Login

russian armor

Kothre and darkfireslide's Soviet tiering proposal!

30 Jul 2014, 06:34 AM
#1
avatar of Kothre

Posts: 431

Introduction and purpose

This thread is meant to address what we, darkfireslide and Kothre, perceive to be a problem with the Soviets’ method of teching to tanks. This thread is not meant to discuss the nuances of each individual unit’s balance predicament(s), but rather the core design of the Soviet faction. In the current meta, particularly due to the introduction of Oberkommando West, the Soviets have become even more reliant on particular doctrines than they used to in order to defeat German forces. Currently, the meta revolves around constructing a Support Kompanaya to produce a large quantity of Maxims, perhaps the only non-doctrinal infantry unit that can handle early-game OKW pushes (though, given typical Wehrmacht meta, this is often true for them as well).

Following this, the most vital unit in the fight against OKW are Shock Troops, one of a handful of Soviet units that actually possess automatic weapons and can deal with Sturmpioneers and the rest of OKW's early-game infantry blob. Most non-doctrinal Soviet units, including Conscripts, Scout Cars, Penal Battalions, and the 82mm mortar, even when micro'd correctly and positioned perfectly, often underwhelm in raw damage output and versatility. As a result, a Soviet player generally relies on a commander with Shock Troop or Guards in his arsenal. These doctrines generally also come with tank call-ins, which serve to invalidate the other half of the Soviets' non-doctrinal troops because of prohibitive tank building costs. The combination of shock troops, and/or guards, and heavy tanks often pigeonholes Soviet players into only using the handful of doctrines since only a handful of them have essential Soviet units. Without this combination of units, Soviet players are essentially defenseless against the OKW forces in the majority of situations. They also invalidate more than half of the Soviets' commanders, because a lack of heavy tank call-ins forces players to buy tank buildings that offer mediocre at best vehicles.

The current Soviet commanders render the tank buildings almost worthless due to the fast rise of CP's mid-match. By the time you would build the tank building (either/or) to produce mediocre units (such as the T-70 and SU-76), you most likely already have the CP's to call-in tanks such as T-34/85's, KV-8's, IS-2's, and so on for other commanders with tank call-ins. It is worth noting that these call-ins have no production time, allowing for, especially in the case of t-34/85's, a good grouping upon recruitment. As a result, teching up as the Soviets is generally an inferior strategic option for Soviet commanders. These doctrines allow for victory in multiplayer, but leaves the majority of non-doctrinal Soviet troops, especially tanks, invalid and inferior choices overall.

Darkfireslide’s proposal- a cost reduction!


I propose that the tank tech costs for Soviet tanks be reduced. 120 fuel is an extremely prohibitive cost, especially given how mediocre the units in the buildings actually are. For example, it is cheaper to build a StuG III in terms of fuel than it is to build an SU-76, given the cost of tech buildings. However, the StuG III is an effective assault gun, capable of killing both tanks and infantry, whilst the SU-76 has an extremely unreliable anti-infantry barrage and has so little health that any kind of anti-tank response generally knocks them out shortly. While StuG's are not particularly durable themselves, they are a much more potent tank in the same role for essentially the same price as the SU-76. But as we said earlier, this thread is not about individual unit balance, so the performance of these two units side by side is not the issue, but rather the tiers they are in. Relic has gone on record saying that they want Soviets to have to make a choice when it comes to their tech buildings, which is understandable since it helps differentiate them from the Wehrmacht, but given the current meta, the best choice is to choose neither.

The Wehrmacht tech tiers allow for much more versatility, whilst the Soviet tech tiers pigeonhole the player into either anti-infantry or anti-tank. However, doctrinal units are usually capable of both roles for roughly the same price. The question lingers: Why build Soviet tech tiers at all, given the strength of doctrinal commanders? Rather than buff Soviet units, I propose that tech tiers be made cheaper to make these units more viable given their current strength. With a price reduction to the tech tiers, Soviet players could more comfortably produce mid-game vehicles that before were prohibitively expensive given their timing and individual unit capabilities. However, a careful look at Soviet units and tech placement should also be carefully evaluated in order to make more strategies viable for this faction. Even in the event of a tank rush, OKW and the Wehrmacht are perfectly capable of dealing with mid-game tanks, whether with Schrecks, Raketenwerfers, or Paks. As for earlier Katyushas, well, perhaps this will encourage the use of lighter units in either Axis army.

Kothre’s proposal- an overhaul!


