Base building automatons

Is a good feature, I welcome it.

I don't mind it but I'd prefer having the additional trade off of engineers being busy for a while when teching.

I don't mind it but I'd prefer having the additional trade off of engineers being busy for a while when teching.

The amount of butthurt we've had in coh2 about vanila factions engineers having to sit there and construct while others just pressed a button meant it was pretty much inevitable to see this in coh3 as a basic feature for all factions. I can't see a single downside to that move.

On the one hand, yes, on the other, no. If engineers do not build buildings in the game, they have lost a lot of importance, Need to strengthen their main role of construction: each faction should be able to build fortifications / mines / and so on without a commander

I kinda dislike it. Killing Sov. and Ost engineers early on also meant that they had to get another one of them before being able to upgrade. Also it was nice to have this tradeoff / important choice: Do I build another mine / repair this light vehicle and thus delay me reaching the new Tech Level by a bit or do I retreat to base and tech up asap but keep my 222 at 80% health

There being complaints about OSt/ Sov. needing Engineers but Ukf and so on not needing it is imo not a valid argument. They could just have agreed upon simply applying this "Engineers needed to tech up" rule to every faction this time. Also we don't know for sure if there won't be factions again that don't have Autotech

I kinda dislike it. Killing Sov. and Ost engineers early on also meant that they had to get another one of them before being able to upgrade. Also it was nice to have this tradeoff / important choice: Do I build another mine / repair this light vehicle and thus delay me reaching the new Tech Level by a bit or do I retreat to base and tech up asap but keep my 222 at 80% health

There being complaints about OSt/ Sov. needing Engineers but Ukf and so on not needing it is imo not a valid argument. They could just have agreed upon simply applying this "Engineers needed to tech up" rule to every faction this time. Also we don't know for sure if there won't be factions again that don't have Autotech

I agree here, this is an important point in the game, especially for the Soviets: either you build T1 / T2 but lose some control over the map or build only the infantry and have more control and more infantry on the map but no support.

On the one hand, yes, on the other, no. If engineers do not build buildings in the game, they have lost a lot of importance, Need to strengthen their main role of construction: each faction should be able to build fortifications / mines / and so on without a commander

EFA and UKF engineers don't build base structures and they are as important as ever.
These mines and wires won't build/clear themselves.

The amount of butthurt we've had in coh2 about vanila factions engineers having to sit there and construct while others just pressed a button meant it was pretty much inevitable to see this in coh3 as a basic feature for all factions. I can't see a single downside to that move.

well you could just let all buildings by every faction be constructed by units, just like in vCoH. Not having the choice of "Do I build another engineer to keep my current one on the field or do I save the MP and retreat my current Engineer?" seems like a disadvantage to me. I feel like a lot of people underestimate how important it is to face the player with choices. CoH2 has become a game mainly about execution on a micromanagement level with very little macro level decision making which makes high level play incredibly boring to watch and play.

You're right of course about the butthurt but it shouldn't matter what people on forums who are worse at the game than my brother who has like 10 games total think about game balance. The screams and screeches about "faction A has X why does faction B not have it as well?!?!?!?!?" should just be ignored.

EFA and UKF engineers don't build base structures and they are as important as ever.
These mines and wires won't build/clear themselves.

USA is the second echelon, for me personally one of the most unnecessary units. They do not have good mines (and this is one of the important things that I need), the tank crew can fix themselves. Also, considering that there are very few people in the random who mine everything around like me. So there is no need to mine detector, in a proper majority.

I think it is great. It is super annoying to be forced to retreat a unit in midgame in order to tech. Funny that I implemented this for the Wehrmacht and Soviets in my mod and now see it implemented in vanilla CoH3.

EFA and UKF engineers don't build base structures and they are as important as ever.
These mines and wires won't build/clear themselves.

Sturms and Echelons are pretty much never built. Having 1 Sturm is essential. Having 2 is stupid in most cases. Having 1 RE is essential in 1v1. Not so much in teamgames. Having more than 2 is pretty much always stupid except for 2 doctrines.

As Katitof said, the main issue was that in CoH2 the factions are not treated equally.
Lost your Combat Engineer? -> Rebuild within 2 minutes or you will not be able to tech in time.
Lost your Rear Echelon? -> Does not matter, you can tech anyway. Rebuild only when you really need the repairs/sweeper.
It would not have been an issue if all factions had to build tech buildings like EFA or if all factions just unlocked them like WFA. But the way they split it was suboptimal.

The main question is: Is there any tactical/strategic advantage to being forced to build tech with pioneers? Is it a meaningful decision potentially having to retreat your pioneer just to build the next tech building earlier or simply wait for another minute until the unit needs to retreat from combat anyway? Especially considering that this decision needs to be made only 2-3 times in a whole match, and always within the first 15-20 minutes.

It was not really impactful decision in CoH2, it was mostly annoying. If we additionally consider that CoH3 will feature more different types of units, a single pioneer unit won't be as important as in CoH2. Overall, I think it will be a good change.

Sturms and Echelons are pretty much never built. Having 1 Sturm is essential. Having 2 is stupid in most cases. Having 1 RE is essential in 1v1. Not so much in teamgames. Having more than 2 is pretty much always stupid except for 2 doctrines.

You're equating frontline usefulness with being a mandatory tech progression(since vanila factions can't tech without them) and that is not very valid comparison.

Sturms carry early game well and are REALLY good at repairing, you don't need to have more then 1 for unit to be useful and you feel how useful and important the unit is when you lose it.

I do agree REs do not have as much importance, but they still make an excellent bazooka platform and that Pershing obviously isn't going to repair itself, mine sweeping is invaluable regardless of game mode.

The main question is: Is there any tactical/strategic advantage to being forced to build tech with pioneers? Is it a meaningful decision potentially having to retreat your pioneer just to build the next tech building earlier or simply wait for another minute until the unit needs to retreat from combat anyway? Especially considering that this decision needs to be made only 2-3 times in a whole match, and always within the first 15-20 minutes.

Yeah, it does boil down to this.
2 factions having to give up ground and retreat a squad off the field when they don't have to, while 3 factions don't has nothing to do with strategy or tactics, you're just forced to do so when you want to tech when you actually can.

I agree here, this is an important point in the game, especially for the Soviets: either you build T1 / T2 but lose some control over the map or build only the infantry and have more control and more infantry on the map but no support.

well thank f that won't be a thing in coh3

You're equating frontline usefulness with being a mandatory tech progression(since vanila factions can't tech without them) and that is not very valid comparison.

Sturms carry early game well and are REALLY good at repairing, you don't need to have more then 1 for unit to be useful and you feel how useful and important the unit is when you lose it.

I do agree REs do not have as much importance, but they still make an excellent bazooka platform and that Pershing obviously isn't going to repair itself, mine sweeping is invaluable regardless of game mode.

1. My other post is where I make my main point but I'll try to explain it again.

2. I'm not making a balance argument. I'm not saying that they are good or bad. Sturms are the most essential unit in the game pretty much. But you should rarely have more than 1. So the point is that Sturms and REs don't play any role in build orders because there's no reason to have less or more than 1 which reduces macromanagement complexity. They are pretty much never a build option unless you lose them in which case you HAVE to rebuild them (which isn't great either).

3. What Hannibal is saying is wrong. It's a very significant decision whether to reatreat your pio early or wait for it to retreat "naturally". If you rush a 222 a lot of the time you will have to retreat your full health pio after about 4 mins. If the Soviet wants to rush a T70 he will have to sacrifice either sweeping capability (which is significant considering T70 could run into tellers) or a big part of his combat strength (flamer) for a while. THOSE are interesting trade offs. They are just examples of the general principle I'd like to see applied in CoH3.

4. You could follow that principle for every faction in CoH3 but it's not necessarily unbalanced if you don't. It's not inherently problematic if one faction has a certain mechanic that is (dis-)advantageous. The whole "unfair" argument only applies to the accecss to basic tools like anti building/indirect fire etc.

Edit: I think you should reread Hannibals quote. You agreed with him but he seemed to be saying somethign entirely different from you. His point was that it's not really a meaningful decision anyway when to reatreat your pio for building base.

I'll just address 3, because that's most important here.

It is not about significance of the decision, its about the fact we have gross inequality in making that decision, only 2 out of 5 factions are forced to make actual tactical decision impacting their field presence and tech timings directly while remaining 3 just derp around without giving it a second thought.

I'd be equally fine if all potential factions had to make the choice, but they don't, hence it directly impacts balance of tech timing and costs by requirement or lack of it for presence of engineer for specific factions.

...
3. What Hannibal is saying is wrong. It's a very significant decision whether to reatreat your pio early or wait for it to retreat "naturally". If you rush a 222 a lot of the time you will have to retreat your full health pio after about 4 mins. If the Soviet wants to rush a T70 he will have to sacrifice either sweeping capability (which is significant considering T70 could run into tellers) or a big part of his combat strength (flamer) for a while. THOSE are interesting trade offs. They are just examples of the general principle I'd like to see applied in CoH3.
...
Edit: I think you should reread Hannibals quote. You agreed with him but he seemed to be saying somethign entirely different from you. His point was that it's not really a meaningful decision anyway when to reatreat your pio for building base.

I'll just chip in here quickly, rereading my post I might have phrased it incorrectly.
Personally I found this decision making very annoying, because as OST and SOV I always had to have a pioneer in base just to get the timings right, whereas all other factions could get their timings without even having a pioneer unit on the field. Obviously this does not matter for CoH3, unless someone wants to make the point that this faction difference was good and important - which for me is not the case.
Yes, it indeed can make a difference if you get your vehicle out a bit earlier or a bit later, especially since vehicle timings are indeed quite important in CoH2.

Is that system good though? In CoH2, it occurs only 2-3 times per match and always and only in the early to mid game. There is no such decision in the late game. I personally never felt as it there is so much weight in this decision to really create so much micromanagement around it. Having half a minute of map presence is nice, but not having it does not break your neck either. I'll add that I primarily play 2v2 and 3v3, so map presence is less important.

My conclusion is that if CoH3 has more unit types, pioneers will probably be less frequent and also less important. Therefore it is only logical to decide for the system that does not require your pioneer unit to build tech buildings. I'd also rather move away from the design that timings are the most important aspect of the game. Missing your unit timing by only a minute can already make it almost useless in CoH2. That's really shitty. Shock value is a cool feature, but it also creates balancing issues of units being useful only once and only if built in a narrow time frame. Relic said they want to address the usefulness of LVs in the late game, which hopefully also translates into less reliance on timings as well. The units usefulness should be determined by its usage, not by the question if I got it out in time or 30-60 secs too late.

I'll just address 3, because that's most important here.

It is not about significance of the decision, its about the fact we have gross inequality in making that decision, only 2 out of 5 factions are forced to make actual tactical decision impacting their field presence and tech timings directly while remaining 3 just derp around without giving it a second thought.

I'd be equally fine if all potential factions had to make the choice, but they don't, hence it directly impacts balance of tech timing and costs by requirement or lack of it for presence of engineer for specific factions.

It is only about the significance of the decision. This is the CoH3 forum. We're starting fresh, so the way factions are designed in CoH2 and that they are still not treated equally regarding teching does not matter for the discussion about CoH3. If you want it changed in CoH2, the CoH2 section is the way to go.

On the one hand, yes, on the other, no. If engineers do not build buildings in the game, they have lost a lot of importance, Need to strengthen their main role of construction: each faction should be able to build fortifications / mines / and so on without a commander

You know there is a little thing called vehicle repairing that is most probably escaping your mind.

Can't believe there is this much resistance against complete non-issue like automated base building.

It is only about the significance of the decision. This is the CoH3 forum. We're starting fresh, so the way factions are designed in CoH2 and that they are still not treated equally regarding teching does not matter for the discussion about CoH3. If you want it changed in CoH2, the CoH2 section is the way to go.

Therefore I fully embrace automatons from get go, that way allows alternative base building for potential new factions without infringing on balance or decision making of vanila faction, that feature solves a massive inequality CoH2 had and I'm glad it is present in CoH3.

I have never suggested for it to be in CoH2 and all my posts here use CoH2 as an example of why CoH3 implementation is spot on.