Why this game is almost balanced

I've been playing CoH2 for awhile now and I can say that the game has made significant progress in balance. In fact, except for a few things which I will get in to shortly, the game is well balanced. I find most mid to late game engagements reward the player who has the superior strategy unit composition, executes effective flanks, and can react quickly to battlefield conditions (and, of course, a bit of luck on your side): Company of Heroes is meant to play like that.

Now, what makes this game brutally imbalanced (at least for 1v1) are a few early game units and abilities that the soviets happen to have.

First off, Soviet mines. These things are far too cost effective at killing infantry. Often times they 1 shot the entire squad (which in the first 5 minutes of the game is devastating). If I even have 1 grenadier remaining after they hit a mine I count my lucky stars the squad wasn't wiped. For 30 (35?) munitions, these mines provide far too much cost efficiency and even leads to the Germans being pinned in their base lest they dare to move out and get killed by mines. Waiting for minesweepers isn't as easy as it sounds.
- The mines must be fixed. Make it like vCoH miens where they only kill 1-2 members and pinn the squad for a time. Anything but wiping entire squads at full hp. Soviets don't need free squad kills to crush their opponents further.

Now for the real problem: The M3A1 Scout Car. What's suppose to be a light recon unit means to scout and harass enemies turned into a murderous deathmachine on wheels. These units are so powerful that players like Cpt. Molo can play soviets exclusively and face off against top tier players with pure scout car spam and still perform well. Here's how they make Soviets win:

- Priced at 190 MP, 5 fuel, the M3A1 is dirt cheap. And for all that it provides, it's simply an investment you can't ignore.

- The M3 is very fast, able to outrun retreating infantry. This allows for easy squad wipes for any German infantry that dares to venture alone. The M3's formidably machine guns combined with combat engineer flamer or even guard DP LMG makes short work of retreating infantry.

- The M3's gun is surprisingly strong at long range. If you manage to face an opponent who has some understanding on how to handle these cars, you will face grenadiers in cover, which the M3 can efficiently handle outside panzerfaust range. The grenadiers, even in heavy cover, will inevitably lose when the soviet army comes for them. Even if the Grenadiers manage to heavly damage the car, it can easily back up and be repaired quickly for 0 Manpower bleed.
- If anyone played Dawn of War 2, they are basically IG Sentinels that made the IG race strong.

- The car faces no serious counters until German Tier 2 comes out, where upgun 222's or pak guns can effectively handle them, allowing Soviets to basically run wild with 1-3 M3s for several minutes and take the map.

Now knowing that you can't send units alone since they will almost always die to a flame car, you try to keep your army together and play very defensively (you basically sacrifice at least 60% of the map doing this). This strategy is almost always what you see top players do in response to scout cars. Even playing this way, your lines still might be broken, which will end the game for you as you already ceded most the map.

What's wrong with playing defensively? Nothing, CoH is a long game and holding at least part of the map can keep you in the game for a long time to make a break out.

The problem is this 190 MP 5 fuel car can so effectively shut German troops at almost no cost to the Soviets. It's extremely lethal to units and scores easy squad wipes and can deal good damage outside Panzerfaust range (maybe if Grenadiers had a built in sprint ability like conscripts it would be different...). They simply dominate the field, allowing the Soviet player to dictate the flow of battle and gain a significant resource lead that will eventually culminate into a dominate army.

Between mines and scout cars, playing as Germans is like storming into no man's land (it's very hard). Just look at the success of OMGPOP - sure he's a great player, but by simply building scout car he just dominates everything in sight with little effort. He thrashed both me and VonIvan with simple spam into guard squads in short order.



Fix mines to stop 1 shotting squads.
Nerf scout cars - it baffles me why they got buffed so hard last patch (HP increase from 180 to 200 and increased armor penetration). My suggestions:
- Remove the machine gun and decrease cost to 120/5, making it a pure recon unit and mobility tool to protect infantry that hop in to give it some firepower.
- Increase the cost to at least 222 levels (230/15), if not more.
- reduce speed (odd for a scout unit, but it's too damn good at killing retreating infantry).
- Severely reduce HP, making it far more risky to run the car into enemy territory to chase retreating squads. A single panzerfaust deals only about 30% of its HP whereas conscript at 'nade is far more damaging to a 222 (and easier to pull off with sprint).

