An essay on Soviets and a radical proposal

I think that team games are just fine until late game (Tanks)

Soviet army is designed for synergy between units. Su85 is only potent weapon if its well supported by other units (conscripts/shocks or rifle guards) It only works well if you are facing your opponent (panther and support units) head on, or in ambush style engagements.
Basically units need to be set up in positions, mines laid, etc. And then any attack needs to be planned and executed while coordinating different units to achieve synergy between them. Eg. con AT nade damages Panther engine, Su85 moves in and shoots it from range, shocks repeal any advancing PG's..... etc ((works just fine in 1v1)

But, you start playing 4v4 game and:

This becomes impossible when facing multiple players with Panthers/Piv/PG's that can quite quickly gang up on one player or come to his aid. Throw in straffe run, and all Soviet inf/Zis become useless.

Meanwhile, as Soviet you can only watch on. You cannot just order your 3 Su85's to go aid your teamate, they are just not designed to do that. They will definitely get flanked and finished of by armor or PG's spam.. Sending inf, will not stop Blitz armor, only give more targets for straffe to pin down.

There is no viable tactic/units Soviet players can deploy vs German players, spamming Panthers/Piv, PG's, with Elephant and Tigers as call in units, in 4v4 game. (especially on some maps like City, where its quite easy to flank due to line of sight)

You cannot just order your 3 Su85's to go aid your teamate, they are just not designed to do that. They will definitely get flanked and finished of by armor or PG's spam.

+100

This was not the case in vCOH where the StuG (presumably similar to Su-85) could be vet3 and by that point is very survivable AND has its own anti-infantry built in with the top gunners.

+100

This was not the case in vCOH where the StuG (presumably similar to Su-85) could be vet3 and by that point is very survivable AND has its own anti-infantry built in with the top gunners.

+100

Exactly Soviet heavy-at-tank cannot go help.... to slow vs German armour

I think , i will disagree with a few points that have been made .

1) The PE based schock thingy , as far as i remeber , combined arms and schock unit reliance existed in the original factions of vcoh . Prime examples are m8s , shermans , rangers , pumas , ostwinds , strormtroops etc . Furthermore , once the first few minutes of a unit pass then it can be considered a part of the combined arms force rather than a schock vallue unit . Whats more is that some of the pros towards the end of coh2 ( symbiosis comes to mind )were playing combined arms even with PE and Brits with very good results.

2)Another thing i will disagree is the ostheer not relying on schock units or a better term of it would be units with temporal schock vallue . Completely untrue , i have not seen one game without a flamer halftrack or a p4 which currently are used in the same fashion as the m8 , with the riegek mine doctrine fht is identical to the m8 role .

2.5 )The reason you say that about soviets is because the whole game by forgoing pop-map control relations , giving resources with simple points , largely forgoing universal upgrades such as bars, vet , sy , etc .. has placed more vallue on tactics rather than strategy . What that essentially means is that micro is even more important ( by default ) and units that are favored by that as a direct sequence are schock units, the situation becomes even more schock unit based since coh2 is a lot more rock paper scissors all the way oriented rather than the soft counter early game followed by a more rock papers scissors but with early game units becoming more powerful as the game goes system vcoh had . The faster pace of the game only does things more micro oriented .

3 ) That is not to say that combined arms dont exist in coh2 . In fact t3 and t4 are completely self sustained as far as that goes , they have both at and ai units the diferent being that t3 are more multipurpose while t4 are more specialised ( su76s and m5s being the exceptions )while t1 and t2 are clearly intended to be used in conjunction with the commanders (that is a bit of clear OF influence since vcoh commanders didnt have that significant effect on gameplay ). Also with the addition of commanders such as -t34/85 120mm mortar- and -kv1 big howie- its entirely possible to go t1 t2 or reversed and then not build another thing relying solely on doctrinal abilities to win . Other uses of sybergy ( and therefore combined arms ) between soviet units are T34 T70 ram and finish p4 , button and scatchel charge , trip wire and indirect fire unit , guards and m3 to kill flame ht , at grenade and su76 swarm to take out heavy and medium tanks , softening up units with the 120mm and then killing them with cons , or using cons as meatschilds or scouts so that other units can kill ( ex guards killing pgs that way or su 85s getting max range pottential ) , cons merging with vetted schocktroopers / guards to keep them for a long time in the field etc ...

3.5 ) On soviets not being able to hold ground i ll reply one thing , mines , esp since 2 pios with detectors are just one too many late game mines are a very good tool esp on winter maps where fire pits , cover and houses are so frequented they are soo useful .

3.75 )On cons not scalling well in late game , that is a point of debate , imo cons are supposed to be be durable meatshields and at/mollie platforms late game , they are not riflemen , they cant cary you to victory , but they will help other units to do that . Add the ppsh commanders and then conscripts become as/more costeffective as/than grens esp with mollies forcing people out of cover which allows you to win with other units and have a resource advantage ( Uless ofcourse your facing g43s ).

All the above are both 1v1 and 2v2 territories as far as i am concenred .

4) As far as 4v4 is concenred , i would for no reason take into account that because we simply havent seen an 8 pro players gathering with good communication systems and sound map based strategical planning taking on each other . Giving me examples of ganging up on you in 4v4 scenarios and your team idly whistling has nothing to do with the game and everything to do with the players while at the same time removing the human factor and therefore being useless as far as conclusion extraction goes

5) The game that sib won that was mentioned could have easilly been won for ostheer if instead of a second tiger he had gone for a panzerwerfer , mortars , or even suicidal acs and one more tank . Besides isnt the combination of su85s + snipers a kind of combined arms strategy ??

6 ) On soviet lack of infantry at , i can see the problem . I am also of the opinion it is more a psychological one rather than a practical .

Anyway , 2 solutions

a) Reduce schocks cost to 400 , price each model accordingly for reinforcement and arm them with svts once they are out give the player a free upgrade of either 2 ppshs or 2 antitank rifles .That will diffenrentiate them enough from the guards as they will be less multi role for a bigger price but tunkier as well and will make them less good in close range than penals ( the latter have already been improved i think ) . 2 Schock squads 1 for at the other for ai will just be too much to sustain in the late game as they will be alot less effective than they are now .

b) Increase penals health . reduce slightly their weapon potencey improve a bit their flamers and add an upgrade of at rifles in the same fashion as before (meaning mutually exclussive ) .

In both ways though i feel the change will compromise the guards a bit and that is only expected as their doctrines are the go to ones since they are the only ones of their kind ( ie soft ai and at in one unit )

Cheaper Shocks with SVTs?

No. For so many reasons.

The fact that your SU-85s have to be in position before an engagement, and cannot rush over to help your ally, adds tactics and micro. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I think , i will disagree with a few points that have been made .


4) As far as 4v4 is concenred , i would for no reason take into account that because we simply havent seen an 8 pro players gathering with good communication systems and sound map based strategical planning taking on each other . Giving me examples of ganging up on you in 4v4 scenarios and your team idly whistling has nothing to do with the game and everything to do with the players while at the same time removing the human factor and therefore being useless as far as conclusion extraction goes

Writes an essay on unit tactical abilities and strategic uses, has problem picturing how spamable Panthers/P4's that are designed for speed and flanking would have an easy time in 4v4.

Let me give you a hint, in 4v4 you don't have 4 separate 1v1 battles.... players find the weakness and exploit it. ATM, weakness is Soviets are incapable of fast response and quickly redeploying force to be effective fighting force.

The fact that your SU-85s have to be in position before an engagement, and cannot rush over to help your ally, adds tactics and micro. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I am pretty sure you are quite good 1v1 player, so I would love to hear your suggestion.

How exactly does it add to micro and tactics if you are not able to reposition your force to engage enemy effectively.
Watching your teamate getting wiped of the map by 2 players, while other 2 enemy players are waiting in readiness for you to leave your 'position of engagement' so they can attack you and flank you on the move with bunch of Panthers/P4's and PG spam?

If you move you are dead, if you don't move you will be dead as soon as your teamate is done and dusted. If you are player that is on far side of the map and there is no one facing you, you are to far away to do anything and only thing you can achieve is again, be caught on the move out of effective fighting formation with units you have.

If you go and cap empty part of the map, you don't achieve anything. You don't decrease enemy pop cap, nor you significantly decrease their resources. At this point, If you are German you don't really care about VP, fuel or ammo. You are going for a kill, wiping one players after other, because you broke the flank and can easily swarm enemies from all sides, flank, infiltrate, etc.

The only tactic and micro there is if I play as German team, pick which player we gonna swarm and who will ambush and flanking any help that may or may not come........

Now, let me hear how is that good for micro and tactics please?
Or you just said that, without ever taking a moment to try to picture what 4v4 might look like.

playing 1v1 and 4v4 is completely different, trust me I play both.

Watching your teamate getting wiped of the map by 2 players, while other 2 enemy players are waiting in readiness for you to leave your 'position of engagement' so they can attack you and flank you on the move with bunch of Panthers/P4's and PG spam?

This makes no sense.

If the opponent is grouping into 2 players forces, then if you do the same, you are defensively positioned to counter those 2 players, with your own 2 players.

Wat.

The only tactic and micro there is if I play as German team, pick which player we gonna swarm and who will ambush and flanking any help that may or may not come........

You can do that as Sov too. You will need a different force composition than you apparently are currently used to building, though.

Was just watching Ivan+Andy tear into SturmTiger team with T70s and Katyusha/SU76 support. Worked very well.

This makes no sense.

If the opponent is grouping into 2 players forces, then if you do the same, you are defensively positioned to counter those 2 players, with your own 2 players.

Wat.

Opponent doesn't need to group, having 4 panthers and your teamate has 3 doesn't require grouping. you just decide who to go for and roll in on single player, of if someone looks like they might be in trouble you just roll in. If you fail, you just get out and try again.

When you are Soviet you try to block of entire length of the map, so no units can get in behind.....

For obvious reasons

Opponent doesn't need to group, having 4 panthers and your teamate has 3 doesn't require grouping. you just decide who to go for and roll in on single player

THAT is grouping. Or rather, offensive grouping. Exactly that.
Defensively it would mean positioning your lines of fire to cover each others interlocking flank and concentrating fire against avenues of approach. You also need to actively BLOCK OFF avenues of approach when defensive, with mining, fieldwork or something like that.
You can't just passively sit there and wait/hope for opponent to run into your guns.
Perhaps this article will help you position your defensive line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfilade_and_defilade

When you are Soviet you try to block of entire length of the map, so no units can get in behind.....

Why on earth? You trying to re-enact the Maginot Line or something?

Let me put it in 1v1 understandable terms.

If you are playing vs Enemy who is using a lot of MG42's, you try to flank, infiltrate his line of defense. Break through one MG42, and you turn sideways taking one after the other because you can attack from all directions now...

Same principle, instead of Con rush, you have panther rush

Remember how you were arguing, that MG42 takes to long to unpack and re-position. Exactly the same thing

THAT is grouping. Or rather, offensive grouping. Exactly that.
Defensively it would mean positioning your lines of fire to cover each others interlocking flank and concentrating fire. Perhaps this article will help you position your defensive line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfilade_and_defilade



Why on earth? You trying to re-enact the Maginot Line or something?

Thanks for advice, but i was quite decent COH player both 1v1 and team games. I know what I am talking about
Because thats what playing 4v4 is like, what do you think?

Don't take it literally, its description to give you an idea.

Ive never said MG42 setup is too long!

Dunno. Maybe more mining to secure your flanks on your AT hardpoints?

Ive never said MG42 setup is too long!

Dunno. Maybe more mining to secure your flanks on your AT hardpoints?

The problem is when you have to move to help one.

In 1v1 terms this is what its like:

Imagine if you have 4 mg42 that cover most of the map (like maginot line) and they are facing 8 conscript squads.

Now if you have players that have 1v1 mind set up, they will individually try to attack single Mg42 each. Of course it will be hard because they can't flank it easily and MG42 is set up and can pin both squads with bit of micro.

If you have players that have team work mind set up, they will gang up on one MG42 with 4 cons, Mg42 can't pin all 4 Con squads, another Mg42 needs to try to come to aid. That means it has to walk there (we all know how Mg42 is effective relying on models small arms until its set up)
Meaning it can easily get intercepted and flanked by spare Con units, if it tries to fight it out, it will get molotov and end up finished off by Cons that flanked it. If it tries retreating it will lose few models and other MG42 is doomed. It cannot definitely come back and reclaim territory from cons, later on.

Other 2 MG42's are to far to walk all the way from other side of the map to help, and even if they did, all they did is open map for conscripts to exploit and/or get caught and flanked themself.

No 1v1 player will use mg42's exclusively to fight vs Conscript spam, sooner or later it will get cracked by flanks....

Replace Cons with German armor and MG42 with Soviet forces that need to be set up in position to be effective, and you can envisage the problem..

P.S. there is no other counters to cons but mg42. No scout car, no grens, no PG's.

Hope that makes sense to people who only play 1v1's

I appreciate the attempt, but 4 HMGs in 1v1 is just retarded :/

Maybe try to play more offensively?

Take your partner, and flank the opposition instead, and roll along his lines as you say they are doing to you?

Turtling/defensive lines have a characteristic fail potential in all RTS.
You have to aggressively keep pushing your opponent.

Very insightful essay. And much of it is true.

You lost me at the point where you compare soviets to PE, though. PE was much based upon good, light vehicles and the soviets have none before T3.

And then I'm not quite sure if it's true that the soviets are sort of only good on offensive play, based on shock tactics.

I see some good defensive strategy potential in it too, but ofc. choices of viable strategies may be narrowed much more Down in competitive 1v1.

As for the discussion about the soviet options in team games: very true. Per default it's always a gang-rape of one soviet player at the time in the late game. If everyone on the SU team isn't aware of it, you'll be sure to suddenly find german tanks in your base while you are busy going on the offensive on your own front.

I think it's fair to conclude, there there is no real balance in team games - as also discussed in other threads.

But question is: how much does it matter? Maybe for 2v2, but for 3v3 and 4v4 I actually don't care that much about losing 2 out of 3 games as soviets. I can just switch to the german side if I want a point-and-click kind of Victory. So why care? Noone plays competitively on 3v3+ anyway.

I appreciate the attempt, but 4 HMGs in 1v1 is just retarded :/

Maybe try to play more offensively?

Take your partner, and flank the opposition instead, and roll along his lines as you say they are doing to you?

Turtling/defensive lines have a characteristic fail potential in all RTS.
You have to aggressively keep pushing your opponent.

You just answered your on suggestions:

Having 4 HMGS in 1v1 is retarded. Thats exactly what you get in late game 4v4.

4 players who need to be set up to be effective vs bunch of units who are designed for flanking and mobility.

There is no viable tactic or micro-ing your units to be effective. Game balance just becomes broken at the point where Germans can field (spam) enough Panthers.

Game balance just becomes broken at the point where Germans can field (spam) enough Panthers.

Ok, lets focus on that bit then.

I remember there used to be a lot of problems with this in combination with the old Opels, but I presume that is no longer the case, since they got so severly nerfed that only one is valid, after which Caches become better.

Panthers will fuck an Su85 they can get range on, even frontally. So though SU85s can still contribute, they arent a reliable solo counter unless range of LoS is carefully maintained. Tenuous. Plus there is the element of not being abke to redeploy them to Osts deliberate flanking/grouping that you mentioned earlier).

ZiS are still, unfortunately, despite the communities best effort and even recent patching, pretty shit.

What next?
How about if one of you techs for IS2?
How about if one (or both) of you keeps a pool of Guard to stall/blind the Panther pack?
(That would he more a mitigating, than a countering effect though...)

In most 2v2 games ive watched, successful Sov plays a far heavier t2-3.

So perhaps take the attitude that you completely forget T4 and go all out balls to the wall with T70s and T34s BEFORE they can push out the Panthers in sufficient numbers? Draw a line there, and invest everything you have into crushing their progression before it can build momentum.

Arguably Sov T4 is weaker anyways, so it begs the quesrion, why bother. Especially as Ost T4 is AT centric, whereas Sov T4 has a AI impetus. Which makes Ost t4 armor categorically more capable of countering yournown T4 options anyway. Especially when Panthers are the presented problem.

So how about that? Try and figure a build with your partner that exploits the fuck out of the narrow t2-3 window BEFORE they can start gradually accumalating their Panther horde of doom. Mix a little AT into the mix though, because even though younmay jot be able to destroy each Panther as they come out, even if they are overextended, the repair time and especially engine dmg makes them unable to coordinate with the Panther horde as a cohesive whole. So keep each individual one as dmged as you can, in turn.

Dunno man. I dunno shit as many claim. Just trying to help and find you a way to enjoy the game.

So how about that? Try and figure a build with your partner that exploits the fuck out of the narrow t2-3 window BEFORE they can start gradually accumalating their Panther horde of doom. Mix a little AT into the mix though, because even though younmay jot be able to destroy each Panther as they come out, even if they are overextended, the repair time and especially engine dmg makes them unable to coordinate with the Panther horde as a cohesive whole. So keep each individual one as dmged as you can, in turn.

This is actually the approach my 2v2 partner and I have adopted and it's risky but it can work. We actually do it with me leaning heavily on T2/T3 and he going T1/T4. The key is if they do start to get panthers/tigers out you need to have several T34's and be willing to use ram to disable them and have the SU-85's finish them off. You have to make sure you use the ram in a situation where you're almost certain to kill the panther otherwise it'll be a net loss. There is also luck involved since you're not guaranteed to damage the engine.

Sadly if you can't pull this off it's pretty much GG against a smart team. Once they hit critical mass with the panthers you won't be able to stop them even if you have an equal or even greater amount of SU-85's. They'll blitz right past your SU-85/ZiS defense and once you get those units turning it's over. Guards won't be able to stop them long enough, and late game mines are harder to keep up with arty blanketing much of the field.

Even worse on many of the maps is the Elephant. On the maps with lanes/choke points these things can deny a huge portion of the map to any Soviet armor which makes them next to impossible to kill if they're supported well. You pretty much have to get lucky with an arty/bombing strike since you'll never get armor anywhere near them and you have no AT infantry capable of doing significant damage to it.