Login

russian armor

Commander Update Beta 2021 - Soviet Feedback

PAGES (40)down
6 Jun 2021, 13:07 PM
#761
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Jun 2021, 12:58 PMMMX

...
The point I've been trying to illustrate is that, contrary to what you've claimed earlier, the KV-2 is very much capable of engaging heavily armored tanks - even more so than the IS-2 thanks to the innate deflection damage...


Nice work.

It clearly illustrates that there very few thing more reliable than 120 deflection damage
Pip
6 Jun 2021, 18:30 PM
#762
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Jun 2021, 12:58 PMMMX


No one said either tank would frontally engage a Jagdtiger and expect to come out on top. The point I've been trying to illustrate is that, contrary to what you've claimed earlier, the KV-2 is very much capable of engaging heavily armored tanks - even more so than the IS-2 thanks to the innate deflection damage. Against lighter armor, such as a Panther or Vet Pz.IV, both tanks are actually pretty much equal in terms of AT. The graph below shows this:



This is the probability distribution for both the IS-2 (blue) and KV-2 (orange) to kill a Pz.IV, Panther and Tiger Ace at 40 m, assuming all shots hit for the sake of simplicity (The Ace is chosen solely for illustrative purposes. It as it has the same armor of the regular Tiger, but greater HP pool and, thus, the curves in the plot overlap less).
You can clearly see that against the more lightly armored Pz.IV the IS-2 has a slight edge as it is guaranteed to pen the target every time and every shot deals the full amount of damage.
However, the lower the chance to penetrate gets due to higher armor the contribution of deflection damage gets and the KV-2 starts to deal more DPM than the IS-2. Against a vanilla Panther both tanks are already roughly equal in terms of T2K and against anything heavier the KV-2 is superior (if only slightly).


Huh, that's a pretty interesting analysis. I'd never thought about the "actual" performance of the KV-2 with regards to AT, in comparison to its' ostensibly "intended" (and logical) performance.

DO you think it warrants any changes?
7 Jun 2021, 02:26 AM
#763
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Wasn't the kv-2 reload decreased in one of the more recent patches in exchange for weaker siege mode modifiers? Perhaps a partial roll back of that would be in order to keep the kv-2 more in line while still retaining the iconic power of its cannon (deflection damage)
MMX
7 Jun 2021, 07:27 AM
#764
avatar of MMX

Posts: 999 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Jun 2021, 18:30 PMPip


Huh, that's a pretty interesting analysis. I'd never thought about the "actual" performance of the KV-2 with regards to AT, in comparison to its' ostensibly "intended" (and logical) performance.

DO you think it warrants any changes?


that's a good question, tbh. if you're taking the base performance as the benchmark, i'd say the kv-2 is quite a bit better than the is-2, considering it has comparable AT and much better AI capabilities. however, the is-2 scales much better with veterancy in terms of firepower as the kv-2 doesn't get the 30% reload bonus other heavies do. the extra 160 HP are nice for sure, but this is arguably not not as valuable as the ROF and range boost of the is-2.

hence, i think the better base performance together with worse scaling is a pretty good trade-off already and no changes are required imho. the kv-2 starts stronger, but comes a bit later than the is-2, which in turn has ample time to close the gap through veterancy (assuming it does require a CP less?).
10 Jun 2021, 04:42 AM
#765
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

I make one last plea to please reconsider the change to Shock Army, although it's probably too late for that by now, maybe in the future. Even the description says it should have a quantity of submachine guns:

"Shock Armies were heavily stacked with heavy weapons and a much greater number of short-range sub machine guns to crush the defensive lines of the enemy."


But also because I was just playing Shock Army on an urban map and having a blast.
10 Jun 2021, 05:26 AM
#766
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

I make one last plea to please reconsider the change to Shock Army, although it's probably too late for that by now, maybe in the future. Even the description says it should have a quantity of submachine guns:

"Shock Armies were heavily stacked with heavy weapons and a much greater number of short-range sub machine guns to crush the defensive lines of the enemy."


But also because I was just playing Shock Army on an urban map and having a blast.


The shock army was based on rifle divisions and brigades. In total, in terms of rifle divisions, in 1943-1945 there were up to 20 rifle divisions in the shock army (the usual army was 9-12 divisions). The shock army had more tanks and artillery than conventional armies (combined arms). The game equivalent for the shock army is to increase the PopCap to 110-130, or change the limit on the IS-2 or ISU-152 not to one, but for example to two.
10 Jun 2021, 06:47 AM
#767
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

I make one last plea to please reconsider the change to Shock Army, although it's probably too late for that by now, maybe in the future. Even the description says it should have a quantity of submachine guns:

"Shock Armies were heavily stacked with heavy weapons and a much greater number of short-range sub machine guns to crush the defensive lines of the enemy."


Not sure where Relic got that from. I did some research and I could not find anything about Shock Armies getting more SMGs than others. All I could find was that Shock Armies got more tanks and artillery and generally more infantry divisions than other armies so that they simply had the numbers and support to punch through more easily.

The new Soviet Shock Army line-up represents that.
10 Jun 2021, 07:47 AM
#768
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Not sure where Relic got that from. I did some research and I could not find anything about Shock Armies getting more SMGs than others. All I could find was that Shock Armies got more tanks and artillery and generally more infantry divisions than other armies so that they simply had the numbers and support to punch through more easily.

The new Soviet Shock Army line-up represents that.


I admit I also came up dry while trying to find it as well, to prove my own point. Awhile ago one of the Community Managers said they had a stack of books they sourced a lot of their stuff from, including bulletin descriptions, but I have no idea what books they might have used.

The closest source I found was that all Soviet armies had a fully submachine gun equipped Assault Company, not just the Shock Armies. But my dream for stock assault squads is even further out of reach despite the historical basis. I also found that Shock Armies had a larger concentration of Guards units, which is irrelevant, but still interesting. Alas the most I have to fall back on is that using PPSh Conscripts and Shock Troops together is just really really fun, and it's a shame to see it go.
10 Jun 2021, 12:59 PM
#769
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3106 | Subs: 2

Alas the most I have to fall back on is that using PPSh Conscripts and Shock Troops together is just really really fun, and it's a shame to see it go.

I always found it to be a boring spot of this doctrine.
It was good back when Conscripts did not have any upgrade and the PPShs were still a more competitive upgrade, but the latest since mobilized reserves was introduced, Shock army became a bit worse.
But this upgrade was always redundant. I already have elite PPShs assault troops, I don't really need the cheap throw away version too.
10 Jun 2021, 13:48 PM
#770
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1


I always found it to be a boring spot of this doctrine.
It was good back when Conscripts did not have any upgrade and the PPShs were still a more competitive upgrade, but the latest since mobilized reserves was introduced, Shock army became a bit worse.
But this upgrade was always redundant. I already have elite PPShs assault troops, I don't really need the cheap throw away version too.

I remember complaint about ability overlap of the soviet shock army since release. PPsh overlaping with shocks and 120mm with ml20.
11 Jun 2021, 01:43 AM
#771
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

I always liked shock army. You can't have shocks everywhere so having "budget" assault infantry was nice. Plus once they gave ppsh hit the dirt it allowed for any cons to benifit.
15 Jun 2021, 06:42 AM
#772
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2021, 13:48 PMVipper
I remember complaint about ability overlap of the soviet shock army since release. PPsh overlaping with shocks and 120mm with ml20.


PPSh don't overlap with Shocks, they synergize with them. Until now it was also the selling point of Shock Army.
15 Jun 2021, 06:51 AM
#773
avatar of Lewka

Posts: 309



PPSh don't overlap with Shocks, they synergize with them. Until now it was also the selling point of Shock Army.

Also IMO at least in beta (unless this change was reverted) Osttruppen LMG42 seems to synergize well with Grenadier LMG42
15 Jun 2021, 08:51 AM
#774
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1



PPSh don't overlap with Shocks, they synergize with them. Until now it was also the selling point of Shock Army.

Think that is your opinion, since I said I have read complains about that commander since day one.

I personally do not mind.
16 Jun 2021, 02:31 AM
#775
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

I always liked con PPSH combined with shocks. You can't have shocks everywhere but the combo allows you to always be aggressive regardless of where your elite infantry is. Plus the additions of 7 man and hit the dirt has allowed it to be relevant slot even on the defensive. You can hold with 7 man HTD cons and push with shocks or push with ppsh con or anything in between. It's one of the soviets more versatile commander abilities of you ask me and there's no place it doesn't "fit" as a result. Imo of course
bi4
21 Jun 2021, 15:07 PM
#776
avatar of bi4

Posts: 2

lend-lease soviet doctrine is not demand ammo at all. Rework it please.
21 Jun 2021, 17:08 PM
#777
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Jun 2021, 15:07 PMbi4
lend-lease soviet doctrine is not demand ammo at all. Rework it please.


eh. the flexibility is nice. mines, AT penals, 7 man cons.... the soviet have a new thrist and can always make more use of munitions with stock sinks. mines especially.
21 Jun 2021, 17:18 PM
#778
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1



PPSh don't overlap with Shocks, they synergize with them. Until now it was also the selling point of Shock Army.


Why do PPSH Cons synergize with Shocks? IMO they don't have particularly good synergy because they all depend on getting into close range.
22 Jun 2021, 01:54 AM
#779
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Why do PPSH Cons synergize with Shocks? IMO they don't have particularly good synergy because they all depend on getting into close range.


Because they can attack alongside Shock Troops and contribute something to the fight. They can't ignore the Conscripts and focus fire the Shock Troops because the Conscripts will actually deal damage if they do that. Of course if they do attack the Conscripts, the Shock Troops will rip them up. Oorah also allows Conscripts to close rapidly and Smoke allows Shock Troops to conceal themselves, which together is a powerful combination.

PPSh Conscripts can hastily deal with peripheral threats to your Shock Troop's push as well, such as support weapons or long range infantry, which if you have regular Conscripts it'll take too long to deal with the threat IF they can deal with the threat.
MMX
22 Jun 2021, 02:59 AM
#780
avatar of MMX

Posts: 999 | Subs: 1


[...]


i can somewhat understand the historical reasoning of widespread smg utilization in the soviet army for having both ppsh cons and shocks in the same commander; however, gameplay-wise this never made much sense for me. at most i'd get one or two cons upgraded in the early game to have a viable close-range squad for flanks and frontal assaults with oorah, but shocks fill that role arguably better anyway. having more close-range oriented squads usually feels unnecessary and starts backfiring rather quickly due to the increased mp bleed. i guess it could make sense to use both shocks and mass ppsh cons on a map with lots of sight blockers that let you close in without dropping models like flies, but i'd probably still opt for a solid backbone of 7-men cons instead that allow me to pick some long-range engagements every now and then if i need to.

hence i'm not really sad to see the ppsh upgrade replaced for something arguably more useful in that commander.

on the other hand, the synergy of ppsh cons and the long-range focused guards in guard rifle combined arms was much more obvious and valuable in my opinion. really a shame this has been axed in the new patch...
PAGES (40)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

295 users are online: 1 member and 294 guests
Crecer13
2 posts in the last 24h
17 posts in the last week
134 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45019
Welcome our newest member, dsers
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM