Does anyone think that the Soviet is a bit too weak?

Saavedra wrote:

Flanker1949 wrote:
And why is the Soviet tank hunters are using the British AT rifle??? The Soviet AT rifle is way better than the British one. The PTRS-41 can penetrate 25mm steel at the range of 500m. While the British BOY AT rifle can only penetrate 21mm (0.827 in) at 302m (330yards).

Because gameplay has priority over realism.

Indeed, no matter if they are using BOYS AT rifle or PTRD-41, their stats will remain the same. Only the model will be updated.

Gameplay MUST have the priority over realism, except in campaign levels, which I am sure the mod team said they will try to work on it.

Other than that, I agree that the russians are not weak. You need to rush-tech to either T34s or Guards as your core, strekly as your support, Penal/conscripts as your cannon fodder, and the IS as your Ultra-powerful tank. If he gets you early game, well, its the same as the US getting the Wher early game

Maple wrote:
the IS as your Ultra-powerful tank

T34/85 is actually much more combat-capable than the IS-2, and is cheaper btw, in my opinion!

A single T-34/85 is actually more expensive than an IS-2. But for mass production, I agree T-34s are better than IS-2s.

GodlikeDennis wrote:
Uhh Josh, word of advice. Never post your email on a public forum. You should go back and edit it out.

uuh a moderator already did

After I mentioned it.

I personally don't think T34/85's are worth all the fuel you have to spend to get them.

Often games don't get to the point where you can mass produce them, making them a gamble.

We all know the SU-100's are what's needed to take out panthers, so what exactly is their place?

I recall someone saying, there will be no more SU-100 after the nearest patch  :(

Don't know if in the next patch, but soon.

IJoe wrote:
I recall someone saying, there will be no more SU-100 after the nearest patch  :(

Because they are OP or because of gameplay? :P

then you could chancel the t34 85 also  >:(

MaxiKing6 wrote:

IJoe wrote:
I recall someone saying, there will be no more SU-100 after the nearest patch  :(

Because they are OP or because of gameplay? :P

Ofc gameplay is the reason xD.

Killar wrote:
then you could chancel the t34 85 also  >:(

:o
Its like saing could you cancel PEs Panther Battle Group.

Paciat wrote:

Killar wrote:
then you could chancel the t34 85 also  >:(

:o
Its like saing could you cancel PEs Panther Battle Group.

Please, no comparisons, Paciat. You know where this will end..  ;)

blackbishop wrote:

Saavedra wrote:

Flanker1949 wrote:
And why is the Soviet tank hunters are using the British AT rifle??? The Soviet AT rifle is way better than the British one. The PTRS-41 can penetrate 25mm steel at the range of 500m. While the British BOY AT rifle can only penetrate 21mm (0.827 in) at 302m (330yards).

Because gameplay has priority over realism.

Indeed, no matter if they are using BOYS AT rifle or PTRD-41, their stats will remain the same. Only the model will be updated.

Yes, I know. I was just wonder why would the Red Army use the British weapon that's all. And could we suggest to reduce the tank hunter into 2 man and with 4 population cost? This way it is easlier for people to manage. Other wise one AT gun and plus one conscript team only cost 7 population while tank hunter cost 8. So not many people would train them.

And about the Guards. Could we still suggest to give them at least give the upgraded gurad one DP-27? Because using semis to pin the enemy down just doesn't make any sense. And about the garrison mode. Most of the infantries can not use their abilities while in garrison mode. It is not very realistic. We wise if we can throw a RPG-43 or a cocktail when a tank drive pass our building.

Thanks for your attention.

THs had the boys model because their PTRD model was not finished/working. Unless you want the THs carrying invisible weapons this is how it had to be.

Tell your suppressive fire comment to relic, who gave PE G43s the ability first. I don't see why a hail of bullets, no matter the source, wouldn't make soldiers dive for cover. G43s/SVTs make a pretty angry noise when fired quickly anyway.

SU-100 is being taken out (probably) because it is hardly ever used in a real game. There is very little point in it when SU-85s already penetrate everything and deal good damage. Another use might be found for it.

i find rifles more devestating than machine-guns though. Machine-Guns have high recoil due to their firing speed. If the gunman is very accurate it won't matter much anyway :P



@GodlikeDennis: *throws nerf darts*

And the sound of the PTRS-41 is not correct. I have found one on youtube
PTRS anti-tank rifle

---

Post Merge: [time]1301200258[/time]

---

Bug found, the Su-100 has no texture for some reason. The newest patch I mean. I have just been testing it and found that Su-100 is a snowwhite.

