New soviet focus tree: feedback & thoughts

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I intended on playing a nice long soviet campaign until I looked at the tree.

This may or not be the universal opinion but it's too big for me. I don't even know where to start!
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
In order to balance these nerfs, the soviets should get their historical tanks (currently missing from the game, see @Fulmen 's thread for details)
Not they don't, adding historical stockpiles will break game balance. What it needs to be done is for developers to rethink focus trees rather than keep bloating them out. One of the original advantages of focus trees was that they were suppose to allow easier navigation compared to event chains. I honestly didn't dislike the old focus tree, and it did a far better job on being concise in what needed to be done.
 
  • 7
  • 4
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Not they don't, adding historical stockpiles will break game balance.
Please explain how it would break balance. These tanks are numerous, but would be outdated by the 1940s, and if a Soviet player goes for an early conquest rush, the game is probably already completely unbalanced (and most likely SP on the very easy difficulty anyway).
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
These tanks are numerous, but would be outdated by the 1940s, and if a Soviet player goes for an early conquest rush, the game is probably already completely unbalanced (and most likely SP on the very easy difficulty anyway).
SP normal early conquest rush is the meta for acheesements.
 
1. A lot of the focuses are "70d for minor bs & repeat" - the only way i find this remotely enjoyable is by installing a mod which makes most focuses except key purges and the industry branch 35d. That way i can actually achieve something other than purging people and waiting that event chain to be done.

If you build mechanics like paranoia with no upside on letting it run longer, then what you have created is just an illusion of choice.

Even with the mod, I'm hardly "prepared" by barbarossa.

2. The historical purge leaves you with too few interesting political advisors.

You'll have Khrushchev (who you dont need as focuses will yeet your communism support to 100%)

Kalinin (early game utility but same as above for mid game)

Molotov, Lazar and the Patriarch are all locked behind 100s of days of focuses (with ranks of useless, meh and great respectively)

The only generally useful one is Vozhenensky (whom the game killed because i shot another guy in a paranoia event, fun!)

But you'll keep both Yezhov (ahistorical) and Beria (historical) so you have two versions of the same lame secret police chief.

The utility is low, as is versatility. I don't see myself having many interesting options in the historical setup, will probably end up with the same set and order of advisors every single game (unless they get randomly shot, so much fun!).

3. This mechanics are too full of political power eating stuff with agitprop (and multiplicative increase in pp consumption every time so you don't enjoy any of the useful campaigns too much!) and all the rest. Making some of the decisions also really expensive: 210 political power for the baltics? And that's without you guys doing anything about the guarantee situation.

Wanna progress down Stalin's meme cult path? Spend some PP in running minimum 15 campaigns!
 
Last edited:
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
Please explain how it would break balance. These tanks are numerous, but would be outdated by the 1940s, and if a Soviet player goes for an early conquest rush, the game is probably already completely unbalanced (and most likely SP on the very easy difficulty anyway).
Simple,adding historical stockpiles for all nations (not only the soviets are missing them, and isn't only tank equipment which is missing) without adding other maluses would simply mean spamming all these units 1936 without any counterbalance for Germany. If you want historical stockpiles, you would need a lot of others changes, as doing it isolated will give the allies far big of an advantage.
 
When focuses start to look like german train maps, it often means there are problems. To me focuses are something that controls pace of the game and provides some alternative choices. When you cannot touch most of the avaiable focuses before late game, it starts losing point.

I always liked focus tree that Germany got as good example. Relativly straight and simple, some choices but doable in a good time. It also offers some alternative paths so there is that. Sure you almost never go navy route but still the option remains.

As soviets? Even as playing "historical" there are so much to go through. First you have to deal with the purge and early economy. By the time war begins you have barely done anything. How could you have when you have been trying to reach research slots, some important focuses and prepare defenses. What I don't get is why some nice focuses take 35 days to get done but some weak ones you just have to get through are 70 day of "grind".

