[Soviet][All] - Shock Rifle Frontline OP

#1
2 years ago
mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
edited December 2018 in Balance Feedback

I noticed this commander has KV8 at 0CP, not a 1 unit call in mind you. Totally able to field multiple units!
Shock Troops at 2CP. Camoflauge ATG at 2CP.
Off map incidenary area denial at 7CP
And IS2 at 13CP!

IS2 vs Tiger stats
IS2 has better frontal armor, equal rear armor and HP
IS2 has slightly slow gun but better penetration and anti-infantry
IS2 is slightly slower movement
https://www.coh2db.com/stats/#95
https://www.coh2db.com/stats/#109

A good player can totally dominate using this. You have anti-infantry in shock. Anti weapon teams with KV8 and offmap flames. Anti tank with camo ATG and IS2 frontal armor while backed up by SU85.
How did this slid through?

Solution is to move KV8 to 6CP, limit to 1 unit. No reason why P4 Command tank got nerfed and still at 9CP!
Remove incendiary and replace with smoke barrage at 4CP

Comments

  • #2
    2 years ago
    Kv8 is at 0cp but you have to built it from T4 building so move it to 6cp will not change to much thing.

    P4 comman is at 9cp because it is call in unit, dont have to build.
  • #3
    2 years ago
    mrdjjag81mrdjjag81 Posts: 305
    edited December 2018

    Not a very commonly used commander, but pretty inf focused right now, the is2 is an "ok" tank that can take a beating, but really dosnt have so much of an impact in term of dammage in late game. KV8 is pretty much like a brummbar in term of anti-inf capacity, but pretty much useless against tanks in late game, all thought brummbar can dammage tanks. So i dont see any reason why u shouldnt had the choice, if you can afford it, building 2 kv8. Most likely you wont have any fuel left over to any is2 since they cost 145 fuel each. Means you will be overunned by tanks in the end if you don't have any tanks and just anti-inf. Anti tank guns is so easly decrewed by everyting is almost not worth build them in late game anymore.

    I could argu that the other is2 commander with t-74/85, selfrepear, radio hack and il2 strafe is way harder to counter then.

  • #4
    2 years ago
    Moving the KV-8 to CP 6 would make it arrive sooner than it currently does. The fact that you don't understand this is kind of an issue with your point...
  • #5
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,681

    He thinks IS-2 is better then Tiger at killing infantry.
    That's all we need to know about his blind fanboyism and zero clue on the game.

  • #6
    2 years ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    Yes is2 is better as AI. It already starts off with a 4 vs 5-6 man advantage. Its mg are better. It has better aoe and scatter to get splash damage. Its higher armor allows it to stay longer to damage pak guns.

    Back to topic. I was being too generous. A 8-9 cp kv8 call in is fine too. T4 isn't as hard to get than 8cp. The point is kv8 is very good, better than brumbar in killing weapon teams and chasing back infantry. This commander has too good units in one. Yes the il2 is also op, but thats because il2 is trolling much, i seen it attacking infantry in base.
  • #7
    2 years ago
    > @mrgame2 said:
    > Yes is2 is better as AI. It already starts off with a 4 vs 5-6 man advantage. Its mg are better. It has better aoe and scatter to get splash damage.

    What do you mean by better scatter? I hope you understand that the larger a scatter value, the worse the performance. The Tigers main gun is much more reliable against infantry than the IS-2s
  • #8
    2 years ago
    Tiger is better against infantry for sure because of its ROF and scatter. It makes it more reliable and that's what you want in a unit. The is-2 Can do very well, but it can also biff the shot and it has more down time when that happens. Against medium armour again the tiger has the advantage die to the range and ROF, but is vulnerable to TDs, the is-2 has the armour to bounce incoming fire and the pen to make its shots count but certainly has less overall dps.

    The units are wonderfully balanced when compared to each other
  • #9
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,007
    edited December 2018

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    The units are wonderfully balanced when compared to each other

    If the infantry game was not somewhat lopsided for the allies so that it incentivises building mostly TDs, Id totally agree. As is now the IS-2 in generally less prone to get automatically hardcountered as the Tiger is by Fireflies, Jacksons or SU-85s. The worst thing that can happen to an IS-2 short of doctrinals is a Panther, which happens to be far less ubiquitous.

  • #10
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,681

    @Hingie said:

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    The units are wonderfully balanced when compared to each other

    If the infantry game was not somewhat lopsided for the allies so that it incentivises building mostly TDs, Id totally agree. As is now the IS-2 in generally less prone to get automatically hardcountered as the Tiger is by Fireflies, Jacksons or SU-85s. The worst thing that can happen to an IS-2 short of doctrinals is a Panther, which happens to be far less ubiquitous.

    Perhaps you should spam less grenadiers and panthers and consider building a PaK or two? You know, the things that hardcounter TDs and protect your tanks.

  • #11
    2 years ago

    @Hingie said:

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    The units are wonderfully balanced when compared to each other

    If the infantry game was not somewhat lopsided for the allies so that it incentivises building mostly TDs, Id totally agree. As is now the IS-2 in generally less prone to get automatically hardcountered as the Tiger is by Fireflies, Jacksons or SU-85s. The worst thing that can happen to an IS-2 short of doctrinals is a Panther, which happens to be far less ubiquitous.

    ive said that for the last few patches actually. i feel like medium tanks are more optional as allies because their infantry game is so strong they can dump their fuel into TDs to counter the armour that the axis often needs to try and balance out the infantry fight. a general realignment of infantry would be good for the game, id like to see some other elements like cap speed and what not applied to the infantry roles and balance

    however your point on the is-2 is slightly balanced simply by being so restrictive in doctrines means its use depends on whats meta, whereas the KT is always available and the tiger is in nearly 3x as many doctrines as the is-2 meaning you can usually find SOMETHING thats meta/not underpowered/fits your playstyle.

  • #12
    2 years ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496

    @Katitof said:

    @Hingie said:

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    The units are wonderfully balanced when compared to each other

    If the infantry game was not somewhat lopsided for the allies so that it incentivises building mostly TDs, Id totally agree. As is now the IS-2 in generally less prone to get automatically hardcountered as the Tiger is by Fireflies, Jacksons or SU-85s. The worst thing that can happen to an IS-2 short of doctrinals is a Panther, which happens to be far less ubiquitous.

    Perhaps you should spam less grenadiers and panthers and consider building a PaK or two? You know, the things that hardcounter TDs and protect your tanks.

    Pak get hard decrew faster due to allies superior infantry and arty.

    Even T70 and Scott is trolling Pak. Where is axis equivalent?

    Hence we are saying either give axis hard infantry counter or regain their late tanks armor.

  • #13
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,681
    edited December 2018

    @mrgame2 said:

    @Katitof said:

    @Hingie said:

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    The units are wonderfully balanced when compared to each other

    If the infantry game was not somewhat lopsided for the allies so that it incentivises building mostly TDs, Id totally agree. As is now the IS-2 in generally less prone to get automatically hardcountered as the Tiger is by Fireflies, Jacksons or SU-85s. The worst thing that can happen to an IS-2 short of doctrinals is a Panther, which happens to be far less ubiquitous.

    Perhaps you should spam less grenadiers and panthers and consider building a PaK or two? You know, the things that hardcounter TDs and protect your tanks.

    Pak get hard decrew faster due to allies superior infantry and arty.

    Even T70 and Scott is trolling Pak. Where is axis equivalent?

    Hence we are saying either give axis hard infantry counter or regain their late tanks armor.

    Then feel free to continute making horrible build orders, losing due to not fielding correct counters due to either micro incapability to use them correctly or just pure denial about their effectiveness(likely both in your case) and spamming balance threads where the only issue to fix is sitting between your keyboard and a chair.

  • #14
    2 years ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 903

    @mrgame2
    OST halftrack 251: 200mp 90ammo for double flame thrower
    Soviet halftrack M5: 270mp with 2 Engineer for total 610mp & 120ammo for double flame thrower
    What is equivalent?

    You complain about IS2 armor is higher than Tiger, when IS2 only available in 2 commanders & it shots really slow & low accuracy. You dont see Allied players complain about how Tiger shoot faster & more accurate than IS2

    You complain about how Jackson have 5 range more than Panther, but you ignore about Panther has speed of a Light tank that can out chase any Allied Medium tanks

    You complain about Luch being worse than T70, but you dont see Allied players complain about Luch comes 50fuel earlier than T70. That 50fuel time is what we call "time advantage", you miss the time, you miss Luch's advantage.

    You complain about Carrier & M3 is hard to fight against without default faust because you dont want Carrier & M3 to have any "time advantage"at all

    You totally dont see the strength & weakness of each faction, but only seek for Axis's weakness and compare to Allied's strength

  • #15
    2 years ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    edited December 2018

    @C3Tooth said:
    @mrgame2
    OST halftrack 251: 200mp 90ammo for double flame thrower
    Soviet halftrack M5: 270mp with 2 Engineer for total 610mp & 120ammo for double flame thrower
    What is equivalent?

    You complain about IS2 armor is higher than Tiger, when IS2 only available in 2 commanders & it shots really slow & low accuracy. You dont see Allied players complain about how Tiger shoot faster & more accurate than IS2

    You complain about how Jackson have 5 range more than Panther, but you ignore about Panther has speed of a Light tank that can out chase any Allied Medium tanks

    You complain about Luch being worse than T70, but you dont see Allied players complain about Luch comes 50fuel earlier than T70. That 50fuel time is what we call "time advantage", you miss the time, you miss Luch's advantage.

    You complain about Carrier & M3 is hard to fight against without default faust because you dont want Carrier & M3 to have any "time advantage"at all

    You totally dont see the strength & weakness of each faction, but only seek for Axis's weakness and compare to Allied's strength

    What? The 251 HT needs a BP1 tech + 2 buildings and in total 90 fuel. Allies player will have an ATG out soon and AT nades upgraded or PTRS upgrade (PTRS > Shrek for light vehicles). Ost can rush a flamer, but that means skipping grens and mortar, which is crazy. Besides Relic already nerfed the 251 again!

    The soviet m3 clown car can be gotten almost straight away, just need 25 fuel in total. And 1 building, which you also get Penals, so no sacrificing much. 75 vs 50 difference, Penal vs skipped grens, and you are whining about Luch? And before the 60 ammo flame engineer upgrade, it can harass axis infantry because of the superior MG, and it can still shoot the MG together with flames! It can also capture points. It has super overdrive to escape out. Even with faust, it can still back away faster than Axis infantry to give chase. Basically it is a super kubel. So again Allies have an early shock unit.

    The mortar carrier is the ultimate troll unit. There is no 'time advantage', there is no direct counter. It is a super leig placed ontop a stuart. I am surprise Relic hasnt looked into it.

    As for Luch, the old version that shred infantry and ATG, yes it is good. The current Luch is nerf, it cannot clear ATG as fast as T70.

    And no, Panther is slightly faster than some med tanks, not all, Cromwell is faster. It is no way as fast as light tanks. I wish it was, it needs some kind of buff. Panther while reload is good, its turret is still amongst slowest to lock on.

  • #16
    2 years ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496

    @Katitof said:

    @mrgame2 said:

    @Katitof said:

    @Hingie said:

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    The units are wonderfully balanced when compared to each other

    If the infantry game was not somewhat lopsided for the allies so that it incentivises building mostly TDs, Id totally agree. As is now the IS-2 in generally less prone to get automatically hardcountered as the Tiger is by Fireflies, Jacksons or SU-85s. The worst thing that can happen to an IS-2 short of doctrinals is a Panther, which happens to be far less ubiquitous.

    Perhaps you should spam less grenadiers and panthers and consider building a PaK or two? You know, the things that hardcounter TDs and protect your tanks.

    Pak get hard decrew faster due to allies superior infantry and arty.

    Even T70 and Scott is trolling Pak. Where is axis equivalent?

    Hence we are saying either give axis hard infantry counter or regain their late tanks armor.

    Then feel free to continute making horrible build orders, losing due to not fielding correct counters due to either micro incapability to use them correctly or just pure denial about their effectiveness(likely both in your case) and spamming balance threads where the only issue to fix is sitting between your keyboard and a chair.

    I may not be the top 500 players. But lets be honest, Ost has been "over" balanced much. There is less correct counters than Soviet. Imo the way relic approach balance is not right. As they mentioned, Ost is their 'reference' faction, i am afraid, this means looking too hard in Ost meta, and try to increase/decrease counters to it. Which is why we have now Allies tanks with superior armor, Allies infantry OP still. The stats prove it, the matches prove it. Ost in anything 2v2 and above, is the lowest rung faction now.

  • #17
    2 years ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496

    btw there are reasons why IS2, even in 2 commanders only, are more widely used than tiger. :wink:
    Again it is about unit composition. Performance per cost. And certain stats are better than others. Soviet are clearly superior to Ost on all these front now.
    I believe the following is better
    IS2 + conscript + zis
    IS2 + SU85
    than
    Tiger + gren + pak40
    Tiger + 2 Stug.

    Anyway back to topic, i am surprised how far Kv8 flames can shoot and how long it stays buring. It can basically destroy bunkers just by staying and spraying for a few seconds. Much less weapon teams and building garrion.

    We talked about how good 251 flame HT, but flame damages now need burn time, and Kv8 can stick around to clear Pak guns a little too long..

    It needs a rear armor nerf, and no reason why this can be buildable and togther with IS2 in same commander...

  • #18
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,681

    @mrgame2 said:

    @Katitof said:

    @mrgame2 said:

    @Katitof said:

    @Hingie said:

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    The units are wonderfully balanced when compared to each other

    If the infantry game was not somewhat lopsided for the allies so that it incentivises building mostly TDs, Id totally agree. As is now the IS-2 in generally less prone to get automatically hardcountered as the Tiger is by Fireflies, Jacksons or SU-85s. The worst thing that can happen to an IS-2 short of doctrinals is a Panther, which happens to be far less ubiquitous.

    Perhaps you should spam less grenadiers and panthers and consider building a PaK or two? You know, the things that hardcounter TDs and protect your tanks.

    Pak get hard decrew faster due to allies superior infantry and arty.

    Even T70 and Scott is trolling Pak. Where is axis equivalent?

    Hence we are saying either give axis hard infantry counter or regain their late tanks armor.

    Then feel free to continute making horrible build orders, losing due to not fielding correct counters due to either micro incapability to use them correctly or just pure denial about their effectiveness(likely both in your case) and spamming balance threads where the only issue to fix is sitting between your keyboard and a chair.

    I may not be the top 500 players. But lets be honest, Ost has been "over" balanced much. There is less correct counters than Soviet. Imo the way relic approach balance is not right. As they mentioned, Ost is their 'reference' faction, i am afraid, this means looking too hard in Ost meta, and try to increase/decrease counters to it. Which is why we have now Allies tanks with superior armor, Allies infantry OP still. The stats prove it, the matches prove it. Ost in anything 2v2 and above, is the lowest rung faction now.

    Ost is at the moment easiest to learn and play effectively faction in the game.

    And these are not my words, these are words of HelpingHans who, as you hopefully know, is a top 10 player with all factions. You have all the counters you need for all the units of all opposing factions, but these counters go beyond gren spam into fuel cache spam into panther spam build order.

    You talk about stats proving it, please post your sources to these "stats", because I would love to see them.
    Post also the statistical data that proves allied infantry is op, specifying which infantry and in what way.

  • #19
    2 years ago
    > @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > ive said that for the last few patches actually. i feel like medium tanks are more optional as allies because their infantry game is so strong they can dump their fuel into TDs to counter the armour that the axis often needs to try and balance out the infantry fight.

    See I don't think that's a fair way to paint the picture. For me allied stock mediums aren't optional.... but that's because they aren't options at all. All 3 of them lose most fights against OKWs p4, and Ost has no shortage of counters to medium "Non-TD" armor.

    This notion that allies can afford to wait for TDs is tiresome. For most of the time I've played US for example, it really feels like I can't afford NOT to wait for a TD.

    I mean hell, until very recently Brumbarrs were regularly arriving at the same time as a Sherman. The fuck am I supposed to do with a medium tank when I need something to threaten that?
  • #20
    2 years ago

    mrgame2 I rarely say that but L2P. Reading your posts made my stomach turn. You are the kind of lazy player who likes to have a blob and an undestroyable tank to go with it and then just a + leftclick to win the game.
    The first point which annoys me the most is to claim that pak is being decrewed faster due to superior infantry. First of all you are probably not protecting your Pak correctly in the first place or cannot micro it properly in a fight. Because first of all why don't you decrew their gun with your volks with the lmg. They are damn potent at long range and have a rifle nade.
    And no the IS-2 is not overpowered. Only because you don't know how to use your armor as well as light vehicles you blame it on the balance. I would suggest thinking about your build order because judging from your comments it feels like you just don't have the tools at the right time. Especially light vehicles are units which excel at a certain points in the game and if you miss that window the opponent will already have enough counters to it.
    To read that the Luchs got nerfed and that's the reason why you can't "shred" infantry and atgs anymore is a joke. It's still super effective against all sorts of infantry and on top of that it will easily demolish light vehicles.
    So my suggestion is stop the whining and review your games again and think about what YOU could have done to win the game instead of blaming the balancing. Because except for some issues after the patch now the game was balanced quite well.

  • #21
    2 years ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    I will say late game allies are too strong. I played my fair share of soviets and i found cons surviving better than grens for a start. Yes im primary ost player, and i can see the problems of late game allies are virtually impossible to displace once they camp in, hence im suggesting to look at their armor values and give ost better counter againt superior allies infantry.
    Lets no be so unpleasant to someone who also plays lots of coh2 and scrutinized pro players matches.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

DeutschEnglishEspañolFrançaisItalianoРусский