About soviet shock troops in WWII

You claim that the name of commanders means nothing but the fact is Relics clearly has a different opinion and wants commander abilities to be mathematical.

Relic says vs relic does.
These two contradict as well.
Remember how ALL USF units were supposed to be able to decrew?
Remember how USF was not going to get pershing?
Relic says vs relic does.

You claimed Shock troops where defensive units when both in game and in real life they where offensive oriented.

Feel free to put a quote on that.
Because from what I remember, I claimed that shock troops are very suitable for URBAN doctrine.
Also, it might completely blow your skull off, sending your mind flying, but urban troops will perform well in both, offense and defense in the urban setting.
What exactly makes you believe that certain units are impossible to be used defensively?
I mean, what exactly that isn't a NAME of said unit.
Would you consider Panther to be a defensive unit? Because it can be hulled down, which isn't exactly offensive thing.

You are wrong in both account and I have little more to add and no intention of reaching 11.000 post count with pointless posts.

Speaking of being wrong, have you at least admitted to not knowing the difference between shock armies and assault engineers and to the fact that in game shocks are modeled after assault engineers? You've got plenty of time to do the only thing you do in the game, read up stuff on that.

...
Feel free to put a quote on that.
...

Funny that you ask for a quote since you know very well that your post has been turned into invisible because it was of topic.

But here what you actually wrote:
"Shocktroops were "invented" during siege of Stalingrad.
Do you think soviets were the ones attacking the city?"

I have little more to add.
Have a nice day

The idea that changes should follow the theme is not mine but Relic's

Relic's not the one with a problem here. You're the one that's upset by Shocks and the KV-2 being in Urban Defence Doctrine.

Relic's not the one with a problem here. You're the one that's upset by Shocks and the KV-2 being in Urban Defence Doctrine.

I have provided my feedback about shocks and KV-2 in urban defense as requested, I have no problem and I am not upset, however imo the changes are simply in wrong direction.
I have also suggested alternatives.

It is common secret that the main reason for introducing Shock troops and KV-2 (and others units) in the revamp commanders is to solve "general balance issues" that are not connected with the commander being revamped.

That imo is a wrong approach especially since the problem with abilities and units already in scope have not all been solved. The same approach was used in the last patch with mediocre results.

I have provided my feedback about shocks and KV-2 in urban defense as requested, I have no problem and I am not upset, however imo the changes are simply in wrong direction.
I have also suggested alternatives.

It is common secret that the main reason for introducing Shock troops and KV-2 (and others units) in the revamp commanders is to solve "general balance issues" that are not connected with the commander being revamped.

That imo is a wrong approach especially since the problem with abilities and units already in scope have not all been solved. The same approach was used in the last patch with mediocre results.

Well, according to you, its not modders who decide what goes into balance and doctrines, but relic.
So relic have put shocks and KV-2 there, because they see it as fitting additions.
Developer knows best what is fitting and unfitting to part of the game it made after all.

Also, why do you think its a bad approach when they are adding and revamping shocks, but its amazing idea when they do the exact same thing with sturms? Are you now going to create a thread on how sturms aren't fitting, because they are added do the doctrine only to have them revamped as well? If you aren't going to claim that, you're going to turn out as a hypocrite(again).

Plus, you believe it was medicore results last time it was done, I and many others believe it was a good thing to happen as improving balance of as many doctrines as possible when being limited to revamp 2 can not have a bad impact on the game at all, as absolutely worst thing that can happen is we will see more doctrines being used.

How that can be a bad idea is beyond my comprehension.

The doctrine was made around a strong gimmick.
That gimmick was nerfed so many times and in so many ways it stopped being reliable all together.
To replace that gimmick, reliable units need to be put in.
To not have even more of already present and used meta units, non meta units were chosen and buffed, so they can fulfill a role of bringing doctrine to reliable state. If revamp and buff to these units means other doctrines will become viable in the process, there is not a single downside to the decision.

To be honest i'm a bit curios. When Vipper has problems with the term "shock units" in "urban defense" why is he not complaining about Panzerfüsiliere (a term exclusive used for PzGrenadiers of the Großdeutschland-Division) and Obersoldaten and/or Rear Echelons

Well, according to you, its not modders who decide what goes into balance and doctrines, but relic.
So relic have put shocks and KV-2 there, because they see it as fitting additions.
Developer knows best what is fitting and unfitting to part of the game it made after all.

You are actually mistaken. Relic decides what is goes to their patches. Modder create MOD that are used to test the suggested changes.

Relic has not placed Shock troops or KV-2 in "urban defense" but they are actually asking for the feedback on that change and I have provided as requested.

Also, why do you think its a bad approach when they are adding and revamping shocks, but its amazing idea when they do the exact same thing with sturms? Are you now going to create a thread on how sturms aren't fitting, because they are added do the doctrine only to have them revamped as well? If you aren't going to claim that, you're going to turn out as a hypocrite(again).

