Officiers und der Offiziere - USSR is lackluster again

The ingame portrayal of the Red Army is a joke, I don't see how Russian people can stand for it.

-Conscripts are true fodder units, which in 1944 makes no sense. They should be a well trained and versatile unit called "Strelki."

-why Maxim over DshK?

-why 2 man scout squad? Why not a 1 man clone of Ost sniper, trading ROF for utility?

-why no nondoctrinal automatic infantry weapons? PPSH and grenades should be nondoctrinal for Conscripts with an upgrade.

-Why Penals? They should be "Ravedska", infiltration troops trained in recon, demolitions, and marksmanship.

-Why T34/76? Even more fodder?

-Why no SU-100?

Well, again, CoH 2 is not about history, realism or something like that. Relic said that long time ago, so historical issues are not so important in that. For example, T-34-76 was mostly actuall in 1942-43, after that mainline soviet tank was T-34-85. But... mainline middle in CoH 2 is old 76, not modern 85.

And what's wrong in stereotypes?) Im Russian myself, and I see no problems in using some popular stereotypes in films or games. Those, who protested against "Soviet campaing in CoH 2, nazi Relic, fufufu!" were dumbest idiots. That's a game, it suppoused, also, to make fun and be interesting, and stereotypes may make game really more interesting Even if it is cruel NKVD Officiers, trying to hold order by executions.

Surprise, I am also Russian.
CoH2 single campaign was terrible because it was originally positioned as historicity. But it turned boring, and freaky story
I love Red Alert 2 or World in Conflict - they were just super. I normally concern to stereotypes, if they make the game better.

Better to take a Captain / Major

Miss commissar wants a Mr commissar

Miss commissar wants a Mr commissar

The ingame portrayal of the Red Army is a joke, I don't see how Russian people can stand for it.

-Conscripts are true fodder units, which in 1944 makes no sense. They should be a well trained and versatile unit called "Strelki."

-why Maxim over DshK?

-why 2 man scout squad? Why not a 1 man clone of Ost sniper, trading ROF for utility?

-why no nondoctrinal automatic infantry weapons? PPSH and grenades should be nondoctrinal for Conscripts with an upgrade.

-Why Penals? They should be "Ravedska", infiltration troops trained in recon, demolitions, and marksmanship.

-Why T34/76? Even more fodder?

-Why no SU-100?

Man, I said it a few years ago. Relic not care, they do not intend to correct this. It will not bring profits.
Ravedska? maybe Razvedka (Разведка, scout group)?
They are more like urban warfare assault group (first used in Stalingrad) - flamethrowers and a huge amount of explosives had the engineers or assault group (regular infantry)

Well that at least someone cares, thank you

Allright, I don't know too much about "Comadning structure of USSR in WWII", you caught me. Anyway, USSR should have any kind of officier-type unit, which will buff poor soviet infantry, like artillery offizier of Ostheer do with their poor infantry.

And it would be great if that would be undoctrinal and puted in T1, for to make it and "not-maximspam playstyle" more attractive for players. But... if it will be doctrinal it will be good anyway.

Allright, I don't know too much about "Comadning structure of USSR in WWII", you caught me. Anyway, USSR should have any kind of officier-type unit, which will buff poor soviet infantry, like artillery offizier of Ostheer do with their poor infantry.

And it would be great if that would be undoctrinal and puted in T1, for to make it and "not-maximspam playstyle" more attractive for players. But... if it will be doctrinal it will be good anyway.

The only way Relic would add this to the soviets, would be if it was in a commander, but Relic gave up on adding any more commanders to the Vanilla factions, so all of these things are going to be lost in space (the code). Such a shame.

The only way Relic would add this to the soviets, would be if it was in a commander, but Relic gave up on adding any more commanders to the Vanilla factions, so all of these things are going to be lost in space (the code). Such a shame.

Well, what for making new commanders, when you can fix some old with that? Ostheer and SU both are full of shitty commanders, which people will never use. They could fix some SU doctrines with putting there officier unit.

Of course they won't, because... new content without $$$? SEGA won't approve that, so Relic won't do. But still... maybe they will be more reasonable one day, belive in better.

The ingame portrayal of the Red Army is a joke, I don't see how Russian people can stand for it.

