Soviet is Overpowered

Can you please change/remove the following soviet units or buildings?
IS-2 will be replaced with KV-85 not as a reward unit
IS-3 will be replaced with IS-2 not as a reward unit
Remove the Artillery Fire Base
Make the T-34/85 replace the T-34/76
T-70 and T-90 will be replace with an Armored Car with a upgradable main gun and not as a reward unit
Remove the SU-76
Outpost will be replace with Observation Post
Remove the Extra Damage in ZIS-2's Dig In ability
Remove the Precision Artillery Ability in Sharpshooter but not in Sniper Ace
KV-2 will be replaced with SU-122 not as a reward unit
Remove the Ballistics Veteran Upgrade
Remove the Gunnery Veteran Upgrade but Dig In can be used without the upgrade
Remove the Assault Gear Upgrade
Remove the DP-28 LMG in Shock Guard Upgrade

thank you.

and what should be the reason?

just by posting to remove this and this (at least without a reason and without replays) i can tell you no we wont remove/change this!

Look at the title

Well that's a great title, but how are they overpowered? You have to present lively and debatable reasons not just say:
Hi I just met you and this is crazy, but I don't like these units, so kill them, maybe?

I personally like my Soviets just the way they are (except maybe vs. PE).

look what i have said :P

without backup of replays definetly no!

next woutl be to know if you play vs players or against comp



but in the end there is to say that a awesoem group of high skilled players balanced the current soviets
so its pretty hard to believe that all this stuff is "broken"



edit:
it is like neosdark said
only the balance against pe is atm not 100% but will be improoved in the next patch

The wrote:
Look at the title

You need justification. For example: "Guards are too OP and should be changed because they absolutely destroy PG even when the PG are in green cover and there are 2 squads of them"

neosdark wrote:
Hi I just met you and this is crazy, but I don't like these units, so kill them, maybe?

LOL neosdark that song is everywhere these days

At least let him explain why its op and has to be changed. Maybe he is currently writing his explanations. All you guys doing is making fun of him thats uncool.

At least these things make sense:

IS-2 will be replaced with KV-85 not as a reward unit
IS-3 will be replaced with IS-2 not as a reward unit
Make the T-34/85 replace the T-34/76
Remove the Assault Gear Upgrade

IS2 makes more sense to be in the place of IS3 as heavy BT call inn. IS2 is not needed in basic gameplay, because T34/85 is designed to fight Panthers and Tigers already. IS2 is just cool in gameplay because allies finally have something similar to Tiger. I still think the implementation of IS3 is a bad decision, because it didnt fight against germans. Maus actually was blown up because of war engagments and has more justification to be implemented than IS3.
KV85 as heaviest basic tank seems ok if IS2 is BT call inn.
If you upgrade the 85mm gun you wont build the T34 76 anymore. Once upgraded the T34/76 tank is redundant.
Soviets have too many SMG´s. Maybe not removing Sturmovie upgrade at all but the SMG´s.

Last edited July 26, 2012 at 1:54 PM by Killar

@the Fuhrer,
Greetings and welcome to the club. I quess you ar new to the EF_mod. I'm a compstomper. I don't know whether you prefer to play pvp or stomping. I have been interested in this mod for 1.5 years and played with 5 of the 7 versions presented so far. Each time a new version comes out it takes me a month to 6 weeks to absorb it. Trust me I know this mod very well. The learning curve is very steep.

I agree with some of your suggestions but they are the ones requesting missing squads like a BA10 AI armored car that can be converted to a AT armored car and ultimately a troop carrier. Probably won't happen, but if you don't ask you don't get. I disagree with your suggestions to do away with squads you don't like or know how to use.  As the Balancers say I think you may have a L2P problem. I take issue with you on somethings you have said. I can take down or force Shockguards to retreat with PG. It takes the right mix like assault Grenadiers with MP44s and you don't do it from cover. You charge the suckers. You don't attack elite infantry at 2:1 odds either. If you are going to attack use 3:1 numerical odds at least. Personally I like a 4squad blob. It will be costly but you will win. These tactics have worked for me in wargaming for 37 years. If you play pvp. Do as APEMEN has said and send a replay. The high level players on the balance team are very generous with their time in reviewing these things. If there is an imbalance you canhelp them ferret it out.

Guys, it is his first post give him a break. I've deleted most of the post because were not necessary, so let's not derail the topic.

Now, for the suggestions... I agree with Killar and in fact at some point in the EF team some Devs proposed something along these suggestions:

QuoteIS-2 will be replaced with KV-85 not as a reward unit
IS-3 will be replaced with IS-2 not as a reward unit
Remove the Assault Gear Upgrade
Remove the SU-76

But at the end were denied. Now if Balancers find than some of those suggestions(the ones of the OP) would help EF, we could test them in our internal version and if they don't work we can just roll back everything.

I agree with none of it. The only reason to change anything would be on historical grounds for IS-2 and 3, and there would be no point because we would just rebalance the units to match their replacement unit anyway.

If you have particular trouble against Soviets then post a replay in the help thread but don't come here demanding changes without any justification or replay.

Soviets need the SU76. Otherwise a tier1 -> tier3 strat doesnt work anymore.

USA has M8 which is comparable to a T70/T90 strat, however can be completly countered by a PE P4 and Wehr T3 Stug. USA counters this again with a ATgun they have in the same tier. Soviets have the SU76 for this.

Deleting the SU76 is like deleting the Atgun for USA in tier3.

Backteching to tier2 to get the atgun is no viable option, because you save all the fuel and rush for tier3 to spam tanks and to be very agressive. If you backtech you loose the fuel to further follow this strat (SU76 is a mobile atgun and can be very flexible in a attacking strat unlike the atgun)

The only thing which is ATM Op is the IS3 vs Wehr, I am on training vs my clanmate Eastwood (like me a vetran of COH) or if u watch replays form good Sovietplayers like GD
Its allways Breakthrough IS3 and to be honest I dont know how you want to balance it, its just an unrealistic unit.
The main problem is that the Is3 is just better than every the German heavy, ok the Kt would win a 1v1, but its slow as hell, just look at Vcoh no good player is going straight for KT
I personally think that the Tigerace is twice as good as the Kt
So why not just remove it and take a IS2ace for it or Nerf it and gave it the stats of a IS2ace ;)

We can just nerf the IS3 :).

blackbishop wrote:
We can just nerf the IS3 :).

->

e-gon wrote:
Nerf it and gave it the stats of a IS2ace ;)

I just dont like unhistorical units, in the end we got a Battel between a T55 and a E-50ausfG and both getting killed by Frencharti with Revolvercannon, oh Stop! that was WOT ;D
I hope you get my piont now 8)

I don't always go BT at all. I go LHS prop more often than not. However, IS-3 is usually a solid thing to fall back on if I don't need any doctrinal things and just get it as a bonus. In the next patch we are working on making RHS Prop and Urban doc more viable. The IS-3 is also having some fixes related to Shrek and Pak damage modifiers.

Ok put its still to strong vs WEHRMACHT heavy
My suggestions was:

e-gon wrote:

I hope this is the right thread.

IS-3 the historical balance Problems
Dont worry is not going to be a whine post about a postwar tank ;)
The advantages of the Is3 is his brutal frontal armor in combination with this speed, so it outclasses the ISU AND every wehrmachttank.
On town maps, for example, you just cant relay on paks and here strats the problem.
The speed of IS3 makes it nearly impossibel  to get on the back of it.
This wouldnt be a problem if the sidearmor would be sidearmor, but in COH sidearomor is 50% chance for frontarmor and a 50%chance for backarmor, if I am rgth, am I?
So there are two things the shell be changed -> slow the tower turning ratio down, just a littel bit -> if it is a littel bit slower, a flanking tank/squads or whatever wouldnt be killed so fast and decrease its sidearmor, dont know if its possible, but my idea would be; increase the backarmor and make sidearmor 100% backarmor
This changes wouldnt effect it so much against PE

Or just give me a 

Just kidding ;D

IS3 armor should have less penetration on frontal compared to the IS2 because of the sloped design of it. Also it has 25% more HP because of the weapons modifier thats ok for a 1 time call inn. However it should be as vulnerable as a IS2 rear armor. Thats currently not the case.

ApeMen wrote:
and what should be the reason?

Because he is the Fuhrer yo!

Lets be honest. Almost everyone goes BT. Not always but for the most part yes. IS3>KT more often than not. IS3>Tiger so blitz becomes alot less powerful, especially with the SU-85 which rips apart StuHs and does surprisingly well vs infantry. IS3 can soak up a relatively good number of 88 shots and still keep ticking. Not to mention you get Airstrikes which do multiple runs with strafes AND bombing runs. And mechanics and T-34 riders which only add to this. Its like if u have no idea what to do BT always works out.

Sir wrote:
Lets be honest. Almost everyone goes BT. Not always but for the most part yes. IS3>KT more often than not. IS3>Tiger so blitz becomes alot less powerful, especially with the SU-85 which rips apart StuHs and does surprisingly well vs infantry. IS3 can soak up a relatively good number of 88 shots and still keep ticking. Not to mention you get Airstrikes which do multiple runs with strafes AND bombing runs. And mechanics and T-34 riders which only add to this. Its like if u have no idea what to do BT always works out.

Yes but I find that Soviet Sturmovik airstrikes to be quite inefficient for clearing an area. They often tend to miss the important targets (i.e. Panthers and Tigers) and seem to kill more dirt than Germans. On the other hand God of War artillery is just blissful to use. It quickly clears an area of all living things. I tend to pick Propaganda doctrine just for that ability.

IL-2 has been changed again to something quite spectacular. Maybe we can post a video of this. It fixes the issue of the rocket run not really hitting targets and often not even firing off.

GodlikeDennis wrote:
IL-2 has been changed again to something quite spectacular. Maybe we can post a video of this. It fixes the issue of the rocket run not really hitting targets and often not even firing off.

Great because it seemed like the pilots were just flying overhead and watching the fight. :P

@MBJrP36
Those pilots were executed and we got new ones :P.

Sir wrote:
Lets be honest. Almost everyone goes BT. Not always but for the most part yes. IS3>KT more often than not. IS3>Tiger so blitz becomes alot less powerful, especially with the SU-85 which rips apart StuHs and does surprisingly well vs infantry. IS3 can soak up a relatively good number of 88 shots and still keep ticking. Not to mention you get Airstrikes which do multiple runs with strafes AND bombing runs. And mechanics and T-34 riders which only add to this. Its like if u have no idea what to do BT always works out.

My sturmovies fire bullets on Dirt and tanks while firing rockets on random trees and fences

GodlikeDennis wrote:
IL-2 has been changed again to something quite spectacular. Maybe we can post a video of this. It fixes the issue of the rocket run not really hitting targets and often not even firing off.

Yes please!

GodlikeDennis wrote:
I don't always go BT at all. I go LHS prop more often than not. However, IS-3 is usually a solid thing to fall back on if I don't need any doctrinal things and just get it as a bonus.

I always see that you have an IS3 when you defeat Yauz, must be coincidence.

GodlikeDennis wrote:
IL-2 has been changed again to something quite spectacular. Maybe we can post a video of this. It fixes the issue of the rocket run not really hitting targets and often not even firing off.

Nice !!!
Last game that we played 3v3 , bombing runs wasnt accurate.

GodlikeDennis wrote:
IL-2 has been changed again to something quite spectacular. Maybe we can post a video of this. It fixes the issue of the rocket run not really hitting targets and often not even firing off.

Bludy hell, BT seems IMBA now :o

Whats IMBA mean ???

Means unbalanced

e-gon wrote:

GodlikeDennis wrote:
IL-2 has been changed again to something quite spectacular. Maybe we can post a video of this. It fixes the issue of the rocket run not really hitting targets and often not even firing off.

Bludy hell, BT seems IMBA now :o

No its no rocket strike anymore, but something different. IL2 planes will always fire now, not just fly over if there is anything to shoot at.
A USA bombing run can kill a panther in one strike. IL2 needs 4 strikes for this, so you can say the power of 1 USA strike is divided by 4. Plenty of time to flee.

How many planes that can damage tanks will fly over the field ?
Or their count will depend on how many enemy tanks will be in the area :) ?

@ The Furher: AN EXCELLENT FIRST POST!

blackbishop wrote:
Now, for the suggestions... I agree with Killar and in fact at some point in the EF team some Devs proposed something along these suggestions:

QuoteIS-2 will be replaced with KV-85 not as a reward unit
IS-3 will be replaced with IS-2 not as a reward unit
Remove the Assault Gear Upgrade
Remove the SU-76

But at the end were denied. Now if Balancers find than some of those suggestions(the ones of the OP) would help EF, we could test them in our internal version and if they don't work we can just roll back everything.

The DevTeam was correct to reject these suggestions.

GodlikeDennis wrote:
I agree with none of it. The only reason to change anything would be on historical grounds for IS-2 and 3,

I aggree with this as well.

Sir wrote:
Lets be honest. Almost everyone goes BT. Not always but for the most part yes. IS3>KT more often than not. IS3>Tiger so blitz becomes alot less powerful, especially with the SU-85 which rips apart StuHs and does surprisingly well vs infantry. IS3 can soak up a relatively good number of 88 shots and still keep ticking. Not to mention you get Airstrikes which do multiple runs with strafes AND bombing runs. And mechanics and T-34 riders which only add to this. Its like if u have no idea what to do BT always works out.

Sharkey this is a lot of malarkyey. IS3 and airstrikes are "late game". CT_0 -Propaganda and CT_1 -Urban give players the opportunity to end the game in the late "mid-game" time frame.

GodlikeDennis wrote:
IL-2 has been changed again to something quite spectacular. Maybe we can post a video of this. It fixes the issue of the rocket run not really hitting targets and often not even firing off.

blackbishop wrote:
@MBJrP36
Those pilots were executed and we got new ones :P .

If the IL-2 airstrike is supposed to be effective against armor I agree with the NKVD decision to execute the pilots. I have found IL-2 Are adequate at anti_infantry work and  Lt_vehicles. Woe to the PE player who doesn't have Wirbels or a pair of ACs handy. This raises the question of wether T90s will be sufficient to deal with OH airstrikes.

IL2 will be just like it is now but the anti tank ability will change.
Actually the new IL2 is very old by now.

Otto wrote:
Sharkey this is a lot of malarkyey. IS3 and airstrikes are "late game". CT_0 -Propaganda and CT_1 -Urban give players the opportunity to end the game in the late "mid-game" time frame.

Maybe I can understand Propaganda but Urban IMO lacks power. And the IS-3 can come around mid-late game. And until that comes u can just get SU-85s which tear apart G wagens, StuGs, or Marders. The airstrikes dont seem to be a problem for everyone so maybe thats just me. IDK how many games vs players u play but a HUGE majority of them get BT and occasionally Prop. Only once have I seen Urban and thats cause me and a friend were testing 1.6 out.

To tell the truth Urban is my favorite. I like BT too. Propaganda only needs the damn OBR dealt with. I tell you one way BT and Urban are IMBA though. 750mp for a Tankrider is cheap. 750 mp for Sniper ace is OK. 500mp for an IS3 when the SU122 costs 600mp. NiKulturni. 700 fot a JagdPZIV is too high as well IMO.

What is the problem about the OBR?

Otto wrote:
NiKulturni.

No idea what this means.

Otto wrote:
700 fot a JagdPZIV is too high as well IMO.

Hetzer IIRC is either 650 or 600. And Jagd is more AT. But I guess u r right in that the price difference is kinda weird. Both of them act a bit diff but not enormously different to the point where one outperforms the other and must have its price raised.

IS3 has a fuel drain.

Killar wrote:
IS3 has a fuel drain.

How much is it

IS3 is fine. I did run some tests before, and a vet 3 IS 3 will lose to a vet3 offensive vet jagdpanther, and looses to a king tiger.

I wish i documented the tests, but all in all the IS3 is fine compared to the other tanks

NiKulturni: Russian or Ukrainian? for culturless or crass.

I like IS# just fine. Good idea Red Guard had. Problem is I like the Beatkiller too.

robotnik wrote:
IS3 is fine. I did run some tests before, and a vet 3 IS 3 will lose to a vet3 offensive vet jagdpanther, and looses to a king tiger.

I wish i documented the tests, but all in all the IS3 is fine compared to the other tanks

IS3 is OP currently

If IS3 is OP as well it might be, why not increase the cost. IIRC it first appeared at 900mp and now it is 500mp. IS2 is 630mp at 135Fl IIRC

Simply Increasing the cost is not a very good solution to fixing balance. IIRC there was an arguement once where a doc ability was too powerful and someone made it one CP more but it didnt fix it. Its like taking the old jagdtiger(which IIRC is more powerful than the current jagdtiger) and replacing it with the jagdpanther and simply tacking on 100 more mp. It still makes it OP none the less. PAying 100 more mp(oe w/e cost) is not going to solve an awful much

robotnik wrote:
IS3 is fine. I did run some tests before, and a vet 3 IS 3 will lose to a vet3 offensive vet jagdpanther, and looses to a king tiger.

Yeah but IS-3 will usually be supported by IS-2 which IMO is alot stronger than panther

Last edited July 28, 2012 at 8:33 PM by Sir Sharks Alot

Fish changing the cost, the cap, (one in this case), or the CP cost are all effective if not all inclusive balancing tools. Remember there are four resources in game. modifying any of the resources does effect balance. BTW the fourth resource is the most important, time.

Simply slapping on 100 extra mp or so isnt going to fix the problem efficiently. The unit itself is still OP. You just had to pay slightly more. And mp is vital yes but an extra 100-200 can be gained in a single minute. Not a huge deterrent. Its not like ppl will be like "OMG IS-3 now cost 600 mp (or 6 CP)?!?! No way Im getting this anymore! So UP"

Otto wrote:
changing the cost, the cap, (one in this case), or the CP cost are all effective if not all inclusive balancing tools.

Not to sound mean but can u name an instance where this has actually worked and is solidly implemented atm. I dont read through changelogs much so I could be wrong but AFAIK this concept hasn't been implemented. Well I think conscripts used to cost less IIRC. Possibly the SU-122 and NI too but I dont use those too often so IDK for sure. Those are the only units I can think of where the cost has increased.

Last edited July 29, 2012 at 1:02 AM by Sir Sharks Alot

Sir wrote:
Simply slapping on 100 extra mp or so isnt going to fix the problem efficiently. The unit itself is still OP. You just had to pay slightly more. And mp is vital yes but an extra 100-200 can be gained in a single minute. Not a huge deterrent. Its not like ppl will be like "OMG IS-3 now cost 600 mp (or 6 CP)?!?! No way Im getting this anymore! So UP"

IS-3 cost the same as the KT. You're introduced a MP Drain AFAIK.

Essentially, both cost 500 manpower up-front but take about 500 manpower total from your income for 5 minutes. So in essence the unit basically cost 1000 manpower long term.

I thought it was 3 min not 5. But I forgot the mp drain. So u would basically go from losing 1000mp to like 1100mp

You are both on the right track here. A five minute delay to acquire some resource is significant. The VP timer can run down in five minutes. Game over. You both set store in replays. Do you look at the total elapsed gameplay time? Do you predicate your teching strategies on how long an average game lasts? Or how long  a game lasts when you play with a particular faction or against a particular opponent?

Here are some thinking or talking points worth considering when time is the critical resource. They are relative minimums reflecting my compstomper proclivities but you can extend them as required based upon the savvy of your opponent. 1v1 play, we are talking 50-70 percent map control here. Soviets, Wehr  and PE can implement The equivalent of Lt_Tankovy production in 7-9 minutes. IE you can produce one tank per minute after this time. heavy tank production takes about 14 minutes to implement after which you can produce one H Tank every 90s to 2 min. 2 KV85 can be available in ~18 minutes and take down the enemy base in 21-22 minutes. It takes 20 minutes to rush a panther bg. In this model game length is 22 to 24 minutes average VP ticker=0. In each case listed Lt tanks to heavy tanks to BG callin the time frame is ~4-5 minutes. So increasing the cost of an "OP Class" callin by 500mp is roughly the eguivalent to raising the tier level of your armor squads by one. You have equated this to 500mp=5 minutes. That seems about right. If i can win the game in the 5 minutes it takes you to get an "OP class" squad the OP status doesn't matter and the game is ~balanced. @ Cranial consider the concept more than the numbers please.

Otto wrote:
@ Cranial consider the concept more than the numbers please.

I dont think he wants to be part of this conversation(and for good reason). He just wanted to throw in a quick fact.

Otto wrote:
1v1 play, we are talking 50-70 percent map control here. Soviets, Wehr  and PE can implement The equivalent of Lt_Tankovy production in 7-9 minutes.

As Wehr in a PvP you generally dont have much map control early game. You focus on one spot. Your map control (as I was told) is generally 30% give or take. Later on you gain more of the map.

Otto wrote:
IE you can produce one tank per minute after this time.

I dont know how or what u play but I dont think a tank comes out every minute. You must be floating ALOT of fuel and mp.

20min to a panther bg seems iffy. Some ppl say they you can get it in 10 but its only if they are dominating.

Otto wrote:
So increasing the cost of an "OP Class" callin by 500mp is roughly the eguivalent to raising the tier level of your armor squads by one. You have equated this to 500mp=5 minutes. That seems about right. If i can win the game in the 5 minutes it takes you to get an "OP class" squad the OP status doesn't matter and the game is ~balanced.

Who says you are increasing the call in by 500mp? We just noted that the mp drain equals 500 not that we were tacking on another 500 mp. You feel the mp AFTER getting the call in, not b4 u get it. SO yeah, you lose 500 mp over the course of 5 min but you already would have ur OP unit

This is not balanced at all anywho. To say its ok if its OP as long as its late game is just weird. Anyone can end a game mid game. But between to decent and equal players it'll generally go to late game. And then suddenly OP units come out on one side and its your fault b/c you should have ended it quicker? A unit that is OP is OP. Forget time.

Last edited July 29, 2012 at 2:34 AM by Sir Sharks Alot

Fish if the cost of a callin is increased from 500 to 1000 the 5 minutes it takes to get the additional resource is before the fact. capiche? That is the "balance tool" part of the equation.

In pvp amonst relative equals I would think the range of map control should be 50-50 plus or minus 10; in other words 40-60 % When you speak of 30%I presume you are talking about setting up a minimum viable economic base. I this regard consider this:  Sovs:35 FL/min = goodfuel economy. 40FL/min = strongfuel economy 50 fl/min= strongerfuel economy.  at good to strong fuel economy you can build one T70 (270/35) or SU76(320/50) per minute avg. If you have a strong or stronger fuel economy you can build one T34(380/80) or one KV85 (500/90) every 90-120 seconds. the fuel economy levels vary a liitle from faction to faction but you can figure them out pretty easily.

Regarding the time frame for Panther BG call-in IIRC 235Fuel are required with no other fuel expenditure. ~ 25FL/min =avg fuel economy 2 mins for 1000mp ~12min. I've done it maybe once in 15 minutes. Normally you have distractions that keep you from focussing on the BG priority. 18 minutes @ 25FL/min gives you increased squads 2ACs, mortarHT,HT + . BG research is reasonable in the time frame.