You are wrong again there is no change in Sturms, if you are referring to Storm troopers I have provided my feedback that adding them into the "infantry" commander is step in the wrong direction.

I have to point out thou that an infantry call-in in "infantry" commanders fits the theme allot more than assault infantry in "urban defense" commander.

PLS stop trying to turn every thread into personal issue, I am not the subject of this thread so pls stop making personal comments.

Plus, you believe it was medicore results last time it was done, I and many others believe it was a good thing to happen as improving balance of as many doctrines as possible when being limited to revamp 2 can not have a bad impact on the game at all, as absolutely worst thing that can happen is we will see more doctrines being used.

How that can be a bad idea is beyond my comprehension.

The result where mediocre because from the commander and units being revamped allot of them need extra changes to be balanced. With the patch Relic aimed to improve 11 commanders and not balance the game and those 11 commanders did not end up in great spot.

For instance the mechanized commander is being revamped again and the unit like Shock Troops, Soviet Forward HQ, KV-8, M4C 76mm Sherman, M10 ‘Wolverine’ Tank Destroyer, WC51 Military Truck,
M3 Halftrack Assault Group, Assault Engineers, Dozer, Sturmtiger, Churchill Crocodile are again being re-balanced.

Unless you want to claim that all the commanders (and doctrinal unit) revamped are in good spot in live the results are simply mediocre and that fact that the project become too ambitious has to do with it.

(Lend Lease Tactics
Guard Rifle Combined Arms Tactics
Tank Hunter Tactics
Osttruppen Doctrine
Jaeger Infantry Doctrine
Recon Support Company
Mechanized Company
Luftwaffe Ground Forces Doctrine
Feuersturm Doctrine
Commandos Regiment
Royal Engineer Regiment)

The doctrine was made around a strong gimmick.
That gimmick was nerfed so many times and in so many ways it stopped being reliable all together.
To replace that gimmick, reliable units need to be put in.
To not have even more of already present and used meta units, non meta units were chosen and buffed, so they can fulfill a role of bringing doctrine to reliable state. If revamp and buff to these units means other doctrines will become viable in the process, there is not a single downside to the decision.

Shock troops is one of most common abilities in the game, there is little reason for the unit to be available in one more commander.

To be honest i'm a bit curios. When Vipper has problems with the term "shock units" in "urban defense" why is he not complaining about Panzerfüsiliere (a term exclusive used for PzGrenadiers of the Großdeutschland-Division) and Obersoldaten and/or Rear Echelons

I have no issue with the term "shock units", what I don't like is when people distort history and try to present Shock troops as a defensive unit.

Shock troops by definition are offensives units.

Do you agree that shock troops are offensively oriented units?

I dont agree
Because units arent "offensive" or "defensive" in general.
You can be on the defense but that doenst mean that you can start local offensives to counterattack the enemy. So I cant see any problems with those abstract doctrinal themes because offensive/defensive is based on the situation.
E.g. when u look into your Stalingrad example; Soviets were on the defense "on the strategic level" but there were a lot of local skirmished were both sides started to attack or to defend the position.
So it would be better to criticise the doctrine at all (e.g. there is bad synergy between the callins and abilities). It is useless to attack "unit names" because they were added for gameplay reasons (distinguish units) and not because Relic planed a ww2 simulation.

Do you agree that shock troops are offensively oriented units?

Ok, explain this:

Shocks are present in counterattack doctrine.
What needs to be done to be able to counterattack?
Yup, you first need to be attacked and repel the attack.
Once you -defensively defend against an attack- you can counterattack.

Therefore, shocks are just as much defensive as offensive and for years now.

Plus, the game is about capturing and holding 3 specific territories, not about destroying your opponents base, therefore all MOBILE units are offensive, because they need to get and capture that specific territories and all units are defensive, because they need to hold these specific territories to win.

In context of CoH2, there is no such thing as "offensive" or "defensive" unit.

I dont agree
Because units arent "offensive" or "defensive" in general.
You can be on the defense but that doenst mean that you can start local offensives to counterattack the enemy. So I cant see any problems with those abstract doctrinal themes because offensive/defensive is based on the situation.
E.g. when u look into your Stalingrad example; Soviets were on the defense "on the strategic level" but there were a lot of local skirmished were both sides started to attack or to defend the position.
So it would be better to criticise the doctrine at all (e.g. there is bad synergy between the callins and abilities). It is useless to attack "unit names" because they were added for gameplay reasons (distinguish units) and not because Relic planed a ww2 simulation.

Actually in army units have certain role to perform and have the training and equipment to fulfill them. That does not mean that do only that role. A cook will fight if he is caught in the front line but that is not his role.

This is from wikipedia clearly explaining the role of shock troops
Show Spoiler

Just to clarify things since some people have derailed this thread:
Facts:
1) Contrary to what some people claim Shock troops are offensive troops
2) Contrary to what some people claim Relic support the theme of commanders
3) Contrary to what some people claim an offensive unit like "shock troops" does not really fit the theme of "urban defense"

Is that an issue or reason for shock troops not be in the commander? hardly. Worst case scenario Relic can simply remove the word "defense" from the commander and theme problem would be solved.

Many other issues thou will not be solved, I have provide my feedback and explained those issues in the feedback thread.

Ok, explain this:

Shocks are present in counterattack doctrine.
What needs to be done to be able to counterattack?
Yup, you first need to be attacked and repel the attack.
Once you -defensively defend against an attack- you can counterattack.

Therefore, shocks are just as much defensive as offensive and for years now.

Plus, the game is about capturing and holding 3 specific territories, not about destroying your opponents base, therefore all MOBILE units are offensive, because they need to get and capture that specific territories and all units are defensive, because they need to hold these specific territories to win.

In context of CoH2, there is no such thing as "offensive" or "defensive" unit.

Have no intention of arguing semantics with you and further derail this thread. Both in real life and in game Shock troops are offensively oriented units by definition. You can argue your point with wikipedia if you want.

Ok, explain this:

Shocks are present in counterattack doctrine.
What needs to be done to be able to counterattack?
Yup, you first need to be attacked and repel the attack.
Once you -defensively defend against an attack- you can counterattack.

Therefore, shocks are just as much defensive as offensive and for years now.

Plus, the game is about capturing and holding 3 specific territories, not about destroying your opponents base, therefore all MOBILE units are offensive, because they need to get and capture that specific territories and all units are defensive, because they need to hold these specific territories to win.

In context of CoH2, there is no such thing as "offensive" or "defensive" unit.

Nonsense

1) You are assuming Counterattack has thematically fitting units already except multiple doctrines showed to have units that hardly fit the commander theme, and Counterattack never went under any rework.

2) A unit doesn't need to cover up the whole doctrine, Shock are the attack part of "counterattack".

3) Shock are unsuited to defending. If you actually bothered looking at dps curves they are the least suited cqb units for defending, even compared to ass grens.

You have been proven wrong on multiple levels and you keep twisting facts, just stop.

Rename it to "urban combat commander", problem solved..

Rename it to "urban combat commander", problem solved..

Yes I mentioned that already but that would only solve the "theme" issue.

It would not solve the fact that Shock troops would be available to 7 (1/3) of Soviet commanders or the other more serious issues I mentioned in the feedback thread.

It would also not solve the problem created from some people arguing for the shake of arguing, and ending up making ridiculous claims like "Therefore, shocks are just as much defensive as offensive and for years now", that is simply trolling and spreading misinformation.

Shock troops in real life and in game are offensively oriented infantry.

"Shock troops" didnt exist in real life genius. Thats a non-Russian umbrella term for any assault infantry.

Have no intention of arguing semantics with you and further derail this thread. Both in real life and in game Shock troops are offensively oriented units by definition. You can argue your point with wikipedia if you want.

This entire thread was based on semantics lol.

Offensive forces can be used defensively to counterattack during an attack. They are still performing effectively in an offensively oriented manner in a tactically a defensive role. While made for offensive operations, there’s no reason such troops can’t utilized in such scenarios as defensive operations constitute more than holding a line with rifles and machine guns.

I don’t have enough knowledge to cite specific battles, but I’m sure the US marines (who are by definition amphibious shock troops, have been used as such, and fall under the blanket term) have been used defensively in many situations. The modern US military even has the term “QRF” or quick reaction force, which is an aggressive unit like delta force (which doesn’t officially exist according to the US government IIRC but whatever) that could serve in both offensive or defensive operations, mostly by quickly attacking or counterattacking in the middle of a battle, to the best of my understanding anyway.

"Shock troops" didnt exist in real life genius. Thats a non-Russian umbrella term for any assault infantry.

Shock troops exist in real life and where used by a number of armies thru out history including the Soviet army in WWII, this is a fact and that is the reason why the term even exist.

Once more pls stop being personal, I would hate to have to respond in personal manner.

This entire thread was based on semantics lol.

Offensive forces can be used defensively to counterattack during an attack. They are still performing effectively in an offensively oriented manner in a tactically a defensive role. While made for offensive operations, there’s no reason such troops can’t utilized in such scenarios as defensive operations constitute more than holding a line with rifles and machine guns.

No, the reason why this thread was created was to move an off topic debate out of the feedback thread and to explain the role in game and in real life of shock troops.

I have replied to the argument that assault troops can be used defensively in previous post, pls try to read before jumping in into a debate and restarting a debate that has run its course.

The fact is quite simple shock troops in real life and in game are offensive oriented assault troops.