This is a videogame you know. Why would the "Russian people" take offence at the explicitly virtual portrayal of the Soviet army 70 years ago? That would be beyond childish.
With that being said:

Conscripts are true fodder units, which in 1944 makes no sense. They should be a well trained and versatile unit called "Strelki."

In 1944, the Soviets inducted a great number of personnel from the newly liberated territories into the RKKA. Most of these conscripts mentally, physically, or both, had no business being in combat arms (the Germans who had scraped through the bottom of the manpower barrel already had a similar problem) whatsoever and received often merely perfunctory training before being sent into the meatgrinder. This was a conscious decision to sustain the operational momentum during and post Bagration, the merits of which can obviously be debated. However, the notion that Soviet infantry grosso modo enjoyed a tellingly higher standard of training in 1944 than they did ie. in 1941 is actually not just misleading, its false. It was the other way around...mind you, despite having a crushing superiority in numbers, material and increasingly mobility, and despite archieving a telling operational success with the destruction of HG Mitte during Bagration, the Soviets still suffered more than 2.5 times as many casualties throughout 1944 than their much diminuished opponents.

-why Maxim over DshK?

Because it was far more common. Still, its a videogame.

-why 2 man scout squad? Why not a 1 man clone of Ost sniper, trading ROF for utility?

Asymetric whatever.

-why no nondoctrinal automatic infantry weapons? PPSH and grenades should be nondoctrinal for Conscripts with an upgrade.

This can certainly be argued.

-Why T34/76? Even more fodder?

Whats fodder about it? Mind you, in 1944, T-34/76s made up more than half of the total Soviet AFV inventory.

-Why no SU-100?

Its a 1945 vehicle (but its a videogame, so) why not, but its not like Su-85 does not do the job of nondoc long range AT.

Both ostheer and soviets have 21 commander, usf, okw and ukf have only 8.

Please more new doctrines and new units to post wfa factions, not to vanilla ones.

The ingame portrayal of the Red Army is a joke, I don't see how Russian people can stand for it.

They did. The real sad part though was how many of them took issue with it, complaining various singleplayer events didn't happen when they generally kinda did. The multiplayer design's frankly more offensive like you say than what people actually complained about.

Well of course the depiction à la "enemy at the gates" is cliché, and cannot be taken to be generally representative of the Soviet approach to warfare, but blocking detachments, repetitive, borderline suicidal frontal attacks, and units going into battle with less rifles (and other weapons) than TOE strength all did actually occur more with somewhat frequently.
Also, Soviet military justice was in fact extremely draconian, killing quite possibly in excess of 200 000 of their own men....

Off topic discussion FTW! Show Spoiler

Guys, if you will off-top more, they will shut that discussion. Let's just admit, that "Cruel, suicial and draconial resistance is better than clear surrendered France".

Let's talk about CoH more, officiers, balance, such stuff...

In 1944, the Soviets inducted a great number of personnel from the newly liberated territories into the RKKA. Most of these conscripts mentally, physically, or both, had no business being in combat arms (the Germans who had scraped through the bottom of the manpower barrel already had a similar problem) whatsoever and received often merely perfunctory training before being sent into the meatgrinder. This was a conscious decision to sustain the operational momentum during and post Bagration, the merits of which can obviously be debated. However, the notion that Soviet infantry grosso modo enjoyed a tellingly higher standard of training in 1944 than they did ie. in 1941 is actually not just misleading, its false. It was the other way around...mind you, despite having a crushing superiority in numbers, material and increasingly mobility, and despite archieving a telling operational success with the destruction of HG Mitte during Bagration, the Soviets still suffered more than 2.5 times as many casualties throughout 1944 than their much diminuished opponents.

After the liberation of Soviet territory into the regular army poured a huge number of partisans, remember - the partisans were not only civilians, but also the remains of regular troops. So there were no problems with the quality of replenishment

Plus, improved training quality tankers / pilots / officers, etc.
Because the Soviet Union finally had time to bolle quality education

PS: SU-100 late in 1944, one Soviet ace destroyed 24 tanks from SU-100

The powers that be participate in this glorious discussion, so fear not Madame Commissar.
Here goes nothing.

