The main problem with balance

...

I agree with the general notion that high resource games currently favour heavy units, albeir for different reasons.
High resource games are usually 3v3+. Combine this with laney and small maps that are 1) easier to defend and 2) there will always be a lot of concentrated firepower, lighter units will just be deleted more easily than in smaller modes. Major advantages of mediums like high mobility also don't matter as much the larger the mode becomes.
Comparing two mediums to one heavy does not really make sense.
Yes, losing one medium compared to half health of a heavy tank is obviously more expensive. It is meant to be like that. Two mediums still offer the huge advantage that you usually have at least one operable, that you have higher mobility and flanking opportunities and (potentially, not sure about this one) higher AI firepower.
Discussing this without context will end up in a debate that just keeps circling, because one guy is debating over 1v1 and the other over 4v4.
These modes are hugely different, and so often is the role and cost efficiency of vehicles.

...

There are quite some factual mistakes in your post, but as Esxile already wrote:
Reality has only been a very rough guideline for any strategy game that wants balance. Usually they are only followed as much as necessary to not completely destroy the expectations. CoH2 is no simulation game, most of the community does not care if the in game models stray away from the actual performance.

That would also be hard to do. There are so many variables, starting from differences in steel and build quality between factories and years to other simple things like differences in armor of different parts of the tank, angling etc. All of this has to be simplified into a handful of numbers, otherwise we'd end up with a sim, not CoH. Most of the elements like critical hits etc that actually convey more realism have been removed from the game to make it more balanced and less frustrating.

Comparing two mediums to one heavy does not really make sense.
Yes, losing one medium compared to half health of a heavy tank is obviously more expensive. It is meant to be like that. Two mediums still offer the huge advantage that you usually have at least one operable, that you have higher mobility and flanking opportunities and (potentially, not sure about this one) higher AI firepower.

But they require twice the micro, their armor values don't stack and their penetration either. If you look at any tournament the majority of games have heavy tanks engagement because the moment they hit the field is also the moment players start losing concentration and APM, heavy tank unless really bad RNG let you absorb this reduction with high outcomes for a rather low level of input.

If i'd make a suggestion it would be to make heavy tank reparation have a cost, like 100% repair costing something like 1/3 of the tank initial price.

But they require twice the micro, their armor values don't stack and their penetration either. If you look at any tournament the majority of games have heavy tanks engagement because the moment they hit the field is also the moment players start losing concentration and APM, heavy tank unless really bad RNG let you absorb this reduction with high outcomes for a rather low level of input.

If i'd make a suggestion it would be to make heavy tank reparation have a cost, like 100% repair costing something like 1/3 of the tank initial price.

That's exactly the point. There's advantages and disadvantages for both.
I've seen players in game and in tournaments throwing because they got a heavy. Sometimes because they stalled too long for it, sometimes because it just wasn't a good choice.
It's an inherent issue of CoH2. Light and fast vehicles perform very well in small modes, but scale worse in larger modes. That's why you see more heavies in large modes, because you get the benefits while the drawbacks are not as severe. Similarly, medium spam works well in small modes.

If there is no common ground that makes a unit perform decently in all modes, we have to decide which mode works best for it.
E.g. the Elefant does not work well in 1v1. Does it need a buff? Only if you think it should be used in 1v1. The community has mostly accepted that the unit will always be useless in 1v1 and only viable in larger modes. At this point, it just got balanced for larger modes.

Is that good design? Definitely not. But it sometimes is the only thing that is possible.
Considering that heavies really don't need a nerf. They're not used in 1v1, perform decent in 2v2 and 3v3 (depending on the map obviously), and are always a good choice in 4v4.

We can of course discuss buffs and nerfs, but bear in mind that it might break other modes.

That's exactly the point. There's advantages and disadvantages for both.
I've seen players in game and in tournaments throwing because they got a heavy. Sometimes because they stalled too long for it, sometimes because it just wasn't a good choice.
It's an inherent issue of CoH2. Light and fast vehicles perform very well in small modes, but scale worse in larger modes. That's why you see more heavies in large modes, because you get the benefits while the drawbacks are not as severe. Similarly, medium spam works well in small modes.

If there is no common ground that makes a unit perform decently in all modes, we have to decide which mode works best for it.
E.g. the Elefant does not work well in 1v1. Does it need a buff? Only if you think it should be used in 1v1. The community has mostly accepted that the unit will always be useless in 1v1 and only viable in larger modes. At this point, it just got balanced for larger modes.

Is that good design? Definitely not. But it sometimes is the only thing that is possible.
Considering that heavies really don't need a nerf. They're not used in 1v1, perform decent in 2v2 and 3v3 (depending on the map obviously), and are always a good choice in 4v4.

We can of course discuss buffs and nerfs, but bear in mind that it might break other modes.

But I never say anything about nerf, I always talked about economy. You're not primarily nerfing the unit by adding a cost to its repair you're nerfing the economy around heavy tank gameplay, the tank is there with the same value but you may have less around in return if you use it badly or if you opponent counter you wisely.
The exemples you're presenting are already not about the unit but player's failure in assessing correctly the game and yes it exists but scarcely, honestly unless your opponent already has 2 TDs there isn't a valid reason to not call a heavy tank, now hopefully it's not a 100% win button like before but still you can't counter heavy tank by attrition while the heavy tank will itself wreck infantry and tank alike.
What I mean here is the only real counter is to kill it, damaging it is never enough because repair time have been buffed, because the Tiger Ace can auto-repair and simply because once they're fielded they cost nothing more to maintain, while from the player less input required to perform and keep it alive.

At the moment heavy tanks are seen in every game modes, so maybe not the elefant but tigers, kt, IS2, ISU etc... they all are suitable from 1vs1 to 4vs4.

[...]

A bit off-topic, but I've always wondered if the game would benefit from slower repair and healing rates in general. Dealing health damage - both to tanks and infantry alike - isn't all that valuable in most cases since it can be restored rather quickly. This is of course especially true for infantry, for which HP damage is only really relevant in the very early stages of the game, but also for some tanks as you stated. Things like the Churchill and KV-1 being slower or faster to repair than other tanks is quite a clever and IMHO underused balance approach that could be applied to other units as well.

A bit off-topic, but I've always wondered if the game would benefit from slower repair and healing rates in general. Dealing health damage - both to tanks and infantry alike - isn't all that valuable in most cases since it can be restored rather quickly. This is of course especially true for infantry, for which HP damage is only really relevant in the very early stages of the game, but also for some tanks as you stated. Things like the KV-2 or Churchill being slower to repair is quite a clever and IMHO underused balance approach that could be applied to other units as well.

health damage is absolutely valuable in the way of forcing lower health enemies to take more casualties or retreat to heal up, at least early on where you haven't established healing yet

A bit off-topic, but I've always wondered if the game would benefit from slower repair and healing rates in general. Dealing health damage - both to tanks and infantry alike - isn't all that valuable in most cases since it can be restored rather quickly. This is of course especially true for infantry, for which HP damage is only really relevant in the very early stages of the game, but also for some tanks as you stated. Things like the Churchill and KV-1 being slower or faster to repair than other tanks is quite a clever and IMHO underused balance approach that could be applied to other units as well.

I agree and that was what I pointed out when they buffed heal rates.

health damage is absolutely valuable in the way of forcing lower health enemies to take more casualties or retreat to heal up, at least early on where you haven't established healing yet

Absolutely. My point was rather that this could be much more amplified and with impact beyond the initial stage of the game if healing wasn't so fast and abundant. Right now you barely lose any field presence while healing up your wounded troops at base, so there isn't really much of a drawback in doing so.

A bit off-topic, but I've always wondered if the game would benefit from slower repair and healing rates in general. Dealing health damage - both to tanks and infantry alike - isn't all that valuable in most cases since it can be restored rather quickly. This is of course especially true for infantry, for which HP damage is only really relevant in the very early stages of the game, but also for some tanks as you stated. Things like the Churchill and KV-1 being slower or faster to repair than other tanks is quite a clever and IMHO underused balance approach that could be applied to other units as well.

they're gone because the modding team never understood balance. Some faction had faster and easier healing system which were offset by being more subject to casualties or more expensive reinforcement cost or simply being more dependant from it. Unbalanced they said and applied an equivalent rate to everyone.
Same thing went for repairing time, people complained that it took too much time to repair their heavy tank not understanding that was also part of balancing them. They're slow to repair but the repair is free, not anymore, now they're still free to repair and repair super fast.

they're gone because the modding team never understood balance. Some faction had faster and easier healing system which were offset by being more subject to casualties or more expensive reinforcement cost or simply being more dependant from it. Unbalanced they said and applied an equivalent rate to everyone.
Same thing went for repairing time, people complained that it took too much time to repair their heavy tank not understanding that was also part of balancing them. They're slow to repair but the repair is free, not anymore, now they're still free to repair and repair super fast.

+1000 another pitfall of the retarded "make every faction play and work the same" mentality.

Wait until you realize the old timings for units such as T70, Luchs, Rocket arty (which was in T2 instead of T3) and you will see the scope of the problem.

But I never say anything about nerf, I always talked about economy. You're not primarily nerfing the unit by adding a cost to its repair you're nerfing the economy around heavy tank gameplay, the tank is there with the same value but you may have less around in return if you use it badly or if you opponent counter you wisely.
The exemples you're presenting are already not about the unit but player's failure in assessing correctly the game and yes it exists but scarcely, honestly unless your opponent already has 2 TDs there isn't a valid reason to not call a heavy tank, now hopefully it's not a 100% win button like before but still you can't counter heavy tank by attrition while the heavy tank will itself wreck infantry and tank alike.
What I mean here is the only real counter is to kill it, damaging it is never enough because repair time have been buffed, because the Tiger Ace can auto-repair and simply because once they're fielded they cost nothing more to maintain, while from the player less input required to perform and keep it alive.

At the moment heavy tanks are seen in every game modes, so maybe not the elefant but tigers, kt, IS2, ISU etc... they all are suitable from 1vs1 to 4vs4.

Every effect that is tied to the unit is a buff or nerf, regardless if it it directly influences its stats or something else. Changes in population costs and price are also considered nerfs and buffs despite them having no direct influence on the unit.

Technically, the concept you mention has been implemented, although only at a very extreme level: The old tiger ace wrecked your economy to the point you'd either win or lose within the next minutes. At least at this extreme level it did not work out very well.

At some smaller level?
Probably. I'd extend this to all vehicles, but I also don't think that this is a system you can just put on top of the current economy and assume to have no major problems. The current game is heavily balanced around late game MP attrition, introducing other types of attrition would need a larger overhaul.

Every effect that is tied to the unit is a buff or nerf, regardless if it it directly influences its stats or something else. Changes in population costs and price are also considered nerfs and buffs despite them having no direct influence on the unit.

Technically, the concept you mention has been implemented, although only at a very extreme level: The old tiger ace wrecked your economy to the point you'd either win or lose within the next minutes. At least at this extreme level it did not work out very well.

At some smaller level?
Probably. I'd extend this to all vehicles, but I also don't think that this is a system you can just put on top of the current economy and assume to have no major problems. The current game is heavily balanced around late game MP attrition, introducing other types of attrition would need a larger overhaul.

Extreme mechanisms never really work well, we agree on that.

Heavy tanks have been made easier and easier to use patch after patch, I think the latest stupidest idea was to give OKW with extended vision on their heavy tanks on various doctrines. This make using those tank completely trivial. Or maybe the ability to call an arty barrage... oh wait they are both on the same ability.

Has anyone ever made a 3v3+ map with a smaller amount of resource points similar to 1v1/2v2 maps and seen how it changes the gameplay for larger game modes?

I play a lot of 3v3 and the worst maps in that mode are the ones designed for 4v4, General Mud, Steppes la gleize etc.

I like across the rhine, whiteball express, port of hamburg and lienne forest but as an allied (UKF) player, this could be biased based on the factions strengths and the maps design or that I have had more enjoyable games on these maps.

Out of interest, does anyone know what the smallest amount of points on a 3v3+ map is? Or are they all standardized to a certain number?

Out of interest, does anyone know what the smallest amount of points on a 3v3+ map is? Or are they all standardized to a certain number?

I believe the max amount is 14 strategic points, but most maps have around 10 of them. This is true for all gamemodes.

The smallest 3v3 one being Ettel with 8 of them probably.

you should not be allowed to play 4v4 until you have played at least 200 1v1 games

+1000 another pitfall of the retarded "make every faction play and work the same" mentality.

Wait until you realize the old timings for units such as T70, Luchs, Rocket arty (which was in T2 instead of T3) and you will see the scope of the problem.

100% agree on this.

the community balance patch, just nerf and adjust based on the number of person whine on the internet, instead of understanding how each faction strength & weakness that each faction. only the core dev understood what they are trying to achieve and make it fun.

anyway a balance game isnt necessary going to be fun.

100% agree on this.

the community balance patch, just nerf and adjust based on the number of person whine on the internet, instead of understanding how each faction strength & weakness that each faction. only the core dev understood what they are trying to achieve and make it fun.

anyway a balance game isnt necessary going to be fun.

As if any of you clowns has a better understanding of balance. I am glad nobody on this forum (including me) had any influence on the balance. The balance team did a good job, especially when you look on how many things relic locked as unchangeable.

As if any of you clowns has a better understanding of balance. I am glad nobody on this forum (including me) had any influence on the balance. The balance team did a good job, especially when you look on how many things relic locked as unchangeable.

Bill "Cringelarp" Gates when asked about the current state of USA politics.

As if any of you clowns has a better understanding of balance. I am glad nobody on this forum (including me) had any influence on the balance. The balance team did a good job, especially when you look on how many things relic locked as unchangeable.

This. While there are still plenty of folks left that are quite infatuated with their perceived knowlegde and understanding of the game, most people I'd actually trust with balancing the game have long stopped posting here in this forum. Balance may not be perfect and, in hindsight, some things could have been handled better, but I doubt anyone here (me included) would have done a better job.

This. While there are still plenty of folks left that are quite infatuated with their perceived knowlegde and understanding of the game, most people I'd actually trust with balancing the game have long stopped posting here in this forum. Balance may not be perfect and, in hindsight, some things could have been handled better, but I doubt anyone here (me included) would have done a better job.

Your reasoning is exactly why this game has stopped being fun a long time ago. There is no "qualifications" for balancing a game, since balancing is not only about numbers being even but design choices coming to harmony.

Ofcourse nobody can balance COH2 properly ever again but that's because all the decent original designers are working on COH3. Sure the Balance Team gave the game some longevity it might not have had (and I am thankful for it) but let's not get ahead of ourselves with the praising.

For 5+ years COH2 is all about fixing some stats that cringelarpers here post about. First it was the UKF then the heavy tank meta, then it was the ST, then it was snipers, now it's paths and so on.

I am pretty sure even you can understand that balancing every decision on arbitrary and retarded statistics is not only boring in and of itself, it only leads to a product that's sterile and un-fun.