|
im quite annoyed by the fact that the late game superiority of german tanks are more or less caused by the lack of infantry AT in the soviet army. because dealing with infantry is not one of the strong points of german armour.
most of the german late game tanks are AT but have enough armour/hp to spearhead assaults. however, most of the soviet AT are actually armoured, be it IS-2, t34s or SU85, the exact things that german armour actually counter. the only non armoured effective AT that soviets have is the ZiS but they are just as effective as US AT guns without AT rounds.
this leaves a huge vulnerability in soviet's ability to deal with armour. there is no mobile hard counters to german armour. AT guns don't count as they are limited in mobility and require constant resetting up, easily bypassed.
which leads to the usual, AT nades/button to disable german armour and then send in your own tanks to deal with his anti-tank tanks, which honestly, is quite a high risk no reward move.
where is that unit that can effectively cover against armour rushes? In coh1, US had AP rounds for frontal assaults and bazookas/recoiless for any tanks that gets behind the AT gun wall. they were effective against unsupported tanks who constantly showed their rear armour to them. this i feel, is the main cause of german armour superiority. not too much with german armour being OP, but more so with soviet with inadequately equipped, a bad design. |
|
what makes massed grens early on so powerful is simple: 1.5 armour despite being arguably similar to conscripts.
you might argue 'but conscripts have 33% more hp and 2 extra rifles to compensate and it makes it okay!' that is not true at all. conscripts comes with inferior rifles but the main problem lies in the armour discrepancy.
armour = calculated hit having a chance to deflect for 0 damage. what this basically means is that while conscripts do hit pretty regularly, not every landed shot is doing damage. this is almost equivalent to vanilla rifles vs vet2 grenadiers, coh1 vets should know how bad that is.
right now to the numbers. grenadiers have 4 rifles with accuracy of 0.35 far and 0.65 near while conscripts have 0.2 far and 0.5 near. in both values, grenadier rifles are a flat 15% more effective than conscript rifles, which means 4 of k98 = 6 mosin nagants, adding up to a relatively equal dps output for both squads.
but once factoring in armour values, the discrepancy is then magnified, conscripts need to deal with more missed shots, and now shot deflection. leaving only a very small chance to do a damage dealing shot. while in the same timeframe, grenadiers with their better rifles and full penetration have a good chance to do a constant stream of damage to conscripts. with that, much more conscript models are lost in the fight. that is why, so many conscripts are constantly dying resulting in a manpower drain, while struggling to kill grenadiers.
as more and more grenadiers are on the field, this effect can easily multiply, with conscripts being unable to keep up with the constant dpsing from massed grenadiers while doing nothing in return.
this is worst with the differences in vet. at vet2 for both units, grenadiers get a straight boost in armour to 2.25, while conscripts get a armour boost to 1.25 and a nice accuracy boost to 1.78. however, this is extremely misleading as once again our friend armour value is here to fuck shit up.
while conscripts now have a good chance to land shots, nothing is done to penetration, resulting in an actual negligible boost to their dps as shots are still being deflected at the same rate. grenadiers on the other hand, are now almost terminator like, bullets easily plinking off them.
long story short, these guys come out too damn tough for conscripts to handle, arguably the backbone of soviet early game, resulting in a classic case of steamroll with massed grenadiers. |
|
this is not a fundamental conscript vs gren problem, but the fact that conscripts are a shite unit and the entire soviet army does not have a cost effective yet reliable solution just magnifies the problem.
while the solution is seemingly simple, a package to improve conscript's dps, but then the new problem will then be 'conscripts are too effective, there is no need for elite infantry anymore!'
the only way i see is the slight redesign of soviet infantry units to be equal to wehrmacht's infantry tiering system (volks -> grenadiers). conscripts remain the throwaway infantry for soviet army, but the real backbone for fighting would be penals (though i would rather penals be throwaway and conscripts are the army regulars.)
penals should come with 1.25 armour, take cover 15% more efficiently than all infantry while costing 300mp, remove their flamethrower capabilities and give them a dp-28 upgrade packages without button. these way, penals are the dpses of the soviet army, while conscripts remain as combat support, pea shooters but comes with very useful abilities. |
|
conscripts vs grenadiers is more or less equivalent to volks vs british infantry sections. conscripts are there to screen while snipers or flame cars are there to give grenadiers hell.
except the current 'tommies' have access to mobile machine guns, mortars and good mobility on start, grens vs conscripts are pretty balanced, but it is skewed in gren's favor when teching, mg42, LMG42 comes into play.
the boost in dps combined with the 1.5 armour makes grenadiers almost invulnerable to conscripts and vet makes it worse. however, not all hope is lost, as soviets can make snipers and flame cars to maintain power balance.
however, these are clutch units, just to stall the germans from steamrolling. snipers and flame cars are easily hunted down and extremely vulnerable to freak accidents. the real tide turners are soviet's elite infantry. from here on, conscripts are nothing more than mobile AT naders and meat shields armed with pea shooters.
