Profile of SlaYoU

If you don´t care about soviet in this game why you are at this tread in the first place?
you can't disscus a faction if you don't care about that faction.

Fair enough. Have fun.

yes, im a 2v2 player. there's alot less room to move around, a lot more bullshit to deal with there. i havent said anything was op, i disagreed with your notion that they are as easily dodged and gave a couple of good reasons why.

give me replays on molotovs turning the game over by constantly squad wiping or let me lower my standards, show me replays of molotovs being difficult to dodge.

and with that 3+ men losses, its happening pretty frequently, maybe watch a couple of high ranked 2v2 ussr teams and try to keep up.

Then it is a game mode issue, in 1v1 nobody loses squads to rifle nades, and people lose weapon teams to molotovs. That's it, really (probably due to close combat happening more frequently, it seems rather logical to me that there isn't much space in team games).

PS: Thinking about it, it is maybe due to the fact that Axis may have more ammo to play with in teamgames too, but in 1v1 one can't be throwing away 30 ammo that often to turn the tide of a skirmish between squads. I mostly see them used to destroy buildings since the last patch, which it surprisingly does well.

What if I told you that axis playing without upgrades is like allies playing without call-ins? AKA it just doesn't happen. You can theorycraft about it all you want, but axis doesn't play without upgrades and implying they do is completely void argument that have no base in actual gameplay.

Also, wehr is not as muni starved as USF or even OKW, so its not really an argument either.

And I am implying that axis infantry scales better and is useful in late game because of better vet and upgrades in OKW case or just upgrades in wehr case, trying to argue that is like trying to argue that sun is cold, you simply won't go far.

And obviously muni is more important for wehr then sov(unless guard doctrine is selected), because soviets have NOTHING except mines to spend that muni aaaaand we're going back to the right thread, which is bad design of soviet faction, over reliance on doctrines and lack of "punch" and scalability of stock units.

I am the one theorycrafting when you step into the thread, and claim that Wehrmacht 240mp represents less than Soviet 240mp. lol, just lol. Obviously, upgrades make grenadiers scale better, but if you let your opponent upgrade all his grenadiers squads with lmgs in the first place, you deserve to lose. That's it, really.

Not saying it never happens, but saying that upgraded grenadiers verse un-upgraded conscripts winning is unfair, is like saying "wtf my one IS2 was destroyed by two Tigers" or the like. I'm not trying to go anywhere with it, as i absolutely do not care about USSR in this game. But when i read things like "conscripts have no utility", then i step in and clean the mess. They do, and no, they are not useless.

easy to dodge rifle nades? long range = low risk, dont need to run out of cover and into the open to throw a nade. long range = no telltale signs of nading, dont have to move out of cover. fast(er) animation.

teching to t2? its free, stop kidding urself. tagging it to t2 only means its available later and has no cost of its own whatsoever.

30ammo? decent changes to squad behavior in cover just indirectly megabuffed rifle nades. squad wipes and shaving off 3 + men per 30muni is a good deal.

Now bring me replays of any decent players losing 3+ men on rifle nades, then we can speak. Long range = lower risk indeed, but it also means longer time to see its trajectory and plan a dodge. I can agree to disagree with you, if you absolutely think rifle nades are OP. I'm not saying molotovs are OP, they bring a lot of utility to an otherwise average squad. The same goes for AT nades, those upgrades give Conscripts a way to keep usefulness all game long, even if their fighting strength gets behind past 10 mins. As i said, i spend quite a lot of time watching 1v1 of top tier players, and i see much more weapons teams wipes with molotovs than squad wipes with rifle nades. It's ok, different points of view (and probably different game modes too, you are mainly a team player, right ?).

are you seriously suggesting a cons spam tactic?

I'm not suggesting anything, i'm just saying they aren't as bad as you guys are crying them to be. Gonna ignore the arrogant tone of yours, for the sake of conversation. You know, you could just try to spectate a few top tier 1v1 USSR games, and see for yourself if Cons are completely useless. Guess you gonna like it.

I mean such a weak infantry(talking about Cons)just cant be a core unit of a faction since it doesnt offer any utility past midgame without relying on your Commander choice,also i think they already su.ck in the early with their horrible accuracy and 8% more received accuracy.

No utility ? molotovs and AT grenades are quite interesting, on top of being able to spread all around the map to cap-harass Axis positions. That and the easy weapon recrewing + merging a fighting support weapon make it an all around decent core infantry squad. They are somewhat "AOE proof", "Sniper proof", and are a nightmare for Axis weapon teams (molotovs) and light vehicles (AT grenade).

USSR needs definitely a change, but i wouldn't describe the faction as broken or UP as it is now. Definitely not.

PS: also i would like to add something that could also change the way you see the Conscripts units: damage decay over the course of a fight is quite smoother with larger units in general: losing one man is a ~16% decrease in squad dps output, while a Grenadier squad losing one soldier has its damage suddenly dropping by 25%, and it gets worse with each loss (same goes for Cons, but as i said, it is smoother).