In my opinion, nerfing both soviet mines and M3 will go a long way in making this game balanced. There are several other things that I would like to change, but none as glaring as these.

P.S. Nerf ISU-152 1-shotting infantry (reduce accuracy vs infantry?).

M3 costs 10 fuel.
Mines cost 30.

Panzerfaust deals 100 damage, M3 got 200hp.
AT nade deals 100 damage, 222 got 200hp.

222 is the one who can reliably wipe squads on retrat, M3 needs flame CEs to do it.

I really do admire you for being top 10 without even knowing the stats or costs of units and abilities

M3 costs 10 fuel.
Mines cost 30.

Panzerfaust deals 100 damage, M3 got 200hp.
AT nade deals 100 damage, 222 got 200hp.

222 is the one who can reliably wipe squads on retrat, M3 needs flame CEs to do it.

I really do admire you for being top 10 without even knowing the stats or costs of units and abilities

It's probably because he actually enjoys a challenge and plays Germans mainly, and no Soviet player actually carefully examines the cost of mines and M3's because just mindlessly building them is (sadly) smart. So I can see how he might have gotten costs wrong. And if you read carefully, he does note that it takes flame or DP's to get the retreat kills

M3 costs 10 fuel.
Mines cost 30.

Panzerfaust deals 100 damage, M3 got 200hp.
AT nade deals 100 damage, 222 got 200hp.

222 is the one who can reliably wipe squads on retrat, M3 needs flame CEs to do it.

I really do admire you for being top 10 without even knowing the stats or costs of units and abilities

While thats true, it doesn't actually invalidate his point. I might add that the Guards/M3 combo reliably defeats the 222 (and walks all over the 221), leaving only the Pak to counter the former. And since ze Snipa also comes out of T1, going for an early Pak is risky business. And while I am not Molo, this precise combination of factors makes my Soviet play much stronger then my Ostheer one...

Using M3s well can indeed result in some spectacularly swift victories, but for me they are really the best out of a group of bad options.

It all comes down to the fact that Germans have a much stronger infantry composition than the Soviets. MP for MP, LMG Grenadiers will thrash conscripts (you don't even need LMG for this fight) and beat DP guards by a moderate margin. MG42 and Pak40 are miles and miles ahead of the Maxim and ZIS-3 gun. 251 Half Track is available early in the game, as battle goes on and squads lose men, damage exchange steadily favor the Germans as they can reinforce on the field.

In the Alienware cup, I have won all my German games with relative ease, even if they tend to last longer in length. On the other hand, I lost with my M3 build again DanielD, and it wasn't close. He could have beaten me if he had chosen the Germans in the ace game. It reminds me of Von Ivan who made the same mistake in the SNF semis.

There's a lesson here my friends: don't pick Soviets.

@LeYawn

And did I said it does?
I'm just correcting info that he got wrong by a huge margin.

@OMGPOP

Faction of angry fanboys chanting "german up, gief buffs" will sturm your home and rip you apart for that post.

Using M3s well can indeed result in some spectacularly swift victories, but for me they are really the best out of a group of bad options.

It all comes down to the fact that Germans have a much stronger infantry composition than the Soviets. MP for MP, LMG Grenadiers will thrash conscripts (you don't even need LMG for this fight) and beat DP guards by a moderate margin. MG42 and Pak40 are miles and miles ahead of the Maxim and ZIS-3 gun. 251 Half Track is available early in the game, as battle goes on and squads lose men, damage exchange steadily favor the Germans as they can reinforce on the field.

In the Alienware cup, I have won all my German games with relative ease, even if they tend to last longer in length. On the other hand, I lost with my M3 build again DanielD, and it wasn't close. He could have beaten me if he had chosen the Germans in the ace game. It reminds me of Von Ivan who made the same mistake in the SNF semis.

There's a lesson here my friends: don't pick Soviets.

Sad but true. Even when you have the urge to troll and pick Soviets(Which unfortunately I did, learned my lesson very well after dat incident)#LimitTheTroll, Germans are usually your best bet(As long as you can keep your stuff alive, stay together, hold ground you know you can, and not go for the obvious mine spots/let RNG get to you). Though I will admit mines and m3s do need necessary changes, not nerfs, but changes that are reasonable.
Recommended by myself:
-Decrease Mine AOE so only 1-2 Gren models max get injured
-Make the m3 turret cause less dmg per shot(so that it's similar to the Jeep in VCoH but be a little bit more powerful than the Jeep was.)

Faction of angry fanboys chanting "german up, gief buffs" will sturm your home and rip you apart for that post.

It's not that, it's that Soviets are fundamentally flawed and still need to be fixed somehow. I don't know how, but they need it. M3 spam is not fun, Sniper spam is not fun, Maxim spam is not fucking fun. Not to play with or against, it's bullshit.

It's not that, it's that Soviets are fundamentally flawed and still need to be fixed somehow. I don't know how, but they need it. M3 spam is not fun, Sniper spam is not fun, Maxim spam is not fucking fun. Not to play with or against, it's bullshit.

Soviets aren't fun.

Using M3s well can indeed result in some spectacularly swift victories, but for me they are really the best out of a group of bad options.

It all comes down to the fact that Germans have a much stronger infantry composition than the Soviets. MP for MP, LMG Grenadiers will thrash conscripts (you don't even need LMG for this fight) and beat DP guards by a moderate margin. MG42 and Pak40 are miles and miles ahead of the Maxim and ZIS-3 gun. 251 Half Track is available early in the game, as battle goes on and squads lose men, damage exchange steadily favor the Germans as they can reinforce on the field.

In the Alienware cup, I have won all my German games with relative ease, even if they tend to last longer in length. On the other hand, I lost with my M3 build again DanielD, and it wasn't close. He could have beaten me if he had chosen the Germans in the ace game. It reminds me of Von Ivan who made the same mistake in the SNF semis.

There's a lesson here my friends: don't pick Soviets.

Then Cata comes in and 5-0s Jesulin who pretty undoubtedly is the strongest current Ostheer player with a whooping 90% plus win rate... Not saying that this is necessarily representative, but the opposite also holds true. I think you are right btw. that Gren LMG have it too easy against Cons...maybe Con veterancy/PPSH needs to be looked at to redress that, but then again, if you have T1 up anyways, Snipers are IMO the Soviet tool of choice to win the manpower race.

Ok, I was wrong on the scout car cost, but my point still stands!

@OMGPOP - While the Germans do have some stronger base infantry later in the game at long ranges, the soviets still have a lot of options to counter it (snipers, tanks, maxims, mortars, whatever). The game is more balanced there with larger scale strategies coming into play.

This part of the game is far different than the razor's edge of Grens vs M3s. Where if I make on damn mistake I'm immediately and brutally punished with severe model and squad losses. And If I even dare to send a squad alone it's almost a guaranteed squad loss to an M3. This leads to German's being largely pinned in their base or a small territory and there's nothing I can do about it as Germans.

As Soviets, I almost never feel I'm on the back foot. As German's, I feel like I'm about to be terrifying massacred by the monsters from Alien at any moment.

No balancing needs to be done between Conscripts and Grenadiers from my experience in 1v1 and 2v2. I'm not as experienced though as some of you here, so I'm open to discussion on that bit.

I think the solution to the M3 is definitely making it more of a scout unit. Make it similar to the schwimmwagon, bike, or jeep from vCoH. A good sniper hunter, with nice fast recon capability, yet low health. It can also be used to support a squad or two in early engagements.

One way I have temporarily countered this issue is by setting up MGs, Grenadiers, and / or mines on or near 2-3 main retreat paths. This often wards off if not takes out M3s that like to chase down squads. Regardless, it is an issue worth looking at.

This thread is clearly focused on 1 v 1 balance but there are those of us that play mostly 2 v 2 or 3 v 3, and the priorities tend to differ there. The power of larger squad sizes, indirect fire, and AFV gunfire is reflected differently. The game length is different, and so is the relation of the various arms.

This is why I don't think any game style will get optimal balance. What is balance for 1 v 1 becomes non balance for another mode and vice-versa.

In 4 v 4, which is basically a battle of attrition with hundreds or over a thousand deaths, the 'most impactful player' is usually the one with the highest kills.

This thread is clearly focused on 1 v 1 balance but there are those of us that play mostly 2 v 2 or 3 v 3, and the priorities tend to differ there. The power of larger squad sizes, indirect fire, and AFV gunfire is reflected differently. The game length is different, and so is the relation of the various arms.

This is why I don't think any game style will get optimal balance. What is balance for 1 v 1 becomes non balance for another mode and vice-versa.

Also having maps that are both for 1v1 and 2v2 doesn't help. Just adds confusion to balance.

^^

The thing is, all this balance work applies across the board to all game modes when in fact they should be separate balancing for each. It becomes confused, and I have long suspected that the devs try to satisfy several constituents at once with the balancing.

And the maps are a problem too, and keep a good game from being great.

Balance should be 1v1 and 2v2 focused with resources scaled back for 3v3 and 4v4.

Balance should be 1v1 and 2v2 focused with resources scaled back for 3v3 and 4v4.

Some people love giant clusterfucks. Let them be.

Ok, I was wrong on the scout car cost, but my point still stands!

@OMGPOP - While the Germans do have some stronger base infantry later in the game at long ranges, the soviets still have a lot of options to counter it (snipers, tanks, maxims, mortars, whatever). The game is more balanced there with larger scale strategies coming into play.

This part of the game is far different than the razor's edge of Grens vs M3s. Where if I make on damn mistake I'm immediately and brutally punished with severe model and squad losses. And If I even dare to send a squad alone it's almost a guaranteed squad loss to an M3. This leads to German's being largely pinned in their base or a small territory and there's nothing I can do about it as Germans.

As Soviets, I almost never feel I'm on the back foot. As German's, I feel like I'm about to be terrifying massacred by the monsters from Alien at any moment.

I don't dispute that M3s are a bit stronger than they should be compared with the rest of the Soviet units. But it's far from a free win for any player who employ this strategy. Out of the 5 top players I competed and practiced with, Barton and DanielD both defeated this strategy. 60% win rate isn't all that impressive, especially against my German win % and the fact that this strat is the best I can manage with the Soviets.

This thread is clearly focused on 1 v 1 balance but there are those of us that play mostly 2 v 2 or 3 v 3, and the priorities tend to differ there. The power of larger squad sizes, indirect fire, and AFV gunfire is reflected differently. The game length is different, and so is the relation of the various arms.

This is why I don't think any game style will get optimal balance. What is balance for 1 v 1 becomes non balance for another mode and vice-versa.

In 4 v 4, which is basically a battle of attrition with hundreds or over a thousand deaths, the 'most impactful player' is usually the one with the highest kills.

I happen to have played a decent number of 2v2 and participated in a number of tournaments in that mode as well. Soviets are in my opinion unbeatable in 2v2 atm if players play on a high enough level with no major mistakes committed by either side. Although it has little to do with the reasons you mentioned here, and even less with the M3.

It's also too "early" to comment on the balance in 3v3 and 4v4. Since there has been practically no organized competitions to decide what the optimal strategies are in those game modes. Although that might soon be changing.

I don't dispute that M3s are a bit stronger than they should be compared with the rest of the Soviet units. But it's far from a free win for any player who employ this strategy. Out of the 5 top players I competed and practiced with, Barton and DanielD both defeated this strategy. 60% win rate isn't all that impressive, especially against my German win % and the fact that this strat is the best I can manage with the Soviets.





I happen to have played a decent number of 2v2 and participated in a number of tournaments in that mode as well. Soviets are in my opinion unbeatable in 2v2 atm if players play on a high enough level with no major mistakes committed by either side. Although it has little to do with the reasons you mentioned here, and even less with the M3.

It's also too "early" to comment on the balance in 3v3 and 4v4. Since there has been practically no organized competitions to decide what the optimal strategies are in those game modes. Although that might soon be changing.

In regards to 2v2 play, me and a friend have been playing Ostheer in this mode. Here are a couple replays.

http://www.gamereplays.org/companyofheroes2/replays.php?game=83&show=details&id=296376
http://www.gamereplays.org/companyofheroes2/replays.php?game=83&show=details&id=296374

You'll notice how in both games despite severe losses and nearly no map control, the Soviet players still manage to pull out tons of fresh infantry squads, seemingly have an endless supply of resources, and tons of T-34s, IS-2s, and ISU-152s.

A big problem is how this forces the Ostheer to ALWAYS get Panthers or a Tiger / Tiger Ace, or an Elefant. Because no matter how bad strangle your opponent, he always pulls late-game call-ins out of his ass. The resource system is way too forgiving in that respect.

I feel like I am de-railing the topic here a little bit, but at the mention of 2v2 I felt like I might throw in my two cents.