Why does 1 vs 1 feel like a big scam?

I like this mechanics tbh. I remember coh1 where it was really difficult to come back and then everybody (I think) agreed that it is very important to make sure that in coh2 a player that made a few mistakes can come back into the game. The resource system was redesigned (territory points give resources in coh2) and upkeep is quite high. I like the fact that the game can keep one on their toes* until the match is finished. But of course it is a matter or personal preference

*but playing this game can really make your stomach juices get really acid (seriously).

As I already said this is just a rant thread.
Had a game as USF where I really had full map controll and got enemys Flak truck , but I ended up loosing because I went for tripple 76 mm Sherman which were not exactly good against Infantry and thus finished by tripple raketen.

In fact I have massive problems when it comes to closing games as USF. Might be because I am simply not that used to them ( only recently startet using them regularly afer acquiring the WC 51 commander ( this thing is a beast, allowed a scrub like me to seriously threaten a Rank 150 player ... but then again lost in mid game )

USF doesn't have stock finisher units, you must pick the pershing or calliope to be sure to wipe your opponent the way you think of it.
This is the initial design concept for USF that has never been addressed with the factions revamp (USF being a super early faction that should lose past a certain time). USF is still lacking a stock end-game unit able to close a match has it would have make the faction totally OP back in those days.

USF doesn't have stock finisher units, you must pick the pershing or calliope to be sure to wipe your opponent the way you think of it.
This is the initial design concept for USF that has never been addressed with the factions revamp (USF being a super early faction that should lose past a certain time). USF is still lacking a stock end-game unit able to close a match has it would have make the faction totally OP back in those days.

Could had gone for a normal Sherman. OP problems is the equivalent of going triple Panther and complaining that they lose because the opponent went AT guns and infantry based focus army.

In my view of how a future CoH3 would look like, i would just take the current system and expand it to be more complex, while retaining the same logics we have now

I think snares (or rather the concept of snares) have been a good addition to the game compared to vCoH because it adds an additional layer of strategy and tactics to the game (keeping your vehicles protected by snare infantry, adding strategic choices between line infantry with snares or specialist assault infantry, etc), but the way they work in CoH2 with always dealing engine damage below the threshold makes them too punishing.

I think ideally mines should deal engine damage as they do now, but snares should only deal a temporary stun critical that makes the tank slow down (on top of their damage). Like the Rear Echelon mines. That way infantry can still use their snares as a deterrent (protecting friendly tanks and support weapons, stopping assaults, stopping pushing, etc.) but it would make snares a lot less punishing because the snared/stunned vehicle would be able to escape (or continue) more easily once it wears off.

Chill guys he was annoyed and wanted to get it off his chest. Even he admitted it, though the insights into 1v1 resulting from it are interesting.

To OP, might I recommend the discord for rants instead? It’s a lot more casual and you can rant all you like without people thinking you are serious.
https://discord.gg/tCMaxj5

I think snares (or rather the concept of snares) have been a good addition to the game compared to vCoH because it adds an additional layer of strategy and tactics to the game (keeping your vehicles protected by snare infantry, adding strategic choices between line infantry with snares or specialist assault infantry, etc), but the way they work in CoH2 with always dealing engine damage below the threshold makes them too punishing.

I think ideally mines should deal engine damage as they do now, but snares should only deal a temporary stun critical that makes the tank slow down (on top of their damage). Like the Rear Echelon mines. That way infantry can still use their snares as a deterrent (protecting friendly tanks and support weapons, stopping assaults, stopping pushing, etc.) but it would make snares a lot less punishing because the snared/stunned vehicle would be able to escape (or continue) more easily once it wears off.

I adhere on temporal debuffs for infantry based snares, specially for medium tanks and above, it's just that i would keep a weaker version of the current engine dmg for when tanks are at a lower HP threshold.

I think it's sad that the results are too binary, even though we have plenty of criticals which could serve the purpose of a middle ground if reworked.

I adhere on temporal debuffs for infantry based snares, specially for medium tanks and above, it's just that i would keep a weaker version of the current engine dmg for when tanks are at a lower HP threshold.

I think it's sad that the results are too binary, even though we have plenty of criticals which could serve the purpose of a middle ground if reworked.

Yes. Lots of potential wasted. Too binary it is atm. I would also do the same with universal mines. Definitely thresholds should be different depending on how heavy the vehicle is.

Could had gone for a normal Sherman. OP problems is the equivalent of going triple Panther and complaining that they lose because the opponent went AT guns and infantry based focus army.

More than one sherman75 is a biggest error imo, first because they don't do better Vs pak wall and second because if your opponent also manage to get a panther you are are dead.

The answer to teamweapon wall is indirect fire. Scott,pak,mortar and evidently rocket arty above all.

In COH1 or other RTS, you fucked up, you are fucked.
In COH2, comeback can be done by some magic button/ability.

In COH1 or other RTS, you fucked up, you are fucked.
In COH2, comeback can be done by some magic button/ability.

The overextention button?

The overextention button?

There is too many example, COH1 steering to that approach since Panzer Elite and Brit release, which almost every COH1 players hating them.
COH2 inherit this style, although it is not that OP like COH1.

e.g. Button vehicle, marked target, skillplanes, etc.

If you look at the resource income closely between two sides, you can see COH1, if someone capped a large fuel point, the difference of income between two players increase quite a lot, every fuel/muni points count.
In COH2, there is so many strategic point that give muni and fuel at the same time. You can see even there is a lot of point contest, the income between two players didn't really change a lot. That's mean, in COH2 if you fucked up, your game doesn't really fuck up. BTW, I think it is totally intended for audience/observers, it is always fun to watch a comeback moment.


Also COH2 had a LOT of instant call-in unit can change the game sitution instantly, you don't need to prepare for it (unless you count saving lot of MP/fuel).

e.g. I lost a Panzer 4, nvm, let's pop a Tiger. Boom your Shermans are fucked.

Can you do that in Starcraft? You can only do that a few doctrine back in COH1.

It still better to able to come back then not cuz you lost an engagement early on and are never able to close the gap.

Imo its kinda stupid that a mistake or bad luck early on means gg regardless.

That all terratory point give fuel and ammo is something that needs to change. Esp for team games.

Can you do that in Starcraft? You can only do that a few doctrine back in COH1.

I mean that doesn't necessarily means it's better, just a different type of game.

SC2 is the extreme of skill requirement and punishing mistakes. If you miss positioning your wall (buildings) and forget to put a unit in hold position (say 1 model in CoH2 been out of cover) you can lose the game.

By design, the game can be finished at any moment. In CoH mp is mostly constant and your base has bunkers as defensive tools.

Following SC, i'll say we have AoE2. While it's harder and slower to gain advantages over your opponent, been able to recover or make a comeback is slower as well. While natural defenders advantage is slightly higher, i don't think it's nowhere near to COH.

Finally i'll say WC3 is closer in relationship with CoH. From defenders advantage to resource acquirement and upkeep. Having key single units which can be focused down (Heroes) makes for comeback possible.


I think CoH2 only design problem is not that it lets you have comebacks be accessible but rather than games can drag down for long, specially depending on the design of the map (VP location).

I think CoH2 only design problem is not that it lets you have comebacks be accessible but rather than games can drag down for long, specially depending on the design of the map (VP location).

This is a really big deal imo. It takes way too long to finish games a lot of the time because base rushes are mostly impossible until you have a critical mass of tanks. Idk if there would be a way to solve it without affecting the core of CoH but it is one of the things i hate the most about coh. It's particularly bad in teamgames.

This is a really big deal imo. It takes way too long to finish games a lot of the time because base rushes are mostly impossible until you have a critical mass of tanks. Idk if there would be a way to solve it without affecting the core of CoH but it is one of the things i hate the most about coh. It's particularly bad in teamgames.

I would push for faster VP bleed, specially when there's no attempt at trying to decap a VP back. Games takes too long when you can force a 2vs1 VP situation and the defensive player has no reason to over extend for like 300 VPs or more.

To counter it, a contested VP would not count towards the bleed as long as a unit is fighting inside the point. So you would effectively stop the bleed at 1vs2 VP deficit even though you don't manage to neutralise the point, as long as you are able to keep units fighting in the decap zone.

In regards to base rushes and defense, that's been an overlooked design problem, specially since WFA were released. There's no reason ATM that OKW has flak defenses (specially when its RNG on teamgames on which type of defenses you will have when paired with OH) and USF having extra MG bunkers on it's circular base. Bunker MG on small maps tend to also protect strategic points which is really stupid IMO.
For a future COH3, i would experiment on reducing the amount of MG bunkers or pushing them way further back, so you have a bit more space to maneuver or been able to smoke them to go for a base dive. Or give them little to no AoE suppression so you can try to bait the MG with one squad and let others get in.

To counter it, maybe make HQ have a single garrisonable spot for damaged units plus say an LMG (no suppression) model defending it to deter long stays on the inside of the base.


In somehow unrelated note, i wonder if the game would benefit from having say +50mp income (350mp) and variable upkeep ratios which goes more aggressively at higher pop values and lesser at lower ones.

A crude example would be: 0.5mp between 1-24 pop, 1mp at 25-49, 1.5mp at 50-74 and 2.0mp at 75-100.

I adhere on temporal debuffs for infantry based snares, specially for medium tanks and above, it's just that i would keep a weaker version of the current engine dmg for when tanks are at a lower HP threshold.

I think it's sad that the results are too binary, even though we have plenty of criticals which could serve the purpose of a middle ground if reworked.

I agree. Snares should do much more damage but only apply temporary criticals (for example, driver wounded, stunning or slowing the tank, or gunner wounded, temporarily disabling the gun).

It's way easier for OKW to pull out a win after playing like garbage the whole game than for the other factions to do that. They have all the late game crutches to do that with. Obers, King Tiger, Flak Heavy Panzer HQ.

I would push for faster VP bleed, specially when there's no attempt at trying to decap a VP back. Games takes too long when you can force a 2vs1 VP situation and the defensive player has no reason to over extend for like 300 VPs or more.

To counter it, a contested VP would not count towards the bleed as long as a unit is fighting inside the point. So you would effectively stop the bleed at 1vs2 VP deficit even though you don't manage to neutralise the point, as long as you are able to keep units fighting in the decap zone.

Or simply cut down the standard VP amount from 500 to 300.

In regards to base rushes and defense, that's been an overlooked design problem, specially since WFA were released. There's no reason ATM that OKW has flak defenses (specially when its RNG on teamgames on which type of defenses you will have when paired with OH) and USF having extra MG bunkers on it's circular base. Bunker MG on small maps tend to also protect strategic points which is really stupid IMO.
For a future COH3, i would experiment on reducing the amount of MG bunkers or pushing them way further back, so you have a bit more space to maneuver or been able to smoke them to go for a base dive. Or give them little to no AoE suppression so you can try to bait the MG with one squad and let others get in.

To counter it, maybe make HQ have a single garrisonable spot for damaged units plus say an LMG (no suppression) model defending it to deter long stays on the inside of the base.


In somehow unrelated note, i wonder if the game would benefit from having say +50mp income (350mp) and variable upkeep ratios which goes more aggressively at higher pop values and lesser at lower ones.

A crude example would be: 0.5mp between 1-24 pop, 1mp at 25-49, 1.5mp at 50-74 and 2.0mp at 75-100.

I think one solution would be to have MG bunkers start inactive, but let players spend MP to permanently activate them. Their activation time would be very short (10-15 seconds maybe), so if you feel a base rush coming in, you can scare it off. You'd still be behind the curve, as you spent resources on base defences, but at least you'd still be in the game.

I think snares (or rather the concept of snares) have been a good addition to the game compared to vCoH because it adds an additional layer of strategy and tactics to the game (keeping your vehicles protected by snare infantry, adding strategic choices between line infantry with snares or specialist assault infantry, etc), but the way they work in CoH2 with always dealing engine damage below the threshold makes them too punishing.

I think ideally mines should deal engine damage as they do now, but snares should only deal a temporary stun critical that makes the tank slow down (on top of their damage). Like the Rear Echelon mines. That way infantry can still use their snares as a deterrent (protecting friendly tanks and support weapons, stopping assaults, stopping pushing, etc.) but it would make snares a lot less punishing because the snared/stunned vehicle would be able to escape (or continue) more easily once it wears off.

imo ATG and AT tanks with 60 range and almost pen is the more issue.

A snared tanks dies too easily.

But top players dont like RNG, so i think a decrease from 60 to 55 range for stock AT is smarter solution.

And also recon flares which gives too many vision.

Or simply cut down the standard VP amount from 500 to 300.



I think one solution would be to have MG bunkers start inactive, but let players spend MP to permanently activate them. Their activation time would be very short (10-15 seconds maybe), so if you feel a base rush coming in, you can scare it off. You'd still be behind the curve, as you spent resources on base defences, but at least you'd still be in the game.

But that doesn't fix the problem, it just makes games shorter by default. I want to see stalled games occur when there's a bigger intention on both parts on actually trying to cap the VPs. So even though the bleed is faster, you are still "rewarded" the moment you put units under fire inside a VP. Whether you are able to can/neutralize it or not.


In that direction with bunkers, it would be better rather than needing mp to activate them, that instead it would incur in a mp gain penalty.