We've seen a lot of topics claiming that Soviets are weaker than Axis for some reason, because they are losing more often. Here I intend to highlight possible factors which are:
1. Team behaviour.
2. Maps design.
3. Weapons & squad management & number of players.
1. Individuals are making up for a team and their actions are important:
A). They sit back, way too far from their cap zones to be helpful. Only snipers, elite riflemen or really good riflemen should fire from far, far away. To hold down ground you need to have more forces than the enemy. When half of the team is sitting back with little result they are more useless than someone just sitting against the wall within the zone. At least it's another warm body to help in mantaining control over the objective which in turn can help with the game via countdown.
B). They attack when they need to defend. They die, we have less tickets for later and that scenario can lead to our downfall because in a critical moment our reinforcements can get depleted and we lose the round because there is no one around to hold the zone.
C). More often that not it is a combination of these two. Some people sit back, some attack and in the end we lose zone after zone very fast, because there are too few men to actually defend/hold it.
D). Why one team is weaker than the other? I often saw that "the losing side" is often undermanned. People are tired of losing and they leave. Some other people fill their spots and there is very little team balancing based on actual skill. It's very accidential and doesn't contribute to evening the odds.
2. Maps are influencing the outcome in two ways:
A). On Pavlov's House you can see that the Allies have more difficult approach to 9th January Square and Zab's House - it's an open ground which is often under fire from Axis E and F points. On the other hand Germans can approach both objective under fire support and have more cover laying in their way to provide protection or concealment from the enemy who can't engage Germans as easily (remember that the Axis can lay suppressive fire from their main points to pin down the Soviets).
B). On Station the key lies in holding point B - if that place is lost then the Germans can fire from the upper windows to help their men to take over C. Railroad (point C) is exposed to B. Soviets need automatic weapons (which perform better in CQC and can suppress certain points) to lock down B and let their riflemen/long range rifles to boost C's defensive. Often inability to defend certain point on the map results in losing it and it's not that easy to maintain effective defense later on.
3. It's a compilation really:
We have a certain number of weapons divided into squads. The more players are there, the less specialized roles are possible to be taken and some people are forced to take bolt-action rifles. But the fewer nuber of player is, the more weapons they can take which leads to the opposite outcome - many specialized weapons and a handful (if any bolt-action rifles).
Your thoughts? Please, be constructive in your posts.
1. Team behaviour.
2. Maps design.
3. Weapons & squad management & number of players.
1. Individuals are making up for a team and their actions are important:
A). They sit back, way too far from their cap zones to be helpful. Only snipers, elite riflemen or really good riflemen should fire from far, far away. To hold down ground you need to have more forces than the enemy. When half of the team is sitting back with little result they are more useless than someone just sitting against the wall within the zone. At least it's another warm body to help in mantaining control over the objective which in turn can help with the game via countdown.
B). They attack when they need to defend. They die, we have less tickets for later and that scenario can lead to our downfall because in a critical moment our reinforcements can get depleted and we lose the round because there is no one around to hold the zone.
C). More often that not it is a combination of these two. Some people sit back, some attack and in the end we lose zone after zone very fast, because there are too few men to actually defend/hold it.
D). Why one team is weaker than the other? I often saw that "the losing side" is often undermanned. People are tired of losing and they leave. Some other people fill their spots and there is very little team balancing based on actual skill. It's very accidential and doesn't contribute to evening the odds.
2. Maps are influencing the outcome in two ways:
A). On Pavlov's House you can see that the Allies have more difficult approach to 9th January Square and Zab's House - it's an open ground which is often under fire from Axis E and F points. On the other hand Germans can approach both objective under fire support and have more cover laying in their way to provide protection or concealment from the enemy who can't engage Germans as easily (remember that the Axis can lay suppressive fire from their main points to pin down the Soviets).
B). On Station the key lies in holding point B - if that place is lost then the Germans can fire from the upper windows to help their men to take over C. Railroad (point C) is exposed to B. Soviets need automatic weapons (which perform better in CQC and can suppress certain points) to lock down B and let their riflemen/long range rifles to boost C's defensive. Often inability to defend certain point on the map results in losing it and it's not that easy to maintain effective defense later on.
3. It's a compilation really:
We have a certain number of weapons divided into squads. The more players are there, the less specialized roles are possible to be taken and some people are forced to take bolt-action rifles. But the fewer nuber of player is, the more weapons they can take which leads to the opposite outcome - many specialized weapons and a handful (if any bolt-action rifles).
Your thoughts? Please, be constructive in your posts.
Last edited:
