So eh, I played the game since the closed pre alpha and stuff. But it never was the case that one side just won every single match. So far I have played recently 10 to 20 or so matches as the soviet union and every match that I played in I lost. It always seems, especially on the big maps, that you can’t defend the positions. In my average match Germany lost less than 100 dudes before reaching the 2nd last capture point.
Can anyone confirm or deny my observation?
The only way I found to be able to have a chance at winning is when planning it with friends in a group. I am though not sure if we won even one match though. The closest we got to winning was once when we got the Germans down to 0 Manpower but even then they captured the last point.
Most Soviet teams are just down 1-4 players that are replaced by bots. On top of that, the average skill level for Soviets is lower.
False.
First, you forgot the explosive pack (available for everyone), T-26 and BT-7 (which you got for free with the twitch drop event).
Second, the front turret can be penetrated if hit at the right spot. Besides, the T-60 gets double magazine capacity and more compact size compared to the Pz2, so if you just flank you have a much easier time taking out German tanks than they would if they flanked you. Most Pz2s need 2 magazines for a T-60 kill, T-60s do not require that 3+ second reload.
For the BT-7, it can oneshot a Pz2 if hit right. It also gets a powerful HE round.
Soviet tanks are in no way useless against the German ones. Most Soviet tankers simply do not know how to use their more mobile, more difficult to use, but more rewarding tanks.
The PTRD is somewhat bugged and tends to do little to no damage sometimes, but that has nothing to do with the Pz2. It even does so against the Pz3B, the weakest tank in the game rn (that was never used in Moscow anyways, we got sources that proof that)
So many threads about ‘my team always losses’, my god. Its alraedy explained many times - we have 3 regions, these regions are filled differently with players and each region has their own ‘winning side’. This has barely anything to do with faction name, weapons or balance, it comes due to closed beta test having not enough people to equally fill the teams. And even then - win statistic during 2020 shows around 55% wins for germans and 45% wins for russians across all regions. Does that means one side wins often than others? Obviously. Does that means it wins all the time or way too much? No, its not.
Amount of wins overall: 86970 - 100%
German wins: 48.664 - 56%
Russian wins: 38306 - 44%
Come on, just say - axis players are more intelligent. Or how can you explain this thing you told again and again? We met once on the battlefield and we both know the end of it. To make such an argument you have to play at least 1000 hours or more. I win 95% times while i play allies. And so - can i say - axis player level is low?
We both know - there is more bots on soviet side in a specific servers like Western Europe or America. +Timezones - better players of both sides play different time.
Devs should really just force “Join as any side” tbh. It would fix the population issue overnight and give people who only main one side better perspective.
That will almost certainly result in people leaving. I personally would.
Playing for a single faction gives you the chance to try out all weapons of that faction and suggest changes if any. I’ve always wanted to try out the mortar since I did not get a lot of time with it in alpha. Now that I have, I know what should be changed about it. This will have never happened if I was forced to play Allies.
I play with the Russians every time I play in Moscow, and most of the time I win, there are days when I lose a lot, it is also your skill level and if it is your turn on an invasion or points map
Yeah I know, but that would be fine. Combining campaign level would be enough since it would unlock the gear on both sides regardless of who you play.
Grinding individual guys would be secondary and able to be done as you go
Overall, with any WW2 game, you notice that the German players are just that little bit more tryhard.
As a result, their skill level generally is higher on average. Allies definitely have players that have an ever higher skill level, but has so many players at lower skill level that their average is lower.
Would result in most people that only want to play one side to leave the game outright, while the remainder would quit any match that they get into with the wrong side.
I am level 2 (after wipe) for Soviets for the Moscow campaign, for example. I have 0 interest in playing Soviets.
No. I enjoy being able to understand what my soldiers are saying and being able to play relaxed and shooting anything that yells in the non-German language.
I played ONE match or Soviets after ages and I was shooting teammates nonstop. My monke brain does not enjoy this.
Which explains the 2 dozen progression threads
No. nothing would be enough because I would still be playing Ruskis.
How about making them actually fun to play? I do not enjoy SU as a team. America was enjoyable during Normandy. But I never enjoyed Soviets in Berlin, nor Moscow.
Could you clarify this one? You’d still be able to pick who you wanted to play, the campaign progression would just be one tree and you unlock both nations stuff at each level as opposed to each separately.
What do you find un-fun about them? Aside from the low player count, I mean.
If I am forced to queue for both nations, I am still forced to play Ruskis
Well I am not sure how to fix that as most of it is personal preference for me. But I can say what that preference is:
I prefer the German equipment as I know the history behind them and find joy in using them. For Russia however, I am not attracted to their gear at all. It’s just “another gun” to me. There is no connection.
On top of that, I can’t immerse myself into a squad of which I do not understand the language. I can hear the German soldiers shout stuff and know what they mean (as I speak fluent German among other languages), same with America.
Some things that I can come up on the changeable side:
Use lend-lease equipment.
I think the Americans among us would love to use a M3 stuart tank, or use the Quad .50cal turret instead of the Flakvierling for AA.
Tbh I had moved on to the combined campaign XP after the queue thing was shot down, my bad for not clarifying. So what do you think of it then if you aren’t forced into playing a nation you don’t prefer?
And yes, both of these would be very preferable to what we have now.
I know that Gaijin wouldn’t be nice enough to effectively double XP gain for free, and would expect them to nerf XP gain per nation by 50% so you still get the same ammount of total XP, just 50% would be funneled away to the nation you do not play.
So no, I do not think it would work out. I prefer to keep 100% of my XP for one nation.
Soviet is not only russian - there were more then 20 nations. And i must say “Ruskis” is kind a “Paki”. And if you say “Paki” you will be claimed as nationalist. We’ll walk that fine line between cutting-edge irreverence and neglect
Land lease fully started after Red Army win at Stalingrad in 1943. Fall 1941 very like 4-5% of land lease and mostly food or resources. So present of western arms in Battle of Moscow - is a historical paradox