thats the real problem, conscripts are a bad investment. they become deadweights and a manpower drain in the mid-game. they cannot be counted on to give supporting fire because they do almost no damage. sure chuck a nade here, flank a little there, but they are still not a threat.
so in mid game, a typical situation of 4 grens vs 3 conscripts + 1 guards. the combined firepower and abilities of 3 conscripts + 1 guards/shocks will lose to 4 grenadiers with 1-2 LMGs, despite a much larger investment cost from the soviet player, with fuel sinks into abilities and extra mp cost for guards/shock.
grenadiers stay relevant throughout, LMG42 is deadly even to guards and shocks. 1.5 armour keeps grenadiers relatively durable while LMG42 gives them the dps capabilities. nades and fausts turns them into good utility units. long story short, grenadiers are the superior infantry unit. |
|
totally agree with most of your points, not so much on the grenades one.
but i tend to think infantry armour plays an important role too. conscripts and grenadiers already miss each other and other infantry in cover, on top of that, they have to penetrate in order to do damage, leading to very long infantry fights.
i would rather see this armour system toned down and keep infantry fights slightly shorter. |
You want to play WWII simulator 2013? Sorry, that's not CoH2.
History gets sacrificed for balance. Every time. If you want a tank that can duke it out with the PzIV, get a T34/85. This is what decision making is. Instead of getting everything you want with no forethought, you have to think about what you want from your army and what your enemy puts out and make your decision on that.
I think the T34/76 needs a buff but it doesn't need to be a PzIV.
I cant get a t34/85 out because its locked by doctrine. the t34 is neither historically well represented nor it is balanced, it is currently a 95 fuel joke, a medium tank cost with light tank specs.
remember unupgraded shermans vs p4 in coh1? thats what should be the case right now. t34 should be a sherman equivalent donning a gun with questionable effectiveness against p4, p4 will beat it in a head on fight, but not after a substantial period and taking damage in return. honestly, an ostwind shouldnt even scratch t34s.
moreover, the p4 and t34/85 are not equal, t34/85 still cannot stand up to p4. long reload time + piss poor penetration and paper thin armour all for whooping 4/5 cp cost(i cant remember) 720/200 for 2 throwaway light tanks. no, i'd take su85 over t34/85 anyday.
t34/85 should end p4 reign, while panthers should come and take over when t34/85s are fielded and beat them in a straight fight.
I'll say and say again, tank combat is a joke right now because of the nonsensical damage value designs. tanks and assault guns counter each other so hard and fast, almost every tank in play out there has a damage value of 160 per shot, thats like AT guns on wheels. whats the point of building AT guns when tanks do the same job and do them so much better? |
|
ppsh puts conscripts close range where they are the most ineffective and only gives 2 guns, only 2 models can do real damage. in this range, armour is king and conscripts have the lowest armour value, no magic if they fail up close despite the ppsh "upgrade".
lmg42 and mp44 rapes up close, i dont see how ppsh is considered an "upgrade" now. it used to be strong when HTD gave conscripts the necessary protection up close. so i dont know what ppsh upgrade really does now. |
|
now plasma shield is gone and rightfully so, but conscripts still use pea shooters. they need a good ol' upgun.
i miss bars. |
|
i for 1 would like to see t34 85s as a separate unit and made to work like wolverines. that means relatively cheap and powerful when used enmassed.
as for su85, tank combat is screwed as a whole. 160 per shot is way too damaging as well as heavy tanks having too much hp. 160dmg should be reserved for AT guns. scale down the lethality and tanks should have more uses. compared to coh1, tanks had low burst damage potential against other tabks but good survivability and good potential for sustained fire through armor and immunity to small arms and suppression.
due to that, only things that can 4 shot tanks but lacking in chasing power are its hardest counter, the AT guns.
in the case of coh2, the hard counters are now on wheels, encased in armour and have immense range. ita no wonder why tank combat becomes to boring. |
|
people need to understand that not every game, people use HTD/PPSH doctrine.
conscripts need lower reinforcement costs and a late game upgun option. im actually in favor of a SVT-40 package upgrade from HQ when T3 or T4 is up. this is to help them be more effective late game against german infantry.
reasons as explained, conscripts are fine early game, but have no place late game especially without HTD/PPSH upgrade as they do not output enough dps to stop panzergrens from rolling a bunch of them.
2ndly, they lose alot of models due to the fact of 1 armour value. this alone should justify the reduction in reinforcement costs.
in comparison, grenadiers scale well into late game with LMG42. although its unlocked early in the game, only stupid german players will get it early in the game, its a mid game option against infantry swarms and especially lethal on vetted grenadiers. they have a better armor value = more survivability. they comes in a 4 man squad, lowering AOE damage and reducing chances of squad AI bunching up.
honestly grenadiers are great at where they are now, they are the best generalist infantry in the game. place them in cover and firing, they will outdo anyone less than a shocktrooper and of course, they mustnt get hit by nades and yes they are great against guards in cover. |
0
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
