Profile of Kasarov

How can you argument something with someone who thinks AT Nade and mines aren't AT weapons?

AT nade and mines are deterrents first and foremost and can't be compared to proper AT weapons like AT guns and TDs. AT nades are very short range, have a muni cost, and rely on your opponent getting careless or greedy. Mines similarly require your opponent to not be careful in order to be effective and the effectiveness of mines can vary wildly. Neither are nearly as reliable as other, proper AT weapons.

Imagine trying to fight off tanks with only PanzerFAUST and Teller mines, no shrecks, no PaK40, etc. It doesn't work very well. That's why they aren't considered AT weapons and rather as deterrents in the game.

You don't really seem to understand chain of command very well. Yes, you are superior to the comissar and the troops, but the troops report to the commissar.

Kek. The commissar in the Red Army structure is a political officer, not a military officer, and had little to no tactical training. The commissar is equivalent to a Military Police commissioned officer and is definitely not who soldiers report to in battle; his jurisdiction lies in the discipline of the troops, much like Military Police.

The soldiers do not answer directly to you, that is a construct of the video game. In real life, orders are disseminated from the top of the rank structure down to the bottom. The commanding general of an army is not going to tell a squad of infantrymen to retreat, that's the job of their squad leader.

I recognize this. I don't disagree with how orders are disseminated from top to bottom; I'm a military reenactor and I have a pretty decent understanding of how orders are passed down. I think there's a miscommunication here. How I have interpreted the gamification it is that you, the player, are the rank structure and you, the player, thus represent the various officers that pass the order along and the guy talking back/taking orders is the squad leader. And by representing the whole command chain itself, you interact with squad leaders which then act on your behalf, in which everything proceeds in an orderly faction.

faction flavor

Look, I think you're a fine guy and all, I just think that there comes a point where the use of justifications that is generally misunderstood by most people (because most people won't bother to factcheck) for something that's so tactically basic is not a good idea.

To each their own opinion, but using stereotypes to force faction flavor, in a game that has consistently made changes in favor of normalization, leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I still disagree with it.

I recognize some stereotypes already exist in the game, but I believe that's all the more reason to prevent the game from being more so. I was against the 7-man change also because of said stereotypes.

My primary point is this:

In my opinion, the Soviets had enough common sense to rally around an officer without the use of Order 227, and the inclusion of 227 in the justification of something so basic as an FRP implies that the Soviets did not have such common sense, which promotes negative stereotypes in one way or another and ultimately disrespects those who have died in the war and the few veterans alive today.

Ok, how about this: soldiers retreat, yes? Let's say soldiers were told to hold a town, and that it was the officer's job to hold it. Now, if you give the order to retreat, and the soldiers still go past the officer all the way over to the next town, that is a failure of the Officer's to maintain order 227, right?

Now, that officer is a commissar. And in order to prevent troops from retreating all the way back to base, he shows the troops where the line is drawn and they may not retreat further.

It's really that simple.

It's not a failure of the commissar to maintain 227 because 227 doesn't apply to orderly retreats. You, a superior officer to both the soldiers AND the commissar, ordered the retreat and is in no way disorderly which is what 227 is intended to prevent. If it was anyone's failure, it would be you, the player and commanding officer, to be held accountable, but that is obviously out of the scope of the game.

Consider the alternative: Soviet troops are smart enough to rally around an officer without Order 227.

It's really that simple.

If there was a way to properly do justice to Order 227, it would be to ban blobbers who mass retreat upon seeing an MG but obviously it's not in Relic's best interest.

End of discussion.

Because they're retreating. It's quite literally what button does. You press R and retreat.

Not disorderly. You, the player/officer, are explicitly ordering them to retreat. If you can't see the difference between a disorganized rout and soldiers following retreat orders then there is no point to this argument.

OKW, USF, UKF can retreat orderly to an FRP.
Why does SOV have to be implied to retreat disorderly to an FRP?

In any case,

OKW, USF, UKF: FRP, because tactics
SOV: mUH oRDuR 227

Completely unnecessary. We can just agree to disagree at this point since we clearly aren't making any headway.

At this point we're just derailing the thread.

As someone who served in the US military and is currently employed in a paramilitary organization I feel like you do not understand the concept of the chain of command.

Those at the bottom ranks never directly interact with top brass. A US General is not going to issue an order to privates directly that is just not how any organized military functions. He will issue orders to Officer Personal, who will then apply whatever order to the enlisted general population.

Also using your logic, if my officer retreated from a battle do you think the privates are just going to sit there? They will obviously turn and retreat with the officer.

Not sure what you're disagreeing with, as I'm saying retreats are the officer's responsibility as the order is passed down from officer to officer. What the other guy is saying is that it's the soldiers that are doing the actual retreating. I'm arguing that CoH2 troops have to be ordered to retreat by the officers, aka the player; if it's just the soldiers at the individual level retreating without an involved officer, I'd say that's desertion, not a disorganized retreat.

In CoH2, you, the player, are the chain of officers in command directing an NCO (squad leader) to retreat, in which case it is an orderly retreat, not a disorganized rout which is what Order 227 specifically held incompetent officers accountable for promoting back when it was introduced.