Russian Heavy Infantry

[Sigmar]

Any chance of getting doctrine based Heavy inf similar to rangers?

I think GodlikeDennis had made the suggestion in another thread and it kinda stuck with me.  He had mentioned it as a replacement in the Breakthrough doctrine and think that would be a good replacement for the Sherman since we already have tank riders.

I know they have guards, but guards are a great jack of all trades inf, something more anti armor based like rangers , would be nice.

This would give some added flexibility to your build out instead of going close range support you could still have some AT infantry , AT inf that doesn't die if you sneeze on them.

They are the only army currently that doesn't have any heavy inf call in .  I figure they don't need close support inf as they have multiple options already (combat eng, strelky w ppsh , command squad upgraded). Mid/long covered w guards and/or strelky w lmg upgrade. To get any punch out of tank hunters u need upgrade at armory and even then they still die way easy and slows your tank hall upgrades.

Input or feel free to disagree 

I tried to find some historical equivalent but didn't have much luck.  I don't know how the Russian airborne were equipped, though I did find out they only had a couple of airdropped missions and then fought as ground pounders for the rest of the war.

[Zerstörer]

They do have a second heavy infantry type...Sturmovie engineers. Resilient assault infantry with ppsh, satchel charges and conveniently...mine sweepers. Go urban doctrine and you can get double flammer for these guys...very ugly vs Axis infantry/bunkers/base buildings

Soviets do not have heavy AT infantry, because they have better AT options with vehicles than Brits/US instead.

Historically, the soviets lacked proper hand held AT throughout the war. They had a few lend lease bazookas and sturmovie groups would use scavenged Panzerfausts if they were lucky.
Giving them the weapons of the other factions would just suck 'game wise'. Instead this is now a calculated weakness....use tanks/TDs for heavy AT

[Paciat]

Airborne, Fallshrimjeagers and Commandos are not heavy infantry.
Commandos role was to recon and sabotage and they are similar to Partisants in that role.

It to you heavy infantry = AT infantry than PIAT Commandos suck more than PTRD teams so Soviet infantry is much heavier than British.
If to you heavy infantry = elite infantry than Sniper Ace is a heavy sniper.

[cephalos]

What about NKVD Shock Troops? 4 men with ppsh, dressed like NKVD comissars, very tough and good in close combat.

[Zerstörer]

What about NKVD Shock Troops? 4 men with ppsh, dressed like NKVD comissars, very tough and good in close combat.

-
WTF dude...honestly!. 4 tough guys with pps=tank riders
3-4 tough guys with ppsh=Sturmovie Engineers.

Do you guys even think about what's in game and what might be 'needed' before making these random suggestions?

[cephalos]

Tank riders aren't so tough. Thay just have tank behind them.

[Seeme]

A tank is tough though.

[Sigmar]

They do have a second heavy infantry type...Sturmovie engineers. Resilient assault infantry with ppsh, satchel charges and conveniently...mine sweepers. Go urban doctrine and you can get double flammer for these guys...very ugly vs Axis infantry/bunkers/base buildings

No argument here. One of the biggest smiles I have had in awhile playing CoH was on the map where it starts to snow, 3 on 3, stalingrad? I went urban popped an upgraded group of these guys out and it was pure chaos. "Flamethrower attack! Fire everywhere! There burning us!" Couldn't stop laughing !

I guess I am just an AT hunter hater .  They require a lot of micro to get the job done and seem to die to easily but then again are only 280 mp. I like heavies .  Vetted Airborne and Storm squad kicks arse .  "We are crushing them beneath our jack boots!"

[GodlikeDennis]

I argue that from a strategies perspective, it opens up a lot more viable build orders by having a doctrinal stop-gap AT squad.

[Paciat]

I argue that from a strategies perspective, it opens up a lot more viable build orders by having a doctrinal stop-gap AT squad.

Soviets have an AT unit no matter how they tech up. They can have both Tank Hunters and ZIS-2 when germans reach T2.
While Germans (T1 - T3 strat) and US (quick T4) need their elite AT infantry Soviets can counter anything with their Strelky, Mortar, Tank Hunter mix.

What about NKVD Shock Troops? 4 men with ppsh, dressed like NKVD comissars, very tough and good in close combat.

NKVD was made to keep discipline in the army. Their were Soviet MPs (military police). They werent a fighting force and rarelly seen the front line. Why should they be tough?

[cephalos]

and commandos were supposed to sabotage enemy's infrastructue, and rangers were infiltrating units, and there was no bergetiger, no firing V1 on the battlefields.... this is just game.

[GodlikeDennis]

I argue that from a strategies perspective, it opens up a lot more viable build orders by having a doctrinal stop-gap AT squad.

Soviets have an AT unit no matter how they tech up. They can have both Tank Hunters and ZIS-2 when germans reach T2.
While Germans (T1 - T3 strat) and US (quick T4) need their elite AT infantry Soviets can counter anything with their Strelky, Mortar, Tank Hunter mix.

You basically say what I mean anyway. Not every strat should have to involve getting T2 first.

[Seeme]

and commandos were supposed to sabotage enemy's infrastructue, and rangers were infiltrating units, and there was no bergetiger, no firing V1 on the battlefields.... this is just game.

A game with borders

[Paciat]

and commandos were supposed to sabotage enemy's infrastructue, and rangers were infiltrating units, and there was no bergetiger, no firing V1 on the battlefields.... this is just game.

Commandos are COH light infatry if compared to PE MP44 squads.
Nazis are all 8 feet tall. Thats probably why they are so heavy.

[Seeme]

But are PE MP44 squads real Nazis?