Winter balance mod 2020 V1.3

But tbh how You compared tanks is wrong. Hard to read because of so many inaccuracies, wrong assumptions and simple cherrypicking. Which lvl are You? Maybe You should show some replays?

I never save replays nor do I allow my games to be publicly accessed. Feel free to correct me wherever you see fit. Only thing I will disclose is that I have 533 hours in COH2, whether playing vs experts or playing vs humans. I just made a basic, brute-force comparison of roles. Nothing special nor extensive. Non doctrinal of course. If I've made a factual boo-boo, correct me. I used coh2 stats to compare panzer vet with sherman,rest are just from my experience playing COH2, about how units behave. Do point out the mistakes, I'd appreciate it, it was late when I typed that.

Will Assault Section get a different unit icon or some other decorator to denote its assault variation?

Yes, at least it should. As well as AT Section.

These assets were sent to the balance team. They were created by SneakEye and me.

Yes, at least it should. As well as AT Section.

These assets were sent to the balance team. They were created by SneakEye and me.

Well done

What are the letters on the left one? SWS? It might just be me, but it's a bit hard to tell.

What are the letters on the left one? SWS? It might just be me, but it's a bit hard to tell.

It is SMG. Thanks to Lago and SneakEye, these symbols were founded as base for concepts:

I never save replays nor do I allow my games to be publicly accessed. Feel free to correct me wherever you see fit. Only thing I will disclose is that I have 533 hours in COH2, whether playing vs experts or playing vs humans. I just made a basic, brute-force comparison of roles. Nothing special nor extensive. Non doctrinal of course. If I've made a factual boo-boo, correct me. I used coh2 stats to compare panzer vet with sherman,rest are just from my experience playing COH2, about how units behave. Do point out the mistakes, I'd appreciate it, it was late when I typed that.

I'm not a pro

But just to show a bit of cherrypicking. You suggested sherman is worse than p4. Sherman has a crew, which, for example, means you don't have to pay for pios to repair it, it also means it can cap. The saved manpower you can spend on infantry or support weapons. The crew will usually mean you can repair it much faster and have much higher battlefield presence. Because of saved manpower you will also have more 'combat' infantry units on the field, which will add up with "free" officer units creating infantry advantage. Sherman has also higher sccuracy on the move, which will mean you can chase and run away more effectively. Sherman is also cheaper than p4. So the conclusion is that it is often a better tank than, for example, p4, especially the one from ost.

It is SMG. Thanks to Lago and SneakEye, these symbols were founded as base for concepts:

Ah, I see! While not very readable due to stylization, it's certainly unique enough to tell what unit it is at a glance.

EDIT: typo

It is SMG. Thanks to Lago and SneakEye, these symbols were founded as base for concepts:

I could live with smg/AT rifle symbol also .

Yes, at least it should. As well as AT Section.

These assets were sent to the balance team. They were created by SneakEye and me.

awesome!

I'm not a pro

But just to show a bit of cherrypicking. You suggested sherman is worse than p4. Sherman has a crew, which, for example, means you don't have to pay for pios to repair it, it also means it can cap. The saved manpower you can spend on infantry or support weapons. The crew will usually mean you can repair it much faster and have much higher battlefield presence. Because of saved manpower you will also have more 'combat' infantry units on the field, which will add up with "free" officer units creating infantry advantage. Sherman has also higher sccuracy on the move, which will mean you can chase and run away more effectively. Sherman is also cheaper than p4. So the conclusion is that it is often a better tank than, for example, p4, especially the one from ost.

No no no, I did not mean panzer was better, I only meant it had the [same same...but differeeeeent] different role. You know, better armour, but that's why Sherman has the crew + smokes, etc.
My point of differentiating was that the OST has a bigger armoured division pool, not that they are stronger in some way. I mean, they are stronger in some but that's why US is more versatile. That's my point. You win some, you lose some. In panzer case, you win one vs one front and center, but you lose the brilliant smoke canisters for retreat/smoking the chokepoints, etc.

EDIT: To conclude, in my honest opinion, all the factions are balanced and well thought out. Pershing didn't need the nerf though, I'll cherrypick that, Pershing needs to be the doom of infantry.

Going back to visuals again - has the balance team considered using the Commandos model for crew of weapon teams spawned at the Logistics Glider? Same stats as the regular crew, just the visuals. It would involve creating 2 more sbps and 2 more ebps, but you can't deny it looks cool. Plus, it reminds me of spawning Commando weapon teams back in CoH1.

No no no, I did not mean panzer was better, I only meant it had the [same same...but differeeeeent] different role. You know, better armour, but that's why Sherman has the crew + smokes, etc.
My point of differentiating was that the OST has a bigger armoured division pool, not that they are stronger in some way. I mean, they are stronger in some but that's why US is more versatile. That's my point. You win some, you lose some. In panzer case, you win one vs one front and center, but you lose the brilliant smoke canisters for retreat/smoking the chokepoints, etc.

EDIT: To conclude, in my honest opinion, all the factions are balanced and well thought out. Pershing didn't need the nerf though, I'll cherrypick that, Pershing needs to be the doom of infantry.

