Why does relic hate Soviets ?

Soviets are a total joke... There was no changes the last updates while OKW and Ostheer even got stronger...

Some examples:

- weakest starting unit. Do not even try to fight with the pioneers of soviets... Maybe they
fight better with hands than with a gun.
- IS-2 is a call-in Unit limited to 1 while Axis can spam Panther really early even they are
very similar compared to strength and armor
- T34 compared to Panzer IV is a joke like its throwing paperballs
- what is the soviet pendant to Panther ? SU ??? really ??? A noob tank that only hits his target
every third shot and can be flanked so easy by a Panther... its a total joke
- Maxim compared to Ostheer MG... just look at the 3 time bigger range to the sides of the Axis
one
Maxim is so easy to flank...
- Flamegrenades compared to Molotov... Flame Grenade kills whole MAxim MG in a second while
Molotov kills 1 or 2 men
- same with normal grenades... Axis grenades kill whole squad while Soviet grenades often do not
even kill one but only do some scratches...
- shreck spam... what is the Soviet pendant ??? The funny AT-grenated of the conscripts... While
Volks with 2 shrecks kill a soviet tank in a min you need atleast 15 AT grens for 375 ammo to
kill an axis tank and the engine damage does only work for smaller tanks
- Katyusha is the only strong weapon against shreck spam but compare it to the Axis rocket
trucks. Katyusha fires 4 shoots with break of 1 second between it... Enough time to hear them
and retreat with Axis blobs while the Axis one fires all rockets with one shot. Often Katyusha
hits blobs and kills nothing...
- ISU compared to Jagdtiger = JOKE
- Axis mortars killing whole squads while even Soviet 120mm mortar hits nothing. We call Axis
mortars = sniper mortars...

I could go on for hours....

I mean, ok maybe it is """balanced""" compared to USF and UKF... and I speak of """balances""" in the relic way... BUT compared to Soviets its a joke...

Dont get me wrong... I played coh2 since the beginning... I have more than 2500 hours ingame and played 1,735 Battles with soviets...

I won more than I lost with them but if u play against an axis team with the same experience you have no chance... And sometimes you even get beaten by total newbies if they have just a bit luck...

Soviets only work together with the other faction as support...

If you want to have the strength of the Unit historical correct than just add x4 menpower, x4 poplimit and x4 ressources to the soviets and I am ok with that...

BUT REALLY... If they do not give Soviets a chance next update I will delete this game... And I want to get my money back because it is not the same game anymore as when I bought it...

Guess it's kinda "butthurt-post"... Even I, as USSR protector, can't agree with all that you wrote here. Just for example - rear echelones are worst starting unit, not soviet engineers. Soviets can hit target sometimes, at least...

And this is not that "Relic hates soviet". We could say that about campaign maybe, but such weak design of faction and, as result, balancing is production of that wierd idea of "total assymetrical balance". But Relic so hard concentrated on assymetry, that they forgot about balance at all.

So, as result we have USSR with veeery assymetrical but pretty poor units and hard doctrinal addiction.

P.S. Try to be more objective in future, bro

Show Spoiler

1. Acually CE are better than Pios.
2. IS2 =/= Panter. Panther is lower tier. Do you complain about multiplie Churchills?
3. T34 is almost twice cheaper than Pz4. Sure, we would love to see more expensive, useful tank with good veterancy, but for its current price, T34 is all right.
4. Evern seen vetted SU85 with RoF like a MG?
5. Maxims forever
6. It's becasue of dead-loop. Move maxim faster, watch over it, use sprint. L2P.
7. So you wanna say that rifle nade is wat more deadl than, for example, Shocks' nade? Cool.
8. Enginge damage works the same way for all snares. And you don't fight late game tanks with AT rifles. They can supplement your AT but cannot be main source. You have other AT sources.
9. Katyusha is perfectly balanced. If anything, other rocket launchers are too strong, not katyusha too weak.
10. ISU is an assault gun, JT is tank destroyer. JT is better at killing tank, ISU is better at killing infantry.
11. GrW34 is quite similar to 81mm. Tho 120mm is overpriced and overpopcapped piece of crap.

What is it with all those Soviets UP threads lately? Am I the only one who finds them pretty strong?

I start to think that aaa is a lost spirit who just possesses random people and makes them whine on how weak soviets are...

To be honest, in my last soviet games my combat engies did more kills and damage than even my cons. the only use of cons right now is merge and to annoy the enemy. (any decent player won't get at naded unless he really get jumped on by surprise)

What is it with all those Soviets UP threads lately? Am I the only one who finds them pretty strong?

Guess you are. You think they are strong, cos it's hard to play against them, or because they are easy for you to play as them? That's veery different.

And besides, USSR might be strong, but only if you play on them like on organ. For to win as USSR you should play like true-progamer, keep under your micro 5 units at once, control engineers for to force them laying mines in right place, micro your maxims for to turn into right direction, control you "spam-able" buch of T-34-76, keeping them from destryoing by Panthers...

That's a helluva gameplay. All other factions are not so difficult.

What is it with all those Soviets UP threads lately? Am I the only one who finds them pretty strong?

I guess its depends on your definition of strong. Personally I find them fine (although admittedly I go maxims against OKW). In other game modes such as 3v3 and 4v4 they are in my opinion the most difficult faction to play as.

