[1.72]SU vs PE

[Joshua9]

Yeah, aside from my initial concerns about the infantry halftrack rush, I won't be sad to see this many-tooled anti tank unit go, wich inspite of being the earliest at weapon to pop out, often becomes the mainstay anti vehicle unit, backed up by something heavier like an AT gun or mobile AT units.  The fact that there is "something" not yet disclosed(I actually think russia has too many unit options as is, but it still does seem to play out okay), coupled with the fact that light vehicles have been reduced in tech cost, allowing for quick cap and stall tactics until a t-70 against pe(theoretically), alleviates my concerns that Russia will be shut down in the early game against PE.

Nixing tank hunters will probably force you to play "better" as a russian player, rather than just popping out an answer to fast vehicles on the fly, and rather than just mine spamming around the map so that you need to build up a serious anti tank response only after an enemy has failed to gain shock value from his initial oswind or panther.

[Dot.Shadow]

Aaaand Soviets are pretty much fucked against PE armour car rush on open maps. Great, just great. You blow of the similarity between the US and the USSR faction to be trivial, but I've seen this worrying trend going on for a long time. The first big step I saw towards making the two factions the one and same was the removal of the sniper team. Was the unit OP? With the artillery strike, yes - Without it? No, not at all. Sure, you couldn't countersnipe it, but guess what - It's called adapting to a new situation. It was very easy to kill using more mobile units. CoH2 also features a Soviet Sniper team, which is far, far, FAR from OP. The removal of THs is sad yes, but what worries me more is that the PTRDs are now NI only. You pretty much have to go Propaganda if you want decent infantry at this point. Partizany are *still* too costly with 3 CPs to get out there, and the rest of the tree is rather poor. Don't give me the "it's a situation command tree", as that's a bullshit lazy excuse (pardon the expression!) for not bothering making a proper command tree. It just shouldn't be that way, no tree should be limited to a few situations and maps.

Soviets have been getting raped for quite some time now, and it's starting to get frustrating.

And what is Urban supposed to do against armour now? Footslog AT guns after their Partizany, who now no longer can be combined with THs to provide some minimal protection from tanks? The slow nade from Strelky is hardly a worthy replacement, seeing it barely does any damage.

[Hendrik 'DarcReaver' S.]

Aaaand Soviets are pretty much fucked against PE armour car rush on open maps.

Since rr and ptrd missiles phase through armoured cars and Pumas (and we won't change that because of no-changes-to-vanilla policy) Tank Hunters are completely worthless against them. Actually, a single strelky squad deals more damage against an AC than the tank hunter squad. So this is no valid argument for keeping htem.

Great, just great. You blow of the similarity between the US and the USSR faction to be trivial, but I've seen this worrying trend going on for a long time. The first big step I saw towards making the two factions the one and same was the removal of the sniper team. Was the unit OP? With the artillery strike, yes - Without it? No, not at all.

The problem was not that it was op, but that it didn't work properly. Countersniping was impossible if the sniper was in a building (only 50% chance to kill the sniper, so you could be countersniped with a high chance after hitting the spotter in the building). Second point was, that a dual wehr sniper usage could instakill all soviet sniper teams, but it's impossible to kill a whole sniper with only one wehr sniper. 120mp drain wasn't much compared to a countersnipe vs USA, which costs 340mp instead. The camouflage system was flawed also.

Sure, you couldn't countersnipe it, but guess what - It's called adapting to a new situation. It was very easy to kill using more mobile units.

The squad had - because of the 2 man design much more total hitpoints compared to the single sniper squads from other factions. We did around 200 testgames with the old sniperteam, and it was broken. Use 2-3 mines on likely vehicle paths and you could NEVER kill Soviet sniperteams. So it was finally decided to remove it to fix all the problems caused by it.

CoH2 also features a Soviet Sniper team, which is far, far, FAR from OP.

Afaik squads are larger in CoH2 than in CoH 1, so snipers are less of a problem anyways. Plus, it's a different game, with diffrent teching and different gameplay (true sight and blah). Not comparable.

The removal of THs is sad yes, but what worries me more is that the PTRDs are now NI only. You pretty much have to go Propaganda if you want decent infantry at this point. Partizany are *still* too costly with 3 CPs to get out there, and the rest of the tree is rather poor. Don't give me the "it's a situation command tree", as that's a bullshit lazy excuse (pardon the expression!) for not bothering making a proper command tree. It just shouldn't be that way, no tree should be limited to a few situations and maps.

That's why strelky are getting tweaked. They're available at 35 fuel into the game and are cheap, have a similar combat performance like grenadiers and are cheap to maintain. Idk what you would want more?

Soviets have been getting raped for quite some time now, and it's starting to get frustrating.

Afaik soviets pretty much steamrolled most axis players in the last tourney, barton raped everyone by using conscripts only... how do you explain that to yourself?

And what is Urban supposed to do against armour now? Footslog AT guns after their Partizany, who now no longer can be combined with THs to provide some minimal protection from tanks? The slow nade from Strelky is hardly a worthy replacement, seeing it barely does any damage.

Strekly slow nade is getting buffed in terms of damage, at least against armoured cars, halftracks and other units which tankhunters were supposed to be used.

Anyways. Urban with their new CP arrangement is extremely potent at putting pressure on the enemy by throwing nades everywhere, so it should be easy to put back RBS until you can field tanks or AT guns. The AT guns + strelky slow nade are more than enough to kill off tanks or at least scare them away. IS 2 and T34 also receive some changes to perform better against axis t4 units in general and so far it plays out decently.

[Dot.Shadow]

*sigh*

I wrote a long reply, but it got erased somehow.

I'll try to rewrite my points:

About the slow nade - I view it somewhat like the Wehr faust. Everything I know about the faust is that you only use it when a) To finish off an enemy b) You're desperate. The slow nade is supposed to fulfil the entire Soviet infantry capability of destroying tanks outside of NI (which are doctrinal) - This worries me a great deal. It will leave the Soviet's extremely exposed. They have enough weaknesses already, and adding one more will do them no good. I can go along with HT perhaps not being the best solution, but I don't think removing schrecks from Wehr and telling them that they've got to stick to fausts instead would be a fantastic upgrade for that faction either. Cuse that's what being done to the Soviets.

Sniper Team: Seems I can never let this debate go. I simply miss seeing one of the most original units in the Soviet faction. The Soviet sniper team had some things it was better at, and some major flaws. For an example, using a mortar to take them out was extremely easy, seeing that they had to remain stationary to have stealth. You did some scouting, and you pretty much could kill off the team long before it was capable of doing any real damage. CoH2's squad are of comparable size, the Germans remaining fairly similar to their current numbers. The Soviet's feature both squads smaller, larger and equal to yours. While the game plays differently, I still think it serves as a pointer to the fact that it actually works.

The sniper team was remove simply because people fail at adapting. You can excuse it away with whatever you want to, but in the end, it comes down to human inability to adapt, and ability to whine. Use a mortar - It's gone. Walk around it - It's only effective in one location. Also quite easily rushed with MP40 volks.

About the Soviet's being raped: This is more than a balance issue I speak of here - Sure, all early game potential in the faction was obliterated many patches ago, but this is more of a issue of ever decreasing originality and refusal to accept issues like the ones with the Urban doctrine (I'm curious to see what changes were made though!). I'm not sure if there's any point to discussing this. You've got enough with the Ostheer as of now, and you seem fairly set upon the path the Soviets have been taken down the past... year?-ish?

I also have a hard time believing that conscripts did well. I'll take a look at the replays later. What I wonder though is - Why didn't someone just get anything at all that kills infantry? Conscripts die like flies to so many things.

[Hendrik 'DarcReaver' S.]

*sigh*

I wrote a long reply, but it got erased somehow.

I'll try to rewrite my points:

About the slow nade - I view it somewhat like the Wehr faust. Everything I know about the faust is that you only use it when a) To finish off an enemy b) You're desperate. The slow nade is supposed to fulfil the entire Soviet infantry capability of destroying tanks outside of NI (which are doctrinal) - This worries me a great deal. It will leave the Soviet's extremely exposed. They have enough weaknesses already, and adding one more will do them no good. I can go along with HT perhaps not being the best solution, but I don't think removing schrecks from Wehr and telling them that they've got to stick to fausts instead would be a fantastic upgrade for that faction either.

No. It's used so your enemy cannot flank your at guns. It has fairly large range compared to stickies. So, it's easier to use and has a larger area of denial to your enemy.

About your schreck argument: Schrecks cost ammunition, not manpower like tankhunters. You can upgrade them on any grenadier squad and they are mediocre at fighting light vehicles. Tank hunter PTRDs as always-penetrating AT weapons were never really intended. The tank hunters, albeit their name, should not have been the mainstay of stopping enemy tanks.

And as I already said, Soviet lategame will be slightly buffed again, especially the T34-85 main cannon to deal with axis t4 units. AT guns + a stun nade + t34/IS 2 should be enough to go head-to-head with axis lategame armour.

About the Soviet's being raped: This is more than a balance issue I speak of here - Sure, all early game potential in the faction was obliterated many patches ago, but this is more of a issue of ever decreasing originality and refusal to accept issues like the ones with the Urban doctrine (I'm curious to see what changes were made though!). I'm not sure if there's any point to discussing this. You've got enough with the Ostheer as of now, and you seem fairly set upon the path the Soviets have been taken down the past... year?-ish?

moar originality =/= moar better. You can have 10.000 original, unique ideas and hte gameplay will still suck.

I mean, take a look at PE.

So much original stuff like - shared veterancy! How awesome is that?! Or getting AT vehicles which can damage enemy treads so you can shoot the sitting ducks? Very cool indeed. Or having machine guns after 50 fuel, so much pressuring power for this aggressive gameplay. Early halftracks and mobile mortars!! great!!

And after playing: "Omfg so mcuh broken sh*t wtf is that?! How could someone be as braindead to put stuff like that in a game like CoH? It destroys ze gameplay" - I hope you get my point that originality <<< working gameplay. Sometimes it's better to steal well rather than failing yourself.

So much ranting..

But nontheless, soviets will receive a lot of tweaks with 2.000 also. And maybe...  If we remove some units we're putting other units in as a replacement?

[krupp steel]

I think I have a possible solution for reviving the sniper team

Make it cost 480 manpower
Set the Reinforcement costs to 340 for sniper (I am not sure if this is possible)
Set the Reinforcement costs to 50 for spotter (I am not sure if this is possible)
Sniper has Sniper Armor (therefore in sniper v sniper fights, the sniper is the priority)
Spotter has Infantry Armor (therefore in sniper v sniper fights, the spotter would get hit after there is no sniper around)
Sniper would be worse at killing infantry than their counterparts by reducing RoF, accuracy, health, etc (but to make up much better veterancy than the others along the way)

Just an idea I had in the back of my mind

[Dot.Shadow]

So basically, Soviet's won't have anti tank infantry any more, unless they go Propaganda. It's all AT gun. You don't even have a MG or any other way of effectively suppressing enemy infantry rushing them.

Eh, I give up. You've never listened to a single one of my suggestions, nor Simuz's suggestions (which are mostly the same as mine), and the faction suffers for it I'd say.

We'll see, the patch sounds interesting.

[Hendrik 'DarcReaver' S.]

So basically, Soviet's won't have anti tank infantry any more, unless they go Propaganda. It's all AT gun.

At gun + buffed strelky in 2.000.

You don't even have a MG or any other way of effectively suppressing enemy infantry rushing them.

RBS dp28 Strelky supression works in 2.000 compared to now like it was intended at first.

Eh, I give up. You've never listened to a single one of my suggestions, nor Simuz's suggestions (which are mostly the same as mine), and the faction suffers for it I'd say.

We'll see, the patch sounds interesting.

We'll see how the feedback from the first week(s) of beta gameplay.

[Bandaro]

Eh, I give up. You've never listened to a single one of my suggestions, nor Simuz's suggestions (which are mostly the same as mine), and the faction suffers for it I'd say.

I won easily with 16 PE on Ango in beta. Camping on fuel -> light tanks -> atgs -> guardians. -> more tanks. No problem with that. More - Rus was op with early guardians + atg's cuz PE had nothing to counter it. We fixed guardians, they will come later.

One question. Why u don't believe us? We have beta and this is really different than 1.7. For example. Russians has weapon reserves for cons on start, light tankovy are cheaper, t2 pools need 50/35.

[neosdark]

One question. Why u don't believe us? We have beta and this is really different than 1.7. For example. Russians has weapon reserves for cons on start, light tankovy are cheaper, t2 pools need 50/35.

WE (the community) don't really believe you because you aren't the previous balance team, the guys who got the Soviets into a pretty fair and balanced faction. You'll have to excuse us, but until we see proof of your abilities as balancer many of us will continue to doubt your skills.

[Dreamerbg]

excuse me for off topic...

@neosdark, Darcreaver is from "old" balancers and afaik now every single balance change need to be approved by him + actually most of the changes are made by him.

So "new" balancers dont have the power to change things on their own  and if their suggestions are approved its because they are good

[Dot.Shadow]

Eh, I give up. You've never listened to a single one of my suggestions, nor Simuz's suggestions (which are mostly the same as mine), and the faction suffers for it I'd say.

I won easily with 16 PE on Ango in beta. Camping on fuel -> light tanks -> atgs -> guardians. -> more tanks. No problem with that. More - Rus was op with early guardians + atg's cuz PE had nothing to counter it. We fixed guardians, they will come later.

One question. Why u don't believe us? We have beta and this is really different than 1.7. For example. Russians has weapon reserves for cons on start, light tankovy are cheaper, t2 pools need 50/35.

I understand your question as "Why do you doubt our balancing skills" - Simply because me and my mates have beaten devs and balancers without breaking a single sweat. While I haven't played you in particular as of yet, I've been reading some of your posts and I find your attitude particularly troublesome. You're an isolationist, who would rather not listen to outside influences, and that means you'll play the same people over and over, and never take on new challenges.

Furthermore, YES, you do have beta access. This allows you to know more than I do. When I hear things like "Oh by the way we removed Soviet infantry anti tank capabilities" of course I'll get nervous about balance. I still am, as the Soviets will be the only faction without infantry who can tackle tanks. The Soviets are basically screwed if: a) They're on an open map. AT guns will be too easy to flank, and they'll be too slow to support any offensive action. b) They have to pull a AT gun into a city fight. That gun is going to get shot at, bombed, naded and outmanoeuvred in that clumsy environment. At least that's what it sounds like. But we'll see. I have my doubts, I have voiced them and you remain confident in your choices, as always. End of discussion.

[Dann88]

Which balancers you won I would ask? I won Dreamer too, should I sound a bit ignorant like you?
And from what you wrote, in both close and open terrain, the SU ATG is fucked so you want them to be removed? Or what you wrote is... conflicted?
Now to my view, the balance team work somewhat fine now. I will wait to see what will come more.

[Dot.Shadow]

Which balancers you won I would ask? I won Dreamer too, should I sound a bit ignorant like you?
And from what you wrote, in both close and open terrain, the SU ATG is fucked so you want them to be removed? Or what you wrote is... conflicted?
Now to my view, the balance team work somewhat fine now. I will wait to see what will come more.

*Sigh* You *clearly* did not understand what I meant. Also, just because I don't agree with the balancers you get to call me ignorant? Really? You know what, instead of posting things like that, I would love to see an explanation from you as to why you think I'm wrong.

Furthermore, I NEVER said the AT gun should be removed, do not put words into my mouth. The problem is that the AT gun is now supposed to fill a role it cannot. Not being good enough at something does not automatically demand removal of a unit. I don't see how that is even remotely logical.

I've played most of the devs and balancers who mingle with us commoners. The new balance team I have not however been engaged with as much.

Now, let me repeat myself once more - There's no point in discussing this any further. They've made their changes, they're happy with them. And I'll make up my mind once the patch gets here, but like I said (once more) I've simply voiced my concerns.

[krupp steel]

I think we need to steer this thread into a diffrent direction.