Last edited March 27, 2011 at 12:32 PM by Flanker1949

Flanker1949 wrote:
And the sound of the PTRS-41 is not correct. I have found one on youtube

Be pretty hard to sound like that the vid is in slow-mo :D

Also i'd like to point out thats a PTRS not a PTRD and they may be slight differences in their sounds to begin with.

SU-100 texture is a glitch to do with player colour. Vehicles are lighter or darker depending on the player. SU-100 will be removed soon anyway, but don't freak the fuck out because we have other stuff planned... we're not just going to remove it and leave it at that ::)

SU-100 will be back in the future, with a new model, probably as a reward for the ISU.

QuoteAnd the sound of the PTRS-41 is not correct. I have found one on youtube

No the current sound for the PTRS is good, your realistic PTRS sounds way too much like a howitser.

Snug wrote:

QuoteAnd the sound of the PTRS-41 is not correct. I have found one on youtube

No the current sound for the PTRS is good, your realistic PTRS sounds way too much like a howitser.

+1

Looks like an entire artillery regiment is firing at once!
Would be strange in COH!

Personally I'd like to see less SU-85 / 100's running around and more T34's.

I find myself not going for T34's (especially T34/85's) because they just cost too much fuel to unlock, and then I find them lacking.

I'd really like to see them as the go to unit for mid / end Russian games, but they're comparable to a Sherman and cost a lot of cost fuel to unlock.

I'd almost rather they be nerfed a little and made cheaper / easier to unlock. So that the Russians can use them in numbers as they did historically.

Just a thought..

Just make the SUs harder to lay hands on, or nerf t-34 series, and you're about done, since germans will eat you right away.
IMO, to insrease the usage of t-34 you'd have to make 'em harder against paks, which is something no one is going to do.

Raider217 wrote:

Flanker1949 wrote:
And the sound of the PTRS-41 is not correct. I have found one on youtube

Be pretty hard to sound like that the vid is in slow-mo :D

Also i'd like to point out thats a PTRS not a PTRD and they may be slight differences in their sounds to begin with.

The first fire is in normal mode and the second fire is in slow mode. And by the way, that is another thing I am pushing ---- to have PTRS instead of PTRD  ;)

---

Post Merge: [time]1301278446[/time]

---

BurroDiablo wrote:
SU-100 will be back in the future, with a new model, probably as a reward for the ISU.

Great news!

Last edited March 28, 2011 at 2:14 AM by Flanker1949

I disagree that T34s are unimpressive. I actually think they are by far the best mass production tank in the game. They have decent health, good speed, are effective at all targets with an excellent main gun against tanks and are inexpensive (after teching). They are far better than the comparable shermans, P4s and croms.

They're (t-34s) good, and impressive  :), but it's not about impression, really, - it's all about cost/effectiveness. This way, most people find it better to use SUs, that are a lot cheaper and a little less or equally effective, if used in a proper combination with other troops.

Exactly right, the T34's are a fine tank, but the cost of your first T34/85 is the same as an IS2.

Now it's all very well for them to be cost effective once you've built your 4th or 5th one, but who really gets to that point in games?

By the time you're using heavy tanks, a PE player has popped a Jadtiger and their first panthers. At that point SU100's are what you need to damage them and IS2's to soak up the hits.

There is no niche for the T34/85. As I said before, I'd rather see it nerfed a bit (because I do agree they're quite decent) but out in the field earlier and in greater numbers.

"Now it's all very well for them to be cost effective once you've built your 4th or 5th one, but who really gets to that point in games?"

I do, I am known for my tank formation with 6 or more tanks. With the support of 1 upgraded  conscript team, 2 Red Banner trooper team, 1 shock guard team, 2 engineer team and possibly 3 Katiusha depend on the situation.

No one ever surive  ;)

Flanker1949 wrote:
"Now it's all very well for them to be cost effective once you've built your 4th or 5th one, but who really gets to that point in games?"

I do, I am known for my tank formation with 6 or more tanks. With the support of 1 upgraded  conscript team, 2 Red Banner trooper team, 1 shock guard team, 2 engineer team and possibly 3 Katiusha depend on the situation.

No one ever surive  ;)

Sounds like a "no pop-cap" game, since that's like about all the force you can field out in a regular one. Moreover, I think, it wouldn't even fit into standard population limit.

true, it is in a no pop-cap game. If there is a pop-cap I would only have like 5 tanks, 1 Katiusha and no conscript and 1 red banner troop and may or may not have the shock guard.

This post has been temporarilly remove for editing by the author . please visit us later.

Last edited April 3, 2011 at 9:43 PM by tpcoughlin

That's it. That's the last three-pages long post from that guy, that I've read till the end.  ;D

haha I agree, No pop cap and rants about the mod don't really address my point.

I think EF is absolutely fantastic, I don't think even Relic would have done as good a job. I think the balance is just about right, I just reiterate my point about T34/85's not really have a niche when you consider how much they cost to unlock.

Maybe it should be dropped to 35 fuel / 100 munitions for T34/85? :P

tpcoughlin wrote:
Flanker 1949,

You raise many good points and valid issues. The real problem is not that the Sovs are too weak. The problem is that EF is not a finished and polished product. It is a work in progress. Many play issues revolve around ideas that improve CoH play not EF per say. Keep in mind that the game you are really playing is Rock, Paper, Scissors. This is complicated by the prerequisite that the game platform has to work for both AI and MP modes. MP games are thrilling, fun, ego-trips (when you win): but provoke a call to arms to nerf/buff the game to death when players get frustrated. the EF community respond to these battle cries very rapidly. The result is often quick fixes that work to the detriment  of the game platform long term. This Chaotic response is normal and not unreasonable; but it is counter productive to rational design process. If player reaction causes too much Chaos the development process will reach a resonance stage that could destroy either the game or the Development Teams ability to complete the process. We play the game to have fun and for instant gratification. Design and Development is work and results in delayed gratification. The customers ie players are always right, a very thorny problem indeed! If you have neither time or inclination to contribute to the design effort, fine have fun. But you can still contribute  to the Development effort by throwing some money at it. A finished version of EF will still be cheaper than a new THC product and more responsive to your desires than the profit motivated requirements of Relic. Sorry for the diatribe but psychology  and Rock, Paper Scissors go hand in hand.

Flanker1949, are you still awake? Your post indicates you have a solid appreciation for the Soviet Tech Tree and R&D possibilities; and you use a cost/effectiveness approach. Since you show some inclination to crunch numbers; analyze the effects of mp/tick maintenance costs on the number and type of units you can field in your OB. I think this will aid you in prioritizing  R&D expenditures. Let me guess, you are studying Engineering at the University?

You have received many excellent ideas in the replies to your initial post. Let me be one more. I believe your evaluation of the Tech trees and R&D options to parallel my own.

My take on EF is that the developers would like this to be a ground sloggers game. Since every challenge must have a counter look to your infantry and support troops for solutions. Lead with your nose. Get that command  squad out early. Get him vetted.
use the command squad and sharpshooter artillery call ins to interdict the enemy armor. So what if you don't destroy them. It only means that their AFVs will be of lesser quality when you do pop out that T34/85 or ISU2. The OPs and Ambulance can furnish mobility to your infantry. Stage the Zis to the OP nearest your next objective. Retreat your Battered assault forces to the Zis, reinforce at OP and attack when concentrated. Infantry and support counters.

The WM support vet strategy may pay dividends to adapt to the Sovs. Cheap Builders with ROKs and hardened combat engineers can be fielded much earlier than enhanced Strelky and Guards. Free satchel charges too! The MG? Ahh there's the rub. Where can you get a 1910/30 Maxim when you need one?

http://www.gamereplays.org/companyofheroes/portals.php?show=page&name=stratguide-supportvet

One of your posts mentioned MG pits. Nikulturni! No cost effectiveness at all. Katyushkas - The Bolshoi! Excellent cost effectiveness. Try the T90 AA for an MG unit.

On to Berlin Tovarich!

Wow  :D Thanks for your reply and good advice. It is been helpful. I hope we can play together online sometimes. My in-game-name is Zhenlin. And I study Management and Economy in University not Engineering. If I was studing engineering I would probably have at least tried to modify this mod by adding new models myself.  ;)

ForceMultiplier wrote:
haha I agree, No pop cap and rants about the mod don't really address my point.

I think EF is absolutely fantastic, I don't think even Relic would have done as good a job. I think the balance is just about right, I just reiterate my point about T34/85's not really have a niche when you consider how much they cost to unlock.

Maybe it should be dropped to 35 fuel / 100 munitions for T34/85? :P

I agree on all points comrade

EF is best mod cant thank enough to dev team
and t34/85 take a lifetime to tech to lower cost would be balanced and appreciated

I suggest a 25pt muni decrease MINIMUM for t34/85 tech and 10 fuel atleast
Its hard to come up with 50fuel and 150muni floating around in competitive games to upgun t34s

Last edited April 3, 2011 at 5:27 AM by REDcomissar

REDcomissar wrote:

ForceMultiplier wrote:
haha I agree, No pop cap and rants about the mod don't really address my point.

I think EF is absolutely fantastic, I don't think even Relic would have done as good a job. I think the balance is just about right, I just reiterate my point about T34/85's not really have a niche when you consider how much they cost to unlock.

Maybe it should be dropped to 35 fuel / 100 munitions for T34/85? :P

I agree on all points comrade

EF is best mod cant thank enough to dev team
and t34/85 take a lifetime to tech to lower cost would be balanced and appreciated

True, the best strategy game mod so far!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've done some more testing and I think we're onto something.

I would be wary of dropping the fuel requirement too much, but then I don't want to see the first T34/85 costing the same as an IS2. I think a munitions reduction is absolutely necessary.

At this stage I would advocate for 50 / 125 (fuel/munitions) unless the tank is slightly nerfed. If the tank is slightly nerfed I'd be happy with 40 / 100.

Cheers guys! Keep up the fantastic work!

If a T-34 series need something, that would be not a nerf, but a slight buff to acceleration and deceleration to increase it's battle performance. That would be especially in time and quite adequate, with wehrmacht's pak AT buffs, some heavy tanks' cost reduction, and slight buffs to heavy armored support, that are coming with the "final patch", taken into account.
After all, it's just not good, that these values are the same as ones of a panther (a much, much heavier tank): it's these that make the battle, not the speed (which, in turn, is OK ATM, I guess).

Last edited April 5, 2011 at 12:00 AM by IJoe

IJoe wrote:
If a T-34 series need something, that would be not a nerf, but a slight buff to acceleration and deseleration to increase it's battle performance.
After all, it's just not good, that these values are the same as ones of a panther (a much, much heavier tank): it's these that make the battle, not the speed (which, in turn, is OK ATM, I guess).

That was already done in 1.31 :).

blackbishop wrote:

IJoe wrote:
If a T-34 series need something, that would be not a nerf, but a slight buff to acceleration and deseleration to increase it's battle performance.
After all, it's just not good, that these values are the same as ones of a panther (a much, much heavier tank): it's these that make the battle, not the speed (which, in turn, is OK ATM, I guess).

That was already done in 1.31 :).

It was, but only to make it equal, somehow, while IMHO, T-34 should accelerate/decelerate faster.

Perhaps a compromise is 50 fuel 100 munitions. (For T34/85 unlock).

It still means the first T34/85 costs you 135 fuel, but at least it doesn't gimp your munitions.

Game-wise, and historically as well, there should not be many t-34/85s appearing, until some decent amount of panthers (starting at 3) hits the field.
So, if I were to suggest some reduction in the munition part of the cost (which I'm not sure is right), I would have to confide, that there would appear a necessity in a proportional increase of fuel (times 1.5/2, or so of that munitions amount reduced) cost of the upgrade for the matter of halting (relatively) early T-34/85 spam.
However, there seems to be a need of some change in the approach of T-34/85 entering the game, since it is rarely possible to field any significant amount of these even as a response to massive panther force,- at that stage most people find it way more appropriate and significantly less of a burden to the economy to field one, or two IS-2s (that is if they aren't just spamming SUs right from the start).
The exception to that would be a break-through doctrine, where the upgrade allows fielding tanks for free, on fuel account. But even then, most will just call in ISU, and punch with it through the enemy ranks (provided some TH and a couple of AI squads are there to support it).
Thus ATM it seems, that T-34/85 ends up heavily underused, which is sad.

P.S.: All that is not some sort of a truth in the last instance, but just my view of the situation at the current state of affairs.

T34/85 is a fantastic tank, probably the best in the game overall, and doesn't really cost that much to tech to. 150MU doesn't matter because you're Soviets and 50FU is basically nothing. Wehr pays 80 for vet 2 tanks. People should stop complaining that the best tank in the game doesn't just fall into their hands.

Sigh, I am not some kid saying: "Gimme T34/85's so I can winzz the game plzzz."

I'm trying to make the point (and IJoe seems to agree) that T34/85's are missing a place in real games. Theoretically they're great, and historically maybe we shouldn't see as many, but the point we're making is there is little reason to pay 135 fuel for your first one when you can get an IS2 instead.

Which is why I said I'm even happy to see the firepower reduced a little if it means they cost less to unlock. Right now I'd rather an IS2 and use the 150 munitions on the other million more useful things than go for T34/85's. (Which is a shame because they're such a nice tank).

I'd just like to see them being a staple in a soviet tank strategy rather than something that is best overlooked.

ForceMultiplier wrote:
Sigh, I am not some kid saying: "Gimme T34/85's so I can winzz the game plzzz."

I'm trying to make the point (and IJoe seems to agree) that T34/85's are missing a place in real games. Theoretically they're great, and historically maybe we shouldn't see as many, but the point we're making is there is little reason to pay 135 fuel for your first one when you can get an IS2 instead.

Which is why I said I'm even happy to see the firepower reduced a little if it means they cost less to unlock. Right now I'd rather an IS2 and use the 150 munitions on the other million more useful things than go for T34/85's. (Which is a shame because they're such a nice tank).

I'd just like to see them being a staple in a soviet tank strategy rather than something that is best overlooked.

+1 point very valid, this couldnt be more true and its always ashame when a unit is not used because of some fault in pricing that is correctable

thats why i just mass t34/76s not really a reason to upgun them, when u can go is2 for same price

thats why i just mass t34/76s not really a reason to upgun them, when u can go is2 for same price

Most players worth there salt as russians know that 2 T34/85 are actually just as effective as 2 ISU-122 because of the superior anti infantry and mobility. ISUs are nearly as sluggish as churchills, all they got is armour.

IS2 also requires light tankovy 55FU which you are overlooking. Taken from the perspective of someone who has yet to build their tank depot:
IS2                                    T34/85                              Panther *assume already in skirmish phase
55 FU for TD                        55FU for TD (55)                  50FU for assault phase (50)
85FU for heavy tanks            85FU for heavy tanks (140)    50FU for battle phase (100)
55FU for light tanks (140)      50FU for T34 upgun (190)      50FU for PC (150)
135FU for tank (275)            85FU for tank (275)              110FU for tank (260)
135 for second tank (410)      85FU for 2nd tank (360)        110FU for 2nd tank (370)

Therefore pricewise 2 T34/85s<2 Panthers<2 IS2s which matches their combat effectiveness. The difference only increases as more tanks are produced. Realistically, the Wehr player must research skirmish phase and build a kriegs barracks which cost a total of 60FU while a Soviet player should research at least 1 of the support barracks upgrades which is 35FU. This creates a difference of 25FU which puts the first panther 10FU later than both IS2 and T-34/85. Both the IS2 and Panther cost a significant amount more MP than the T34 as well.

Personally I would only build IS2s if I had rushed light vehicles, in which case I already have the light tanks upgrade. Any situation involving teching up from a support barracks build and I would only research heavy tanks and start pumping out T34s.

Last edited April 5, 2011 at 6:00 AM by GodlikeDennis

Your first two T34 85's cost manpower, 220 fuel and 150 munitions. You can't tell me that those resources aren't better used on something else?

I just love the tank so much, I want them to be more worthy of use :)

Let me just say something else, which is why these "tables" or crunching "numbers" is of little use...

You're in the heat of a fight, and you have some fuel to spend. The opposition already has panthers on the field. Are you honestly going to go go for a T34/85 upgrade, then build a T34/85 with your 135 fuel or are you going to go straight for your shiny new IS2?

You talk about the ability to build more T34/85's at a discount rate, but at the end of the day you can only build one tank at a time, and when we need the firepower on the ground you're going to go for that IS2. At least the IS2 can get straight into the action with more hope of surviving. We all know a lone T34/85 isn't going to survive long against even 1 panther.

So can we stop looking at this from a mathematical point of view and instead look at a "real game" situation, because don't forget, time is also money and I know i'd rather have an IS2 now than maybe 2 T34's in the "future."

Last edited April 5, 2011 at 6:08 AM by ForceMultiplier

Munitions are negligible in the Soviet faction. 2 T34/85s cost less FU than 2 IS2s as well as vast amounts less manpower (especially since the light tanks upgrade costs around 200 from memory). Just the tanks cost 1200 MP whereas 2 T34s only cost 760. Therefore, T34s are better in a support barracks build where manpower is spent on support weapons, strelky and probably guards since you now have all 3 buildings. IS2s are more appropriate in a fast vehicle build since you would be more fuel restricted than manpower restriced and would likely be using (personally I would) sturmovie ingenery since they are MP cheap and can vent your spare munis. They are excellent troops that wouldn't require support barracks and are a counter to bunkers and paks that would be your LVs weakness. They can also repair all your vehicles easily.

EDIT: Alright, in a real game situation I would rather T34s even more. Mobility and anti-infantry effectiveness are key. If he had panther popped out I would have built AT guns as the counter rather than try a last minute tech to tanks. Also, your time argument is flawed. A T34 only requires the one upgrade but IS2s require both. Therefore, in the time taken to research both upgrades I have already built one T34 and have a 2nd on the way.

Your first two IS2s cost 1200MP, 270FU. You can't tell me those resources aren't better used on something else? Oh wait, I'd rather T-34s.

Last edited April 5, 2011 at 6:41 AM by GodlikeDennis