The main problem with balance

Its not separated into game modes, something that is near useless in a 1v1 (elefant) can dominate 3v3 and up and then something that can dominate a 1v1 (Tiger, Crocodile) is near useless in 3v3+ and this leads to half of the battles with arguments on balance threads.

Someone that only plays 1v1 might not fully understand how batshit OP an artillery piece(/s) can be, more so if you have to off map counter. A land mattress might be the "worst" rocket arty in 1v1 but in a team game the spread, amount and damage of the rockets means it can hit a wider area and as there are more units, do more damage.

Certain things need revising for COH3 such as build times being increased in team game modes/resource income being reduced by the amount of players, that way, losing a heavy tank doesn't just mean you're literally waiting for the cool down because you have 400 fuel and 1k man power in the bank, but that you actually have a punishment to losing such a powerful unit.

Awful idea. It's hard enough to learn coh2, I don't need a different patch for every game mode.

Just make better maps, game will be fixed.

1v1 map pool is awesome.
2v2 map pool is only lanes so meta is offensive A-move blobs (JLI, Paths, Obers etc) with snipers/mortar/hmg.
3v3 map pool is cancer.
4v4 map pool is level 150 metastatic cancer on every limb of the body.

Give maps manpower points so that fighting only for fuel will starve you of men, remove choke points and remove lanes. COH3 will be epic then.

See? You did not even need a stat fix.

game modes need tom scale better, not independent balance. less resource points, buit more points of interest (remember watch tower points?? med points? repair points?). this would not only slow the increased speeds of teching and pumping out armour, but also add a dynamic battlefield. the issue is condensed infantry play and over exaggerated armour play

CoH1:
Show Spoiler

4v4 map has more MP income via strategic points, but total fuel and muni income is the same.

CoH2:
Show Spoiler

This alone leads to camping and totally fucked up timings, because not only main income comes from 4 points on the map, but also every single strategic point can be turned into a fuel\muni point. Controlling one fuel\muni point equals to controlling almost half of the total resources of this type on the map.

Sure every strategic point has fuel\muni income in CoH2 unlike vCoH ones, BUT in vCoH one +5 point = 2 strategic CoH2 points either fuel\muni vise.

And Montargis isnt even in automatch and automatch has maps with less strategic points, meaning that,
because of how few of them exist on the majority of 2v2+ maps, there is objectively 0 reason to even fight for them and hold them, unless they are cut-offs or you want to delay enemy.

Its not separated into game modes, something that is near useless in a 1v1 (elefant) can dominate 3v3 and up and then something that can dominate a 1v1 (Tiger, Crocodile) is near useless in 3v3+ and this leads to half of the battles with arguments on balance threads.

Someone that only plays 1v1 might not fully understand how batshit OP an artillery piece(/s) can be, more so if you have to off map counter. A land mattress might be the "worst" rocket arty in 1v1 but in a team game the spread, amount and damage of the rockets means it can hit a wider area and as there are more units, do more damage.

Certain things need revising for COH3 such as build times being increased in team game modes/resource income being reduced by the amount of players, that way, losing a heavy tank doesn't just mean you're literally waiting for the cool down because you have 400 fuel and 1k man power in the bank, but that you actually have a punishment to losing such a powerful unit.

Agreed, but sadly no RTS game has ever devoted resources into creating this, not even triple A titles with insane budgets. It's just not cost-efficient from a design-perspective.

maybe reduce the amount of resources points gain in 4v4? like 2 muni instead of 3 etc?

I have little issue with the some units/being better suited for different modes.

On the other hand changing the economy and CP gain according to mode would make the game easier to balance across all modes.

Its not separated into game modes, something that is near useless in a 1v1 (elefant) can dominate 3v3 and up and then something that can dominate a 1v1 (Tiger, Crocodile) is near useless in 3v3+ and this leads to half of the battles with arguments on balance threads.

Someone that only plays 1v1 might not fully understand how batshit OP an artillery piece(/s) can be, more so if you have to off map counter. A land mattress might be the "worst" rocket arty in 1v1 but in a team game the spread, amount and damage of the rockets means it can hit a wider area and as there are more units, do more damage.

Certain things need revising for COH3 such as build times being increased in team game modes/resource income being reduced by the amount of players, that way, losing a heavy tank doesn't just mean you're literally waiting for the cool down because you have 400 fuel and 1k man power in the bank, but that you actually have a punishment to losing such a powerful unit.

The problem is the continual cost reduction of unit and reinforcement applied over the years making faction floating in manpower.
If two medium tanks = 1 heavy tank then why when you lose a medium tank you lose your investment but when you get the heavy tank 1/2 life you lose nothing.

The problem is the continual cost reduction of unit and reinforcement applied over the years making faction floating in manpower.
If two medium tanks = 1 heavy tank then why when you lose a medium tank you lose your investment but when you get the heavy tank 1/2 life you lose nothing.

Because there would no reason to wait for the CP and invest on tech to get heavy tank otherwise.

Because there would no reason to wait for the CP and invest on tech to get heavy tank otherwise.

When you lose a tank, you lose/engage

1- the initial investment cost.
2- the potential replacement cost.
3- the value you get from it (firepower etc...).
4- the veterancy.

So if 2 mediums = 1 heavy then if you lose 1 of your two medium tanks you lose/engage half each of those 4 points. But if you get your heavy tank to half life you lose nothing from them.

1- You still have your investment available.
2- You don't need to replace it.
3- The value you get from it is still fully available.
4- The veterancy isn't lost and rise.

So nope, even if you get to lose something from having your heavy tank taken to half life you'll still get advantage from it.

-----

The more economy you inject into the game the more it beneficiates to durable units like heavy tanks because their only CONS are their initial investment unless you lose them which is quite difficult and requires a lot of investment from your opponent, this is why cooldown were added to their replacement cost.

At the beginning heavy tanks durability was offset by heavy infantry management cost, but with all the cost reduction applied to many infantry units over the patches they became just predominant and over shadowing everything else because of the amount of resources available.

That's why I think that instead of reducing the player income, there is a huge need into increasing the infantry management cost.
That would be beneficial for the balance because it would reward good play and preservation, be a nature CONS to infantry blob and spam, make light, medium tanks and doctrines without heavy tanks more appealing for their timing.

....

A player has a choice to build a medium tank first and benefit from it for half the game or to save up his resources to get a heavy tank. Each choice comes with its benefits and drawback.

If building 2 mediums was always a better choice no one would bother to use a commander to get a heavy tank. It is a simply as that.

A player has a choice to build a medium tank first and benefit from it for half the game or to save up his resources to get a heavy tank. Each choice comes with its benefits and drawback.

If building 2 mediums was always a better choice no one would bother to use a commander to get a heavy tank. It is a simply as that.

Stop with the strawman, do something with your comprehension. I never said 2 mediums should be superior to 1 heavy tank.

I literally said it:

So nope, even if you get to lose something from having your heavy tank taken to half life you'll still get advantage from it.

Stop with the strawman, do something with your comprehension. I never said 2 mediums should be superior to 1 heavy tank.

I literally said it:

Follow your own advice "Stop with the strawman, do something with your comprehension." since I never said that according to your opinion "2 mediums should be superior to 1 heavy tank."

"I literally said:"

"If building 2 mediums was always a better choice no one would bother to use a commander to get a heavy tank. It is a simply as that. "

Now do you actually have any stats that indicate that Tiger/IS-2/Peshing/Croc/Tigers OKW are chosen more often in 4vs4 than in 1vs1?

Follow your own advice "Stop with the strawman, do something with your comprehension." since I never said that according to your opinion "2 mediums should be superior to 1 heavy tank."

"I literally said:"

"If building 2 mediums was always a better choice no one would bother to use a commander to get a heavy tank. It is a simply as that. "

Now do you actually have any stats that indicate that Tiger/IS-2/Peshing/Croc/Tigers OKW are chosen more often in 4vs4 than in 1vs1?

I'd argue 100% of team games you will get at least 1 heavy tank compared to 1v1's just based alone on the probability of 8 players vs 2 so that's a bit of a moot point...

CoH1:
Show Spoiler

4v4 map has more MP income via strategic points, but total fuel and muni income is the same.

CoH2:
Show Spoiler

This alone leads to camping and totally fucked up timings, because not only main income comes from 4 points on the map, but also every single strategic point can be turned into a fuel\muni point. Controlling one fuel\muni point equals to controlling almost half of the total resources of this type on the map.

Sure every strategic point has fuel\muni income in CoH2 unlike vCoH ones, BUT in vCoH one +5 point = 2 strategic CoH2 points either fuel\muni vise.

And Montargis isnt even in automatch and automatch has maps with less strategic points, meaning that,
because of how few of them exist on the majority of 2v2+ maps, there is objectively 0 reason to even fight for them and hold them, unless they are cut-offs or you want to delay enemy.

+10000000

I'd argue 100% of team games you will get at least 1 heavy tank compared to 1v1's just based alone on the probability of 8 players vs 2 so that's a bit of a moot point...

per player that is not per game.

Generally you will more heavy tank destroyers and given the fact that is more fuel available probably more Heavy tanks but that is not what esxile actually claimed.


"The problem is the continual cost reduction of unit and reinforcement applied over the years making faction floating in manpower."

"The more economy you inject into the game the more it beneficiates to durable units like heavy tanks because their only CONS are their initial investment unless you lose them which is quite difficult and requires a lot of investment from your opponent, this is why cooldown were added to their replacement cost."

If someone is floating manpower and he is not at 100 pop then one is probably doing something wrong.

[snip]

I think the point you are alluding to (not even taking vipper seriously) is that tanks have become way too fragile and paperish for their cost in 2022 COH2. That's not only historically untrue but also ruins the gameplay.

For example, T34/76's sloped armor could not be penetrated by any handheld infantry weapon of the war (not even Pansershrecks, read up on that) and it was truly a beast against the first generation of Pak ATGs (read for example Zaloga's account of T34s taking 25 hits of 37mm PAK only to lose their sight). Also, the 50mm PAK gun (the one portrayed in the game) could frontally penetrate the T34 only from maybe 200m. The only gun that could reliably penetrate all the Soviet tanks is the P4J's 5cm KwK 39.

My point being: why make the in game T34 lose to 2 fausts + 2 shreck hits? Same goes for Axis and the rest of the tanks.

I am not even going to mention the fact that heavier tanks like Panther, Tiger, Comet, etc. could not be penned frontally by even the best ATGs of the time from a distance less than 500m.

People play WW2 games to see Panzers battling it out with T34s, not see a deathblob of Shrecks making tanks run behind. Hell, last game I had Jagdtiger plus Panther and I STILL LOST to 2 Zis Guns because the enemy snared the fuck out of 100mm SLOPED PLATED ARMOR. In no combat situation could this happen and I really think COH development and balance should focus more on tank battles and more fragile infantry rather than the opposite.

....
My point being: why make the in game T34 lose to 2 fausts + 2 shreck hits? Same goes for Axis and the rest of the tanks.
...

Only it does not.

T-34 HP 640

Faust damage 100 PS damage 120 total of 2+2 hits 440...

I think the point you are alluding to (not even taking vipper seriously) is that tanks have become way too fragile and paperish for their cost in 2022 COH2. That's not only historically untrue but also ruins the gameplay.

For example, T34/76's sloped armor could not be penetrated by any handheld infantry weapon of the war (not even Pansershrecks, read up on that) and it was truly a beast against the first generation of Pak ATGs (read for example Zaloga's account of T34s taking 25 hits of 37mm PAK only to lose their sight). Also, the 50mm PAK gun (the one portrayed in the game) could frontally penetrate the T34 only from maybe 200m. The only gun that could reliably penetrate all the Soviet tanks is the P4J's 5cm KwK 39.

My point being: why make the in game T34 lose to 2 fausts + 2 shreck hits? Same goes for Axis and the rest of the tanks.

I am not even going to mention the fact that heavier tanks like Panther, Tiger, Comet, etc. could not be penned frontally by even the best ATGs of the time from a distance less than 500m.

People play WW2 games to see Panzers battling it out with T34s, not see a deathblob of Shrecks making tanks run behind. Hell, last game I had Jagdtiger plus Panther and I STILL LOST to 2 Zis Guns because the enemy snared the fuck out of 100mm SLOPED PLATED ARMOR. In no combat situation could this happen and I really think COH development and balance should focus more on tank battles and more fragile infantry rather than the opposite.

Reality != gameplay, to me mediums are balanced but heavies aren´t to please a certain portion of playerbase adept of big tank boom boom gamplay.