Simple Fixes: Tank Meta Issues

This thread is an attempt at identifying and resolving key issues with the current tank meta in CoH2 without making drastic changes, thereby hopefully allowing for impartial changes that can be effected in a single patch or two.

As such this will be a relatively short opening post split in two parts: issue identification and issue resolution.

Issue 1: Heavy tanks dominate the meta. The faster availability of heavy tanks and their AI buffs make the appearance of heavy tanks such a commonality that it forces a very short window for medium tank play and further contributes to TD meta on the allied side as no other vehicles are capable of tackling them.

Issue 2: Tank destroyer dominance. TDs, again typically on the allied side, are such an effective counter to medium tanks that it further limits their timeframe of viability and can be said to contribute to the existence of the heavy tank meta.

Other issues can be said to exist presently, regarding Ostheer T4 or certain nonviable units like the SU-76M, but for simplicity's sake and to hopefully prevent partisan flamethrowing I will not cover them here. Furthermore, in my opinion, both these issues are inextricably linked to one another, and one can not be resolved without the other.

Without further ado...

Resolutions to Issue 1:

1. Move all call-in heavy tanks back to CP-12 (with the current tech requirements). This artificially delays their arrival and was the original position for many of these units. It is no coincidence that the majority of the heavy anti-armor commander abilities are also unlocked at this command point window. This is a simple solution that does not modify the actual capabilities of these units and so may not be seen as the correct solution, but it would in my opinion benefit the meta tremendously regardless. Being a simple fix it would also be easier to determine competitive impact.

2. A more radical solution, but still one that does not involve much stat changing, would be to require heavy tanks be physically built from tech structure and with a long production time. Preferably this would be done via end-tech T4 building on each side, which may have the side effect of making Ostheer T4 preferable, though it could also be argued it makes the Tiger less accessible. I would like to see this implemented at some point in the future, given how stupid it is that heavy tanks can be called in instantaneously but not very basic medium tanks or TDs, but it is a more difficult solution and thusly not one I see as realistic at this time.

3. Stat changes and/or price increase. Most difficult solution, least realistic, but probably eventually inevitable. In any case I will not discuss specifics because this solution would not be something easy to implement and this thread is concerned with simple fixes that could be effected in a single patch and not intricate ones.

Resolutions to Issue 2:

1. A 75% or so decrease in TD accuracy via the target-table when being used on medium tanks via type medium_tank. Note this type is also applied to the Panther; in this case the Panther should have it replaced with the heavy_tank target type, or otherwise lose the medium_tank type, so as not to be effected by this change (given that the allied rosters have no other armored counters to the Panther)

The Stug III, SU-76M, Panther (if we consider this a TD) and possibly the M10 should be exempt from this nerf. Also exempt should be the heavy call-in TDs. This change would make Tank Destroyers less effective versus medium tanks while keeping them effective versus vehicles for which no other counters would exist (Heavy call-in TDs exempted by nature of their enormous expense and limited viability in any case). I also believe, as part of this change, the M36 could probably lose the above-average moving accuracy it currently has in order to cement its use as a defensive or reactive instrument and not a diving unit.

Note this resolution is the only (relatively) simple one that I can immediately devise and is partly dependent on resolution of Issue 1, as any modification of the allied tank destroyers in particular would be, and the results of that change would need to be examined before much statistical work can be done on the variety of TD units and TD analogues involved in this issue.

Shit, I posted this in the wrong forum. Is it possible to move it to COH2 Balance?


Edit: Thanks Hannibal

/moved to balance subforum

KV2/8, IS2, ISU152, Tiger I, Croc, Pershing - 30 fuel cost increase, 20min ability recharge upon calling them in.
T34/76, Cromwell - Buff pen, Buff Cromwell MG
T34/85 - Buff AT, slightly nerf AI (of main gun, MGs are cool), 10 fuel extra cost
Jackson - Reduce mobility
SU85 - Make sight mode a vet 2 ability, increase pen, reduce accuracy
Panther - Increase target size and accuracy
All mediums (not panther) - Reduce target size
SU76 - Reduce target size, increase accuracy and rotation speed
King Tiger - Increase mobility at vet 3

i personally like the idea of giving heavies a build time, or, if possible, to add a significant delay between unit call-in and actual arrival on the field. a big part of the advantage of stalling for heavies is that you can get them instantly whenever the resource requirement is met, whereas the quite significant build time of mediums further narrows their window of opportunity.
i'd prefer a solution that keeps heavies as call-ins with significant delay over making them buildable or increasing the cp requirements. this way the timing issues between smaller and larger gamemodes that the patch aimed to resolve would remain untouched, while a (significantly) delayed call-in would mean a bit more of a commitment compared to being able to build and cancel your heavy at any time if the resources could be spent better otherwise (e.g. by getting a td instead)