My solution is bolder than darkfireslide’s. This is of course a design structure change rather than balance of individual units. I am aware that such a massive overhaul is unlikely to happen, but I am nonetheless going to offer my take on the Soviet forces as if I were the lead designer. My cohort here and I had a minute 2v2 match in which I called in three IS-2’s (at the same time!- it was epic) because I could skip spending fuel on overpriced tank buildings, which just speaks volumes to the current design of the faction. First, I would relegate the T34/85 (as an upgrade to the T34/76) and IS-2 and/or KV-1 to the standard Soviet arsenal, whilst leaving specialized tanks like the ISU-152 or KV-8 tied to specific commanders. I am aware Relic wants a tech choice to be made in the Soviet faction, but I’d rather see a progression from light to medium to heavy tank(s). I still feel like it would differentiate them from the Ostheer enough for them to feel interesting, because Soviet light vehicles (notably the SU-76) function rather differently than their Ostheer counterparts. I would like to see the SU-76 moved to the first tank building so that it has the halftrack, T-70, and the SU-76, then decrease the price of that tier accordingly.

The second building would then contain the T34/76, the SU-85, and the Katyusha by default. The T34/85’s should then have a similar upgrade to the American Sherman’s up-gun upgrade from vCoH that is acquired in that tank building. Alternatively, make it a munitions upgrade once the 76’s are out, even if they do remain attached to a doctrine. There would then be another upgrade within that building, similar to the Panzer Elite’s tiering system, that would unlock the IS-2. I feel the IS-2 is a staple unit of the Soviet forces, and would like to see incorporated more centrally into their playe a la the Oberkommando’s King Tiger. I’m not going to be bold enough to attach a number to it now, but I’d like to see it come out at roughly the same time or slightly later than it does to unlock the 11 CPs it take to unlock it now, but only if the Soviet player has been very conservative with fuel. Basically, it’s a tank that you’d get once in a good game, but not (in an average-timed game) something you could get if you were spamming T34’s. The hope of this design is both to make doctrines that do not include the T34/85’s and IS-2’s viable, as well as to encourage players to actually buy tech buildings that are currently obsolete when call-ins are so much more cost-effective. Some commanders would obviously have to be adjusted, but that’s of an obstacle now that War Spoils exists, so people won’t feel as ripped off about something they paid for changing.

TL;DR Restructure Soviet vehicle tiers from light to heavy tanks, including the T34/85’s and the IS-2, so that players aren’t forced to choose between doctrinal units and two worthless buildings. Arguably the best unit currently from either building is the katyusha, and that’s just odd.
30 Jul 2014, 06:55 AM
#2
avatar of Cruzz

Posts: 1221 | Subs: 41

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jul 2014, 06:34 AMKothre
Introduction and purpose

The current Soviet commanders render the tank buildings almost worthless due to the fast rise of CP's mid-match. By the time you would build the tank building (either/or) to produce mediocre units (such as the T-70 and SU-76), you most likely already have the CP's to call-in tanks such as T-34/85's, KV-8's, IS-2's, and so on for other commanders with tank call-ins. It is worth noting that these call-ins have no production time, allowing for, especially in the case of t-34/85's, a good grouping upon recruitment. As a result, teching up as the Soviets is generally an inferior strategic option for Soviet commanders. These doctrines allow for victory in multiplayer, but leaves the majority of non-doctrinal Soviet troops, especially tanks, invalid and inferior choices overall.


While I won't disagree that CP gain is still too fast and that waiting for call-ins is still a somewhat dominant strat, saying that you have CPs by the time you build T3/T4 is just hyperbole. No matter the match you are likely to get 2 vehicles minimum out of them before you hit the CPs where you can call in.


I propose that the tank tech costs for Soviet tanks be reduced. 120 fuel is an extremely prohibitive cost, especially given how mediocre the units in the buildings actually are. For example, it is cheaper to build a StuG III in terms of fuel than it is to build an SU-76, given the cost of tech buildings.


Wehr tech cost to T3 + Stug:
200/45+200/55+80/10+160/25+230/80 = 870/215 (You probably want to add in 120/15 for T2 in almost all cases, but lets pretend you're just rushing StuG)
Soviet tech cost to T4 + SU-76
160/40 (or 200/50) + 240/120+240/70 = 640/230

EDIT: Fixing my super math.


TL;DR Restructure Soviet vehicle tiers from light to heavy tanks, including the T34/85’s and the IS-2, so that players aren’t forced to choose between doctrinal units and two worthless buildings. Arguably the best unit currently from either building is the katyusha, and that’s just odd.


While it would certainly solve issues with non-tank call-in commander viability, the balance issue problems are just too massive for this to ever happen short of a complete redesign of all units mentioned and soviet commander ability selection.
30 Jul 2014, 07:21 AM
#3
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

-The KV-1 performs as if it should be a stock unit. IS-2 surely shouldnt be stock, but perhaps we could see it in more commanders (i mean, look at how many commanders the Tiger is in).

-A simple fix that would help the situation would be to flip the t-70 and the su-76m.

-I am for improving the scalability of soviet infantry (specifically, controversy around penals).

-IF a t34/85 upgrade was considered, i like a suggestion i heard to simply upgrade the turret and gun of the t34/76 to a t34/85 - in which the callin variant would still have more armor and health. There would need to be a telltale difference between the two, though. However, i am only for my two above points and the rest are as whims.

-The two listed suggestions are rather radical, and i would think it would be better to do small revisions before going all in. Soviet infantry scalability and the lackings and uselessness in T3-T4 are the big problems, and simple changes shouldnt break the game. Reducing the reliability of the maxim by providing a reliable support would be a success for both the player and his enemy.

-Also, the m3 scout car is very good against OKW early game.

-And, of course, callins being tied to teching would force every player of every faction to tech properly before being able to call in units.
30 Jul 2014, 08:41 AM
#4
avatar of aradim

Posts: 110

Yeah t-70 has never made sense in T3, you can just wait for 30 fuel and get a t34 wich achieves the same anti infantry role while being much more versatile and sturdier, or if you want a light vehicle with anti infantry get the anti air package for the m5 plus the reinforce.

The uniqueness of the t70 is its vet bonus for its unique ability wich has no purpose in T3, you'd think it was made with su 85 and katyusha in mind, but for some reason it's in T3.
30 Jul 2014, 09:02 AM
#5
avatar of darkfireslide

Posts: 25

-The KV-1 performs as if it should be a stock unit. IS-2 surely shouldnt be stock, but perhaps we could see it in more commanders (i mean, look at how many commanders the Tiger is in).

-A simple fix that would help the situation would be to flip the t-70 and the su-76m.

-I am for improving the scalability of soviet infantry (specifically, controversy around penals).

-IF a t34/85 upgrade was considered, i like a suggestion i heard to simply upgrade the turret and gun of the t34/76 to a t34/85 - in which the callin variant would still have more armor and health. There would need to be a telltale difference between the two, though. However, i am only for my two above points and the rest are as whims.

-The two listed suggestions are rather radical, and i would think it would be better to do small revisions before going all in. Soviet infantry scalability and the lackings and uselessness in T3-T4 are the big problems, and simple changes shouldnt break the game. Reducing the reliability of the maxim by providing a reliable support would be a success for both the player and his enemy.

-Also, the m3 scout car is very good against OKW early game.

-And, of course, callins being tied to teching would force every player of every faction to tech properly before being able to call in units.


The problem with the scout car though is that one squad of schreck volks completely destroys it. It used to be a hard 90 munition commitment for OKW, but with full munition income now it's hardly a problem. Maxims are frankly more reliable, cheaper, and don't interfere with teching. And because they've pigeonholed Soviets into spamming them, Relic is seriously considering nerfing them by lowering their crew size to 4 men (http://community.companyofheroes.com/forum/company-of-heroes-2/coh-2-balance-feedback/78209-action-items-balance-feedback-required). It's awful and makes no sense. OKW has kind of broken almost everything the Soviets have, save for a few units. Penals are kind of a joke at this point, and building the Special Rifle Command in general is a risky venture because of how much fuel it sets you back, whether or not you plan on actually teching or using call-ins.
T-70's are effective, but yeah, at the same tech tier as the T-34, they're completely irrelevant in most scenarios. I say most because I recently beat an OKW player using an M8A1 Howitzer Carriage, so if I can do that, I'm sure somehow the T-70 has a place too. As it stands though, yeah, Soviet infantry (with the exception of Shocks) are helpless against OKW.