Non historical focus branches should have methods to "save" some advisors or give new ones.
If the Soviet tree is overwhelming, the German tree is underwhelming. Half of the tree is just getting free territory and the economic tree is done in a breeze. There's no political branches in the tree. It's boring. The territory stuff should be decisions, not focuses, and then the tree would be reduced to almost nothing.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Overall, regretfully, right now Soviet Focus Tree is disappointment. Soviets were basically just nerfed (Industrial tree is just a joke and trap), and this is ridiculous.
 
  • 1
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Ignoring the "omg, SOV was nerfed into the ground" crowd (going by observe, SOV got buffed), the tree is still too bloated. Especially the foreign section together with the industrial part.

Yes, SOV needs to be saddled with enough debuffs so that unless they get support they get rolled by the germans (just from a purely game-balance standpoint, historycally its arguable and highly dependent on who you listen to). So non-cheesable army/air debuffs, which you could never get fully rid of. Which isn't good game design. But hey, lets just cry that SOV got nerfed because they can't conquer europe by '36 anymore.

The tree is unwieldy, yes. It should be streamlined, yes. But it isn't a nerf.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Ignoring the "omg, SOV was nerfed into the ground" crowd (going by observe, SOV got buffed), the tree is still too bloated. Especially the foreign section together with the industrial part.

Yes, SOV needs to be saddled with enough debuffs so that unless they get support they get rolled by the germans (just from a purely game-balance standpoint, historycally its arguable and highly dependent on who you listen to). So non-cheesable army/air debuffs, which you could never get fully rid of. Which isn't good game design. But hey, lets just cry that SOV got nerfed because they can't conquer europe by '36 anymore.

The tree is unwieldy, yes. It should be streamlined, yes. But it isn't a nerf.
You say "SOV got nerfed because they can't conquer europe by '36 anymore." and "But it isn't a nerf."

Which one is it?

It's a nerf. I like what they tried to achieve as it tries to be historical, but the implementation is poor. Why?

1) Soviets can't actually hold against a player Axis without doing a completely unhistorical roach with huge air force. Hugely unhistorical.

2) The decisions to relocate industry to the Urals are impossibly expensive in PP terms thus unachievable. Totally unhistorical. And it doesn't relocate population.

3) The debuffs are impossibly harsh - and take too long:
a) great purge is 595 days of focuses (and it's 2 years and 4 months until you can do the final one)
b) air focuses: 700 days
c) army focuses: 560 days (and you can't take half of them until 1 year and 35 days after the war started)
d) industry: 10% consumer goods extra which you can eventually negate, but you won't get there until 1939
e) RNG that can cripple your best generals
The Soviets can't actually get anything decent up until 1943. In real life, they'd more or less stopped the German advance by the end of 1941. They held Moscow and Leningrad during the entire war. Their army wasn't that bad.

4) and there's nothing to reflect what the Soviets did right: e.g. Soviets tanks were vastly superior to the Germans, and they had more of them. This isn't reflected anywhere in-game - the tank treaty is actually better for Germany than the Soviets. Heinz Guderian himself acknowledged the T34 was "vastly superior" to German armour...

5) The Soviet army was fully winterised by German troops froze to death and the fuel in their tanks froze - they had no understanding of just how cold Russia got whilst T34s operated over the snow almost unimpeded. Where is that reflected? There's a focus which you can't take until the war has started, is another 70 days and gives you a paltry 10% acclimatization. Again, unrealistic and unhistorical.

6) all the post ww2 meme stuff is tedious to be honest: the game is unplayable from 1944 onwards (slow and just silly number of troops)

As I said, I like what the devs tried to do, but in reality, it doesn't work well. And it's tedious click-click monkey stuff that's so heavily scripted you can't actually deviate from it. You end up with a very rigid straight jacket in play style where you have to do things in a certain order. This is the problem with all the new focus trees.
 
Last edited:
  • 8Like
Reactions:
You say "SOV got nerfed because they can't conquer europe by '36 anymore." and "But it isn't a nerf."

