Although it's my first post here, I was looking after community for a long time. Well, whatever.
Hello. I would like to have some fagging with you, my dear nazi and soviet fan boys.
I never really liked playing for Allies in another games (dunno why, they always "feel for me" somehow strange), neither this one. So at first I was playing Axis only and I enjoyed it a lot. Not only because of all those cool features game has, nice gameplay and stuff, but also because I am one big scoreboardfapper and I usually score a lot of frags which adds me extra happiness. A day or two ago I wanted to refresh a bit my feelings about a game and play as an Ally.
I really wish I've never done that. That was my worst game experience ever - it is not even "unbalanced", its just retarded. Which actually explains my "skill" as playing for Axis.
Of course, I am not the first one moaning about this (and not the last I guess). Most common answer is "Realistic shooter shouldn't be balanced. War isn't. Russians did has a hard time back then too." and while all this is absolutely correct (Including the third sentence, at least for first half of war), but the answerer meant the technology (weapons, equipment, etc), but not the tactics, which were the only thing Russians had worser than Germans at the beginning. Their last advantage disappeared after Stalin purged all those "ranked officers" - just check up the difference in KDR of SU before and after the final purge. Well, back to the subject. Next I am going to provide you a list of some really weird Soviet weaknesses in this game. And I will begin with...
1. PPSH and it's sway/recoil.
Already was talked over billion times. I am not going to post videos of this thing firing - they already were by other people and you can always find such on Youtube. As from myself I can provide only some technique info, like "PPSH(665 J) has a powerful recoil compensator while MP-40 (584 J) has no one lolz" and some personal experience with PPSH I've had a year ago - I have to admit, PPSH sway in RO2 is at the same time both 3x times overmatched and undermatched. "Undermatched"? Yes, because it actually mostly doesn't move to the upwards, but a bit to left side... Or was it right? Whatever, it moves a bit (more than up-down) to the a side. Thought, I didn't even touch MP-40 so I can't really compare them.
2. PZ-4 vs T-34.
It is a bit complicated, I will start with one very hilarious thing I've heard from some people on this forum.
"*blahblah*.. due to Soviet's armor poor quality *blahblah*"
It is funny to see people who's opinion is not just "biased", but exactly opposite to the cruel reality. Soviet armor is rollen homogeneous, while german is "dragged" chromed/homogeneous which... Aw, ja, what am I talking about, no one believe me anyways. But will you believe to Heinz Guderian? If you will - read his book "Panzer Leaders" where he exactly states what German steel was inferior to soviet at the beginning and started getting even more inferior with time due to lack of resources.
"Sloped armor means mostly nothing, may be only a few ricochets"
Actually, ricochets is the last thing sloped armor affects (It is not the main point it was designed). Angled armor increases thickness by this formula - thickness : cos(angle-normalization).I highly doubt that normalization is more than 3 degree for 75mm. That way, T-34 in common situation has 90 +/- 10 mm of armor. Which is equal or more to PZ-4 G armor.
As for tanks guns... Well, I am not a specialist or anything near in that area, but here are some points to be taken in account when you check gun's penetration values of that era: German guns are tested on German steel,Russians are tested on Russian one (which is somewhat more thicker by 8-15% according to different resources), and the most important thing - meaning of the word "penetrated". In Third Reich armor was counted as "penetrated" if 50% of frags/pieces/whateverapamunitionleaves did past the armor, while in Soviet Union this value was 70%. It is not means what you should multiply Soviet gun's penetration by 20%, it is a bit messy anyways.
3. Oh... I wanted to say something. Regarding, well... Sorry, forgot it. I'll write some additional thoughts then. Rifles feels a bit different from German ones. This can be just me, but are they way more inaccurate then German? I mean, I have no problem with hitting Russians with K98, while with Mosin-Nagant seems to miss even when iron sight exactly on the target. Don't mind this one, just a thought. Also, as you can see ingame, Soviet-Axis KDR goes by 1:7 if not worse, and to be honest, I can't recall when I saw Allies winning last time.
Hello. I would like to have some fagging with you, my dear nazi and soviet fan boys.
I never really liked playing for Allies in another games (dunno why, they always "feel for me" somehow strange), neither this one. So at first I was playing Axis only and I enjoyed it a lot. Not only because of all those cool features game has, nice gameplay and stuff, but also because I am one big scoreboardfapper and I usually score a lot of frags which adds me extra happiness. A day or two ago I wanted to refresh a bit my feelings about a game and play as an Ally.
I really wish I've never done that. That was my worst game experience ever - it is not even "unbalanced", its just retarded. Which actually explains my "skill" as playing for Axis.
Of course, I am not the first one moaning about this (and not the last I guess). Most common answer is "Realistic shooter shouldn't be balanced. War isn't. Russians did has a hard time back then too." and while all this is absolutely correct (Including the third sentence, at least for first half of war), but the answerer meant the technology (weapons, equipment, etc), but not the tactics, which were the only thing Russians had worser than Germans at the beginning. Their last advantage disappeared after Stalin purged all those "ranked officers" - just check up the difference in KDR of SU before and after the final purge. Well, back to the subject. Next I am going to provide you a list of some really weird Soviet weaknesses in this game. And I will begin with...
1. PPSH and it's sway/recoil.
Already was talked over billion times. I am not going to post videos of this thing firing - they already were by other people and you can always find such on Youtube. As from myself I can provide only some technique info, like "PPSH(665 J) has a powerful recoil compensator while MP-40 (584 J) has no one lolz" and some personal experience with PPSH I've had a year ago - I have to admit, PPSH sway in RO2 is at the same time both 3x times overmatched and undermatched. "Undermatched"? Yes, because it actually mostly doesn't move to the upwards, but a bit to left side... Or was it right? Whatever, it moves a bit (more than up-down) to the a side. Thought, I didn't even touch MP-40 so I can't really compare them.
2. PZ-4 vs T-34.
It is a bit complicated, I will start with one very hilarious thing I've heard from some people on this forum.
"*blahblah*.. due to Soviet's armor poor quality *blahblah*"
It is funny to see people who's opinion is not just "biased", but exactly opposite to the cruel reality. Soviet armor is rollen homogeneous, while german is "dragged" chromed/homogeneous which... Aw, ja, what am I talking about, no one believe me anyways. But will you believe to Heinz Guderian? If you will - read his book "Panzer Leaders" where he exactly states what German steel was inferior to soviet at the beginning and started getting even more inferior with time due to lack of resources.
"Sloped armor means mostly nothing, may be only a few ricochets"
Actually, ricochets is the last thing sloped armor affects (It is not the main point it was designed). Angled armor increases thickness by this formula - thickness : cos(angle-normalization).I highly doubt that normalization is more than 3 degree for 75mm. That way, T-34 in common situation has 90 +/- 10 mm of armor. Which is equal or more to PZ-4 G armor.
As for tanks guns... Well, I am not a specialist or anything near in that area, but here are some points to be taken in account when you check gun's penetration values of that era: German guns are tested on German steel,Russians are tested on Russian one (which is somewhat more thicker by 8-15% according to different resources), and the most important thing - meaning of the word "penetrated". In Third Reich armor was counted as "penetrated" if 50% of frags/pieces/whateverapamunitionleaves did past the armor, while in Soviet Union this value was 70%. It is not means what you should multiply Soviet gun's penetration by 20%, it is a bit messy anyways.
3. Oh... I wanted to say something. Regarding, well... Sorry, forgot it. I'll write some additional thoughts then. Rifles feels a bit different from German ones. This can be just me, but are they way more inaccurate then German? I mean, I have no problem with hitting Russians with K98, while with Mosin-Nagant seems to miss even when iron sight exactly on the target. Don't mind this one, just a thought. Also, as you can see ingame, Soviet-Axis KDR goes by 1:7 if not worse, and to be honest, I can't recall when I saw Allies winning last time.