If we decrease effectivness top-TDs against mediums we will get situation with effectivness allied mediums vs axis mediums (hi waves of threads about balancing allied mediums against axis mediums), especialy fun will be with soviets, where stock t-34/76 is trash against p4. 1vs1 each axis medium better than allied, add stug/JP4 and you will get reverted version of current allied meta (top tier TD+mediums). Stug and JP4 counters any medium and have range advantage, P4 have armor advantage and always have better chance to win 1vs1 engagement. Such changes just make commanders with premium mediums/tds meta (t-34/85, m4c, E8, m10).

IMHO, if we want get rid off allied TD meta, the better way just increase DAMAGE (200 or 210) and reduce ROF. TD still need 4 shots to kill mediums, while have low ROF, it will be much less effective against mediums and give them more time in fight against TD's, but make them more orientated against heavy targets.

The changes you say plus:

SU 76 moved to sov T4, and given buffs so it matches the StuG more closely (medium tank hunter)
76mm Sherman with AOE removed added to stock USF with a 50 fuel tech - just like Ostheer 50 fuel to access premium medium, panther.

UKF already has Comet/Churchill to deal with mediums.

If we decrease effectivness top-TDs against mediums we will get situation with effectivness allied mediums vs axis mediums (hi waves of threads about balancing allied mediums against axis mediums), especialy fun will be with soviets, where stock t-34/76 is trash against p4. 1vs1 each axis medium better than allied, add stug/JP4 and you will get reverted version of current allied meta (top tier TD+mediums). Stug and JP4 counters any medium and have range advantage, P4 have armor advantage and always have better chance to win 1vs1 engagement. Such changes just make commanders with premium mediums/tds meta (t-34/85, m4c, E8, m10).

IMHO, if we want get rid off allied TD meta, the better way just increase DAMAGE (200 or 210) and reduce ROF. TD still need 4 shots to kill mediums, while have low ROF, it will be much less effective against mediums and give them more time in fight against TD's, but make them more orientated against heavy targets.

It is true that axis mediums are generally better all around and particularly versus other tanks, especially when compared to the T-34/76 and to an extent the Cromwell. However, they are generally more expensive and in some ways are a natural mirror to the generally superior light vehicles the allies get earlier in the game (T-70, Stuart vs Pz II, Sdkfz 222). With the possible exception of the T-34/76 because of its terrible main gun, I think the discrepancy in stats between factional medium tanks is not too terrible as to pose a major balance issue. Target-type style accuracy change also means that allied TD effectiveness versus Stug III and JP4 should remain unchanged, and the JP4 would also be subject to this nerf.

I would recommend maybe increasing T-34/76 penetration at least at max range (from 80 to 90 or somesuch, so it at least has a 50% chance of penetrating Pz IV in long distance trades)

The changes you say plus:

SU 76 moved to sov T4, and given buffs so it matches the StuG more closely (medium tank hunter)
76mm Sherman added to stock USF with a 50 fuel tech - just like Ostheer 50 fuel to access premium medium, panther.

UKF already has Comet/Churchill to deal with mediums.

It could work, but in any cases - it will be very, very long and big patch. USF and UKF still need some sort of medium tank TD. I against M4c as stock unit for USF, because it makes regular sherman...redundant. Who need regular 75mm sherman when you can build 76, that have advantage against P4 and could deal with infantry? When faction have 2 similar units in roster with overlapped roles, it always make one of them "forgotten". Better give M10 for USF and UKF as high mobile TD against mediums.

It could work, but in any cases - it will be very, very long and big patch. USF and UKF still need some sort of medium tank TD. I against M4c as stock unit for USF, because it makes regular sherman...redundant. Who need regular 75mm sherman when you can build 76, that have advantage against P4 and could deal with infantry? When faction have 2 similar units in roster with overlapped roles, it always make one of them "forgotten". Better give M10 for USF and UKF as high mobile TD against mediums.

Actually, I’d like to remove the AOE of the M4C and buff it’s penetration, and give the Easy 8 the current M4C’s swappable shells.
I think the M4C should keep its 25% faster fire rate than mediums, as that will allow it to win duels, just like other premium mediums get bonus health so they can win duels.