Which one is it?
:-D SOV being able to conquer europe by '36 is an exploit, thus they no longer being able to do so isn't a nerf, but an exploit fix.
It's a nerf. I like what they tried to achieve as it tries to be historical, but the implementation is poor. Why?

1) Soviets can't actually hold against a player Axis without doing a completely unhistorical roach with huge air force. Hugely unhistorical.

2) The decisions to relocate industry to the Urals are impossibly expensive in PP terms thus unachievable. Totally unhistorical. And it doesn't relocate population.

3) The debuffs are impossibly harsh - and take too long:
a) great purge is 595 days of focuses (and it's 2 years and 4 months until you can do the final one)
b) air focuses: 700 days
c) army focuses: 560 days (and you can't take half of them until 1 year and 35 days after the war started)
d) industry: 10% consumer goods extra which you can eventually negate, but you won't get there until 1939
e) RNG that can cripple your best generals
The Soviets can't actually get anything decent up until 1943. In real life, they'd more or less stopped the German advance by the end of 1941. They held Moscow and Leningrad during the entire war. Their army wasn't that bad.

4) and there's nothing to reflect what the Soviets did right: e.g. Soviets tanks were vastly superior to the Germans, and they had more of them. This isn't reflected anywhere in-game - the tank treaty is actually better for Germany than the Soviets.

5) all the post ww2 meme stuff is tedious to be honest: the game is unplayable from 1944 onwards (slow and just silly number of troops)
1) I said by "observe" (you know, the command in console). Not singleplayer or "player axis". The playerbase is still overwhelmingly SP, so thats the thing to balance around.
2) Historically got them into a tight spot which they only got over by the WAllies LLing them materiel. So, maybe tie the relocation cost to fighting in a war on the side of the WAllies.
3) I really, really doubt that '41 figure for the whole war. That's the number for "Barbarossa only", not the entire war. Barbarossa *launched* on 11.06.1941. So question: If they already had failed by December '41 what did the Red Army do ~3.5 years? Or were they so incompent that they needed that time to accomplish what the Wehrmacht did in 0.5? So yes, either their army was that bad or your timescale is off. Stalingrad was in '43, which is generally seen as the high-water mark or turning point. Which would line up with the description you gave. And please, don't give me "but Moscow". Edit: Same for Leningrad. Good and though local defense doesn't say much about the entire state of the army. Holding Leningrad tied down troops, but was as much due to nazi strategic decisions (they didn't want to assualt the city) as soviet defenders. It isn't the argument you imagine it as.
4) The "technical superiority"(I love that source) never amounted to anything but paper. So please do not peddle that myth. The soviets were missing shells (training and otherwise), cathode tubes and in one case, primers for the shells. Pre T34/85 tanks were shit. Shit enough that the Soviets deliberately designed them as single-use because they (correctly) figured that they'd be blown up before needing maintainance. On top of that you have issues of their placement at war start, statistic fudging (a hull without a transmission counts as a tank) and various other items.
6) And? Do you have a point there or are you just out to score?

Edit: And editing in points. Sneaky. Wrt the winterisation: Not going there.
Edit edit:
As I said, I like what the devs tried to do, but in reality, it doesn't work well. And it's tedious click-click monkey stuff that's so heavily scripted you can't actually deviate from it. You end up with a very rigid straight jacket in play style where you have to do things in a certain order. This is the problem off all the new focus trees.
Isn't this so you can do all the things in history? After all, history is a rather straight-jacked item. So, what shall it be? Sandbox-y or historical? Because they'll never hit your *specific* blend between the two.
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 3Like
Reactions:
:-D SOV being able to conquer europe by '36 is an exploit, thus they no longer being able to do so isn't a nerf, but an exploit fix.

