An essay on Soviets and a radical proposal

The general feeling of the non-1v1 playing public is that Soviets are underpowered, difficult to play, and extremely bad in team games. This attitude is expressed by the ratios of Germans to Soviets in any other game mode other than 1v1, which at best seems to be 60/40, but is usually worse.

Amidst cries of "learn to play," always a fan favorite, there is more than a little truth to what the majority is encountering. Why exactly are Soviets so tricky? Essentially, everyone is playing them wrong, but they're also badly designed, in my opinion, for a competitive RTS. The normal rules that COH imposed on us don't apply to this faction, the rules of counter and counter-counter, and combined arms is only necessary as a fallback to avoid failure.

Essentially what's difficult with Soviets is that they seem to favor the design scheme of Panzer Elite in COH1 - they favor aggression and shock value units over a more playable combined arms strategy. With Ostheer, every unit has a function, and every function has a unit. The tier system is logical and intuitive, and so Ostheer is eminently playable even by beginner players. But as many people have pointed out Soviets are gimicky and have a rather tricky slippery-slope mechanic where using shock units can quickly devolve into game failure due to luck or when facing a really well-composed Ostheer army. For instance, SU-85s are extremely potent vs tanks, but extraordinarily vulnerable to flanking and infantry. Shock troops are great vs. infantry, but will be wiped by any vehicle that comes by them. Penal battalions and KV-8s are perhaps the ultimate example of this: the satchel charge can wipe two squads, but the chances of the penal squad getting safely away from their own destruction are slim. KV-8s might be able to charge in and wreck a defended position, but if any armor is on the field (which there should be unless the Soviet player is dominating) they will be quickly hunted down and destroyed or severely damaged before they can reach the safety of an AT wall or SU-85.

That's why most players find Soviets, including me, extraordinarily frustrating. Soviets just can't play the combined arms game as well as the Ostheer. For instance, many players make the mistake of constantly reinforcing and spending manpower on conscripts, which scale terribly late game, when what they need to be doing is gambling on the next shock unit that could change the tide of battle. I watched a recent replay with Siberian where he lost two conscript squads, but was able to utilize the superior infantry-killing power of Soviet snipers and SU-85s to win the game despite the Ostheer player doing very well most of the match. In other words, direct, extraordinary reliance on shock units. This meta remains the best way to play Soviets in my opinion. Since the T34 buff, many players are attempting to adopt a support-T34s style strat, but there's a huge hole in this strat - conscripts just don't scale as well as Ostheer infantry, leaving Soviet fallback positions too vulnerable to vetted infantry.

But - Soviets actually do have all the tools they need to win with combined arms, but they're just hard to get on the field in time to make a difference, given that the construction time of Soviet buildings is very long. It was almost entirely necessary to use both WSC and Motor Pool against Wehrmakt in COh1, but too dangerous to use both T1 and T2 against Ostheer as Soviets as the build times are so long. I'd propose that Soviets be reconfigured to make the tiering system more intuitive and easy to use, essentially reproducing the US tech system in COH1.

1) Move conscript construction and conscript upgrades to T1.
2) Move snipers to the WSC, but sniper build-time might need to be looked at.
3) Move the Zis to T3, but make it cheaper to build T3.
4) Move the T34 to T4.
5) Cut in half the construction time of Soviet buildings, it should be somewhere between the Ostheer build-time and the current one.

But we still have a huge problem - conscripts don't scale. More than the damage bars did, it was the ability to suppress superior Wehrmakt forces that made US rifles playable in COH. In my opinion, the gaping hole in the Soviet arsenal is the ability to suppress. Only Maxims and the quad-mount can do this. I think the only way to achieve parity is to give conscripts a suppress ability, like the G43 slow PE had in COH. This could be a global upgrade and fairly large cost.

A lot of things would then have to be re-balanced if Soviets are able to really field a great combined arms army - especially SU-85 build time and cost.

I know what the instant counter-argument is going to be - Soviets are fine in 1v1. Well, they are, but that's purely because in 1v1 the shock units scale so much better and the capping power of conscript spam is much greater. To re-balance for 1v1 with this proposal, sniper firing speed, health, T-34 crush, etc., would all need to be changed, but that's quite feasible.

The entire Soviet tier structure is frustrating to play compared to playing as the Ostheer.

You need to choose at the start of the game which path you want to go down, and if you made the wrong choice then you have locked yourself out of having more effective fighting options.

It's difficult to make an effective combined arms army when half your unit choices are unavailable based on your choice of starting structure.

And having less options is also simply less fun.

Interesting essay - I sort of agree with the problems as presented, for game sizes over 2v2 at least, but I don't really agree with the solution (it seems like it would involve a hell of a lot more balancing problems and headaches than it would resolve, really). I think Soviet side-teching is maybe overpriced at the moment.

That game with Sib you're referring to is kind of not as much about Soviet shock units as you make out - the German player threw away a Tiger and didn't really invest in any practical counter to the snipers, which reasonably enough left him vulnerable to snipers.

One thing I don't understand:
We talk here about modes with more players than 1v1. Shouldn't it be a huge advantage that 2 Players can go for T1 and 2 Players for T2 at the start of the game? Allowing combined arms?

1) hmm what if some soviet player want skip T1? then all they left is call in infantry that don't have molotov or AT nade, i do recommend give conscript a upgrade weapon once T3 or T4 building is built (other than the PPSH) to improve its late game effectiveness. maybe a 60MU upgrade to give 4 SVT40 rifle and buff the SVT40 rifle? i don't know

2) what is WSC don't get it. soviet sniper already better in support role than germans i don't want see they deploy to the field faster than right now

3) T3 building cheaper means T34/76 and T70 hits the field faster. not that great of idea.

4) hmm T34 in T4 soviet will have alot armor fighting power in T4, i think it just make T3 useless

5) that will make crown car+flame engineer or Maxim spam more easier, i think german player will got complete shut down in early game

The general fragility of soviet positions is indeed an issue. You're essentially forced to bleed manpower and buy an M5 (and therefore forgoing in-base healing) if you want a solid grip on the map at all times.

What I would like to see instead of such a drastic change is to see Penals go to something like 260mp (probably nerfed to compensate) and become a viable infantry option, while conscripts could become even crummier dps wise and become a utility unit for capping and throwing molotovs/at nades.

Giving penals an upgradeable bazooka would also allow for much more flexibility in build orders.

They pretty bad in 1v1 too
but i play em cause i like a challenge

Giving penals an upgradeable bazooka would also allow for much more flexibility in build orders.

The lack of Soviet infantry based AT is very frustrating. Guards don't really count, other than vs. light vehicles, and are doctrinal. Unfortunately we probably won't see infantry based AT except as part of another dlc commander.

One thing I don't understand:
We talk here about modes with more players than 1v1. Shouldn't it be a huge advantage that 2 Players can go for T1 and 2 Players for T2 at the start of the game? Allowing combined arms?

I don't really see how that could be considered an advantage over anything that an Ostheer team could also choose to do. Ostheer doesn't need to coordinate between team members to have access to their combined arms. They have their all options readily available as they tech up (unless they choose to skip tiers for fast T2 or whatever).

A simple solution would be to reduce the cost of both starting Soviet structures, such that both could be made if desired, and increase the cost of the T3/T4 structures to compensate, thereby preventing faster T-70s/T-34s/whatever.

Maybe reduce the ridiculously long build times, too, but that would create more balance issues.

Soviet engineers need to work harder. Pioneers can dig their trench structures in no time lol

One thing I don't understand:
We talk here about modes with more players than 1v1. Shouldn't it be a huge advantage that 2 Players can go for T1 and 2 Players for T2 at the start of the game? Allowing combined arms?

Well thats true, but most of the 2v2 maps are very dividing, since holding both of the fuel points, is pretty much the major factor in terms of winning the game. And because fuelpoints are always in opposite sides of the map, it forces soviet(as well as ostheer) players to divide their forces, which reduces the advantages soviets get from going each different tiers. This is where ostheer usually gains an upper hand as its forces are more versailite.
Also, if soviets manage to take and hold both of the fuels, germans can still cope with soviet armor with munition based AT weapons like shrecks and MP based pak's that penetrate a frontal armor of pretty much every single soviet vehicle.
Soviets lack effective non fuel based and non doctrinal anti tank unit. ZIS guns are not viable after ostheer armor reaches vet 2.

I don't mind the soviets being pretty much locked into two buildings. I think it makes them a pretty unique faction. The problem is that 2 of those buildings don't have sufficient veriety.

Here are the good buildings:
T2- MG (anti infantry unit)
Mortar (anti defense unit)
AT (anti armor unit)

T4- SU-85 (anti armor)
katyusha (artillery anti infantry)
SU-76 (cheap multi role)

Now the flawed buildings:
T1: M3 (Antisupport weapons)
Sniper (very fragile anti infantry)
Penals (fragile anti infantry, minor anti defense)

T3: M5(reinforcment, minor anti infantry)
T-70(anti infantry, anti light vehicle)
T-34(anti infantry, minor anti tank)

The problem being that T1 and T3 have units that step on the others territory without being good enough at what they do different, leaving a huge hole in anti tank capability of you go t1 to t3. If there was even a unit with a minor anti tank role in T1 you could combine them with t34s to create sufficient AT capabilities.

A simple solution would be to reduce the cost of both starting Soviet structures, such that both could be made if desired, and increase the cost of the T3/T4 structures to compensate, thereby preventing faster T-70s/T-34s/whatever.

Maybe reduce the ridiculously long build times, too, but that would create more balance issues.

Buildtime and price seem to be coded together for some reason. Im sorry I can not recall what thread this was explained in. Tried to google it, but just cant find it. So a cheaper building means shorter buildtime.

This is very easily seen as cheap units like the osttruppen reinforce in a blink of an eye at 10 mp and more expensive units take longer time to reinforce. Same goes for building grens vs panthers.

Really would like to have a quote from source though... :/

Soviets are easy mode...

I disagree. The soviet combined arms is probably the strongest in the game. Either it's guards, su85s, and snipers which is a hell of a nut to crack. Or it's zis, kv8, shocks, and t34s. And what's this about cons late game being weak!?? Vet 3 cons have no problems with vet 3 grens! Give them a ppsh upgrade and good preservation and they are damn good! I don't get the hubbub about soviets being weaker. It just isn't true.

Edited. I'm sorry you are talking more team oriented games. Nevermind then that's way different.

The only way to counter many German units or strategies is combined arms, yet Germany is better at that too.

the way how i want it to be is that soviets are supposed to win by brute force and numbers and the germans are supposed to win with combined arms.

but it doesn't seem like that in coh2 :/

the only issue with soviets is that conscripts are next to useless.
make grens worse or conscripts better, they shouldn't be meatbags with the sole purpose of getting lucky kills with the Molotov in early game

A simple solution would be to reduce the cost of both starting Soviet structures, such that both could be made if desired, and increase the cost of the T3/T4 structures to compensate, thereby preventing faster T-70s/T-34s/whatever.

This can help

Well thats true, but most of the 2v2 maps are very dividing, since holding both of the fuel points, is pretty much the major factor in terms of winning the game. And because fuelpoints are always in opposite sides of the map, it forces soviet(as well as ostheer) players to divide their forces, which reduces the advantages soviets get from going each different tiers. This is where ostheer usually gains an upper hand as its forces are more versailite.

Yes like Moscow outskirts

Also, if soviets manage to take and hold both of the fuels, germans can still cope with soviet armor with munition based AT weapons like shrecks and MP based pak's that penetrate a frontal armor of pretty much every single soviet vehicle.
Soviets lack effective non fuel based and non doctrinal anti tank unit.

That's the main problem

ZIS guns are not viable after ostheer armor reaches vet 2.

It's somewhat viable against t3, but needs a penetration buff to be viable against t4 and tiger.

Soviets are easy mode...

I disagree. The soviet combined arms is probably the strongest in the game. Either it's guards, su85s, and snipers which is a hell of a nut to crack. Or it's zis, kv8, shocks, and t34s. And what's this about cons late game being weak!?? Vet 3 cons have no problems with vet 3 grens! Give them a ppsh upgrade and good preservation and they are damn good! I don't get the hubbub about soviets being weaker. It just isn't true.

Edited. I'm sorry you are talking more team oriented games. Nevermind then that's way different.

this.... I've played a lot of team games with ost and started playing with the soviets.... I have won the last 20 games in 2vs2, 3vs3, 4vs4(I can't tell you something about 1vs1, because I haven't played many games )

It is easier to play with soviets imo (teamgames). Conscript and maxim spam at the beginning, combined with 120 mm mortar....guards+su85+sniper

you make my day dude! agree with you! 100% maybe in 1v1 the game is balance, but in team games its too hard choose the strat. I have friends who plays soviet, but its so frustrating, we all say the same thing, if we going soviet, we gonna lose.

for German players its almost a law build all their buildings, soviet no! and if do you choose that.. you are losing resources.. and that cant be..

+1

...