That way in the tech tree you have Anti infantry M4, with HE and APHE, Anti tank M4C with Sabot, and doctinal Easy eight with Anti infantry and anti tank.

I’ll update my previous post

KV2/8, IS2, ISU152, Tiger I, Croc, Pershing - 30 fuel cost increase, 20min ability recharge upon calling them in.
T34/76, Cromwell - Buff pen, Buff Cromwell MG
T34/85 - Buff AT, slightly nerf AI (of main gun, MGs are cool), 10 fuel extra cost
Jackson - Reduce mobility
SU85 - Make sight mode a vet 2 ability, increase pen, reduce accuracy
Panther - Increase target size and accuracy
All mediums (not panther) - Reduce target size
SU76 - Reduce target size, increase accuracy and rotation speed
King Tiger - Increase mobility at vet 3

What would buffing the t34/76 pen achieve.
As for T34/85 why not give it an upgrade to increase AI performance at the cost of AI tied radio intercept ability. Since GMC has mark target wich make challenging panthers and tigers possible.
Reducing the Jackson's mobility will do little with kind of long range accuracy it has. What bout the Tiger Ace though.

Every game I have seen with Allied TDs dominating axis tanks has been the same. It's always been:
- axis never flanking
- axis forgetting blitz exists
- axis forgetting that shot blockers exist to hide their armor behind and taking free damage all the time
- axis forgetting that they have cheap Stugs and 60 range JP4s who can go head to head with allied and instead rely on heavies with P4s only.
Etc.

I can't remember ever having watched a game where I didn't think "he would have won if he just did not make X/Y/Z mistake with his armor play."

Every game I have seen with Allied TDs dominating axis tanks has been the same. It's always been:
- axis never flanking
- axis forgetting blitz exists
- axis forgetting that shot blockers exist to hide their armor behind and taking free damage all the time
- axis forgetting that they have cheap Stugs and 60 range JP4s who can go head to head with allied and instead rely on heavies with P4s only.
Etc.

I can't remember ever having watched a game where I didn't think "he would have won if he just did not make X/Y/Z mistake with his armor play."

While I personally agree with this and see many casted games where I cringe at the Ostheer player seemingly knee-jerk buying the Panzer IV despite an obvious armored threat, this issue comes up constantly and so I feel it might as well be addressed. The 'fix' that I recommended would not make TDs completely useless or something versus medium tanks as TDs already possess higher base accuracy as well as range compared to medium tanks.

Complex meta balance issues are not as simple to fix as people often think. There are many more factors to consider when looking at proposals like this.

1. Move all call-in heavy tanks back to CP-12 (with the current tech requirements). This artificially delays their arrival and was the original position for many of these units. It is no coincidence that the majority of the heavy anti-armor commander abilities are also unlocked at this command point window. This is a simple solution that does not modify the actual capabilities of these units and so may not be seen as the correct solution, but it would in my opinion benefit the meta tremendously regardless. Being a simple fix it would also be easier to determine competitive impact.

Heavy tanks at 13 CPs came way too late for teamgames, where resources are inflated and CP gain is deflated. This meant that they arrived at a time when there were already 1-2 vet 2-3 TDs around per every enemy player, making them mostly unviable to use. Moving heavies back to 12 CPs may benefit 1v1s, but it would not benefit 3v3s and 4v4s.

It'd likely be much better to do some small adjustments (to a variety of primary, but mostly secondary stats) over 1-2 patches rather than bring out the nerfhammer and slap on 3 CPs. There have been numerous examples over the past year where we've been able to keep overperforming units powerful by making smart and small adjustments to their secondary stats and availability (for example Jaeger Light Infantry) as opposed to nerfing them back into oblivion (as many players requested/demanded). It's always a delicate balancing act and usually a very small adjustment can already push something in the right direction.

2. A more radical solution, but still one that does not involve much stat changing, would be to require heavy tanks be physically built from tech structure and with a long production time. Preferably this would be done via end-tech T4 building on each side, which may have the side effect of making Ostheer T4 preferable, though it could also be argued it makes the Tiger less accessible. I would like to see this implemented at some point in the future, given how stupid it is that heavy tanks can be called in instantaneously but not very basic medium tanks or TDs, but it is a more difficult solution and thusly not one I see as realistic at this time.

A possible solution, but not very intuitive, since they'd need to have both a CP requirement, a tech requirement, and a build requirement.

1. A 75% or so decrease in TD accuracy via the target-table when being used on medium tanks via type medium_tank. Note this type is also applied to the Panther; in this case the Panther should have it replaced with the heavy_tank target type, or otherwise lose the medium_tank type, so as not to be effected by this change (given that the allied rosters have no other armored counters to the Panther)

Not a very elegant solution either. We are specifically moving away from invisible modifiers as much as we can to make the game more straightforward to everyone. Introducing artificial accuracy modifiers (on top of the natural accuracy modifier that is target size) is not a good direction to take.

Not a very elegant solution either. We are specifically moving away from invisible modifiers as much as we can to make the game more straightforward to everyone. Introducing artificial accuracy modifiers (on top of the natural accuracy modifier that is target size) is not a good direction to take.

Add high damage per shot (200, 210) and low ROF. Against fast mediums top-tier TD will be not preferable choice. Medium still need 4 shots for become killed, while his timelife will increase in engagement against TD. Against "fat" slow targets (heavies) top-tier TD will be more good. Only balance issues will be in HP pool of heavies.

Add high damage per shot (200, 210) and low ROF. Against fast mediums top-tier TD will be not preferable choice. Medium still need 4 shots for become killed, while his timelife will increase in engagement against TD. Against "fat" slow targets (heavies) top-tier TD will be more good. Only balance issues will be in HP pool of heavies.

That actually is a good and intuitive solution, as this dynamic is why I consider the stock Firefly (disregarding Tulips) to be more balanced than the SU-85 and Jackson, but it's also a very complex one given how much weight TDs currently carry. To be honest I wouldn't be very comfortable making such a huge adjustment at this point in the game's lifecycle as the implications and consequences are mostly unforeseeable.

Not a very elegant solution either. We are specifically moving away from invisible modifiers as much as we can to make the game more straightforward to everyone. Introducing artificial accuracy modifiers (on top of the natural accuracy modifier that is target size) is not a good direction to take.

On this subject: I mean no disrespect, but is the secret higher retreat RA on the M2HB ever going to be normalized?

To me it seems very strange that there would be a bent towards streamlined unit statistics when so many of the last few patches have involved unorthodox solutions like more received damage modifiers for vehicles and infantry, infantry_discount tweaks, and the multitude of requirement_action changes infantry sections underwent when they were nerfed.

It is not as though this needs necessarily be a complex modification either; the exact reverse could be engineered with a lower (or normal medium tank) baseline accuracy and a target-type modifier for heavy tanks (which would also make TDs less a full measure counter versus light vehicles as well as medium tanks)

I am also curious why there would be hesitance to place a build requirement on heavy tanks as it is not altogether anything more to request than the massive number of requirements already put upon producing them, and depending on the placement in the build order certain requirements could actually be removed, since the building required would in my proposal be the very building the unit is being built from, and any tech required normal for unit production at that stage anyway.

I am also curious why there would be hesitance to place a build requirement on heavy tanks as it is not altogether anything more to request than the massive number of requirements already put upon producing them, and depending on the placement in the build order certain requirements could actually be removed, since the building required would in my proposal be the very building the unit is being built from, and any tech required normal for unit production at that stage anyway.

If we delay heavies even more in time, we just abandoned them from game. Right now in bad situation heavy could help to you save the game. Make heavy with requirement to be build, just kill them in 1vs1 and 2vs2 games. The will arrive on the war too late.

To me it seems very strange that there would be a bent towards streamlined unit statistics when so many of the last few patches have involved unorthodox solutions like more received damage modifiers for vehicles and infantry, infantry_discount tweaks, and the multitude of requirement_action changes infantry sections underwent when they were nerfed.

Received damage modifiers for vehicles change nothing for the experience of the enemy player, as damage that needs to be dealt in order to kill them remains the same as it would've been with regular hitpoints. It only benefits the user with faster repairs. This is not comparable to, say, the invisible received damage modifier that Rangers had that made them immune to certain explosives that would otherwise kill regular infantry models in one hit, which does negatively affect the enemy player's experience.

Grenadiers had a received damage modifier added because it was the only solution left we saw fit for the huge and unique problem that was incredibly vulnerable late game 4-men mainline infantry that was plaguing the entire faction, and because this is somewhat communicated to players via the veterancy tool tip. The same is true for Infantry Sections. Their cover bonuses are not hidden modifiers, they are displayed in the game to the player via the cover bonus icon tooltip.


I specifically said we want to move away from hidden modifiers whenever we can, so that means that it is highly preferable to look at other solutions, although never definitively so.

I love this kind of threads.

"simple meta fixes"

-proceeds with a list of stuff that flips everything upside down