But blocking detachments as shown in that particular film (and in one cut-scene of coh2 IIRC) is just not close to reality, it is incorrect. Repetitive suicidal charges was their staple even in the latter stages of the war, granted. (Prokhorovka anyone?)
But if anything going into combat with less than all members armed is really not representative at all, I'd contest "more with somewhat frequency" is not correct.

My lack of proofreading screwed me here, funny denglish is funny.
But yes, in terms of armaments, the situation had certainly improved greatly by 1944. In 1941/42 however it was actually indeed not uncommon, not so much when it came to rifles, but already so in terms of Mgs, sidearms, and heavy weapons of all kinds.

Whilst it happened for sure in Leningrad and for the Opolchenya divisions in the start of Stalingrad, it was hardly a frequent occurrence.

Lets not forget the ever famous 13 GRD.

My point is that Enemy at the Gates is not just 'cliché' that is isn't representative in general of the Soviet war effort, the movie is in general incorrect.

I agree, then again, its a movie, and essentially a lovestory for a Western audience at that, catering for their perceptions and confirmation biases. It really does indicate a telling lack of emotional maturity to work yourself into some fit of patriotic rage over the matter, sadly. I mean, what are us Krauts to do? Start WW3 because in Hollywood our cruelty is only matched by our incompetence? The outrage!

After the liberation of Soviet territory into the regular army poured a huge number of partisans, remember - the partisans were not only civilians, but also the remains of regular troops. So there were no problems with the quality of replenishment

Plus, improved training quality tankers / pilots / officers, etc.
Because the Soviet Union finally had time to bolle quality education

PS: SU-100 late in 1944, one Soviet ace destroyed 24 tanks from SU-100

There were lots of problems with the quality of the replenishments. Asymetric experience does not necessarily translate into conventional relevance, and mind you, by 1944, most Soviet soldiers who had went underground in 1941 were dead or incapacitated long ago.
When it comes to individual kill claims as an alleged indication of performance, I would not put much stock into it, especially in those of Soviet provenience. All sides overclaimed, however, the issue was far more severe and systemic in the RKKA than it was ie. in the Wehrmacht.

The powers that be participate in this glorious discussion, so fear not Madame Commissar.
Here goes nothing.

My lack of proofreading screwed me here, funny denglish is funny.
But yes, in terms of armaments, the situation had certainly improved greatly by 1944. In 1941/42 however it was actually indeed not uncommon, not so much when it came to rifles, but already so in terms of Mgs, sidearms, and heavy weapons of all kinds.

Ah yes no complaints from me there. I was under the impression you implied on the scene in the movie with "one man gets a rifle the other gets ammo" but yes, support weapons were seriously lacking in 41-42.

I agree, then again, its a movie, and and essentially a lovestory for a Western audience, catering for their perceptions and confirmation biases. It really does indicate a telling lack of emotional maturity to work yourself into some fit of patriotic rage over the matter, sadly. I mean, what are us Krauts to do? Start WW3 because in Hollywood our cruelty is only matched by our incompetence? The outrage!

No no, no rage here, not at all. *grumble*


Yes naturally it is just a movie and of course it isn't made to be a documentary but rather about selling tickets. I'm just grumpy it sometimes seems that movie is the only time the general population comes cross the Soviet-German war. And it kinda enables the misconceptions.

I hope I don't come across as 'raging' it was not my intent, I bit annoyed sure, but not in an all out rage.

[...]
No no, no rage here, not at all. *grumble*


Yes naturally it is just a movie and of course it isn't made to be a documentary but rather about selling tickets. I'm just grumpy it sometimes seems that movie is the only time the general population comes cross the Soviet-German war. And it kinda enables the misconceptions.

I hope I don't come across as 'raging' it was not my intent, I bit annoyed sure, but not in an all out rage.

Did not mean you there. And you're right, the movie certainly, and singlehandedly, did shape perceptions of the general western public to a higher degree than David Glantzes' entire body of wörk, but such is the fate of the historian.
No point in getting worked up over it.

~~

Yes naturally it is just a movie and of course it isn't made to be a documentary but rather about selling tickets. I'm just grumpy it sometimes seems that movie is the only time the general population comes cross the Soviet-German war. And it kinda enables the misconceptions.

I would love a band of brothers type series on the eastern front if done properly (not just massive stereo types) following both sides showing that despite what is shown by the movies that both sides were fighting for their lives and what not