Login

russian armor

Are they ever gonna fix Soviet?

5 Jul 2014, 13:30 PM
#81
avatar of Strummingbird
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 952


They are so goddam hard to position, slow to move, reasonably expsneive, and most i portantly such a fundamental buffer vs unduly vehicle focused meta, that they really really need to hit when they ,anage to line up a shot.



Actually if the shot hits the ground where the vehicle used to be, that means the AT gun already rolled a miss. If the game calculated a hit, the shell would follow the target to the ends of the earth til it hit.
5 Jul 2014, 13:32 PM
#82
avatar of Brachiaraidos

Posts: 627

actually less armor and more speed is desirable against AT guns for mediums...


The difference in speed for these tanks is utterly negligible.


T-34/76 is 6.5, PzIV is 6.3. There's the same 0.2 difference is acceleration and deceleration. It's really not much at all, not nearly enough to make a difference when you consider the Rate of Fire the PaK has.

The T-34/85 is actually slower than the panther (6.6)

Most american tanks are also 6.5. Most tanks barring the tiny or massive ones all go about the same speed.

Oddly enough, the max speed for a KV1 is 6.7. Good luck getting it to go that fast, mind.

5 Jul 2014, 13:42 PM
#83
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752



Actually if the shot hits the ground where the vehicle used to be, that means the AT gun already rolled a miss. If the game calculated a hit, the shell would follow the target to the ends of the earth til it hit.


Oh yes, you are entirely correct.

But what factor is then leading to so many misses?

A scatter change would be problematic, as it leads to better infantry accuracy.

Something, Im not sure which stats, is causing ATGs to miss too often.

Lining up the shot is hard enough, not to mention the difficulty of moving ATGs around to conflict areas.

ATG penetration and dmg are good. The ptoblem is, for some reason, they miss, over and over.

@Brachi:

I eould agree that vehicle speed is largely a concern only for vehicle combat, where they are required to pursue targets, at speed, in order to hopefully finish them off. Speed is good for chasing and escaping, in vehicle combat. That is well and fine.
But ATGs, can do neither. They need to be a serious, reliable, AI and AoE vulnerable, slow and difficult to position, but almost assured hit vehicle response.

If an ATG is discovered or revealed to be covering a line, it should require a non-vehicle response. Currently, vehicles laugh at them due to the deplorable accuracy.
5 Jul 2014, 13:44 PM
#84
avatar of Strummingbird
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 952



The difference in speed for these tanks is utterly negligible.


T-34/76 is 6.5, PzIV is 6.3. There's the same 0.2 difference is acceleration and deceleration. It's really not much at all, not nearly enough to make a difference when you consider the Rate of Fire the PaK has.

The T-34/85 is actually slower than the panther (6.6)

Most american tanks are also 6.5. Most tanks barring the tiny or massive ones all go about the same speed.

Oddly enough, the max speed for a KV1 is 6.7. Good luck getting it to go that fast, mind.



Pak is definitely superior to the Zis in AT, never said it wasn't. T3476 accelerates faster too, and more importantly costs about 20% less for exactly the same survivability against an AT gun as a P4.

T3485 is the best medium (except maybe the E8) because of it's 800 health, among other very decent stats. Panther is in a different league cost wise and doesn't bear comparison (tank hunter, useless against AT guns anyway, and a general waste of resources in a 1v1).

And the max speed of a KV1 is actually 5.1. It has 270 armor and 800HP though, so it bounces shots decently well and can survive the ones it doesn't deflect.
5 Jul 2014, 13:48 PM
#85
avatar of Strummingbird
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 952

Oops double post. Sorry.
5 Jul 2014, 13:56 PM
#86
avatar of Brachiaraidos

Posts: 627



Pak is definitely superior to the Zis in AT, never said it wasn't. T3476 accelerates faster too, and more importantly costs about 20% less for exactly the same survivability against an AT gun as a P4.

T3485 is the best medium (except maybe the E8) because of it's 800 health, among other very decent stats. Panther is in a different league cost wise and doesn't bear comparison (tank hunter, useless against AT guns anyway, and a general waste of resources in a 1v1).

