USSR's Defenses - Way to "heal" Soviets

This is a trick question, right?

No. It's pretty simple. If (s)he wants to propose changes, let us listen.

Ok, Commissar, exactly what changes do you want to see? List them all and why they would make sense.

As I said in first post - DShK MG emplacements, which will be able to build by engineers. Maybe (not sure) - BS-3 heavy AT gun in doctrines instead of M-42 and few other useless abilities.

Why would it make sense? Read thread, I explained it wide. Won't write it again.

As I said in first post - DShK MG emplacements, which will be able to build by engineers. Maybe (not sure) - BS-3 heavy AT gun in doctrines instead of M-42 and few other useless abilities.

Why would it make sense? Read thread, I explained it wide. Won't write it again.

Yes, but most of the things you said were not true or blown out of proportion. Saying things like shocks do not have survivability and emplacements would fix maxim spam.

Yes, but most of the things you said were not true or blown out of proportion. Saying things like shocks do not have survivability and emplacements would fix maxim spam.

Whole point was about disbalance in factions design. All factions in CoH 2 are universal, so they can play both in deffensive and offensive game. They have nice units and usually some defensive positions.

But, USSR has absolutlery no defensive positions, so, they are offencive-only faction. But even in that role they are bad, cos they don't have TOP-tanks or infantry, more than that - they have mostly all worst units in all types! + Doctrinal addition, which also cripples USSR hard.

So, here I see 2 ways - make USSR same universal as all other factions by giving them some defensive construction or...

overbuff their units so hard, that they could justify "offensive-only" class of USSR. Give them veeery good infantry, like Obers and Volks in stock, hardly buff tanks. Absence of defenses in USSR should be compensate with something, don't you think so? Right now they just don't have defenses and... have units, mostly worse than their analogs in other factions. I don't think, that it is fair.

Okay, how much would the bunker cost? Same as Wehrmacht bunker? Would it be like the USF fighting position?

Not all defensive positions need to be static emplacements or bunker-like structures. As long as they have support weapons like the ZiS, Maxim, and even things like the M-42 and DShK, they still have a way to be defensive.

Not all defensive positions need to be static emplacements or bunker-like structures. As long as they have support weapons like the ZiS, Maxim, and even things like the M-42 and DShK, they still have a way to be defensive.

ZiS is deffensive, mortars are deffensive but... Maxim? DShK? A lot of people convinced me, that they both are OFFENCIVE HMGs, not deffensive. And that's quite right, cos with such arc of fire and such small AoE supression it can't effectively be "crowd control tool". For to be good defensive HMG Maxim should have wider arc of fire and area of supression. MG-42 is perfect deffensive HMG, Vikkers is good, 0.50 is awesome. But not Maxim.

And about bunker cost... Hm... I think we can make it like "USF bunker" in vCoH. 150 MP + 15 fuel and it will instantly have HMG in - no ammo upgrades. Guess it will be pretty fair.

ZiS is deffensive, mortars are deffensive but... Maxim? DShK? A lot of people convinced me, that they both are OFFENCIVE HMGs, not deffensive. And that's quite right, cos with such arc of fire and such small AoE supression it can't effectively be "crowd control tool". For to be good defensive HMG Maxim should have wider arc of fire and area of supression. MG-42 is perfect deffensive HMG, Vikkers is good, 0.50 is awesome. But not Maxim.

And about bunker cost... Hm... I think we can make it like "USF bunker" in vCoH. 150 MP + 15 fuel and it will instantly have HMG in - no ammo upgrades. Guess it will be pretty fair.

Interesting. How would this be not effective than an MG in a house, other than positioning?

Interesting. How would this be not effective than an MG in a house, other than positioning?

You not always may have building for to put there Maxim/DShK. And even if you have it, it can be destroyed and there is no way to rebuild it.

From all sides - MG bunkers will be better than usuall Maxims for purpouses of defense.

Soviet don't need to be fixed, seriously. Maybe some changes so that maxim is less important, but no buffs.

I don't know, 4-6 man squads never were a problem for me, cos they have really pretty same survivability. 2 additional man not always can save your unit. Of course it is annyoing to see, that UK's mortar mine wipes entire your squad or Katyusha's barrage, but for me it happens rare and game is pretty forginving even to Ostheers - 1 or even 2 men in squad usually survives after that. Insta wipe means only bad luck.

ofc it happens rarely for you: you never play axis.

Shit, I just deleted all I wrote with an edit. 1moment.

Soviet don't need to be fixed, seriously. Maybe some changes so that maxim is less important, but no buffs.

Penals in their current state are simply insufficient for Soviet's infantry needs.

Penals in their current state are simply insufficient for Soviet's infantry needs.

And i repeat, they don't need any buffs, only changes bordering sidegrades so that maxim is less prevalent. They are sitting at the top of the food chain along with OKW right now. You wouldn't buff OKW, why would you buff SU ?

The AA halftrack is much more practical than a bunker, can move, can be repaired, and allows you to spend the massive munitions float you have with most doctrines.

AA Halftruck costs too much for to be good "deffensive" tool. 270 MP + 30 Fuel + 120 Ammo for Quad. Just like 2 bunkers + 30 fuel and Tiering up. Concept of MG bunker is much more simplier and costs lesser.

AA Halftruck costs too much for to be good "deffensive" tool. 270 MP + 30 Fuel + 120 Ammo for Quad. Just like 2 bunkers + 30 fuel and Tiering up. Concept of MG bunker is much more simplier and costs lesser.

But is it not redundant? What would the bunkers add? Two bunkers are immobile and vulnerable to barrages and more vulnerable to tanks.

But is it not redundant? What would the bunkers add? Two bunkers are immobile and vulnerable to barrages and more vulnerable to tanks.

So? Ostheer/USF bunkers are vunerable to tanks, barrages and other shit and nobody complains. Ostheers spam bunkers and they doing their job nice, I should say.

We don't want here to make "super-puper OP defensive position". We already have Bofors. Let it be just simple MG emplacement, just as all others. And for assymetry - let it cost not ammo, but fuel. It may be strange, but it wasn't strange in vCoH - won't be strange here, I guess.

And i repeat, they don't need any buffs, only changes bordering sidegrades so that maxim is less prevalent. They are sitting at the top of the food chain along with OKW right now. You wouldn't buff OKW, why would you buff SU ?

Ok then, you support moving Maxim power elsewhere, like to Penals, good, good.

But I'm watching you.

That was a joke, I'm not trying to be confrontational.

Several of the abilities in the community defensive doctrine should be stock or at least altered.

For example, The OKW fortifications doctrine has an ability that lets sturms construct multiple things such as tank traps, those shit flak things, and trenches rolled into one. It also lets volks construct both mines AND bunkers in one ability slot

Yet in the soviet community defensive one, a whole ability slot is taken up only by tank traps and another is taken up by those little 5 munition mines. it would make much more sense for these abilities to go together in one slot.

TL;DR: Western armies power-creep leaving Eastern armies seem dated.

Sometimes in late game I miss soviet bunkers.

Conscript building sandbags and using arguably the most offensive-oriented and mobile HMG option in the game is, in my view, superior to MG emplacements. Sure it costs more manpower and popcap, but unlike all other factions the Soviet player a) larger squad sizes and b) Conscripts can replenish depleted squads back to their larger squad sizes.

In the end, it sounds like OP just wants his precious glorious nation of the past to operate just like Ostheer; he wants glorious mother Russia to have bunkers and PaK43. I mean you can already do that, you just play differently, it's actually easier than Ostheer since you don't need to constantly rebuild lost bunkers or risk getting more engineers to keep them alive. The tradeoff for micromanagement is that the Soviet's option can be and often is far more flexible.

The idea of MG emplacements for Soviets is a bad idea because not only does it incur manpower drain towards immobile MG option, but also munitions. OP is asking a whole can of worms just so he can play with the initial micromanagement level of Ostheer.