possibilty to push back the late game td's

increase fuel cost for tanks a certain percentage?
how would things be if all the later tanks (tier 4ish TD's,panthers+doc heavies etc) tanks cost ~20-30% more fuel than they do now?
it would work out poorly in some circumstances, but this could give the medium tanks a new life, and the games going through several phases before getting to late-game.

Then you'd have insanely OP and cost efficient infantry based AT and ATGs and extremely underperforming
AT armor all at once.

If you have someone with a broken leg, you don't break the other leg and call it balance.

everything up till jackson/su-85/panther/jagd4/firefly/comet/churchill +doc heavies will go like normal wouldn't it?

m4's,pz4's/t-34's/cromwells etc come out as normal, you could wait to get enough fuel for your su-85, but it would be more advisable to get out a t34s/su-76's.
example if you play sov vs OST: you got your cons/penals/mg's/zis-3's, do you get a t34 for 90 fuel, or wait for su-85 150-160 fuel?
same for OST, do you get pz4 for 120 fuel, or wait for panther 210-220 fuel?
making a TD wall would now have a huge tradeoff in price, and encourage more active playstyle, and use more mediums for pushes, and not going for the no-brainer td-wall of the meta

add some doc meds to tech tree for more variation

buff's/nerf's gotta be handed out here and there of course

on second thought, my suggestions might make way more trouble than they fix

consider it closed?

Would be more fun if all factions have access to stock heavy tanks. Wouldn't be too hard to do and would be great for balance. Just sucks that Allies are stuck going TDs because Axis have easy access to heavy tanks.

Would be more fun if all factions have access to stock heavy tanks. Wouldn't be too hard to do and would be great for balance. Just sucks that Allies are stuck going TDs because Axis have easy access to heavy tanks.

A large part of the Axis vs. Allies balance revolves on Allies having superior anti-infantry and Axis having superior anti-tank. Giving Allies stock heavies breaks that balance since Allies still have superior infantry but are on par with Axis in terms of AT power, unless those heavy tanks are all Churchill clones.

A large part of the Axis vs. Allies balance revolves on Allies having superior anti-infantry and Axis having superior anti-tank. Giving Allies stock heavies breaks that balance since Allies still have superior infantry but are on par with Axis in terms of AT power, unless those heavy tanks are all Churchill clones.

In term of stock option, what infantry is superior of Obersoldaten or Pzgren?

Massively nerf the chance of hitting medium tanks at long range for SU-85s and Jacksons, then we can see other lighter ATs getting used more.

A large part of the Axis vs. Allies balance revolves on Allies having superior anti-infantry and Axis having superior anti-tank. Giving Allies stock heavies breaks that balance since Allies still have superior infantry but are on par with Axis in terms of AT power, unless those heavy tanks are all Churchill clones.

I disagree. Maybe at the start of CoH2 but not anymore. Allies may have access to more elite infantry but anti-infantry/anti-tank options for all factions are the same.

The current balance revolves around 'forced' weaknesses put on factions that must be resolved by doctrinal choices. Even then a faction is usually lacking something that another faction will have. Soviets are probably the best example of the intended model. They have lots of commanders to choose from, the faction has very obvious weaknesses but can be fixed by picking the right commander.

To provide some examples:

- Brits lack team mortars, infantry with tank snare, cheap TD(s), machine gun emplacement, reinforce halftrack, indirect field gun and rocket artillery.
- USF lack heavy panzers, no artillery, rocket artillery and a sniper. Initially they did not have team mortars either and relied on infantry to move around MG teams.
- Soviets lack good infantry and heavy panzers although this is usually resolved through doctrine choices (they have the biggest pool).
- OKW lack good early game infantry, cheap engineers, machine gun emplacement, reinforce halftrack, sniper, cache building, team mortars, good anti-tank weapons team and they have the worst tech tree of all factions. Early game, they are forced to go down two paths which will dictate the entirety of the early-mid game. Most of this is made up by being very good with the things they do have.
- Wehr lack indirect field gun, early access to anti-tank option (weak to light tanks) and probably more that I cant think of right now.

This is no way a comprehensive list but this is what the current balance is.


Axis have easy access to heavy panzers which makes going tank destroyers an obvious choice for Allied players. What if both sides had access to tank destroyers and heavy panzers though? Wouldn't that be a more fun game when you would have to decide on which to get? Instead of having the choice laid out for you.

In term of stock option, what infantry is superior of Obersoldaten or Pzgren?

Lol the silence speaks volumes regarding this.

In term of stock option, what infantry is superior of Obersoldaten or Pzgren?

Obers come out pretty late. Pzgren timing is a different issue that should be fixed. Sections and Rifles are stronger than Grens and Volks. Cons start out weaker but they scale better with 7 men. IMO Allied light vehicles are better than most Axis ones, but that could be my noobery speaking.

everything up till jackson/su-85/panther/jagd4/firefly/comet/churchill +doc heavies will go like normal wouldn't it?

m4's,pz4's/t-34's/cromwells etc come out as normal, you could wait to get enough fuel for your su-85, but it would be more advisable to get out a t34s/su-76's.
example if you play sov vs OST: you got your cons/penals/mg's/zis-3's, do you get a t34 for 90 fuel, or wait for su-85 150-160 fuel?
same for OST, do you get pz4 for 120 fuel, or wait for panther 210-220 fuel?
making a TD wall would now have a huge tradeoff in price, and encourage more active playstyle, and use more mediums for pushes, and not going for the no-brainer td-wall of the meta

add some doc meds to tech tree for more variation

buff's/nerf's gotta be handed out here and there of course

What this would actually do is encourage turtling behind AT gun walls for all factions because you've taken away the mobile "active" alternative.

Obers come out pretty late. Pzgren timing is a different issue that should be fixed. Sections and Rifles are stronger than Grens and Volks. Cons start out weaker but they scale better with 7 men. IMO Allied light vehicles are better than most Axis ones, but that could be my noobery speaking.

Don't you see the pattern here?

If anything Ostheer was indeed behind in the infantry side until their buffed the Pzgren. Today there is not such -Allied late game dominate with the infantry and Axis with the armor.
Balance is faction wise, not side wise and some factions have been initially designed with such limitation that it is still problematic to manipulate the balance

loopDloop.
you might be right.
just wanted to make the matches a bit more interesting instead of some factions/doctrines just going for only 5-6 different units entire game and simple tactics.
was hoping suggestion might breathe new life into little/unused units, but it might be way more hassle to balance than its worth

loopDloop.
you might be right.
just wanted to make the matches a bit more interesting instead of some factions/doctrines just going for only 5-6 different units entire game and simple tactics.
was hoping suggestion might breathe new life into little/unused units, but it might be way more hassle to balance than its worth

You can always try and use the less used units, but they won't be meta until giga doctrines are gone. Panthers also cause a lot of issues with how prominent the allied TDs are, and until panthers have a massive change (not likely) the TDs probably won't go away.

You can always try and use the less used units, but they won't be meta until giga doctrines are gone. Panthers also cause a lot of issues with how prominent the allied TDs are, and until panthers have a massive change (not likely) the TDs probably won't go away.

I think Panthers are in a good spot. They are incredibly durable with reliable frontal armour. The only problem is its primary role is a tank destroyer to counter other meds and tank destroyers. Its a bad 'medium' and its a bad tank destroyer. The main selling point is it will outlast whatever it is up against. Compared to other tank destroyers, it has a several machine guns for DPS so it's got that going for it.

Also the Panther gets stronger the longer its alive

I think Panthers are in a good spot. They are incredibly durable with reliable frontal armour. The only problem is its primary role is a tank destroyer to counter other meds and tank destroyers. Its a bad 'medium' and its a bad tank destroyer. The main selling point is it will outlast whatever it is up against. Compared to other tank destroyers, it has a several machine guns for DPS so it's got that going for it.

It still outranges mediums by 10 and has the ability, as you have said, to dive any tank and kill it (if snares are out of the picture). I don't think it's that bad as a tank destroyer. It's not JP4 but then again, other stats make up for it. And as long as there are stock 230+ armour and 640+ HP tanks in Axis roster, TDs can not have their firepower nerfed, at all.

I mean, OKW has a stock P4 with 234 frontal armour and their TD is 230. Compared to USF piss poor AT gun (with good cone though), it can easily trade blows with it (since it's ~50% chance to penetarate at long range).

Soviet and UKF are a bit tougher, but then again, those factions have their weaknesses and merits.

The game was thought up with such disparities in mind and as such were greeted well by the community given the "asymmetric balance" nature of the game.

Also, map design and gamemode are the biggest balance breakers. One thing that is severly UP in 1v1 is OP in 3v3+, and the other way around ofc. It's not the same having max 200 pop on the map and 600. 3x population on maps of rougly equal size.

snip

Speaking of maps, will we ever get new maps?

Tank destroyers are reactive units. Push back the timing of the units they're needed to counter, and you'll see them later.

Tank destroyers are reactive units. Push back the timing of the units they're needed to counter, and you'll see them later.

They are supposed to be reactive units, but they really arnt. You know the enemy is going to build some armour and it doesn't matter if it's a Puma, a p4 and Panther or a tiger you are going to use the same tool and it will not be bought in vain.

They are supposed to be reactive units, but they really arnt. You know the enemy is going to build some armour and it doesn't matter if it's a Puma, a p4 and Panther or a tiger you are going to use the same tool and it will not be bought in vain.

With the exception of the Jackson, it'll be inefficient against a P4 and, unlike the competing medium, will contribute no manpower bleed.