms of survival, cost and dmg output to the 120mm, and Howitzer which is late game and immobile.

Pripyat may be a shit map overall, but this kind of imbalance in indirect makes softening bridgeheads and crossings veryndifficult for Ostheer,mwhereas Sov can blanket the predictable positions of the enemy on the other side of the river with impunity and no indirect reprisal, leaving flanking as the only option, which again, is all the more predictable.

Thr net result of this indirect fire asymetricity, is it pidgeons Ostheer into overt and predictable tank actions that have to advance through predictable avenues. There is no sufficient basis for a "hangback and lob artillery at them" play, either for softening defenses before an assault, or for blanketing fire on likely enemy support weapon positions.

Id remove Barrage from ZiS and put a munitions cost on SU76 Barrage to even the odds in indirect fire options.

I disagree, the IeFH 18 is mid-game, not late-game. 4 CP is not hard to come by and 600 MP when compared to 1-2 Mortars is not an unheard of investment for what is essentially a hardcounter. Coupled with some solid AT protection you can start bringing in the pain at those 120mms, with some infantry harass to guarantee you don't let the enemy get any free resources or VP bleed. Yes, the 120mms make it out fast but at that point you already know the enemy's build, he's given away his advantage the moment you see the first 120mm. You just -know- he won't get long-range Heavy Tanks of any form, and should you get a Panther/Brummbar he's effectively lost the game once both that and IeFH are in play. Heck, Ostwinds and P4 could serve very well to force him to get AT, SU-85s and ZiS (I've found) are prone to not being microed alot, giving free exp to the IeFH.

Mortar halftrack incendiary is no joke.

And frankly if the Sov is going both ZiS -and- SU-76 that means no T-34s, T-70s or Halftracks. Now you know he won't have an armor buffer for his infantry, which instead are the buffer for his mortars and possible AT counters. Force him to invest in Guards and you can outgun and outmatch them with PGrens, constantly harassing VPs to keep the game going just that bit longer, to allow for IeFH/other late-tech counters to completely ruin his T-34/85s when they show up

Not only that but look at the stats of the mortars on CoH2stats!
Unless I am reading the stats completely wrong or if the stats aren't correct, the Russian mortar's barrage is more accurate and the mortar can move quicker after it. Their autoattack is pretty equal but the Russian one can once more move quicker after it.

And I'm not talking about the 120 mm mortar but about the difference between their standard 240 MP mortars. Needless to say that the Russian mortar has more crewmen, making decrewing it much harder and keeping vet on it much easier.

I'm increasingly starting to think that Soviet crewmen should simply have only 60 or so health instead of the full 80 every other infantryman has.

Please someone tell me I am wrong and just reading things into the numbers... I've had two games today where I needed to take out zis field guns and maxims and my mortars proved insanely inadequate and their weapon crews very resilient to even flanking G43 Grenadiers and Panzergrenadiers.

Were you using GrW 38 barrage, or right-clicking them to attack squads?

Fortune: What then is your view on indirect/artillery options for the factions?

Your post read to me very much as "if he gets this then he wont be getting that" based.

Counters are inplace, Im talking about Ostheer pidgeoning into overt Tank action, with little viable artillery support.

Fortune: What then is your view on indirect/artillery options for the factions?

Save for the insane benefits of being able to field a shall we say Mortar/Artillery Hybrid (120mm) the two factions are quite even.
The 120mm adds, in my opinion, "unneeded" pressure to any tight match up from the get-go, and anyone with a semblance of skill can indeed abuse that advantage to a crushing point.

What I would want to see, personally, is an Ostheer, perhaps doctrine-specific mortar unit that had a long range but can only Return Barrage, or something of that sort.

Apart from that the balance is quite good. The build that gives IeFH also gives Sector Artillery, which atleast I find to be extremely powerful, capable of taking out tanks in good fashion. The Soviet Artillery is strong, but only fires 8 round volleys. Ostheer's version fires 12 in quick succession and can saturate an area over time, allowing for more complex troop manouvering while the enemy is forced to either risk high losses or wait to make a counter-push.

Alot of this balance in the actual game falls to who picks what doctrine. The one who picks first risks not being able to field the appropriate hardcounters to the other.

Lategame doctrinal artillery call-ins onky happen once or twice in 1v1, they are similar to dow2 top red nukes in this regard. I specifically left them out of the indirectfire/artillert discussion becausenI agree, they are relatively balanced and additionally, rare, due to munitions cost which is a resource used in CoH2 for a wide specfrum of unit abilities and upgrades, unlike DoW2 req/power upgrades and abilities. Red=/=Munitions.

What about ZiS and Su76 barrage? Your opinion on those as indirect fire options that have no Ostheer parallel?

Lategame doctrinal artillery call-ins onky happen once or twice in 1v1, they are similar to dow2 top red nukes in this regard. I specifically left them out of the indirectfire/artillert discussion becausenI agree, they are relatively balanced and additionally, rare, due to munitions cost which is a resource used in CoH2 for a wide specfrum of unit abilities and upgrades, unlike DoW2 req/power upgrades and abilities. Red=/=Munitions.

What about ZiS and Su76 barrage? Your opinion on those as indirect fire options that have no Ostheer parallel?

Well, SU-76 is fuel spent on one thing, with very little in the way of AT capability. While it can dish out respectable amounts of damage with its barrage, it serves that singular function. Really, it's no more effective than ZiS or a mortar for that matter, for what it does and what you pay for it. ZiS on the other hand is 60 munitions per pop, so again they're paying for one thing and not for say, TM-35 mines.

SU-76 means it's likely that your StuG can hardcounter it, and should an SU-85 make an appearance that's a boatload more fuel they've spent. Losing a StuG to learn their numbers is well worth it, and you can bank on spending MP on infantry to outfight theirs, and (hopefully) being able to work around those pesky barrages. PGrens are especially effective as they can force the Sov to either move units away (less damage done) or just outright not barraging you until you retreat.

ZiS barrages work against the Sov if you can dance around them. SU-76s are hardcountered by tanks and even the SdKfz 222 2cm AC Scout Car can take them out with some good micro. Once you see the enemy going for Barrage-centric tactics, you know that IeFH can play a huge role in taking them down a peg or two.

I think you are underestimating the AP capacity of SU-76, even without Barrage.
Its not AT, and I don't think anyone is under the illusion that it is.

It rips infantry to shreds, leaving SU-85s and other armor to engage unsupported Ostheer.