In such scenarios, I find the ZiS perfectly effective. Especially compared to the PAK, which on account of low crew number, SU-85 range and accuracy, the small size of the T-70 and the KV-8 omnimuncher is much more liable to underperform. P-gren shreks are quite good but liable to dancing around and to just being blown up by the T3 and T4 armour they're supposed to counter.
Unlike the SU-85, it's not likely to kill a good opponent's properly managed tank but as area denial a pair of ZiS guns can be extremely effective. I tend to go for AT guns + T-70s/34s if I see the Opel Blitz commander.
Additionally, in terms of non-fuel AT solutions for the Soviets - 2-3 guard squads + Mark Vehicle can actually kill an enemy tank if they don't have Panzer Tactician.
In my opinion, the PAK needs a fix right now (specifically, to be less inaccurate against T-70s and have more gun health to cope with SU-85s)... the ZiS is pretty strong where it is, and the survivability on it makes a few of them very tricky to crack. This extra survivability probably benefits it even more in terms of fulfilling its role against tanks and especially tank + off-map pushes than against infantry.
After playing some games recently i have to agree that a couple of ZiS guns with T34 and conscript support can create an area denial until you get to something more offensive, like an SU85. This especially works well on Minsk pocket to camp your fuel. Still when you add an ostwind to the mix your position is under serious danger since ZiS still wont hit and/or penetrate half the time.
My point is that i would much rather prefer ZiS to be a hard armor counter than it having 2 abilities and six man crews. I still _have_ to support this multi-purpose hard-to-kill AT gun just as i would have compared to a german PaK gun. So if i still have to do this why should i sacrifice solid AT capability? I just see no point in that. Barrage ability _is_ useful, but soviets have a dozen similar options to pick from. And when facing armor you need solid AT much much more.
|
As i've said in the original post, yes, AT guns should be supported. Thats the whole point actually:
If your looking for manpower only ways to defeat armour they are there, but they are hard, sometimes very hard, to use. The reason is if you get expensive fuel units they should be hard to counter with manpower only units, otherwise everyone would just get manpower only. Like when the shreck was too powerful in vCoH in patch whatever and people only ever got infantry.
You are correct on the expensive Tank vs manpower AT, it should not counter them easily. But now you have two ways to go about that.
One way is an AT gun to be an effective counter to a Tank but have a lot of counters itself like mortars, snipers, artillery, infantry - basically _everything_ except a Tank. This way you have to invest additional resources into supporting your gun like counter-snipers, counter arty, infantry, mines, etc, which kinda evens out the costs between "cheap" AT gun and an expensive tank. You also have much more micro pressure on you. But your actual gun can do its job then.
The second way is like we see in CoH2 - soviet AT gun has less counters and has more uses (arty barrage) but is much worse at its primary role. I see a major problem with this approach, because you still need to pay additional costs to support your gun properly but even then your AT gun cannot really perform its role very well.
The bottom line: AT guns are cheap because they need a lot of support, babysitting, cannot be used offensively easily and react very slowly. But when you have proper support for it and enemy tank goes straight at it it should be effective, because you've spent a ton of effort to cover its many weaknesses. |
I've already posted about my experience with ZiS gun here: http://www.coh2.org/topic/6958/how-do-i-use-zis-at-gun-currectly
I got some good advise, tried to implement it, and finally i was able to take down a flakpanzer although it took a mine, about 2 shots from 2 ZiS guns each, and i had to chase it down with a T34/76 in the end. I am not going to whine about ZiS guns again, instead i am going to whine about soviet AT in general.
I know that in ideal world you should not let your opponent get to units you are uncomfortable with, like letting ostheer reach T3 to get panzers but when you are playing an equal match or even loosing there is no helping that.
My skills with the game are definitely questionable at best but what i am seeing is that Soviets have no reliable AT against T3 aside from an SU85 which makes a "safe" soviet play kinda one-route which makes the game much less interesting to play. There is no reliable manpower-only AT solution because ZiS guns are unreliable compared to vCoH paks and US AT guns. There is no equivalent to panzerschrecks as a munitions AT solution which works fine for ostheer. So you are basically left with fuel-based AT in the form of the SU85 or a couple of T34/76s after the latest patch. Also i am fully aware that you need to support ANY AT solution with things like conscripts and guards and mines - that's a given.
My guess (from a designer PoV) for ZiS lacking in its AT role is that it is a field gun with an artillery barrage ability. So it serves 2 roles at once and thus cannot be very good at either of them. Also maybe Soviets haven't had an equivalent to a panzerschreck or a recoiless rifle in the real war so that explains no munitions-based AT for elite infantry. But at the end of the day the lack of the variety of AT options makes playing the game kind of boring. |
Well if you want that kind of realism then you should also be using munitions every time your soldiers shoot, and lose fuel when you're tank is driving
Right, like i said, i don't mind I am just making fun of the game's sudden inconsistent approaches to "realism". |
So the soviets can have even more munition floating no?
It did used fuel but after all t-34 did beat panzer4 btw , this is game and it has gamelike mechanics , not simulation so :/
Sure it is, i personally wouldn't have mind it to use manpower to throw as long as it is serving balance purposes. It's just that CoH2 did a lot of things for realism sake, like calling units off map instead of out of their buildings, so.. |
It has just occurred to me that according to molotov cocktail description it is a bottle full of petrol. So it is only realistic that it should cost a number of _fuel_ to throw instead of munitions, right? |
Hi, another novice question. I am mostly a soviet player but i have been playing some germans lately. And i have found ostheer faction to be easier to play in terms of how to figure out your unit composition. Let me explain that a bit.
When playing any faction in any RTS game i am trying to compose my forces around a single central element that is my main damage dealing component. The rest of the force is playing a supporting, amplifying and niche roles (like harassment, detection, etc.). Unit composition is not fixed and can shift as game progresses.
With ostheer i found this approach to be pretty straightforward to implement. In the early game grenadiers with the best DPS and armor on the field at that stage (as well as rifle grenades) are your damage dealing core with MGs and mortars nicely playing a supporting role. In the mid-game you also have a variety of choices for this role: LMG grens, panzer grens, FHT, even scout car recently. Late game can either shift to flakpanzers/P4 for that role or retain previous units, depending on what your opponent does. Point is, i found it pretty straightforward to implement this unit composition approach with the ostheer reacting to opponent's unit composition. Even if my micro is shit i find most games i've played to be easy wins so far.
Going back to soviets i am having trouble implementing this approach. Seems like most soviet units are support units. Conscripts don't have too much health and DPS and later play light AT support role. Same goes for guards. Shock troops are nice but very expensive and depend on commander choice. T3 tanks are also nice but still fail to be the backbone. T4 consists entirely of specialized units. KV-8 is close but still depends on a commander choice.
So my question is, am i missing something or soviets just aren't designed for the unit composition approach i have described? What principles do you use to build your soviet unit composition? |
First there is a roll to hit. Weapon accuracy / range / cover modifiers.
If there is a hit, armor gives a concrete % roll against a hit. If the roll is below that %, the hit is ignored = no damage.
Im not sure, but I think a 1.0 Armor value means a 10% chance to block the hit.
I dont know whether range reduces weapon damage, but as I understand it, a hit+failed armor roll does full weapon damage at all ranges. Its just less likely to roll a hit vs farther targets, because the accuracy is reduced.
I also dont know whether small arms can scatter on a miss, and perhaps re-roll on another model hit by the scatter.
Different infantry units also have different penalties to accuracy when firing while moving.
Ive heard some speculation that Ostrruppen should be "better in cover", but I think that is just fluff from the tooltip and that there is no actual special benefit.
Another common myth, is that there are crits in small arms combat. There are not. Lucky chained hits and several weapons firing at the same model can result in "crit-like" results, but they are not crits, just a lucky RNG chain.
Also, for completeness sake, cover modifier is reduced to 0 when under 10 units from the target (except in buildings).
Thats how I think it is. Im sure Ace4sure, Crawler or a Dev etc can confirm the formulas.
Ok, so you roll for a hit first with your accuracy and distance modifiers against target infantry cover modifier, etc. If you did roll a hit you will then need to "penetrate" the target armor, so to speak. So you roll a second time against soft target armor modifier and score either a penetration and do full weapon damage or a deflection with 0 damage. Correct?
Also, can anyone remember penals vet1 ability? |
I use penal battalions, but I don't have a 'penal battalion strategy'. I think that they are too expensive to spam given their reinforcement cost and lack of anti-tank options. I have however worked them into my standard T1 build.
Start with 2-3 conscripts -> T1 -> M3/flamethrower engineers -> Sniper -> Penal Battalion
I disagree about the flamethrower. It has its uses. German infantry is armored and flamethrower damage ignores armor. This means close in squads like the panzer grenadiers can be fought by penal battalions. I agree you should not use them as a spearhead attacker, that's what conscripts are for. I like to use them as units to fill out your formation and keep aggressive infantry spammers at arms length. They also are useful as side cappers who can 1v1 nearly any German squad.
They are good at what they do. I tried to replace them with shock troops and it didn't work as well.
Yep, i find them to be great harassment unit in the mid-late game as well, capping on the flanks while main ostheer combat troops are engaged, because they usually won't indeed be chased away by an infantry squad unless you fail to dodge a rifle grenade or there is a huge vet difference. |
You have forgotten to consider PB has 6 rifles, Gren only has 4.
The TOTAL unit DPS of these is as follows:
(n/m/f)
Vanilla Grens: 15.21/9.66/4.11
Grens with 2x G43: 34.01/16.51/9.01
Penals: 34.35/21.66/8.98
So you see PBs have G43 level DPS.
Twice the DPS of a vanilla Gren.
Right! I am quite new to this game, thought that stats already taken squad size into account
Penals "should" also be beating LMGs in Near range.
I had a vet3 penals without a flamer vs vet3 gren with an lmg in yellow cover standoff at close range. Penals were absolutely shredded.
6man 1 armor vs 4man 1.5 armor.
Can you explain armor more? How does 1.5 armor actually works against received damage compared to 1.0 armor? Is it like a DnD approach when your RNG rolls need to be higher to register a hit or is it a damage reduction? |