OP vs ez mode?

Just wanted to start a discussion on the perception of balance where the difficulty of a faction is the driving force for common views on how each unit performs.

From my browsing on this forum and the COH2 subreddit, I think a fairly common sentiment is that both axis factions (more so Ost, but OKW is not far behind, at least as game modes get larger) are fairly braindead to play atm. The overall design of these factions, in addition to unit philosophy and performance is what makes this seem like a fact. At the core of it, it's a lot easier to micro one very powreful unit (axis) than several weak units (allies). Additionally, axis is generally more forgiving now when it comes to losing units, since they have many backup tools that can help them stall back into the game.

When it comes to performance/cost, I don't think any faction is significantly more "OP" than another, but I think the reality of how immune a faction is to fuckups is what shapes perceptions of balance.

I think rather than discuss how to avoid making units OP, for COH3 we need to equally discuss how to make each faction relatively similar in simplicity of play, and not the huge gap like there is between axis and allies in both coh1 and 2.

From my browsing on this forum and the COH2 subreddit, I think a fairly common sentiment is that both axis factions (more so Ost, but OKW is not far behind, at least as game modes get larger) are fairly braindead to play atm. The overall design of these factions, in addition to unit philosophy and performance is what makes this seem like a fact. At the core of it, it's a lot easier to micro one very powreful unit (axis) than several weak units (allies). Additionally, axis is generally more forgiving now when it comes to losing units, since they have many backup tools that can help them stall back into the game.

I think most of the unbiased players would agree that axis is significantly easier to play in teamgames, which indeed makes them stronger at the lower & average skill level. I'd say the biggest reason for this is the straight forward tech-tree and unit availability compared to the allies factions, the points you mentioned come after that imo

The point I like to make about the faction design is that each faction should be different to play. Especially when it comes to micro. This creates a built in handicap effect.

Logic Example (assuming team games are the focus): One could say OKW is the hardest to play since they lack the most tools and Brits are easiest since they are very strong early. (Dont focus on the factual balance here, I am talking hypothetical)

This means better players could play OKW vs weaker Brit players and still get a decent match. This gives us more matchup possibilities.

But it could also lead to better players abusing Brits and stomping weaker OKW players. This is where match making becomes crucial. And we all know Relics MM is not functional at the moment. Coh3???

So I feel Relic did a great job with the Coh2 faction designs for the majority of players by making some harder to play than others. It also lets you grow as a player and the game still feels fresh.

Ironically, the one unit that supports this view that I think they screwed up was indirect units. You cant have units performing better if they are NOT being micro'ed. And you cant have bombs chasing units in the FOW.

As Allies you need to know what you are doing, since its naturally harder to utilize early game advantage, when every single small win\loss counts in comparison to the axis faction, which can generally win by stalling the game.

And this is in general shitty design. Allies used to have more "clear" early game advantage, but it led to Axis factions being stomped simply because there is not much you can do since you dont have established army in early game.

Now to play as Allies, you need to know what you are doing, you cant stale as allies and more importantly you cant play allies as if they are axis.

To put it super simply, core idea (if its a fair game) of allies always should be:
"do everything to end the game as fast as possible"
While axis one:
"do everything to stay in the game as long as possible"

And considering its really hard for less experienced players wont be able to snowball\end games Axis usually come on top.

every faction has brain dead tactics like blobbing and Mg spam etc, its not something thats unique to axis. I dont agree with your statement saying axis squads are more forgiving because axis usually have smaller squad sizes, making them more venerable to being wiped.

You need to define what you mean by 1 powerful unit and weaker allied units? what units exactly.

In team games this a is a trend ive noticed, in low level games axis teams win more but in higher level games where you tend to have organised teams, allies are winning more.

I dont agree with your statement saying axis squads are more forgiving because axis usually have smaller squad sizes, making them more venerable to being wiped.

He didn't say their squads are more survivable. He said it's easier for them to recover from losses and stall for replacements

You need to define what you mean by 1 powerful unit and weaker allied units? what units exactly.

Does he? You see a heavy TD or KT with cmdr upgrade+spearhead almost every match in team games from axis. This is not exactly breaking news here

Those units demand greater numbers to counter them. Nothing the allies have is going to match those 1 on 1 in a fight. Doesn't mean it's necessarily imbalanced, but what he said there shouldn't need much explanation

It shouldn't need to be mentioned that versing Panthers or King Tigers requires more brain work and coordination from the allies than it does vice versa against a couple shermans or SU-85's

every faction has brain dead tactics like blobbing and Mg spam etc, its not something thats unique to axis. I dont agree with your statement saying axis squads are more forgiving because axis usually have smaller squad sizes, making them more venerable to being wiped.

You need to define what you mean by 1 powerful unit and weaker allied units? what units exactly.

In team games this a is a trend ive noticed, in low level games axis teams win more but in higher level games where you tend to have organised teams, allies are winning more.

The whole weakness to being wiped really only applies to explosives. Grens are a Long range focused squad that gets an LMG upgrade that makes it hard as hell to dislodge without taking loses. Yes they might have a smaller squad but since should be fighting at max range they shouldn't be getting wiped on chase. Therefore infantry VET is easier to preserve compared to Rifleman that are more expensive upfront and cost quite a bit to have them fully upgraded with grenades and bars/zooks.

As for VG, they are designed to be supplanted by Obers which are probably the best AI unit in the game. They are literally Grens on steroids while able to fire on the move. Due to their insane RA the only thing they are truly weak to are explosives. SMG squads can beat them up close but using 2 equally skilled players, the Ober player will cause model drops on assaulting squad or retreat instantly to not risk losing unit.

Also some of the tools are better on Axis infantry compared to Allies due to squad size differences. This also helps reduce micro allowing for worse player to compete with a better player. For example most axis cloak allows some movement without losing cover. For brits to have that commando spawn with just 3 units, airborne Guards only cloak when stationary and have to fire first to even get damage bonus. USF doesn't even have an assaulting cloak unit, all of theirs are long range or AT focused for Recon PARAs.

I think one problem here is that it is hard to tell apart faction imbalance (in this case I think OP also aims at the need for micro to use the units properly) and player skill. Technically, they form one big overall strength level and you'll notice the majority of effects only on both ends of the ladder. Second, map design and game mode also plays a huge role.

Currently in Coh2, I'd say Axis are easier in low/mid team games because
1. both factions have all basic tools regardless of their tech path (less need to compensate for holes in your faction and knowing soft counters)
2. Easier access to artillery
3. Infantry is generally better on long range (-> less micro)
4. their units are usually higher value on a per-unit basis (-> less micro due to less units)

In these low/mid games, micro is a serious restraint, and having to give less orders makes every order way more efficient and easier to coordinate. So let's focus on the points above (except for 2. which is more of a faction issue)


Needing different micro levels for units is actually quite important to game flow and game balance, it can create a lot of interesting back and forth without having "OP" units. But, where Coh2 failed a bit in that department, is that Relic made a whole faction follow one design only. As previously mentioned by someone else, it also allows you to "get better" with factions and strategy.

Soviets were always numerous but weak individually. This is cool as an idea, somehow fits the general narrative/stereotypical picture that most people have. But ALL their units followed that idea.
As an example, look at Conscripts: Short range infantry, so every engagement you need decide whether to push or not while the Axis player can stay intially passive and just A-move.
Then T34: Basically the same thing here. Your units are worth less both in price as in capability. If you spend the same amount of resources, you'll rather end up with an additional tank to micro (e.g. Panther + P4 takes up 30 pop, which is equivalent to 3 T34s).
On paper, all these units are balanced. But if you're a low/mid level player and therefore only capable of dealing with 2 tanks efficiently, your third T34 will always only be an afterthought and not perform as well as it should.

Before the screeching starts: Obviously there are downsides to Axis, too. But it certainly is not the micromanagement which will be one major constraint if you max out your army in the late game.


So, what could be done to solve this?
As I noted above, one faction should not have micro intensive infantry AND tanks. Shift the micro between different unit types. Micro intensive mainline, but easy support and normal tanks. Faction two needs a lot of focus on the support units, but has forgiving tanks. Faction three has an easy mainline etc etc.
This will need some specific balancing for certain time frames where e.g. only infantry is present, but it should alleviate the problem with overloading one faction with micromanagement.

Just wanted to start a discussion on the perception of balance where the difficulty of a faction is the driving force for common views on how each unit performs.

From my browsing on this forum and the COH2 subreddit, I think a fairly common sentiment is that both axis factions (more so Ost, but OKW is not far behind, at least as game modes get larger) are fairly braindead to play atm. The overall design of these factions, in addition to unit philosophy and performance is what makes this seem like a fact. At the core of it, it's a lot easier to micro one very powreful unit (axis) than several weak units (allies). Additionally, axis is generally more forgiving now when it comes to losing units, since they have many backup tools that can help them stall back into the game.

When it comes to performance/cost, I don't think any faction is significantly more "OP" than another, but I think the reality of how immune a faction is to fuckups is what shapes perceptions of balance.

I think rather than discuss how to avoid making units OP, for COH3 we need to equally discuss how to make each faction relatively similar in simplicity of play, and not the huge gap like there is between axis and allies in both coh1 and 2.

I think you're right in the sense that the Allies are definitely more micro intensive, and that Axis generally get more powerful lategame units. But i don't think either side is immune to fuckups or being punished for signifcant mistakes. For me, different units are just far more effective at different stages of the game and you therefore have to play to your strengths. Though both sides have definitely had their fair share of OP units over the years as well. Can't speak for team modes, though i'm aware that certain tactics that probably wouldn't necessarily work in a 1v1 can be really obnoxious to deal with.

So, what could be done to solve this?
As I noted above, one faction should not have micro intensive infantry AND tanks. Shift the micro between different unit types. Micro intensive mainline, but easy support and normal tanks. Faction two needs a lot of focus on the support units, but has forgiving tanks. Faction three has an easy mainline etc etc.
This will need some specific balancing for certain time frames where e.g. only infantry is present, but it should alleviate the problem with overloading one faction with micromanagement.

This issue was addressed long time ago with Relic acknowledging Axis factions were in essence easier to play but Allied having an higher celling resulting in having ELO matches quite balanced but high level tournament favoring Allied. I remember there was a post from Relic dedicated to this matter and a couple of patches aimed to correct it.

That was long time ago because then the modding team took the decision to change that to where we are today. Now we have what the OP describes where Grenadiers have late game equal survivability than 5men squads while being less exposed to damage and having superior support tools and tanks around them.

Agree with OP.
I like that some things/factions etc are easier to play in games, so that average joe's like me can enjoy it. And that other things/factions require more micro and tactics to properly function/enjoy. Gives games more flavour.
Problems arise like in COH2 when a faction is actually better, regardless of skill level.
How to fix it im not entirely sure.
But i do know that pz4 needs a nerf :-)

Problems arise like in COH2 when a faction is actually better, regardless of skill level.

This is not true like at all. Axis is much easier with randoms and at lower rank bracket, Allies are much stronger at high rank play, where people actually understand what they need to do, and if they play as a team.

The only relevant complain could be that Allies need specific meta combinations and tactics in order to maximise chance win, while Axis is generally having a bit more freedom to chose how they want to play. Well and Allies are generally harder to learn then Axis.

This is not true like at all. Axis is much easier with randoms and at lower rank bracket, Allies are much stronger at high rank play, where people actually understand what they need to do, and if they play as a team.

The only relevant complain could be that Allies need specific meta combinations and tactics in order to maximise chance win, while Axis is generally having a bit more freedom to chose how they want to play. Well and Allies are generally harder to learn then Axis.

Not really true. Allies only have the "upper" hand in 1v1s in higher ranks. Top 10 rank, 3 v 3: I'm betting on the axis. Especially vs USF. Soviets have the widest choice. Especially with the map design in 3v3 where flanking is hard, or time consuming. Also would never bet if there is a brit in the team. top 300 axis team vs top 100 brits, I'm still betting on the axis.

The only thing USF has to know what to do is pick pathfinders to counter pio sight + MG42 wide arc on lane maps.

Brits have to know "nothing" really. If you play on a tight small map, then assault sections are a must with a mortar.