And the max speed of a KV1 is actually 5.1. It has 270 armor and 800HP though, so it bounces shots decently well and can survive the ones it doesn't deflect.


All fair points. Again, though, the acceleration differences are very minor.

As for the KV-1; fair point, looked up the wrong one. KV-1_commander_mp would be the right one, I assume, as its a call in. Kv-1_mp assumedly isn't used.

@ Cannonade

I struggle to agree, all told. With the massive focus on fuel that came from vCoH all the way through to now, allowing vehicles to be wholly negated in a pretty huge cone for a mere ~300MP would be... dubious, all told. The game would just be a creeping wall of AT guns and whatever your best long range infantry was.

If AT guns do become even more incarnate death of tanks anywhere in front of it, they'll absolutely need balancing with much shorter ranges, else the fuel economy becomes a joke and we get creeping back to the artillery fest of vCoH late games.
5 Jul 2014, 14:16 PM
#87
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

@Brachi:

ATG penetration and damage is fine. They are not "incarnate death" to amy medium tank or above.

Their efficacy in holding a narrow line of fire, compunded by slow mobility and vulnerability as an infantry unit, all adequately offset that. Range is not a proble either, as it requires scouting, as usual, as for any other long range ordnance.

Armor already has its due and proper efficacy vs infantry, based on its armor and the limited potential of infantry based AT. What sets Armor apart from AtGs, is mobiloty and AI efficacy.

Your Manpower vs Fuel comparison is invalid, because of the core nature of armor vs infantry. It is expedient, and good, for the meta to allow for hard direct AT on a manpower bsse in the form of ATGs, as offset by their mobility and AI vulnerability.
Your argument is furthermore invalidated, by the cold hard fact, that any Armor also has a Manpower cost. If a player invests in ATGs, no ,atter how mucn fuel he has, he will still have expended a significant MP cost, which throttles him from fielding Armor, even if he has the fuel. Fuel is secondary to MP. Mp is the primarynresource.

That is the whole poi t, and core design principle, of ATGs, not only in this game, but historically.

A line held by an ATG, should be dealt with by infantry and indirect fire means. Meanwhile Armor mobility enables it to either support such an action, or redeploy to a front where that ATG is not present.

Their problem, is reliability for hits.

ATGs hurt enough, when they hit, but its not a "nuke". Even medium tanks have MORE than enough time to withdraw from line of fire, before being setiously compromised. Vs a comptent opponent you get 1, max 2, shots, which bring even a medium tank to only 50% health or so. ATGs, even with better accuracy, are not a hard counter, they are merely a deterrant and involve the meta to instead bring in an infantry or artillery based response to enable armor action on that front therafter, or in flanking support to such an ac4ion.

CoH2 allows for direct, and sustainable, armor assualts, even on ATG emplacements. This is a factor of A) The relative effficiency of medium tanks vs infantry B) The fact that ATGs do not instanuke Armor, as they would IRL. As unrealistic as thisnis, that aside, it does not detract, but instead reinforces the importance of ATGs as a meta mitigator., ESPECIALLY in a game where fuel is such a directly co trollable resource.

If you manage to co trol ypur opponents fuel, what the fk is he supposed to do? He cant build vehicles, you are getting fuel at a doubled rate to his 0 income, and his infantry generally (Especially for Sov) is patently incapable of cou tering your armor, and evem that with huge model losses.

The importance of ATGs for the meta is imo extremely underestimated and understated in CoH2.

Nobody is proposing an instanuke. Just a hard facepunch and meta retaliation to fuel heavy armor builds, which proliferate far toonodten in Coh2, espcially with calli s that dont require buildings or tiering.

Even with improved accuracy, an unsupported ATG (especially and cruciqllynwithout ATNade/Faust support) is a foregone situation. You get 1-2 shots, and then the armor is already ontop of ypu and circling with a better rotation rate, higher bleed and efficay than you can match (which is well and fine, cos you paid the fuel).

ATGs need to hit. Period.
5 Jul 2014, 20:53 PM
#88
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2


....

1. CoH2 allows for direct, and sustainable, armor assualts, even on ATG emplacements. This is a factor of A) The relative effficiency of medium tanks vs infantry B) The fact that ATGs do not instanuke Armor, as they would IRL. As unrealistic as thisnis, that aside, it does not detract, but instead reinforces the importance of ATGs as a meta mitigator., ESPECIALLY in a game where fuel is such a directly controllable resource.

2. If you manage to control your opponents fuel, what the fk is he supposed to do? He cant build vehicles, you are getting fuel at a doubled rate to his 0 income, and his infantry generally (Especially for Sov) is patently incapable of countering your armor, and evem that with huge model losses.

...

3. Even with improved accuracy, an unsupported ATG (especially and cruciqllynwithout ATNade/Faust support) is a foregone situation. You get 1-2 shots, and then the armor is already ontop of ypu and circling with a better rotation rate, higher bleed and efficay than you can match (which is well and fine, cos you paid the fuel).

ATGs need to hit. Period.


1. i do not see a problem with this. ATG in this game deals with tanks very effectively when in range and punished over-extended tanks, even with a few misses they do. it has a good influence in the game for mere 320/270mp.

2. that's exactly what you should feel when you have little to none fuel income. if denying enemy their fuel means little, what is the point?

3. this is perfectly fine as ATGs are in support class and are meant to support your frontline or whatever.

p.s. an army made up of manpower and fuel should be superior to an army made up of only manpower
6 Jul 2014, 04:48 AM
#89
avatar of Volsky

Posts: 344

I don't even really care anymore on a "competitive"/"this is important for balance" level. I'm sitting here rubbing my temples at this.

You are the exact same lot that wanted Volley Fire nerfed into the fucking ground, and you got it, and then immediately put up a thread mentioning that Volley Fire was now next to useless.

You know what, okay, let's get theoretical with this shit. Screw the Maxim. Get rid of it; give the Soviets an MG nest with a 4 man crew and an emplaced Maxim (a-la the Vickers nest for the Brits). Boom, gone, Soviet T2 can get...I don't know, a 3 man team with a DP LMG for 280 manpower, just so the Soviets get an 'MG'.

We'll bump Conscripts up to 280 Manpower and make them start off with three Mosin-Nagants, and then they can pay 60 Munitions to get their hands on three more after reaching Vet2. Since 'Ura!' is apparently a game-rending wart on this game's balance, we'll just scrap it from Cons and leave that BS for Penals. They're just supposed to be useless suicide charger infantry anyways, right (Penals, I mean)?

Okay...that leaves the ZiS. Clearly it having utility and the ability to be useful in a faction with very few useful base units is a no-no, so we'll scrap the Arty barrage on it and drop the price down to 270 Manpower, the same as the U.S. M1 57mm. Fine, the ZiS-3 can 3-shot most anything it comes across (iirc) and since I usually build a pair and rarely touch the barrage, this is fine by me. I still get to shove a 76.2mm shell up the chuff of your precious Panzer.

Snipers? Soviets can't have that; no nice things for Ivan! Scrap the second member of each team and give the Sniper the ability to cloak on the move (a-la vCoH), but prevent it from firing unless in some sort of cover (Light, Heavy, Garrison, or, God forbid, Halftrack).

Guards are clearly utter cheese and too easy to spam, so get rid of the DPs. Guards are now the de-facto HHAT-only unit in the Soviet arsenal and will make Guard-centric doctrines even more common! Now Conscripts can order a single DP for 50 Munitions if T2 has been put up and all of the HQ upgrades have been purchased.

Since I'm having a vision of more T-34 obr 1942 QQ (for the laymen among you, that's the T-34/76 with 1942 production turret and the F-34 gun--e.g., the one we have in-game), let's drop the price back to what it was a while ago (e.g., cheap) and drop the penetration of the gun as well, IF...

the SU-76M becomes a PaK on Kettenkrad treads that zips around the battlefield derping everything in it's path (e.g., a tracked ZiS-3). If memory serves, under the latest patch, it IS. Same penetration and damage as the ZiS-3. However, it's a useless mong of a unit in T4, so let's drop it into T3. What's that you say? That makes 4 units in that building?! Le gasp! Okay, drop the M5 Halftrack into T2. I'm not kidding. Scrap my suggestion of the shit 3 man DP team and just replace the now-emplacement only Maxim with the M5 HT (same idea as the SdKfz 251, right?).

