soviet tech suggestions

there were a lot of complaints about soviet techs on the forums, but recently people are getting more active about it how underpowered the soviets are. while some of it is true i'm going to talk about another problem instead which is about soviet teching.

the problem with soviet teching is how expensive the buildings are so it's only economical to only build two buildings one for infantry and one for tanks. the germans however has a straight progressed teching path in which they could have access to everything.

one way to fix this problem is have a tech upgrade like the germans. i think that 150 manpower and 50 fuel upgrade that gives you access to your tank buildings is a great idea!
in turn both buildings will cost 125 manpower and 30 fuel. this is a lot better than the 275 manpower and 90 fuel buildings we have right now. ( just so you know i decrease total fuel price on teching to compensate for time ) this way the player can economically go both t3 and t4, so he can have a well composed force just like the germans!

now i'm not entirely sure what to do with the first tiers i'm just brainstorming feel free to agree or disagree ( but please be constructive ) no tier 1 building the player has to tech to get his scout car, snipers and penals, and make tier 2 building cheaper. techning not required for t2.

i think t2 is a must since of all the good and important stuff you get from t2 i'm a bit skeptical about having a mg and soviet sniper combo though, because of how powerful the soviet sniper is, i just wish it would just get nerfed, but that's not going to happen because relic just want to stick with horrible unit designs for some reason.

if there are no upgrade slots available for the soviets in the hq than remove the anti tank nade and moltov upgrade, since the soviets shouldn't be forced to pay for them since the germans don't need to get them at all as they're equal to conscripts.

My problem is not so much the teching costs (because I like the current asymmetry I'm not in favour of an upgrade thing) but rather that building either of the Tier 1/2 buildings takes a huge amount of time (because build time is linked to cost) which sort of messes up Penal starts and the like. Similarly, side teching involves an awfully long wait and having a combat engi off the field for a long time. More often than not I'm as loathe to spare the engi as the resources, and side-teching as a reaction (to a tiger or whatever) is painfully slow.

I sort of feel like part of the issue is that Soviet players have strats which try to cover everything with 2 tech buildings and are uncomfortable investing for the flexibility even when they can afford to do so.

Personally I think more things like the molotov and AT nade upgrades (i.e. universal fuel upgrades) should be in the game rather than less.

Teching cost: Cost is a very predictable and stable system that isnt subject to "l2p" issues or battlefield vagaries like RNG or balancing vs opposing equivalent units/counters, as would be the case with changing stats of individual units as is otherwise the case with balancing the factions.

The costs can be made to "add up", in a way that is stable and produces predictable results. Im quite confident Relic know where they are in terms of tech costs.

Buildtime: A factor for ingame timings, which are a factor of tech costs. Again, very stable and measurable, and can he made to "add up" to predictable results for both factions.

Im coming round to agree with Blovski on the suggestion of fuel based upgrades for Sov.
I endorse expanding on existing asymmetric systems, rather than reinventing the wheel.

But I think the most fundamental problem, is the unit division between Sovs parallel t2 and 3. I dont agree with T1 being a problem, nor T0 (exceot possibly regarsing the Osttruppen anomaly, which is an independant issue and not related to universal balance). To be even more specific, its not even the unit division between the parallel tiers, its the unit ability spectrum. Both tier options fall just a little short of offering enough versatility to respond to or initiate AI and AT respectively.

I think a solution to this, taking a page from Blovskis book, might be implementing 1-2 fuel based upgrades that are unique to either t2 or 3, that allow for the units from those buildings to upgrade their versatility for better AI or AT, respectively.

So for example if you chose to build t2, that building comes with an additional 1-2 fuel upgrades that help diversify it a little to provide some of the AI or AT t3 would have provided, or vice versa. As to what those shortcomings are per tier building, and what the upgrades should be, or if only one of the two buildings even needs them in order to improve Sovs tier scitzophrenia, I leave that to experienced Sov players to suggest.

But I think the most fundamental problem, is the unit division between Sovs parallel t2 and 3. I dont agree with T1 being a problem, nor T0 (exceot possibly regarsing the Osttruppen anomaly, which is an independant issue and not related to universal balance). To be even more specific, its not even the unit division between the parallel tiers, its the unit ability spectrum. Both tier options fall just a little short of offering enough versatility to respond to or initiate AI and AT respectively.

I think a solution to this, taking a page from Blovskis book, might be implementing 1-2 fuel based upgrades that are unique to either t2 or 3, that allow for the units from those buildings to upgrade their versatility for better AI or AT, respectively.

I do not totally agree on t1 not being a problem. It either provide extremely expensive early game units (and with this long buildtime) or a very cheap, but then very flimsy unit. I would argue making penals cheaper (and perhaps making stachels as upgrades to compensate).

But I do agree with Nullist on the upgrades. Fuelbased upgrades to t2 and t3 sounds like a good idea. Still, it chould be quite the balance issue if it scales to well with other tiers and or doctrinal call-ins.

Part of the problem in discussing this may be a semantic one.

Ost and Sov tiers are not directly comparable, nor laterally equivalent.

They leapfrog, one over the other, in a ladder-like progression between the factions, step by step.

Begins with Sov T0 being superior to Ost T0, becomes disjointed at Sov having to laterally split between at T2 or T3, and equalises/plateaus (roughly and finally) at T4.

Making both factions do the exact same thing would be easy. But not fun.
We all have to recognise and accept that there will be differences (both advantageous and disadvantageous) to how each faction tiers, respective to the other, because they will NOT do it the same way.

On the specific point of Penals coming "too late" in some peoples opinion, consider if they did infact come earlier. How is Ost supposed to react to SVT Penals on the field any earlier than they are now?

My problem is not so much the teching costs (because I like the current asymmetry I'm not in favour of an upgrade thing) but rather that building either of the Tier 1/2 buildings takes a huge amount of time (because build time is linked to cost) which sort of messes up Penal starts and the like. Similarly, side teching involves an awfully long wait and having a combat engi off the field for a long time. More often than not I'm as loathe to spare the engi as the resources, and side-teching as a reaction (to a tiger or whatever) is painfully slow.

I still don't feel comfortable with having my engineer off the field so long so early in the game. I haven't worked it out in my build order yet.

On the specific point of Penals coming "too late" in some peoples opinion, consider if they did infact come earlier. How is Ost supposed to react to SVT Penals on the field any earlier than they are now?

you tell us mate, you're the one who ONLY plays germans

you tell us mate, you're the one who ONLY plays germans

Ad hominem. I asked a reasonable question directed also at more experienced players than myself. I didnt specify it towards either Ost or Sov players, nor do I think its relevant what faction the responding person plays, as long as the answer is in and of itself, sound.
If my opinion is of so little value to you, why do you even ask it?

Since Im a noob that plays only Ost, why do you ask me to answer the question I am presenting to more experienced players?

Learn to control your feels, bro. They are nobodies business or problem than your own. Go punch a pillow in a futile tearful rage at what a noob Nullist is or something.

Ad hominem. I asked a reasonable question directed also at more experienced players than myself. I didnt specify it towards either Ost or Sov players, nor do I think its relevant what faction the responding person plays, as long as the answer is in and of itself, sound.
If my opinion is of so little value to you, why do you even ask it?

Since Im a noob that plays only Ost, why do you ask me to answer the question I am presenting to more experienced players?

Learn to control your feels, bro. They are nobodies business or problem than your own. Go punch a pillow in a futile tearful rage at what a noob Nullist is or something.

you're one of the most vocal member of the community, putting great interest in balancing the game...

yet you don't play the game anymore, and your experience is ostheer only

see what i'm getting at?

No. I dont.

I asked a simple question.

Its not my business or problem what orifice you choose to shove it into. Though I do suggest that your choice this time, is not good for you.

If I had made a statement that was false and completely wrong cos Im a noob, ok, Id be wrong. But I didnt. I just asked a question.

All though I agree with the OP that the teching cost for the soviet side seems rather expensive, I don't recommend giving the soviets a tech upgrading system similar to the germans. Simply because I think it would be boring if the two sides become to much alike.

IMO the changes should be made on the german side instead. Their building and teching cost is ridiculously cheap for the number of units it opens up.

This is all a design choice ofc and it has a blance of its own.

But there would be more of a cliff-hanger if the german side was also forced to make a strategic choice between T1 and T2 and couldn't just go both anyhow.

No. I dont.

I asked a simple question.

Its not my business or problem what orifice you choose to shove it into. Though I do suggest that your choice this time, is not good for you.

If I had made a statement that was false and completely wrong cos Im a noob, ok, Id be wrong. But I didnt. I just asked a question.

well if you're not getting the message matey

you seem to just create conflict in all the threads, and you're obviously not playing the game, therefore all your opinions about balance is invalid, furthermore increased by the fact you play solely ostheer

I do agree that Soviet teching could be better but I'm not sure if it can be changed without destroying the balance completely.

well if you're not getting the message matey

you seem to just create conflict in all the threads, and you're obviously not playing the game, therefore all your opinions about balance is invalid, furthermore increased by the fact you play solely ostheer

I asked a pertinent and relavant question.
There was no conflict created there until you stepped in with irrelevant ad hominem attacks.
I didnt cause you to do that. Thats your own responsibility.

I didnt even make a statement about balance. So again,you are barking up the wrong tree.
I simply asked a question of what the ramifications would be if the suggested change was implemented.

I do play the game. Very poorly, to my continuing chagrin, but I do play it, nonetheless.

And though my ingame performance is roughly that of a blindfolded chimpanzee with Parkinsons, that isnt what I base my opinions of balance, on. Im more objective than that. I dont expect my success at the game to be correlatory to the validity of my balance arguments, nor vice versa.

My personal success rate at CoH2 is NO INDICATION of balance, or lack thereof

Furthermore, nowhere, and at no time, do I biasedly support Ost faction to the detriment of Sov.
I want BALANCE, and i dont care what faction that needs adjusting, in order to achieve.
I dont want an OP Ostmanymore than I do an OP Sov. I want BALANCE.

That is where fundamental flaw in your perspective on who is validated to discuss balance is buried.
You presume that a better player somehow has better opinions on balance.
By which logic, any player that has better stats than you, can automatically tell you to go suck a lemon.
And there are PLENTY of players who are better than you, and who I am certain, do ABSOLUTELY NOT agree with you.

Your continuing insistance that Cons are worse than Grens as a standing example of that. Even now, in a parallel thread, you persist in that false myth.
Players with far better stats as well as far more statistical knowledge than you have repeatedly refuted your claims, yet you persist in them.

If you want to discuss only with players who have good stats, then discuss only with players with good stats.
Nobody is forcing you to discuss with me, who has poor stats. Get yourself invited to the beta/exclusive internal board here on CoH2.org. But I warn you, that is full of players who are BETTER than you, and whom by your own internal logic, can tell you to stfu because they are better than you. Basically your attitude on this means you can only talk to players who are WORSE than you, because anyone who is better, automatically is more right than you.

Its a completely ridiculous attitude to have, but if thats what you want, thats your prerogative.
But I have no obligation to bend to that, at all.

Just back off, dude. I know my posts may rustle your jimmies on a personal level, but try to contain yourself.
If I ever make a factual error ( as I did for example in regards to the Guard tower having LoS only when garrisonned, then by all means, point that out) or demonstate obvious bias by using hyperbole, exaggeration and deliberate dishonesty to support one side of the balwnce coin, then come at me.

But all I did here, was ask the community:
"OK, so what if indeed Penals came out earlier. How would that reflect on Ost play?"
Which is an automatic and necessary question. It wouldnt be responsible to implement such a change WITHOUT asking that question.

IMO the changes should be made on the german side instead. Their building and teching cost is ridiculously cheap for the number of units it opens up.

I disagree. I do however agree on the part that they should not be similar. But the german tech makes very good sense as is. The fact that you tech up at a cost seems to be forgotten by many, or not accounted for. It takes a long time and also costs. The buildings themselves are fast yes. This somewhat leaves the ostheer the ability to tech up and wait a while before building until its more or less needed, building is so fast anyways. The teching doesnt lock up a pioneer squad either, meaning sov will have a slight disadvantage on cap/mines/repairs etc.

Also the soviet buildings make alot of sense considering what they bring. Its just to expensive to go through both t1 and t2 and then further to t3 or 4. If there was a way to slightlu weigh up what you loose from not building a tier with upgrades (at a decent cost) I think a greater variety of sov builds would be viable.

I do agree that Soviet teching could be better but I'm not sure if it can be changed without destroying the balance completely.

well that depends whether or not you think a t34 and su85 combo is OP or a t34, katyusha combo. my suggestions doesn't change the amount of time it takes to get your first tank buildings it only makes accessibility to other tank buildings easier.

well that depends whether or not you think a t34 and su85 combo is OP or a t34, katyusha combo. my suggestions doesn't change the amount of time it takes to get your first tank buildings it only makes accessibility to other tank buildings easier.

none of that would be OP. Its already possible to do in game, and the units all cost respectable amounts of fuel. I also have all the confidence in the world with the abundance of units germans have that they would be able to counter and adapt to any new strategies that come up if the game was changed so soviets had more of a chance and more access to thier whole army.

All though I agree with the OP that the teching cost for the soviet side seems rather expensive, I don't recommend giving the soviets a tech upgrading system similar to the germans. Simply because I think it would be boring if the two sides become to much alike.

IMO the changes should be made on the german side instead. Their building and teching cost is ridiculously cheap for the number of units it opens up.

This is all a design choice ofc and it has a blance of its own.

But there would be more of a cliff-hanger if the german side was also forced to make a strategic choice between T1 and T2 and couldn't just go both anyhow.

i don't know, i like the german tech system even though the vcoh german tech was superior. (t3 used to give just stugs, puma and nebelwerfers no tanks) but having a separate tank building for medium and heavy tanks is alright because heavy tanks did serve in their own battalions during WWII (although the panther is not a heavy tank)

i don't think this teching would ruin the asymmetry of the game. in company of heroes 2 the german t3 give you your anti infantry, your standard tank and assault gun. german t4 you get the same except they are a lot stronger and more expensive.

for the soviets however, in t3 you get your standard tanks the and t70, t34 and halftracks. while in t4 you get your support weapons; the tank destroyer, assault gun and mobile artillery.

one side is about progression the other is just about getting different kind of weapons, so there is still a good amount of asymmetry even with my proposed tech system it will just make using them together is much easier.

You presume that a better player somehow has better opinions on balance.

This is actually a very good presumption, although not always correct.

Better players (usually) have:

1. More experience with the game from playing a lot.
2. Better understanding of the mechanics and metagame, since it's required to become good.
3. For RTS games, often higher IQ.

It's the reason why Blizzard uses pro players (both opinions and tourney stats) for the majority of their balance decisions.

Relic also supported a private balance forum for COH1 and DOW2 pros.

Usually, not always.

I for example know a great deal more about the game than many of those persons.

They don't "use" those pro players for balance decisions.
That is a false statement.
They use them to test and provide feedback on proposed balance decisions, that the dev team then implements as they see best.

Primary function of a private forum, is to keep distractions and irrelevant posting to a minimum. To remain as ontopic as possible.