important balance stuff for coh3 up front

If you want to start on your best footing with coh3 multiplayer, the following should be kept in mind:

1. no insta-wipe. Unit preservation is part of the game, having units one-shot wiped is not fun, it's stressful. coh2 balance has largely been about reducing model kills and keeping units alive.
(more importantly, it's one of the hardest thing for new players to learn about coh. It can take hundreds of hours actually, and represents a massive investment of time, which doesn't stack up against the 1 second it takes for your unit to get wiped in a one-shot).

2. doctrinal units. Each faction needs the same baseline units, e.g. snipers. You need to balance around that before thinking of commanders.

3. Commanders are shite, they're a money sink and it's obvious to the players... They should only provide supplemental, utility or economic advantages, not elite units. That will make your game easier to balance.

Very good topic and very reasonable details

Agree with most of what you said

Will try to make my list later on

Rocket arty is doctrinal only

Timing of Snipers: please dont put sniper in t1.

The brit sniper timing is the only bearable way if you want to include snipers so much

The big one imho - anti-blob mechanics. Something to punish large blobs.

give everyone a sniper, equalize machine gun stats (less arc of fire and more suppression) for all factions, and generally don't do asym balance on some basic units, unless there's a good reason

The big one imho - anti-blob mechanics. Something to punish large blobs.

The best thing for that is a reenactment of coh1 mechanics: machineguns with a more narrow arc, but faster setup time so the machinegun sets up before being gunned down by the blob

del

So:

One of the best improvements in CoH2 over CoH1 was the AT gun generally being in T2 structures rather then T3. CoH3 SP alpha had it delayed back to CoH1 timing, so I hope that one is only placeholder or campaign specific

Assymetrical balance should consist of giving one or two factions a supplementary tool/ feature/ tradeoff that others do not have. Assymetrical balance should NOT be denying one or two factions something (especially not something crucial) the other two/three do have.
(Examples of good assymetrical balance: USF crews, OKW forward bases, USF/UKF nondoc recon, tech rewards, nondoc Tellers and S-mines, weapon racks, sprint on mainlines, etc) (Examples of bad assymetrical balance: Tech-locked Medium and Heavier indirect for USF and UKF, doctrinal Flamers for non EF factions, no damage-spongy units for USF, hard to access AA for Ost and UKF, etc.)

Generally, units based on shock value dont make for fun gameplay. Make sure that everything can somehow function even when the bigger boys arrive in exchange for not being able to cause instant gg if its counter isnt on the field (Clown cars and LVs have a problem with this) Actually, the first point kinda ties in to this

Indirect fire should be heavily situational and hardly ever dominant. Its the same as nades and bazookas in FPS games - a necesarry evil needed to punish campers and blobs, but there is no excuse to making it as dominant and meta as it was so far

The main problem with balance in COH2 was you had 1 balance for 4 different game modes (4v4,3v3,etc) which lead to tug of war in balance, they should ameliorate that in COH3 by making tech/CP different in each mode.

The main problem with balance in COH2 was you had 1 balance for 4 different game modes (4v4,3v3,etc) which lead to tug of war in balance, they should ameliorate that in COH3 by making tech/CP different in each mode.

That'll never happen, because it makes no sense.

Different economies based on game mode however is what should be implemented to avoid team games inflation, as it was done in DoW series.

i think the teamgame balance problem could be countered by more VP points / Map and a bit less laney maps. Also by scrapping the 3v3 mode and add these people to the 4v4 pool

Also by scrapping the 3v3 mode and add these people to the 4v4 pool

I'd rather have them remove 4vs4 than 3vs3

Those are some core issue in CoH2 that should be addressed in 3. However, I also hope for fewer "gimmicky" units and abilities, i.e. none of these:

• Tanks that can throw grenades / smoke
  
• Tanks with high armor, speed, and damage vs. both tanks and infantry
  
• Infantry that can move while cloaked, and only break camo after throwing a grenade
  
• Mainline Infantry with far too many abilities (no CoH2 UKF-IS' design)
  
• Mortars that can self-spot (i.e. Sov flare)
  
• Mortars/Artillery that can auto-counter barrage
  
• Auto-targeting off-maps ("Skill planes", AT Overwatch, etc.)
  
• Uncounterable off-map recon (i.e. old spec-ops flares)
  
• "Convert building to FHQ" abilities
  

Combined arms should be encouraged, as should positioning and player skill; and I find all of those things go counter to those core principles.

Also, while not a 'balance' issue directly: remove collision with capture-flags/VPs, to help vehicle pathing and prevent 1-way sandbags.

One of the worst examples of asymmetrical balance is soviets with their AT gun. If you go T1 you lock yourself out of getting the AT gun, unless ofc you have the room in-game to go that route (in which case you're already winning, and it's a case of 'win-more').

Definitely agree with the ideas above that 'Assymetrical balance should NOT be denying one or two factions something'.

One thing I'd like to see in COH3 is that there is no spamable infantry with default high moving accuracy. COH should be designed around cover and unit positioning. Units like Panzerfusies take this concept and shit all over it because they lose little DPS when moving so cover and positioning don't matter as much - just blob around with minimal micro and chase down/brute force units.

Rocket arty is doctrinal only

Ok, rocket arty is doctrinal and every faction gets access to effective MGs and anti infantry tools and this is a no-brainer for me. Rocket arty and insta-wipe tools aren't particularly fun and I only enjoy using them to counter stupid gameplay like blobbing and support weapon spam.

One of the worst examples of asymmetrical balance is soviets with their AT gun. If you go T1 you lock yourself out of getting the AT gun, unless ofc you have the room in-game to go that route (in which case you're already winning, and it's a case of 'win-more').

Definitely agree with the ideas above that 'Assymetrical balance should NOT be denying one or two factions something'.

I disagree. I think it's an example of a good asymmetrical balance.

If you go T1 you aren't *denied* AT guns. You're basically gambling that you can beat out the enemy with superior firepower and inferior numbers. You give up a fast. AT gun and in return you get AT infantry that can hold their own against LVs. And then from there you supplement those troops with tanks that pick up the slack in AT and AI.

OR if you realize that you're not going to ne able to do that you still get the option to build T2 and get an AT gun.

I think that soviet's choice between T1 and T2 start is GOOD asymmetrical balance.

Things like how OKW originally had no nondoc MG or how USF has no nondoc rocket arty are the big offenders.

The big one imho - anti-blob mechanics. Something to punish large blobs.

I feel like there should be something as infantry squad receive 20% more pin penalty if a squad is 5m or closer away from another squad.

I feel like there should be something as infantry squad receive 20% more pin penalty if a squad is 5m or closer away from another squad.

There is something like that (general received suppression increase), but it's not nearly enough as everyone here will have experienced the hard way.