Butbutbut, this leaves T4 with only 2 units! Okay, we can now drop the price on T4 in order to address the lack of a 'utilitarian' unit (the SU-76M). Now the Soviets might be able to get their hands on T3 and T4 in a good game.

Are we happy now? Or would we just like to replace everything in the Soviet arsenal with unarmed Conscripts, T-34's that break down as they're spawned in, and NKVD officers that run around the map revealing the location of every Soviet unit whilst killing any Conscripts in range and ordering attacks on the 'traitorous' base of whatever player is controlling the officer, all in one convenient off-map call in?

/rant
/rage
/anger
/why can't you guys just settle the fuck down and stop with the personal insults and blatantfanboisim
/inb4someonetriestomakethispostintomebeinganutterfanboy

EDIT: Take what you will from this post, at least parts of it are serious.

I would pay to see you lads fight the Amis in vCoH, what with their Riflemen -> ATGs -> some sort of armor -> GG builds, or heaven forbid you face SIS strat and I throw five BAR'd riflemen at you after they litter the map with mines from end to end, flank, kill, and steal all of your support weapons, and ride a Sherman up your aft end before the 15 minute mark.
6 Jul 2014, 06:16 AM
#90
avatar of Jay Guo

Posts: 25

Soviets are probably the hardest faction to play, with Wehrmacht being the easiest.

They're very focused on cheese but they've always been much more difficult to get working.


Stop trolling sovjet fanboy, sovjet is easiest one to play, OKW is hardest one in 1vs1. What's your rank? Please. Do you even play German?
Or you just another sovjet noob attack move your maxim:)
6 Jul 2014, 06:19 AM
#91
avatar of Jay Guo

Posts: 25

Try this http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/viewBoard/1/steamid/76561198009261973

Even fucking screen you have posted says what I play.


I see katitof you not even played 1vs1 so all your balance trolling just bullshit.
6 Jul 2014, 09:34 AM
#92
avatar of dasheepeh

Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Jul 2014, 04:48 AMVolsky
I don't even really care anymore on a "competitive"/"this is important for balance" level. I'm sitting here rubbing my temples at this.

You are the exact same lot that wanted Volley Fire nerfed into the fucking ground, and you got it, and then immediately put up a thread mentioning that Volley Fire was now next to useless.

You know what, okay, let's get theoretical with this shit. Screw the Maxim. Get rid of it; give the Soviets an MG nest with a 4 man crew and an emplaced Maxim (a-la the Vickers nest for the Brits). Boom, gone, Soviet T2 can get...I don't know, a 3 man team with a DP LMG for 280 manpower, just so the Soviets get an 'MG'.

We'll bump Conscripts up to 280 Manpower and make them start off with three Mosin-Nagants, and then they can pay 60 Munitions to get their hands on three more after reaching Vet2. Since 'Ura!' is apparently a game-rending wart on this game's balance, we'll just scrap it from Cons and leave that BS for Penals. They're just supposed to be useless suicide charger infantry anyways, right (Penals, I mean)?

Okay...that leaves the ZiS. Clearly it having utility and the ability to be useful in a faction with very few useful base units is a no-no, so we'll scrap the Arty barrage on it and drop the price down to 270 Manpower, the same as the U.S. M1 57mm. Fine, the ZiS-3 can 3-shot most anything it comes across (iirc) and since I usually build a pair and rarely touch the barrage, this is fine by me. I still get to shove a 76.2mm shell up the chuff of your precious Panzer.

Snipers? Soviets can't have that; no nice things for Ivan! Scrap the second member of each team and give the Sniper the ability to cloak on the move (a-la vCoH), but prevent it from firing unless in some sort of cover (Light, Heavy, Garrison, or, God forbid, Halftrack).

Guards are clearly utter cheese and too easy to spam, so get rid of the DPs. Guards are now the de-facto HHAT-only unit in the Soviet arsenal and will make Guard-centric doctrines even more common! Now Conscripts can order a single DP for 50 Munitions if T2 has been put up and all of the HQ upgrades have been purchased.

Since I'm having a vision of more T-34 obr 1942 QQ (for the laymen among you, that's the T-34/76 with 1942 production turret and the F-34 gun--e.g., the one we have in-game), let's drop the price back to what it was a while ago (e.g., cheap) and drop the penetration of the gun as well, IF...

the SU-76M becomes a PaK on Kettenkrad treads that zips around the battlefield derping everything in it's path (e.g., a tracked ZiS-3). If memory serves, under the latest patch, it IS. Same penetration and damage as the ZiS-3. However, it's a useless mong of a unit in T4, so let's drop it into T3. What's that you say? That makes 4 units in that building?! Le gasp! Okay, drop the M5 Halftrack into T2. I'm not kidding. Scrap my suggestion of the shit 3 man DP team and just replace the now-emplacement only Maxim with the M5 HT (same idea as the SdKfz 251, right?).

Butbutbut, this leaves T4 with only 2 units! Okay, we can now drop the price on T4 in order to address the lack of a 'utilitarian' unit (the SU-76M). Now the Soviets might be able to get their hands on T3 and T4 in a good game.

Are we happy now? Or would we just like to replace everything in the Soviet arsenal with unarmed Conscripts, T-34's that break down as they're spawned in, and NKVD officers that run around the map revealing the location of every Soviet unit whilst killing any Conscripts in range and ordering attacks on the 'traitorous' base of whatever player is controlling the officer, all in one convenient off-map call in?

/rant
/rage
/anger
/why can't you guys just settle the fuck down and stop with the personal insults and blatantfanboisim
/inb4someonetriestomakethispostintomebeinganutterfanboy

EDIT: Take what you will from this post, at least parts of it are serious.

I would pay to see you lads fight the Amis in vCoH, what with their Riflemen -> ATGs -> some sort of armor -> GG builds, or heaven forbid you face SIS strat and I throw five BAR'd riflemen at you after they litter the map with mines from end to end, flank, kill, and steal all of your support weapons, and ride a Sherman up your aft end before the 15 minute mark.


had a good laugh, thanks :D
6 Jul 2014, 20:33 PM
#93
avatar of Kamfrenchie

Posts: 41

Canonade, you are not taking in account the stun rounds that pak can use, nor possible shrecks etc.

T34/76 imo cannot take that much. if it runs into a double pak firing line, it will be dead before it can get out, because of its health and poor pathing.
Now imagine 1 vet 1 pak plus shreck pgrens or a p4, stug...

Despite what was said, allied armor just isn't that much faster than axis.
Yeah you can escape if you always see the ennemy tank coming, but if you let axis armor anywhere close, or in medium range, you most likely won't escape.

I know RL isn't an argument, but it's odd seing the speed of panthers and t34 in this game. They had equal speed on road, but offroad, t34 was much faster
6 Jul 2014, 22:39 PM
#94
avatar of somenbjorn

Posts: 923

Yes juggling 9 cons squads at once, trying to keep them spread out as to not get gimped by arty or nades. Also remembering to keep them in position to flank any vehicle and MG that might pop up, whilst at the same time fight an LMG gren blob and try to retreat only the unit they are focusing and nothing else. But still remember to retreat them in time for... ooh shit a pz-iv just rolled in must get his threads to my mates Zis can get him, but ooh no I must doge a nade up where the grens are, and are those guys fighting too?

Yes script spamming is a cheesy tactic that requires no micro at all.

/end rant

If the enemy is only spamming scripts as a blob I don't understand how it is possible to loose. grens, 2 mgs 2 mortars and done.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Germany 846
unknown 20

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

353 users are online: 353 guests
1 post in the last 24h
42 posts in the last week
127 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45107
Welcome our newest member, ashlyewatts
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM