If we go into history. Indeed - surrounded troops, indeed civilians. Also some commanders were from the times of Civil War (1917-1923), there also could be retired WWI soldiers, hunters. Plenty of people who knew how to hold a rifle. Not even mentioning NKVD-formed units.
But in game currently Partisans have three main problems:
1.) Lack of non-doctrinal frontline infantry for Soviet faction, that can scale entire game. (check the discussion of Conscripts just nearby)
2.) Accuracy penalty on them
3.) Weapon profiles of SVT, when fragile Partisan units have to close in at superior long-ranged unit (often happens with squads in the field).
Also introduction of OKW changed some things, as OKW trucks are often not at the base, so the amount of time for partisans to decap safely is getting smaller before blob/unit arrives
totally agree.
or do partisans equal FallschirmJäger
or do better conscripts / penal
or replace the partisan / irregular new sabotage unit
That´s the point. Both units shouldn´t be there to combat Axis troops in an open fight. They should capture points behind the frontlines or overwhelm a lone support weapon. By no means should some armed farmers beat trained soldiers in open combat.
Give them a faster cap rate or something like that.
much of partisans - Red Army soldiers were surrounded, their preparation was very good (some partisans had tanks).
My opinion is to remove the partisans and the irregular and replace them with the saboteurs of the NKVD / scouts - appearing on 2CP.
Nobody gives a damn. Modern day armies use german doctrines instead of soviet ones. If the german had equal amount of resources as the soviets it would be a curb stomp battle. they didnt that was because of the stupidity of Hitler but as a fighting force the german army was nearly complete as it could get.
The red army for the most part was very incompetent and could only win situations by vastly outnumbering their opponents numbers and economy wise.
Red Army until the summer of 1943 was in the minority, and won. Feature of the Red Army was that she very quickly learned to use the new. What later were not used Soviet methods of warfare is not true
And that's enough to tell stories about the Soviet zerg Rush
Katusha remained good? LOL! After the patch on July 31, Germans spamming blob 7 infantry squad and they do not care at Katusha. Relic you even played the game that will make?
This game turned into garbage. My main mode of 2v2.
In our hands, two-thirds of the cards, but here comes the six infantry units OKW. That's all. without a minimum micro control this mob chases and captures all.
We create a lot of things - machine guns, mortars, ZIS-3 and shock troops - all useless.
at the end of the battle in the statistics, we can see what caused more damage to the enemy in two or three times, and the Germans win
KV-8 imbalanced? cut
ISU-152 imbalanced? cut
Katyusha imbalanced? cut
120mm imbalanced? cut
I already hate this game paradise spam noobs
Where do you get information that many t-34/85s died flanking tigers? Why are those test results ridiciluos? Every single source i found links to that the t-34/85 gun penetration was exactly 100mm at 1000 meters, except wikipedia... The panzer IV wasn't really all that well armored (it had 50mm armor and only in 1943 did it upgrade it's hull to 80mm and still had that 50mm on the turret .
The stug had 80mm worth of armor, and the t-34/76 did struggle againts, but could penetrate it at 500m, just like it could penetrate the side armor of the tiger at 500m.
The t-34/76 had around 70mm worth of armor on the turret and the sloped armor translated to 70mm worth of armor on the hull.
Yes, the panther did have the advantage over the t-34/85, but to be fair, panther was more of a heavy tank than it is a medium tank.
And it's not to say that the t-34/85s armor was crap, either, it had 90mm worth of armor on the turret, pretty good for a medium tank.
And answer to jaigens post, yes the t-34/85 was indeed created to counter tigers. Not panthers, but tigers, soviets did not know about the panther when creating the t-34/85mm. If you want a counter to the panther, IS-2, isu-152 or su-100 work well.
Yes 85mm was designed more than vs. Tiger (prototype tiger got the Red Army in 1942)
Panther appeared in the Battle of Kursk in 1943.
But at the same side armor panther rather weak and was a case of: T-70 destroyed two Panthers into the boards.
The thing is that sideshots bounce off from it on a regular basis. Flanking is part of the game. Useless on IS-2s.
Bringing up the T-34/76 which is hardly supposed to fight versus tanks is stupid. T-34/85s - which are more or less in the role of a Panzer IV - will make short process of any Tiger.
More so, German AT should deal with heavy tanks. After all Russian AT deals with German tanks easily. "Wehraboo" you call it, while you are just looking for Soviet sided balance. Why should German AT not go through IS-2s armor? After all Soviet AT units (Zis and Su-85 and even the T34/85) go through the Tiger, despite failing to do so historically. So no reason why German AT should struggle to take down Russian tanks.
Yes, yes, we all know that the Red Army fought with sticks and and tanks were also sticks (you are like lovers stereotypes). T-34-85 / KV-85 / IS-1 were originally developed to combat the heavy tanks. There was a choice between 57 and 85 mm - penetration at 1000 meters they were similar. But the choice is 85mm- more damage, better high-explosive projectile
The elephant was terrible and not balanced throughout the year, and you are complaining about the ISU-152. ISU-152 was the only thing that stopped the stupid spammers, but now ISU-152 is not worth their investment more profitable to build two Katyusha rockets.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