Pershing 100% needed to be brought in line with other heavies. The thing has always been incredibly dangerous to infantry, not to mention it's already firing at squads with lower health pools in general in the first place

I am a bit confused about this topic. Is this a balance mod or is it actually the live game?

I am a bit confused about this topic. Is this a balance mod or is it actually the live game?

version 1.3 of the PREVIEW balance mod.

No no no, I did not mean panzer was better, I only meant it had the [same same...but differeeeeent] different role. You know, better armour, but that's why Sherman has the crew + smokes, etc.
My point of differentiating was that the OST has a bigger armoured division pool, not that they are stronger in some way. I mean, they are stronger in some but that's why US is more versatile. That's my point. You win some, you lose some. In panzer case, you win one vs one front and center, but you lose the brilliant smoke canisters for retreat/smoking the chokepoints, etc.

EDIT: To conclude, in my honest opinion, all the factions are balanced and well thought out. Pershing didn't need the nerf though, I'll cherrypick that, Pershing needs to be the doom of infantry.

I'll ask the question I've asked everyone who's said "all the factions are balanced" (or even 'ost OP'):



What's your explanation for the disparity in win rates? You can argue that the sample size for UKF is too small, but what about OST? This is from the recent World Cup Series, which had the same unit stats as the current version, and was played by top-level players.

Pershing 100% needed to be brought in line with other heavies. The thing has always been incredibly dangerous to infantry, not to mention it's already firing at squads with lower health pools in general in the first place

Pershing is fully MEANT to be best AI out of all heavies.

Each heavy got its niche, Tiger is best AT, pershing is best AI, IS-2 is best damage sponge.

Can someone tell me why Stug has to have lower range then any other TD except Panther? Even Jpanzer have same 60 range as other TDs, but not Stug, that clearly lacks JP's armor. I know it has better ROF and lower cost, but still any other TD outranges it, while lacking camo ability, that JP receives with vet.
It brings weird dynamic to Ost, that has to rely on paks to counter TDs, or Panther/P4 rushes (which is often a very high risk endeavor). Paks may work vs brits, or even USF, (to some extend) but Soviets easily counter it with a Katyusha salvo. Not mentioning, that AT gun is quite easy to de-crew and subsequently destroy especially while trying to hunt something that has its own range values.

I'll ask the question I've asked everyone who's said "all the factions are balanced" (or even 'ost OP'):



What's your explanation for the disparity in win rates? You can argue that the sample size for UKF is too small, but what about OST? This is from the recent World Cup Series, which had the same unit stats as the current version, and was played by top-level players.

First thing first:
You're right, you need a good population to be able to extrapolate data.
2nd there is an inherent flaw in this graph:
** How many games in total have been played? **
Other than that, you can then argue about the matches themselves. Were they anything else besides 1v1? The main thing people need to grasp is how fundamentally different a 1v1 game is to any other mode just by looking at the input parameters for each (let's say arbitrarily without any loss of generality) minute of gameplay. CoH2 1v1 is a different game altogether.

So yeah, the graph doesn't really show much, the percentages are there ad-hoc without any background information. If you want to build a good statistical analysis you need a large population, controlled system (tournaments are semi-controlled systems) and you need parameters which you would keep static. All in all, when you get such large disparities, you know something is off and the graph presented should be taken with a big fist of salt.

EDIT: Seen the link, 84 games. Not nearly enough to be able to draw any conclusions. Their statistical analysis is something that would be considered a bad representation/analysis in the scientific community. I mean, I don't blame them, it's a game that has countless parameters... Even though the thorough analysis they concluded is "much wow" effort, it's also waaaaay too much information and extrapolation. Way too much. The whole thing is convoluted, impossible to draw conclusions.

I'd say that the best way you would test the balance is if you had at least 1000 games. Only then can you proceed with an analysis that would not be inherently flawed.

Pershing is fully MEANT to be best AI out of all heavies.

Each heavy got its niche, Tiger is best AT, pershing is best AI, IS-2 is best damage sponge.

Agreed, Pershing is meant to be to infantry, what COVID-19 is to humans, a destroyer. The whole "IN LINE WITH" BS needs to stop.

Can someone tell me why Stug has to have lower range then any other TD except Panther? Even Jpanzer have same 60 range as other TDs, but not Stug, that clearly lacks JP's armor. I know it has better ROF and lower cost, but still any other TD outranges it, while lacking camo ability, that JP receives with vet.

Sure thing.
Its because its very cheap and durable for the cost.

You aren't going to get this kind of durability and firepower with 60 range below 130 fuel.

It brings weird dynamic to Ost, that has to rely on paks to counter TDs, or Panther/P4 rushes (which is often a very high risk endeavor). Paks may work vs brits, or even USF, (to some extend) but Soviets easily counter it with a Katyusha salvo. Not mentioning, that AT gun is quite easy to de-crew and subsequently destroy especially while trying to hunt something that has its own range values.

Everyone has to use infantry based AT and ATGs to counter TDs you know. No vehicle in game can just brute force their way frontally, so if you're really keen on using vehicles to counter vehicles that are meant to hardcounter vehicles, you better pull off a good flank.

Also, panzergrens move much faster near vehicles, so they can easily support whatever flank or attack you're making with vehicle.