This thread doesn't even touch how badly the Americans beat the Wehrmacht, though. Both the old teams are in a bind, stuck with a plethora of worthless non-doctrinal units that fail to stand up to the rifle and OKW blobs. Kothre and I still scrape by in 2v2's, but that's with exceptional tactics and years of experience playing and dealing with blobs both in this game and in the original. You can still win, but at the moment, it seems that the old teams have more or less been left to rot.
30 Jul 2014, 09:07 AM
#6
avatar of Kothre

Posts: 431

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jul 2014, 06:55 AMCruzz


While I won't disagree that CP gain is still too fast and that waiting for call-ins is still a somewhat dominant strat, saying that you have CPs by the time you build T3/T4 is just hyperbole. No matter the match you are likely to get 2 vehicles minimum out of them before you hit the CPs where you can call in.

In 1v1's, perhaps it would be best to get some stock tanks. This is coming from a 2v2 perspective, to be fair. We've been playing and have done well for ourselves, and I don't even build tank buildings most of the time unless I desperately need some quick armor. The problem isn't that I have all the CP's I need by the time I have the fuel; it's that there's just usually no need to spend it until the call-ins are unlocked. I've been honestly much more successful just waiting for call-ins because the cost of the building plus a T34/76 is comparable to just waiting for T34/85's, or whatever tank have you.

Also, KV-1's are amazing. I've been using those to great effect.I'm kind of surprised they aren't a stock unit.

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jul 2014, 06:55 AMCruzz


Wehr tech cost to T3 + Stug:
200/45+200/55+80/10+160/25+230/80 = 870/210 (You probably want to add in 120/15 for T2 in almost all cases, but lets pretend you're just rushing StuG)
Soviet tech cost to T4 + SU-76
160/40 (or 200/50) + 240/120+240/70 = 640/160

That doesn't seem right. I don't feel like doing the math this late at night, but that tier is highly specialized and kinda crap while the Wehrmacht's isn't. I know that I said this was more about tier design than balance, but really, the tier 3 and tier 4 units are rather lackluster a lot of the times behind the 120 fuel cost.

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jul 2014, 06:55 AMCruzz

While it would certainly solve issues with non-tank call-in commander viability, the balance issue problems are just too massive for this to ever happen short of a complete redesign of all units mentioned and soviet commander ability selection.

Indeed; my suggestion is more of an abstract concept than a concrete one. That's why darkfireslide's is supposed to be the more realistic suggestion. I was kind of thinking of it terms of if I were building the game from scratch. I realize it would be a massive undertaking to do, but I can have my wishful thinking. I'd like to see it happen at some point even though it totally won't.
30 Jul 2014, 09:12 AM
#7
avatar of sherlock
Patrion 14

Posts: 550 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jul 2014, 06:55 AMCruzz


Wehr tech cost to T3 + Stug:
200/45+200/55+80/10+160/25+230/80 = 870/210 (You probably want to add in 120/15 for T2 in almost all cases, but lets pretend you're just rushing StuG)
Soviet tech cost to T4 + SU-76
160/40 (or 200/50) + 240/120+240/70 = 640/160


I think something went wrong with the calculation here:
Wehr tech cost to T3 + Stug:
200/45+200/55+80/10+160/25+230/80 = 870/210 215 (excluding unit cost 135 fuel)

Soviet tech cost to T4 + SU-76
160/40 (or 200/50) + 240/120+240/70 = 640/160 230 (excluding unit cost 160 fuel)
30 Jul 2014, 09:22 AM
#8
avatar of Cruzz

Posts: 1221 | Subs: 41



I think something went wrong with the calculation here:
Wehr tech cost to T3 + Stug:
200/45+200/55+80/10+160/25+230/80 = 870/210 215 (excluding unit cost 135 fuel)

Soviet tech cost to T4 + SU-76
160/40 (or 200/50) + 240/120+240/70 = 640/160 230 (excluding unit cost 160 fuel)


Yeah, shouldn't post in the morning apparently. Point still stands that it really isn't any cheaper to get the stug
30 Jul 2014, 09:27 AM
#9
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

I dont play 2v2, so cant comment on its contents.

But I did want to say I love the fact you two guys, as a team, sat together and wrote up as well structured an analysis like this.

Dat some teamwork and love of the game right there.
30 Jul 2014, 09:51 AM
#10
avatar of darkfireslide

Posts: 25

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jul 2014, 09:22 AMCruzz


Yeah, shouldn't post in the morning apparently. Point still stands that it really isn't any cheaper to get the stug


That's kind of the point though, isn't it? Add in another 55 fuel for an SU-85, a dedicated anti-tank unit with no anti-infantry capabilities, and it seems to me that, even compared to what is now arguably an underpowered team, the Soviets have perhaps the worst non-doctrinal units, combining both price and effectiveness.
30 Jul 2014, 10:04 AM
#11
avatar of Cruzz

Posts: 1221 | Subs: 41



That's kind of the point though, isn't it? Add in another 55 fuel for an SU-85, a dedicated anti-tank unit with no anti-infantry capabilities, and it seems to me that, even compared to what is now arguably an underpowered team, the Soviets have perhaps the worst non-doctrinal units, combining both price and effectiveness.


The su-76 has always had issues. Especially since the change that made it quite a lot more expensive, removing the one effective tactic that it used to have of being massed in large numbers relatively cheaply. Now that the Katyusha has been (over?)buffed, the su-76 remains the only non-doctrinal vehicle for the soviets that clearly underperforms for cost. This is arguably a better situation than the one for Ostheer where all 3 vehicles in T4 are rather lackluster.
30 Jul 2014, 16:16 PM
#12
avatar of darkfireslide

Posts: 25

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jul 2014, 10:04 AMCruzz


The su-76 has always had issues. Especially since the change that made it quite a lot more expensive, removing the one effective tactic that it used to have of being massed in large numbers relatively cheaply. Now that the Katyusha has been (over?)buffed, the su-76 remains the only non-doctrinal vehicle for the soviets that clearly underperforms for cost. This is arguably a better situation than the one for Ostheer where all 3 vehicles in T4 are rather lackluster.


I agree, this is an issue the Ostheer have suffered since launch, and is something that Relic has never really addressed. For the Soviets, it's more viable to call in a heavy tank or any other tank call-in than to build either tech building; for the Ostheer, it's basically pointless to get past tier 3, especially if you have a Tiger or even an Elefant you could call in instead.
30 Jul 2014, 18:09 PM
#13
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jul 2014, 10:04 AMCruzz

the su-76 remains the only non-doctrinal vehicle for the soviets that clearly underperforms for cost.

T70 are too expensive for their perfomance, so nobody builds them in the current meta.
30 Jul 2014, 18:35 PM
#14
avatar of Cruzz

Posts: 1221 | Subs: 41

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jul 2014, 18:09 PMGreeb

T70 are too expensive for their perfomance, so nobody builds them in the current meta.


I build them all the time. They're mostly fine. T34 is just too safe, but T70 does offer several advantages over them.
30 Jul 2014, 20:43 PM
#15
avatar of Part time commie

Posts: 99

Well it's funny because i tough about doing something similar once i had more datas on the subject. So i'll add my grain of salt right now.

I was wondering why i always had a harder time with the soviets with mostly their teching vs ostheer. At some points it hitted me, the soviet tech tree is way less forgiving than the ostheer's while also being more expensive and having less units.While i like the idea of having russians specialise more for a more interesting gameplay, it makes it very unforgiving considering the ostheer dosen't have to. Especially in 1v1.

My plan was to post the cost of all techs and building and ask people to create scenarios and counter scenarios to see how the teching would evolve. From what i gathered doing it myself, the russians seems to always have to play reactively at a greather cost than their german counter part.

The infantry upgrades :
Add to that the free upgrades the grens have and their LMG/shreck upgrade makes them scale very well in the later game. While the conscripts will scale poorly but will have to spend 50 extra fuel to get their "grenades" and AT armemant. The upgrade free faust also negate the early M3 that was a really good counter against the MG spam with wide firing angle of the ostheer. This makes the less scalable infantry forced to slow down the whole teching to get it's stuff that isn't in anyway better.

The Tiers :
The german ones are rather simple, you go one by one with them and each one gives you the right units at the right time. In the oppenning you will have all the tools you need if you whant to MG spam or use a sniper or a mortar or whatever. Tier 2 lets you get some pretty strong light vehicules, deadly assault troops and AT gun, just in time for the tanks. Tier 3 gives all the tankish goodies you would whant. Finaly tier 4 is just a little something for the later game, nothing you really need.

For the soviets, it seems they devided it into 2 categories, T1 and T3 are more assaultish tiers while the 2 others are more defensive tiers. As it was mentionned previously, T3 and T4 are really expensive, making the lighter units in those rather unappealing at that point in the game.
Their high price also means that you will choose one or the other and probably specialise your tactic. T1 and T2 all have a rather low units count per tier and the general high price of tiers will also force you to specialise early game. Count in the 50 fuel for conscripts upgrades and you go trough the roof. What do you do? You end up with a very unforgiving tech tree that gives nothing compared to the german one except the easely faust countered M3 in T1

i am a bit tired right now so i might have overlooked some stuff, but feel free to go on what i started.

edit: i forgot to factor in the commanders, russians mostly need commanders to fill in the holes the germans don't while the german ones can mostly be gimicky (in a good sens) and often pretty fun to use. My usuall teammate can tell you, i never go out without my shocks.

edit2: i think i didn't mention it but russians can "play it safe" by getting all upgrades and T1 + T2 but it's really expensive they can also go "bold" and get only one of them (i like T1 better for the sniper scout and the M3 to flank MG (saddly pretty suicidal)). While on the other side, for a much lower price you still play it safe and get all units, no teching headache.
31 Jul 2014, 01:56 AM
#16
avatar of darkfireslide

Posts: 25

@Part time commie, I think you really address part of the problem with the current teching system. These comparisons, of course, are being drawn against the Wehrmacht, a team that is now arguably weaker after the introduction of the USF. In OKW tier 1, you have two very effective sources of AT (Volks and the Raketenwerfer), a powerful assault unit, and a way to suppress as well- there is no risk and great reward for this setup. The later tiers just add in more utilitarian options. Meanwhile, the USF can just get bazookas for a whopping 15 fuel, though the munitions cost can set back a player a bit. All in all, the Soviet tech tree is not only difficult to navigate, it's also ineffective given the options available with commanders. Your post supplements this argument that we're already making.
31 Jul 2014, 02:36 AM
#17
avatar of Part time commie

Posts: 99

@darkfireslide

well the idea came to mind before the WSA came out, i just didn't put in action. So my conclusions were drawn before that.

If you include the WFA i find the flaktrack incredibly powerfull against the Soviets. It comes rather early and if you didn't go Tier 2 you are kind of in a terrible spot to be pushed back with no way of retaliation. I once managed to make one run into a mine than assaulted it with an AT grenade from around a corner, this feat wasn't enought to kill it and i had to retreat. If the soviet player takes out some AT guns you can switch your flaktrack to the other side of the map and jugle with his AT gun like so.

I also forgot how effective those raketenwerfers are. Just about everything about this seems off, it can take quitte a beating, does alot of damage, good RoF, can retreat, can garrison buildings it also 2 shots anything stuart and below.

But this is not really about how OP x thing is, i'll leave that to someone else. It's about how akward and unforgiving the soviet tech tree is compared to others while giving out nothing in return. The comming of the WFA and the speed at which they can field strong AI armored vehicules is pretty insane against soviets.

I don't quitte have a solution for it, i am thinking about some overhaul to mix up those tiers but i'd kind of hate to break the soviet specilisation trait, it should probably just be made less unforgivable.
31 Jul 2014, 03:28 AM
#18
avatar of darkfireslide

Posts: 25

@Part time commie

The urgency for a change arose with the introduction of the WFA. The Wehrmacht and Soviets were both balanced so hard before the introduction of the new teams that they pale in comparison to the opportunities that they have.

Yeah, Raketenwerfers are probably a unit that needs looked at. They vet up extremely quickly, are too durable, and still pack a huge punch. At tier 0, they can cover any role effectively, even into the late game. It's absurd. But this is especially why the older factions need looking into.

Yeah, 120 fuel is too unforgiving to spend on units that aren't general purpose, especially the tier 4 building. The easiest fix would be to make those units more accessible, rather than buffing and nerfing everything, but a complete overhaul of the tech tree would make the Soviets more interesting and dynamic, in my opinion.
31 Jul 2014, 17:06 PM
#19
avatar of Part time commie

Posts: 99

well they might have been balanced in terms of units but in terms of teching i think the wierd one of the soviets really give them a bad a spot to be.

Also for some reasons i often saw germans hide in a part of the map with alot of defences, hardly any income only to come out with alot of tanks, more than i could field. I never understood that. Might be due to the teching again.
31 Jul 2014, 22:58 PM
#20
avatar of darkfireslide

Posts: 25

While we did forget to mention the 50 fuel that you start out with as the Soviets, it's worth noting that the units themselves in these tiers are not powerful enough to compensate for their cost. Why do Allied units have to be inherently worse than their German counterparts? Why can't Allied units be good? It makes no sense to me. Of course, with the recent Katyusha nerf, there's literally no reason to build tier 4 for the Soviets, so now tank call-ins are basically the Soviets' 1 saving grace in this quickly devolving game balance.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

226 users are online: 1 member and 225 guests
Crecer13
0 post in the last 24h
20 posts in the last week
136 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45005
Welcome our newest member, Kreitner
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM