Ultimate guide to further improving coh2

The reasons I made this post was to first acknowledge that coh2 has come a long way and that it has real potential to be a fantastic game – one with even more success than coh due to the fact that both armies have a lot more flexibility as to how they can win – the US faction in vcoh could never stand head to head with german armour but the soviets can and did.

But in my opinion this will only happen with some slight changes – COH was a game rich in detail and in coh2 this is less apparent, in some ways due to the fact that it really has less variables ( damage tables for instance, no real global upgrades) and in others because some parts of the game ( molatov spam, one shot wipes, crazy RNG from small arms ) prevents real depth of strategy to develop.

Many of these issues have been noted a lot of times but I am trying to consolidate it all into one post without being negative and with explanations as to why and what can be done.

I’m not saying im 100% correct but I do feel I know both games well enough to understand how to make some great improvements. Feel free to disagree and discuss.
My other post (http://www.coh2.org/topic/14969/how-to-further-improve-coh2) seemed to have some success and I am motivated by relics feedback to it to put more effort into this one – they are already working on some of the things that I mentioned in my post and to me that means that they are trying to improve their game.

Like Peter said they are restricted by time and resources so if we can make things easier for them by highlighting issues that could be improved then that can only be a good thing.

Global Upgrades

What: Ost 5 man grenadier team upgrade

Why: to enable ost troops to commandeer weapons, and better late game survival ( after teir 3 upgrade? Upgrade in t 4 building? ) downside- upkeep and significant fuel cost to delay vehicles

What: Soviet Globals at or molatov

Why: To make an early game choice of either cover/building denial or soft AT. They cost should be increased considerably to only enable 1 upgrade ( at or moloatov) for the earl/ mid game. This would mean there would be choices to make and compromises. This would enable some early armoured cars to have an effect if no at grenades are researched and no guards.



Opportunities for Change :

1 shot squad wipes – currently these happen a lot, they are in many instances unpreventable and even when all the right steps are taken they can wipe a squad. This should almost never happen from a non-call in type of weapon ( not including artillery ect) it means someone can micro their squad perfectly all game, vet up then lose to a random shot form a heavy tank. – there are many suggestions based around this : wider distance between squad members, reducing AOE for some weapons ect, scatter button.

Health based damage for inf – benefits: removes random chance and promotes tactics such as cover, or manoeuvring away without needing to retreat. ( one of cohs biggest asset to strategy in the early and mid game was that a squad could take damage but not lose men – this reservoir of health made infantry play dynamic and a lot of fun, it also made it “predictable” but in a way which added incredible depth to all infantry combat)

Could have big veterancy implications ( for example large squad health buff making cons vet 3 scale up to late game for example – something akin to vet 3 rifles – at least to give the option to do so, for example vet 3 p grens having late game survivability to area effect weapons which tend to wipe them out in 1-2 shots)
Makes medic type abilities useful again – as inf deaths are much more realted to squad health not random chance.

There would still be crits but would not negatively affect the game as it does now. people loved the 1 in a 100 scenarios in vcoh they added so much to the game, right now the unpredictability actually removes strategy form the game as “anything can happen” tends to happen much too often

Auto locking and auto engine damage faust and at nade – in this set up they do not act as soft counter, they dictate how vehicle combat works – they need to do solid damage, with chance to crit engine or weapon when vehicle below low health- this way tanks can manoeuvre better around the map allowing for more interesting strategies. I feel between this mechanic and molatov spam the game will never be anywhere as fluid as the original and therefore much more complex strategies will never flourish.

Vehicle targeting/ AT gun targeting : The vehicles in coh2 tend to have longer range and survive for much longer then in the pervious game, and there is many many more soft and hard AT options on each map – furthermore a lot of the maps are constrictive this all adds up into make armour manoeuvres to be a big gamble and when you put everything into a beautifully coordinated armour flank you need to be rewarded, right now that doest happen.

A big part of that is the terrible targeting mechanic where at guns shoot at inf antry instead of tanks and tanks do the same.

Depth to vehicle combat: Things like no side/ rear armour means that there is currently no reason to take the risk of flanking and fighting head on is usually the safest option , this is obviously not good for strategy.

Solution to this could be to add depth to vehicle combat – For example: different penetration at different range, different forward/ reverse speeds, proper front, side and rear armour with rear armour damage magnifier, enabling vehicle crits at low health, damage engine, heavy damage engine, immobilisation and weapon destruction.
for instance anti tank vehicles such as panther and su 85 could keep max penetration at max range, making them able to out position or out manoeuvre other vehicles damaging them at range, and with their great front armour would need to be either shot a close range or flanked by other vehicles making ita much safer option to either get a great coordinated attack or to use other means of taking them on.

This would give each vehicle unique strengths and weaknesses just for example due to a lower velocity main gun he IS2 could do more damage but struggle to penetrate tiger front armour at max range while the tiger could do full pen at max range and try to keep the is2 at bay, or is2 having great front armour but having a serious drop off at sides and rear making it susceptible to flanks, while having the tiger have strong side and front armour only being vulnerable form the rear ect – this is just an example how a few simple changes could add depth a lot of depth and really differentiate some vehicles.

Another example could be the standard t34 could have high pen at close range which would encourage to flank and close in for instance 2 t34s to actually flank a tiger and do a lot of damage from the rear instead of just being used as a ram ability or dying.

How tank fire effects at guns – at guns should not be as easily countered as they are right now by tanks – this is especially true of heavies such as IS2 , Tiger , ISU152 ect 1 at gun alone should never be anything more than a deterrent but 2-3 should be able to be a viable counter – at this moment heavies destruct at guns with no issue making at guns completely usless more so the ost as they have much less crew and are liable to being 1 shotted.

Molatov: Too destructive and rewards bad play – things that shouldn’t work have big effect for example charging a MG , throwing molatov and retreating. The way Molotov does damage should be re worked – should be something like incendiary nade from COH PE faction – more damage over time to deny cover/buildings less of a purely offensive weapon which enables cons to win majority of fire fights regardless of any tactical situation.

Flame Weapons – should do damage over time with higher chance of death than standard rifles but should be toned down from how it works – for a extreme example of flames damage done wrong is KV8 ridiculously squad killer
at best it should have equal damage to FHT – higher cost would be justified from fact that is has great armour, speed can cap territory at vet and can tangle with medium tanks such as PZ4.


Capping: add depth by slowing down area cap – means u can cap in cover with no risk but its 50% of what it is now and if you want it to speed up you have to click on the point with your units, this allows faster capping but with risk of ambush – tanks should only be able to area cap. Means If you win an engagement and don’t want to risk ambush you may not have time to cap territories to exploit your win if you don’t solidify your defence.

Resources: This is only a idea I could have big implications but to remove the fuel and muni from non fuel or muni points al la v coh.

DLC: as many have said the new approach to the dlc ( cheaper but weaker options which add diversity ) such as the new commander is excellent and is in line with what should be done – this give each commander different options without game breaking moments like some of the “skill planes” had done so before.


Overall Balance: I honestly think that overall balance is not bad at all just that there is lack of opportunity due to the things listed above preventing players form being able to counter some units – ill use su 85 for example , I still think it either has too much damage, speed and armour (as a package) due to the fact that flanking does not reap a large enough reward due to side/rear armour issue and fairly fast reverse speed.

Or t34 weakness against pz4 due to the fact that it cannot use it manoeuvrability to its advantage for the same reason. Or late game tanks lacking the ability to manoeuvre due to almost constant damaged engines ( soviets usually have more cons then there is grens and ost ability to manoeuvre with its vehicles is limited – especially when faced with the long range at/ai weapons the soviets have in their arsenal as well as some of the maps which force “head on” attacks)

Veterancy:
I feel there is room for bigger veterancy buffs for some units – p grens for example or conscripts these units seems to be much less useful late game for different reasons, the rate of veterancy and their health and damage could be buffed in vet 3 meaning if the player could keep them alive for a long time and vet them up they become real assets on the battlefield. I feel both units usefulness fades in the late game .

Visual effects / destruction effects:

Like I said coh was very detailed physics and this is really missing in the game – arty no longer makes infantry fly across the map and the game suffers from it in my opinion. Doesn’t matter if you like to admit it but those sort of things are drawcards for new players to the game, everyone loves good effects and attention to detail – whats worse is that coh did it and did it amazingly well and now its absent, this can only be a bad thing.

The other aspect is how the terrain does not get anywhere near the same level of cratering/ destruction but it still gives off green cover- this looks stupid and makes the game bad to play late game as what looks like scorch marks on the ground actually give full green cover to units walking through them, this removes a lot of the tactics required and to me is just poor design.

Controls/ pathing:

IN a game like this controls should be instantaneous, this means when you hit T the unit runs straight away, or when you click to move a vehicle it responds instantly. This gives control to the player and enables them to perform incredible manoeuvres and tactics, if you remove that then it completely removes intricate manoeuvring and positioning from the game.


If you guys have anything to add feel free. Like I said this game is getting better and there are some of the points I feel should be addressed and present some great opportunities for improvement.


I understand time and resources are an issue so its impossible to expect everything but I still wanted to have my say.

I agree with you but, you have another post with almost the same topic name in where Relic devs had commented.
I think that would be better to edit your original post. This one will be hard to read it from a Relic staff . We are creating too much topics that probably will never be read by Staff.

But I really agree with the 100% you are saying. I still have many friends that prefer playing Coh1 insead of Coh2 because of issues like you are mentioning.

Hey I PM the staff explaining that I wanted to expand on it - a lot of people wont read cos its too long so I didnt want to change the other post. But yeh I understand where you are coming from. Thanks for the feedback BTW

I'm sorry, I really like the ideas but having several threads on the same topic isn't a good idea.

"Ultimate Guide".. and then the first proposed change is completely out of left field.

What is with the new push to make soviet molotovs hard to get when the germans get their alternative for FREE. Trying to suggest such a one sided nerf for the sake of "stategy" is one of the most biased things i've heard o the board. If thatt was the case, maybe it's time for the germans to start needing to purchase a faust upgrade as well.

I couldn't read past the first change of buffing the shit out of Wehr w 5-man gren squads and nerfing the fuck out of Sovs with molotov/ATnade either or.

The lack of global upgrades is a big issue, but using that specific suggestion as your first example just buries the legitimacy of your entire post imo. Perhaps you should start with something a little more popular, like tank smoke or tank traps, which are basic gameplay features of Company of Heroes that have been relegated to bad commander DLC.

I appreciate the spirit in which this was written but a lot of these suggestions seem out of touch while others hint at a poor understanding of game mechanics.

For instance, rear armor does exist. And while there is no side armor, there's a 50% chance of hitting the rear armor from the side because the front and rear armor are split in the middle of a vehicle model. This works pretty well considering the simplicity of the damage model. It's the good kind of RNG that evens out over the duration of a game.

Also, do you know for a fact that infantry damage is not health based, cause it looks health based to me. It could be just that the health is an attribute of individual squad models. So while a squad could be at 80% health, 1 member may be close to death and seem to crit when shot.

In case someone doesn't want to read the whole op:

TL;DR:

Nerf the shit out of soviets(everything should be expensive and ineffective), buff the crap out of germans(ubermensch should not die to anything) and some general stuff for the fatherland.

What is with the new push to make soviet molotovs hard to get when the germans get their alternative for FREE. Trying to suggest such a one sided nerf for the sake of "stategy" is one of the most biased things i've heard o the board. If thatt was the case, maybe it's time for the germans to start needing to purchase a faust upgrade as well.

It's not new, HS King has been crying about the same things for months and his agenda has always been to nerf more or less everything for soviets while buffing most things for germans.

I'll bite.

Ost 5 man grenadier team upgrade

If the main problem is one-shotting squads by mines, IS2 and similar, better look at these units first. Your proposed change will introduce a whole new string of HUGE balancing alterations. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
On the other hand, it would be nice to have a fuel intensive infantry upgrade.

What: Soviet Globals at or molatov
Why: To make an early game choice of either cover/building denial or soft AT. They cost should be increased considerably to only enable 1 upgrade ( at or moloatov) for the earl/ mid game. This would mean there would be choices to make and compromises. This would enable some early armoured cars to have an effect if no at grenades are researched and no guards.

The idea to seriously chose between AI / AT / tech is something i would welcome. I will agree that the fuel price for molotovs is not a severe hindrance for tech, because you will most likely gain territory (and fuel) in return. That does not mean i want to see a nerf to said weapons, make them stronger or remove MP cost if you have to, i just like a harder (tech-) choice and more risk involved.

I believe Stephenn (and others) suggested PPSh as a fuel intensive upgrade - like BARs - which could also work out and add more depth.

Currently Conspam with PPSh into quick tanks seems to be the best choice altogether, especially with the new commander.

1 shot squad wipes

This was mentioned many times before, and i think most of us will agree.

Health based damage for inf

To put it simply: If infantry had more health instead of armour (either through veterancy or base value) there is less RNG. The German sniper with his low health and high armor is the best example: Sometimes he dies seemingly in an instant, and sometimes he runs past multiple squads unscathed.

Oh, and there are no one-shot critical hits in infantry combat (besides flame weapons / PTRS / Schreck).

Auto locking and auto engine damage faust and at nade

Agreed more or less. It is not the "scare factor" or slowing down of a faust/at nade (after all, paks need a somewhat reliable snare to be effective against swarming vehicles/tanks) that worries me, but the absolutely random nature of it.

Vehicle targeting/ AT gun targeting :

Yes, give us a toggle between fire at will / fire only at tanks / hold fire for AT guns and tank destroyers.

Depth to vehicle combat: Things like no side/ rear armour means that there is currently no reason to take the risk of flanking and fighting head on is usually the safest option , this is obviously not good for strategy.

Apparently there are different penetrations at different ranges already in the game. It's just nobody considers it important enough in a game with such arcade-like distances.

Rear armour is also there, and (except in the case of the Tiger) considerable weaker than the front. Side armour most likely won't be implemented at that point.

Crits at low health (or near death crits) as described exist, i don't understand your point.

How tank fire effects at guns – at guns should not be as easily countered as they are right now by tanks – this is especially true of heavies such as IS2 , Tiger , ISU152 ect 1 at gun alone should never be anything more than a deterrent but 2-3 should be able to be a viable counter – at this moment heavies destruct at guns with no issue making at guns completely usless more so the ost as they have much less crew and are liable to being 1 shotted.

AT guns perform fine against every tank except IS2 and ISU152. But that's their special trait - good against emplacements. But even so, an IS2 dies very fast once stunned by a vet1 PAK.

Keep in mind that the openness of a map dictates how good or bad AT guns are perceived.

Molatov: Too destructive and rewards bad play – things that shouldn’t work have big effect for example charging a MG , throwing molatov and retreating.

Don't allow suppressed units to use special abilities / throw molotovs. Or at least cancel the action once the unit gets pinned. (last time i checked conscripts will continue the throwing animation even when pinned)

The way Molotov does damage should be re worked – should be something like incendiary nade from COH PE faction – more damage over time to deny cover/buildings less of a purely offensive weapon which enables cons to win majority of fire fights regardless of any tactical situation.

Agreed, the less RNG the better.

Flame Weapons – should do damage over time with higher chance of death than standard rifles but should be toned down from how it works – for a extreme example of flames damage done wrong is KV8 ridiculously squad killer
at best it should have equal damage to FHT – higher cost would be justified from fact that is has great armour, speed can cap territory at vet and can tangle with medium tanks such as PZ4.

The KV8 is in my opinion allowed to have better dps than the FHT, because it can not tangle with anything that looks remotely like a tank.

For the flame crit chance, it's the same RNG issue as with every other flame weapon. It's more noticable on low number squads, than high number squads.

Capping: add depth by slowing down area cap – means u can cap in cover with no risk but its 50% of what it is now and if you want it to speed up you have to click on the point with your units, this allows faster capping but with risk of ambush – tanks should only be able to area cap. Means If you win an engagement and don’t want to risk ambush you may not have time to cap territories to exploit your win if you don’t solidify your defence.

Personally i prefer the capping in CoH2 and don't want to go back.

I can imagine it ends up in a stupid micro-dance around the capping point. "Risking an ambush" means you just have to react and click very fast once you see an enemy. It's just a micro tax, no thank you.

Resources: This is only a idea I could have big implications but to remove the fuel and muni from non fuel or muni points al la v coh.

Do such vague could-have-maybe things belong into an ultimate guide?. Maps are all balanced around the new ressource system.

DLC: as many have said the new approach to the dlc ( cheaper but weaker options which add diversity ) such as the new commander is excellent and is in line with what should be done – this give each commander different options without game breaking moments like some of the “skill planes” had done so before.

I could argue the new soviet commander brought the opposite of diversity into the 1v1 meta.

Overall Balance: I honestly think that overall balance is not bad at all just that there is lack of opportunity due to the things listed above preventing players form being able to counter some units – ill use su 85 for example , I still think it either has too much damage, speed and armour (as a package) due to the fact that flanking does not reap a large enough reward due to side/rear armour issue and fairly fast reverse speed.

Overall balance is good. I thought we were done with the su 85 nerfs a while ago.

Veterancy:
I feel there is room for bigger veterancy buffs for some units – p grens for example or conscripts these units seems to be much less useful late game for different reasons, the rate of veterancy and their health and damage could be buffed in vet 3 meaning if the player could keep them alive for a long time and vet them up they become real assets on the battlefield.

PGrens get a great armour buff with vet2 and damage buff with vet3. Vet 3 conscripts perform similar as vet3 grens.

I feel both units usefulness fades in the late game .

That's because tanks and explosions don't give a shit about armour and anti-infantry damage.
I'm curious too how a health boost at vet3 instead of armour would effect the late game.

Visual effects / destruction effects:

I remember multiple threads about that specific topic and will say its subject to personal preference...

Controls/ pathing:
IN a game like this controls should be instantaneous, this means when you hit T the unit runs straight away, or when you click to move a vehicle it responds instantly. This gives control to the player and enables them to perform incredible manoeuvres and tactics, if you remove that then it completely removes intricate manoeuvring and positioning from the game.

Sure. Unit responsiveness is hugely improved, but:

Vehicle pathing is somewhat problematic, but i don't see how to fix it from a technical standpoint.
Decreasing the colliding box or removing small gaps and clutter from maps is the only thing i can think of.

Units on retreat tend to hang up on objects, wait several seconds for other members to catch up, or run back to jump into cover. That should be looked at.



You are mixing unit balancing with fundamental game changes, opinions and visual asthetics together. It sounds vague, opinionated ("revert everything back to old-established vCoH") and not fully familiar with the intricacies to me.


I'm surpirsed the T34 ram lottery is not mentioned directly. Or crashing airplanes killing everything and penal battalions still underperforming.

This:

and penal battalions still underperforming.

Like some of the ideas,

like MORE GLOBAL UPGRADES

Grens are hardly an underused unit though. they are very effective throughout the whole game, so I'm not sure why there should be an upgrade that makes them even more desirable. I'd rather pgrens get some sort of fuel upgrade. A fifth pgren might even be worth a 60 fuel investment(though im not sure about this...god they are expensive to reinforce), because it might actually make staying in t2 to counter vehicles slightly more viable.

Generally though, while I like the idea of fuel upgrades, and making molotovs less of a no-brainer, raising the fuel costs on them and/or the at nades seems like a bad idea. Neither faction can afford to delay their vehicle presence for that long, and since you can only reduce your opponent's fuel intake, not stop it unless you entirely take all of his territory, investing in an infantry upgrade that significantly slows your tech down is almost certain to end in you getting murdered when tanks pop.

but that goes to your point about restructuring resource intake, which i'm all for. If you took fuel and munis away from standard points(or at least reduced the inflow) and increased what you get from official fuel or muni points, that would probably make infantry fuel investments that actually slow your teching substantially, viable.

I saw the capping idea elsewhere before(not sure if it was you then). I like that idea. Seems like its all win. Maybe if you were directly capping, an opponent getting in the circle with you only slows your capping down. you are already vulnerable to him shooting at you while you are combat ineffective.

would definitely welcome a penal battalion boost and a pgren boost.

Ideas that reduce rng sound good to me. Some random losses(or survivals) are just too significant to even out in the course of a game.

Intrigued by vehicles having different penetration at different ranges - seems like a major balance changer, and not entirely sure of what the benefits to tactics would be...doesn't range already increase likelihood of hitting a target? and as was stated, hitting side armor hits both front and rear armor intermittently, so there is benefit to flanking(again, the results are just a little random)

I also don't like the faust at-nade mechanic- though fussing with it is likely to require a lot of balancing also. Maybe a tank shouldn't be susceptible to engine damage unless it has been damaged to 80% or even 90% health, and then only minor engine damage, as a guarantee. Then fausts and at-nades should probably get better penetration-I'd like to say more damage but that's not a good thing against light vehicles). Heavy engine damage shouldn't be possible unless a tank is below 40% health. To make it so that fausts and at-nades aren't totally wasted on a hit, they could cause temporary stun damage. This would prevent 1 solitary unit from ruining a tanks day, and still allow for well organized guerrilla tactics on tanks to pay off by slowing your opponent's momentum.

If you can get a second faust or at nade in because of this opening, then you can actually hobble a tank...or maybe a faust and at-nade shouldn't do engine damage unless a tank has taken 75% damage, or it is temporarily stunned.

I won't bite, too much badness.

It's more expensive for soviets to get T2, molotovs and AT nades, then it is for germans to get T1 and T2. This includes panzerfaust, rifle nades, non-doctrinal grenadier upgrades, infantry based AT options (panzerschreks), and the halftrack, the first AI vehicle that does not die to a single ATnade/Pfaust. Getting T3 or T4 after that as soviets also costs more fuel than the T3 for the germans.

And you want to make the soviets early game tech even more expensive? Get real.

Elefant needs urgently Hold Fire so it stops targeting infantry and wasting time on them...

I couldn't read past the first change of buffing the shit out of Wehr w 5-man gren squads and nerfing the fuck out of Sovs with molotov/ATnade either or.

The lack of global upgrades is a big issue, but using that specific suggestion as your first example just buries the legitimacy of your entire post imo. Perhaps you should start with something a little more popular, like tank smoke or tank traps, which are basic gameplay features of Company of Heroes that have been relegated to bad commander DLC.

+1

The thread, somehow, would be fine if only it wasnt a big nerf soviet - buff german. The bold text is fine, as things that can be improved. What is really wrong is mostly what you write later or how you try to explain it. Erase or try to be less bias and just leave the bold text.

Global Upgrades
Squad wipes
Auto locking and auto engine damage faust and at nade
Vehicle targeting/ AT gun targeting
Depth to vehicle combat
How tank fire effects at guns
Flame weapons
Capping
Resources
DLC
Veterancy
Terrain destruction
Control/Pathing

All of this is great, but consider the consquences on balance if anything is tweaked. Theorcrafting and gameplay are too far away from each other.

+1

The thread, somehow, would be fine if only it wasnt a big nerf soviet - buff german. The bold text is fine, as things that can be improved. What is really wrong is mostly what you write later or how you try to explain it. Erase or try to be less bias and just leave the bold text.

This. Kudos to you OP for recognizing there is a problem in all of these areas but your reasoning/explanations are just not that good.

So far from reading this thread, I am really liking the idea of PPSH's being a global fuel upgrade like BARs was. I also really like the idea of AT nades/Fausts being a sure thing. It is extremely annoying/demoralising for your at nade/faust to fail due to RNG. I can accept the fact that I screwed up by allowing my tank to get close to infantry disabling my engine when I can easily kite, what I cannot accept is that its all decided by RNG. There has to be a compromise how much luck is in this game, I think this is a good place to start.

edit: Possiblity of SVTs being a global upgrade for cons? Not necessarily the entire squad receiving SVTs, perhaps 3 models like PPSH. This could allow the soviet player to decide between upgrading long range or short range dps of cons. Penals would probably have to be changed so as to not make them obsolete if this was introduced. (even though in their current form they kind of are)

This. Kudos to you OP for recognizing there is a problem in all of these areas but your reasoning/explanations are just not that good.

So far from reading this thread, I am really liking the idea of PPSH's being a global fuel upgrade like BARs was. I also really like the idea of AT nades/Fausts being a sure thing. It is extremely annoying/demoralising for your at nade/faust to fail due to RNG. I can accept the fact that I screwed up by allowing my tank to get close to infantry disabling my engine when I can easily kite, what I cannot accept is that its all decided by RNG. There has to be a compromise how much luck is in this game, I think this is a good place to start.

edit: Possiblity of SVTs being a global upgrade for cons? Not necessarily the entire squad receiving SVTs, perhaps 3 models like PPSH. This could allow the soviet player to decide between upgrading long range or short range dps of cons. Penals would probably have to be changed so as to not make them obsolete if this was introduced. (even though in their current form they kind of are)

Hey Thanks everyone for the input I wont respond directly to all cos its too much effort but I really like this comment Im glad you didnt automatically jump on me for "trying to nerf soviets"

I agree p faust could be a global upgrade as could ppsh ( or perhaps svt40 for cons) and yes tank smoke which is a great idea that I didnt think of - like i said its suggestions not a 100% concrete idea for change.

I have no issue with soviets or anything like that so Im not sure why some people got fired up about it - I don't play them as much so most of my examples are ost based and yes maybe I didn't do that great of a job explaining.

As far as molatov is concerned - it is ruining the game.

Nearly every inf engagement is dictated around by molatov being thrown and not only does it look stupid, it ruins to flow of the game - no one uses cover anymore or positioning as multiple cons squads run up and throw one and everyone is forced to move.

For rear armour I know its already in the game but it doesnt work very well, makes flanking nto even viable and makes it pointless to try to position AT guns in different fields of fire or flanking with tanks so therefore that could be improved.

As for the gren squad thing - i suggested it so that germans could actually pick up weapons to steal them - its almost impossible to do that now and proposed better veterancy buffs for conscripts... so im not sure how im only trying to buff germans?

Everyone that contributed feedback has made great points thanks for that - those that just rubbished my ideas saying m crying about one thing or another - thanks as well , I mean you guys obviously didnt take as much effort to be more constructive but at least I know where you stand on what I said.

Its quite difficult to come up with multiple suggestions without spending a few months coming up with a post.

Yes I agree some of these changes would completely alter how the game is played but I dont see that as a bad thing - that has already happened multiple times and the game keeps improving with every patch so... yeh

EDIT: Just thought of a good idea - global upgrade for german pios. Combat pio upgrade you get an extra man ( to help capture weapons, fight and faster repairs), and the ability to get munis from vehicle wrecks ( maybe a buff somewhere or maybe not depending on the price of the upgrade) with 5 men with mp40s they could be used in combat and not win fights 1 v1 conscripts but be able mto make a nuisance of themselves a bit like a weaker assualt gren squad.

I really think having a 5 man squad in the ost arsenal would be a real benefit to the game not only does ost only have 2 inf squads for fighting they are both expensive to reinforce - one being crazy expensive this could help that situation

I'm not going to comment on all of this, but nerfing Molotovs is only one way to make the early game infantry engagements a bit more balanced.

As I see it now, the problem is there is essentially no penalty for mass flanking. Unlike in vCOH, I rarely see cons going down to 2-3 men from mass flanks. Meanwhile, toss a few Molotovs, force a mass retreat, and you're looking at far heavier MP loss on the Ostheer side, and that problem of assymetrical MP drain where Ostheer ends up losing squads easier and is the side being more severely drained as the game progresses is not what I think the designers had in mind.

The more powerful push units from T2 (Pgren, HT) don't benefit from veterancy at all, because by the time they get it, tanks that can one-shot them easily are probably on the field, not to mention the power of the Soviet sniper against vet units.

So just keep an open mind, there are other things they could do - for instance decrease barbed wire build time, put the scout car in T1 so Ostheer has a blocking unit like the vCOH bike, allow an S-mine patch to be built with less than 60 muni in the bank, or rebuff time to supress on the MGs. I'd love to use barbed wire to help stop flanks, but it's too far too slow to build.

Personally, my preference is for a Molotov nerf, just because I find dodging Molotovs all game unfun, tedious and a microtax that severely limits my ability to multitask successfully. Basically I always feel like if I don't have all my units on screen I have to pick the engagement I really need to win so I successfully dodge the nade.