Again, really depends on your experience playing as them and against.

Stopped reading at "Maxim UP". Anyone who thinks so is in need of some serious L2P.

Guess you are. You think they are strong, cos it's hard to play against them, or because they are easy for you to play as them? That's veery different.

And besides, USSR might be strong, but only if you play on them like on organ. For to win as USSR you should play like true-progamer, keep under your micro 5 units at once, control engineers for to force them laying mines in right place, micro your maxims for to turn into right direction, control you "spam-able" buch of T-34-76, keeping them from destryoing by Panthers...

That's a helluva gameplay. All other factions are not so difficult.

Playing against them and alongside them actually. When playing allies I usually find US forces the most appealing to me. To be honest I don't have enough time to play all the factions so I stay with OST, OKW and US for the time beeing.

In fact I don't play Soviets because I think they play similar to OST so I stick with Ost and enjoy the different playstyle that US Forces offer.

The casts I've seen in the last couple of weeks all had very strong Soviet play. Also the twitch streams I've watched.

And in all seriousness OST is really exactly that micro intensive as you said about Soviets. Except 4 man squads of very expensive infantry which get wiped in the blink of an eye. Same goes for teamweapons. But your opinion is a different if I remember correctly from the other thread.

Stopped reading at "Maxim UP". Anyone who thinks so is in need of some serious L2P.

Maybe those, who saying, that HMG-34 UP also have serious L2P problems? Or those, who crying about "poor Ostheer infantry"? Or maybe "Empacement fortification" is not OP - that's axis players should L2P for to counter it effectively, instead of crying everywhere on forumboards?

Let's call all, who (sometimes reasonably) thinks, that some unit is UP "L2P retards". Veeeery reasonable, bro, veeeeeery reasonable. Somehow it will happen, that 95% of population of CoH 2 forums will become L2P retards, and maybe even you.

The casts I've seen in the last couple of weeks all had very strong Soviet play. Also the twitch streams I've watched.

I think it is wrong to make your own decision from that you saw somewhere... As I said - progamers can beat anyone as any faction, it will look from aside, like factions are equial and victory was fair.

Better tell us about your own experience of gaming

I guess its depends on your definition of strong. Personally I find them fine (although admittedly I go maxims against OKW). In other game modes such as 3v3 and 4v4 they are in my opinion the most difficult faction to play as.

Again, really depends on your experience playing as them and against.

That could very well be. I dived into 3vs3 just recently so I have next to no experience with it and can't comment on anything related with it.

Usually I just play 1v1 and 2v2 and this is where I find Soviets very hard to beat. They are also a great addition as ally when playing US Forces. I find the bigger game modes very hard to control. It just tends to be a spam fest with tons of resources and a more forgiving gameplay when it comes to losses. But that's pure personal preference.

Show Spoiler
Oh man, you discrediting all, who say that USSR need some changes! Stop it!

Another day another "balance" thread that belongs in the State Office asking for help improving gameplay *yawn*

Maybe those, who saying, that HMG-34 UP also have serious L2P problems? Or those, who crying about "poor Ostheer infantry"? Or maybe "Empacement fortification" is not OP - that's axis players should L2P for to counter it effectively, instead of crying everywhere on forumboards?

Let's call all, who (sometimes reasonably) thinks, that some unit is UP "L2P retards". Veeeery reasonable, bro, veeeeeery reasonable. Somehow it will happen, that 95% of population of CoH 2 forums will become L2P retards, and maybe even you.

Maxim is blatantly overpowered, as you'd know if you'd stop "crying everywhere on the forumboards" and started to actually play the game.

Soviets are strong and have the widest variety of viable strategies.

I think it is wrong to make your own decision from that you saw somewhere... As I said - progamers can beat anyone as any faction, it will look from aside, like factions are equial and victory was fair.

Better tell us about your own experience of gaming

Sorry to disagree but I find a balance discussion to be the wrong place for my personal experience because I'm ranked below the best 1000. That means I don't have enough understanding of the faction I play and not enough knowledge about the game mechanics. Otherwise I would be top 100.

I have talked about my experience in the state office and asked for help. I think if more people would do that it would help a lot! This thread is pointless like many before.

And talking about a game in the top 100s I've watched is not a bad thing. At least I think that it's valuable information from better players. This is what helped me improve after all. Watching them play helps a lot and showes the full potential I'm not able to unfold.

Maxim is blatantly overpowered, as you'd know if you'd stop "crying everywhere on the forumboards" and started to actually play the game.

Blatantly overpowerd? With what, I would like to know?

I only know about 2 "good" things of Maxims. Fast setup/packup and 6 men squads. First is hardly "nerfed" with smallest arc of fire in game and lowest AoE supression. As result - it is worst HMG to work against blobs, which are very popular in OKW, for example.

6 men squads is very questionable benefit. It still can be wiped by 1 shot, KT doing it pretty well, Stukas and Werfers are nice in that... So, I don't know, what makes Maxim so OP? Maybe it is super-cheap? But no, it is 20-40 MP cheaper, than other HMGs, but don't forget, that same MG-42 or Vikkers are T0 MGs - you don't need to spend 160 MP before, for to get them, so it is kinda compensation, not benefit.

So, tell me please, what makes Maxims so OP?

Maxims underpowered.

AHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA NO