1) I said by "observe" (you know, the command in console). Not singleplayer or "player axis". The playerbase is still overwhelmingly SP, so thats the thing to balance around.
2) Historically got them into a tight spot which they only got over by the WAllies LLing them materiel. So, maybe tie the relocation cost to fighting in a war on the side of the WAllies.
3) I really, really doubt that '41 figure for the whole war. Which is the number for "Barbarossa only", not the entire war. Barbarossa *launched* on 11.06.1941. So question: If they already had failed by December '41 what did the Red Army do ~3.5 years? Or were they so incompent that they needed that time to accomplish what the Wehrmacht did in 0.5? So yes, either their army was that bad or your timescale is off. Stalingrad was in '43, which is generally seen as the high-water mark or turning point. Which would line up with the description you gave. And please, don't give me "but Moscow".
4) The "technical superiority"(I love that source) never amounted to anything but paper. So please do not peddle that myth. The soviets were missing shells (training and otherwise), cathode tubes and in one case, primers for the shells. Pre T34/85 tanks were shit. Shit enough that the Soviets deliberately designed them as single-use because they (correctly) figured that they'd be blown up before needing maintainance. On top of that you have issues of their placement at war start, statistic fudging (a hull without a transmission counts as a tank) and various other items.
5) And? Do you have a point there or are you just out to score?
Here's a nice video of the Eastern front progress by Germany - as you can see, aside from the Stalingrad push in 1942 (which ended in disaster), the Soviets had stopped Germany and even pushed them back away from Moscow by Dec 41:


I'll just say, if you think you know better than the German generals how good the Soviet tanks were, well...
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Here's a nice video of the Eastern front progress by Germany - as you can see, aside from the Stalingrad push in 1942 (which ended in disaster), the Soviets had stopped Germany and even pushed them back away from Moscow by Dec 41:
...didn't I say something about that? Something to the tune of "Don't overrate single battles?" So you'll come down on "Incompetent, because they need 3.5 years for the Wehrmachts 0.5". Good enough. I am not going to drag out the cites for Stalingrad being the high-water-mark.

Edit: Besides, excluding the southern thrust is a classical example of the "no true scotsman" fallacy (in this case, in the advance isn't towards Moscow, it doesn't count).
I'll just say, if you think you know better than the German generals how good the Soviet tanks were, well...
You mean the guys looking for an excuse and ass-covering after the war? If you believe Guderian on how war-winning the T-34 was, I have a bridge to sell you. There are enough sources when it comes to the weaknesses of the T-34/72. See the nice little link I posted earlier. In case you want something to watch:
Or the "5 myths" (which you apparently have fallen prey to):
Or that one if you think Wargaming is filthy casuals, this one has sources and all:
Or this one (unfortunately, in German) by the tank museum):

If you choose to believe people with a motive and need to cover their own ass after they lost the war over at-least-trying-to-be-objective analysis, be my guest. But don't expect me to buy into that. Guderians (et. al.) books are rife with exaggerations and ass-covering. The T-34/72 makes a good scapegoat and is useful to talk up your services to the WAllies in the cold war.
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
...didn't I say something about that? Something to the tune of "Don't overrate single battles?" So you'll come down on "Incompetent, because they need 3.5 years for the Wehrmachts 0.5". Good enough. I am not going to drag out the cites for Stalingrad being the high-water-mark.

Edit: Besides, excluding the southern thrust is a classical example of the "no true scotsman" fallacy (in this case, in the advance isn't towards Moscow, it doesn't count).

You mean the guys looking for an excuse and ass-covering after the war? If you believe Guderian on how war-winning the T-34 was, I have a bridge to sell you. There are enough sources when it comes to the weaknesses of the T-34/72. See the nice little link I posted earlier. In case you want something to watch:
Or the "5 myths" (which you apparently have fallen prey to):
Or that one if you think Wargaming is filthy casuals, this one has sources and all:
Or this one (unfortunately, in German) by the tank museum):

If you choose to believe people with a motive and need to cover their own ass after they lost the war over at-least-trying-to-be-objective analysis, be my guest. But don't expect me to buy into that. Guderians (et. al.) books are rife with exaggerations and ass-covering. The T-34/72 makes a good scapegoat and is useful to talk up your services to the WAllies in the cold war.
Whatever man.
 
Whatever man.
You should accept that while it was the strategically correct decision to build the T34(-85), it doesn't mean it was the best tank. Or for some models, even a good tank. Or that it automatically implies that the soviet tank arsenal was superior to the nazi one at the start of Barbarossa. The T34-85 is from 1944. And that one is a beast.
 
SOV was nerfed into oblivion because you are forced to select same Nfs EVERY game if you go Stalin. Purge as fast as you can is a must with no deviations. Every game is a -Consumer race now, stacking bonuses to somehow negate crippling penalties.
A Ton of national focuses areeither negligable or simply never be worth picking.
Baltic ultimatums are a bad joke - They cost infinitely more as a focus and then PLUS they cost PP for each ultimatum. DoWing them cost, like, 25PP and 35-40 days. It is literally never ever will be a viable choice.
Chinas options - gobi can earn you -consumer and NatChi willearn you infinite air exp. ComChi will earn you nothing. Literally nothing - you can sent 1 unit of volunteers and no planes to land. So it is a no-choice.
Naval brancs is never followed before 1944-1946 because noone will do such foolish thing.
Purge is a RNG fest - you can get naval penalties, meaning you will never care about it or you can get -supply, -org -construction -doctrine etc. Two such options can cripple you beyond repair in no time, meaning noone wishes to waste time with SOV in MP games.
Your land doctrine cost is criplled,your doctrine is abysmal, your exp gain have penalties, org, equipment cost, air accidents - USSR in NSB gathered literally ALL penalties game could offer. Both division stats and strategic, maybe with the exception of naval ones but because even NSB devs realise nobody cares about them.
In the end 80% of NSB national focuses never being selected. When all those penalties start affecting each other,multiplying, stacking etc. you have almost no option but to make meta divisions like space marines or other ways to exploit AI's inability to cope with them. It saps fun from the game.

Instead of making USSR game sessions challenging and fun, devs made them challenging and BORING. Tedious slog of minmaxing your industry, forcing players to use every IC exploits to be on par with Axis, who retained all their bonuses. It is like playing EUIV without national ideas - it still fits "challening" criteria.
 
  • 4
  • 3Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
SOV was nerfed into oblivion because you are forced to select same Nfs EVERY game if you go Stalin. Purge as fast as you can is a must with no deviations. Every game is a -Consumer race now, stacking bonuses to somehow negate crippling penalties.
A Ton of national focuses areeither negligable or simply never be worth picking.
Baltic ultimatums are a bad joke - They cost infinitely more as a focus and then PLUS they cost PP for each ultimatum. DoWing them cost, like, 25PP and 35-40 days. It is literally never ever will be a viable choice.
Chinas options - gobi can earn you -consumer and NatChi willearn you infinite air exp. ComChi will earn you nothing. Literally nothing - you can sent 1 unit of volunteers and no planes to land. So it is a no-choice.
Naval brancs is never followed before 1944-1946 because noone will do such foolish thing.
Purge is a RNG fest - you can get naval penalties, meaning you will never care about it or you can get -supply, -org -construction -doctrine etc. Two such options can cripple you beyond repair in no time, meaning noone wishes to waste time with SOV in MP games.
Your land doctrine cost is criplled,your doctrine is abysmal, your exp gain have penalties, org, equipment cost, air accidents - USSR in NSB gathered literally ALL penalties game could offer. Both division stats and strategic, maybe with the exception of naval ones but because even NSB devs realise nobody cares about them.
In the end 80% of NSB national focuses never being selected. When all those penalties start affecting each other,multiplying, stacking etc. you have almost no option but to make meta divisions like space marines or other ways to exploit AI's inability to cope with them. It saps fun from the game.

Instead of making USSR game sessions challenging and fun, devs made them challenging and BORING. Tedious slog of minmaxing your industry, forcing players to use every IC exploits to be on par with Axis, who retained all their bonuses. It is like playing EUIV without national ideas - it still fits "challening" criteria.
Lol. Agreed 100%. And challenging and boring is a very apt description.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions: