Relationship between commanders and game balance

I wrote this long ass poem about commanders and how the 1st commander rewamp was awesome and how a 2nd commander rewamp could finish the job and create more variety in the meta. Everyone knows about the idea of IL2 bombing removal from ISU152 commander and Stuka dive from Jaeger Armor, I think that Breakthrough should follow as for 200MU breakthrough arty is super powerful with it's huge AOE, imho should be replaced with sth else. Anyway, it logged me out and I lost my wall of text, I don't want to write all that again, I will be brief (not).

Please, reconsider modifying abilities like assault guards in M3, PG and Grens in 250HT Paras with Pak Howie and stock teamweapon deployment in Airborne (or at least replace M1 ATG airdrop with 6-pounder or sth). Half of these abilities give you insignificant discount on the bundle while seriously limiting your flexibility. 250 HT should be reworked to function like in German Infantry doctrine, so that it's built and not called in. Additionally, I think that both the Airborne and Recon Support Paras should have access to the same weapon upgrades. I don't understand why both squads can access M1919, while one can alternatively access Thompsons and the other can access zooks. It's just as if Panzerfusiliers of Breakthrough could access only G43s while the Grand Offensive Panzerfusiliers could access only PSchrecks, that makes little sense and is not creating variety but rather limits flexibility.
While I'm talking about Panzerfusiliers, I believe there is no good reason for them to receive extra sight range with an upgrade when they have access to flare ability. OKW has a variety of recon options but this passive extra sight makes infantry play super easy as without any extra attention or ability use they can spot and dodge enemy MG.

Anyway, getting commanders to similar power level to create diversity accross all gamemodes should be a priority, Royal Arty Regiment's offmap cost could rise from 100 to 130MU as it lasts long, kills teamweapons and blinds vehicles and with 100MU cost it's just too easy to spam this ability.

If the next patch will really be the last one, please, consider how even more commanders could be made competitive. Of course there are some commanders like Encirclement and Counter Attack that work around niche abilities, but I really wish I could select Rifle Company commander in a 2v2 match and not feel like I am throwing by not picking Calliope or Priest commanders.

Please, comment how you'd gimp meta commanders and buff non-meta ones to make more commanders viable for competitive play. Bored of seeing ISU152 with Arty Regiment and Jaeger Armor every 2v2 match. OKW already has a very nice commander selection with only Scavenge doctrine being a bit weaker accross all gamemodes.

I don't agree that Recon Paras need m1919s for the commander to feel flexible enough, though it would be nice.

I am annoyed though that if I want to get paratroopers I have to drop a pal howitzer. They should rework the pak howitzer drop so that it's an ability that Recon paratroopers get IMO or something. Or maybe dropping at a beacon causes the ability to also drop a Howie.

I really don't like Rifle. The M4A3 HVS- sorry I mean E8 - is a lame feeling unit that is very expensive for being essentially a AT vehicle that is worse than the M36. It could use some abilities to spice it up. Maybe a shell switch or something.

Also rifle IMo needs a new ability, maybe the flares and sprint should be bundled and they can add Cavalry Riflemen...

I really don't like Rifle. The M4A3 HVS- sorry I mean E8 - is a lame feeling unit that is very expensive for being essentially a AT vehicle that is worse than the M36. It could use some abilities to spice it up. Maybe a shell switch or something.

Also rifle IMo needs a new ability, maybe the flares and sprint should be bundled and they can add Cavalry Riflemen...

I heard remarks that Rifle company is considered to be the most munition starved usf commander, which I can agree with. Plus the E8s require far more fuel and it is questionable wether it is really worth it over regular sherman + jackson combo. Imo this doctrine could use a resource generator vehicle, similar to wehrmacht opel truck or okw 223.

I don't agree that Recon Paras need m1919s for the commander to feel flexible enough, though it would be nice.

I am annoyed though that if I want to get paratroopers I have to drop a pal howitzer. They should rework the pak howitzer drop so that it's an ability that Recon paratroopers get IMO or something. Or maybe dropping at a beacon causes the ability to also drop a Howie.

I really don't like Rifle. The M4A3 HVS- sorry I mean E8 - is a lame feeling unit that is very expensive for being essentially a AT vehicle that is worse than the M36. It could use some abilities to spice it up. Maybe a shell switch or something.

Also rifle IMo needs a new ability, maybe the flares and sprint should be bundled and they can add Cavalry Riflemen...

Exactly this. I want to like the E8 but it sucks. It could use better AI abilities like WP rounds. The Riflemen commander I think could use access to the the M1919, and a better E8 tank. I'd prefer to see WP added to the E8 without costing muntions because it's already a munition starved commander. It needs this ability I think because it's the only Sherman variant without an alternate ammunition type, and it's for a faction that is the only one which lacks a vehicle mounted flamethrower. An E8 with WP rounds would make up for that a bit, even if they had to increase the price of the tank it would be worth it.

The E8 needs it's AI brought up to elefant levels for sure.

When the very possibility of a single patch is in question, making large changes to the game is extremely unwise. Missteps are unlikely to be reverted as there is little to no chance of a wait-and-see approach.

The modification of popular doctrines to make them worse so that somehow bad ones can see more use will not end well. These doctrines have been fine since their launch and so many years later now they're COH2's #1 issue? Removing off maps or otherwise nerfing popular commanders is not going to do anything to encourage the use of the numerous terrible commanders. It will simply make the game worse.

If there's a new balance/content patch for COH2, attention needs to be turned to polish and cleanup. It is as balanced as it will ever be and thinking that the removal of some off maps (which are very, very fun to use and a big part of COH2's spectacle I might add) is going to change something for the better is misguided. Commander abilities such as this should at most be modified quantitatively (stats, costs) without changing the core principles rather than qualitatively (different abilities).

The meta as the term implies, is created by the players themselves. If people want to play in a specific way and think this is the only so-called correct way, nothing can stop them. To turn the tables on the meta, one needs to go out there and do it in practice by actually playing the game and defeating those obsessed with following the current flavor of the month in new and creative ways.


Frankly speaking it's a huge amount of work to fix the underused commanders across all the armies and it was Relic themselves that created this situation with too many commanders that lacked a clear focus. SOV and OST rosters are the biggest offenders, of course. The work done so far by the balance team in the past few years is outstanding.

When the very possibility of a single patch is in question, making large changes to the game is extremely unwise. Missteps are unlikely to be reverted as there is little to no chance of a wait-and-see approach.

While swapping commander abilities is a big change gameplay wise, I am not sure if there are that many things that can go wrong. Sometimes fiddling with abilities like zis-3 or Su76 barrage can have larger consequences making units underused due to timing, cooldown, cost or range and this affects the entire faction and not just 1 commander.

The modification of popular doctrines to make them worse so that somehow bad ones can see more use will not end well. These doctrines have been fine since their launch and so many years later now they're COH2's #1 issue? Removing off maps or otherwise nerfing popular commanders is not going to do anything to encourage the use of the numerous terrible commanders. It will simply make the game worse.

Other commanders are not "terrible", they just can't compete with no-brainer commanders who have meta abilities and key units like ISU-152 or Elefant. This is particularly true for teamgames.

If there's a new balance/content patch for COH2, attention needs to be turned to polish and cleanup. It is as balanced as it will ever be and thinking that the removal of some off maps (which are very, very fun to use and a big part of COH2's spectacle I might add) is going to change something for the better is misguided. Commander abilities such as this should at most be modified quantitatively (stats, costs) without changing the core principles rather than qualitatively (different abilities).

If some commanders are significantly better than other, the meta forms and each match turns into Royal Arty, Jaeger Armor, ISU152. It's just as if you ate the same dinner every single day for the last few years. At some point it just loses the flavor. Currently, if you want to try something else, you get punished. Current system lowers replayability factor.

The meta as the term implies, is created by the players themselves. If people want to play in a specific way and think this is the only so-called correct way, nothing can stop them. To turn the tables on the meta, one needs to go out there and do it in practice by actually playing the game and defeating those obsessed with following the current flavor of the month in new and creative ways.

In case of a 2v2 scene this is not a flavor of the month, but a flavor of the last few years (briefly interrupted by Tiger meta when Tiger gun profile was unintentionally changed to better than intended). Meta makes the game uninteresting. Imagine playing rock, paper, scissors if going rock was always the best option. Game is great but lack of variety makes meta boring.

Frankly speaking it's a huge amount of work to fix the underused commanders across all the armies and it was Relic themselves that created this situation with too many commanders that lacked a clear focus. SOV and OST rosters are the biggest offenders, of course.

I don't agree. Currently it's not a matter of having 5 useless commanders in a faction, but rather 1-2 meta commanders per faction that get picked 90% of the time. I think that if top 4-5 commanders per faction were at about the same power level, that would be enough not to have ISU-152 and Elefant in every single 2v2 match. Experience shows that this could be done. OKW is seeing about equal play of Breakthrough, Elite Armor, Overwatch, Grand Offensive, Fallschirmjaeger and even post-nerf Special Operations (which is why changing the cancer flare might not be the best idea), with only Scavenge doctrine being less useful in all gamemodes (Feuersturm is mostly featured in 3v3 and 4v4). Not every commander needs to be viable in every game mode, but every gamemode should have at least a few viable commanders that don't fall short of the meta standards.

The work done so far by the balance team in the past few years is outstanding.

Yes, they have done great job so far.

While swapping commander abilities is a big change gameplay wise, I am not sure if there are that many things that can go wrong. Sometimes fiddling with abilities like zis-3 or Su76 barrage can have larger consequences making units underused due to timing, cooldown, cost or range and this affects the entire faction and not just 1 commander.

[...]

I agree with you. It is true that very few of these commander abilities see use more than once or twice for each battle, if at all, while core units are a pivotal part of every match.

As for the rest, thank you for your reply, these are good counterpoints.