Why this game is almost balanced

The thing with balancing is that it should have most to do with the $$$$ bottom line (customers buying DLCs, expansion packs, future iterations of the game) and maintaining a loyal userbase that will stick to the franchise. They have surely have identified which of their customers are the purely transactional (buy, play a bit, then move on) and then, the relational (COH community).

Competitive players like you and tournament organizers that generate buzz are also factored into their schema.

This means that the devs (who know it better than anyone) would segment their constituents, their userbase, their potential userbase, and allocate their priorities in satisfying them in that order.

So if 3 v 3 is the most profitable game mode for them, then more of their attention will be directed there than other mode and so forth. This is what I think anyway, as a business person.

In the end this is a business.

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.

As for the game itself 3 v 3 and 4 v 4 are very much centered around how well 100 pop cap armies are used in the 'war of attrition'.

IME, the Soviets fare better here and it becomes less about intricate tactical play and more about mass and armor. Munitions drops, and artillery are more dominant. The German small squad sizes tends to work against them in 4 v 4. Some of the DLC commanders are clearly optimized for 3/4 v 3/4 modes rather than 1 v 1.

I think many who play these modes are casual players (transactional) and they are pretty important to relic as well.

Team games right now soviet early game is absolutely dominating.Once cars are combined with maxim spam...its brutal.If not cars on the rare occasion its sniper/guards.This applies for 2 vs 2 and above.

1 vs 1 is much more balanced but boring.Same car and gren every match.It requires more skill ofc.

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...

I´m just gonna say that the engagement between 222 vs M3 + Guards depends heavily on micro of both units and who can burst damage more efficiently. A DP upgraded Guard can save a flanked M3 by jumping but you need to first order the attack command cause its probable that the Guard will just shoot 1 volley. The time it takes them to shoot is WAY too much (which somehow balance this situation).

Both units have similar costs and when you talk about M3 + Guard (DP) that far outmatches 222 cost.

M3 + Guard: 520mp + 10f + 75mu
vs
222: 210mp + 15f + 55mu

__________________

While on the previous patch the M3 wasnt cost effective in comparison to the 222, now its a bit too effective for the time it arrives.
This is what i propose:

M3: reduce a bit accuracy at long range. Cover would prove even better.
Faust: increase chances of heavy engine damage or make that engine damage further decreases the speed. Right now a fausted M3 may prove to be a bit too fast.

"..m3s do need necessary changes, not nerfs, but changes that are reasonable."

I'm not saying that the M3 is a free win nor is the spam infallible.

I'm saying they are far too strong for their cost and timing and give the soviets a drastic, unfair advantage. Sure you can beat it, but it requires a disproportionate amount of effort for the Ostheer to beat than for the Soviets. Hence, imbalance.

You don't need to spam 3-5 of these things, 1 or 2 still accomplishes what I previously mentioned.

As for why they should balance for competitive play? Why wouldn't you? Doesn't it make more sense to balance a game for higher skill rather than lower? So in this way the player can seek to improve their skill at the game in order to win rather than Relic coming to patch up a part of the game that people refuse to improve on and seek the game developers to beat it for them (kind of what Blizzard did to raiding/dungeoning and simply nerfing the fights rather than having players rise to the challenge).

Soviets aren't fun.

In Soviet Union Fun has YOU!

Like i said collective 10 whiners have ruined this game. and we had to eat the f**king stupid patch for two months with no change.

Yeah the Whiners are Collectivised now.

We had to re-educate a few Kulak whiners, but we are otherwise good to go now.

All part of the 5 year plan

People are constantly complaining about soviet infantry not being able to scale to late game, and buffing conscripts to be at the same level as grens without giving them dp28s is hard to balance.

If only Relic gives the Soviets something like a Supply Center like the Americans in vCoH, Soviet numbers vrs German quality.

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.

Haha, yea, all of my posts have been from a 2v2 experience.

2v2 really puts spam into perspective, 3v3 and 4v4 is a bit too spread out to really appreciate the unit count, but 2v2 is kursk in a small area.

Our maps can mostly be used for 1v1 after all.

Soviet is fine in 1v1, but in 2v2 they are way too broken.

The nature of high squad number and low reinforcement cost making them too easy to hold ground, retreat and keep reinforcing extremely noob friendly.

US solve this completely with high cost and high reinforcement cost of Rifles, that's why US players can't just throw their dudes into fire zone, do some bullshit, rinse and repeat, it is not sustainable, but Soviet can.

M3 still comes too early, doing too much damage yet uncounterable unless the player himself makes mistake, and OKW without faust suffer even more.

Sniper blob can be solved by Fallschrimmjager.

Maximspam can be solved by OKW superior indirect fire.

ISU would be tweaked, so...

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.

Well, you can always play without the spam and use proper combined arms.
I don't like ISU, so I don't build them.
I don't like M3 spam, so I usually won't get more then one.
I know how strong snipers are, but I prefer penals.

Soviets are fundamentally flawed, but that isn't going anywhere.n That flaw is their design and I highly doubt that T1 will get any AI nerf as long as it doesn't have any AT form and we all know it won't get AT.

I've even got one PQ quote to confirm that:

[...]the Soviets were designed to lack flexibility both in their unit functionality and tech progression. To make up for this, they are given units which are very effective at one specific role (Sniper, Shocks, SU-85, etc.). This applies to their tech as well, the general idea was to see the player build one T1/T2 building followed by one T3/T4 building. In team games, this can be a bit more flexible as you have other players to provide you some buffer.[...]

http://community.companyofheroes.com/forum/company-of-heroes-2/coh-2-balance-feedback/34428-now-that-tier-3-and-tier-4-cost-a-lot-more

that's how the soviets were designed, they lack flexibity, they rely heavily on their doctrine.

Soviets were designed as the "spam" faction.

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.

Having played a few matches against Sov in the last few days where I forced them off the map almost completely. Kept wiping squads and winning the manpower battle only to be (very) surprised when all of a sudden T34-85 dual call-ins arrived and changed the game quickly. In both cases I was left wondering how they had afforded the call-ins and would be interested to see as it felt forgiving for players in that position to be receiving the heavy armour call-ins they got. I understand a comeback mechanism but inept play is inept play.

More on topic I also feel that the lack of Ger "heavy" infantry and the death of the panzergrens is a big issue with the M3. The lowered armour values seem to make this car much more effective and also homogenises the feeling of the vanilla factions (something I think will become starker once US and OKW are in play). Ger inf need to be a little tankier I feel, to compensate for M3 tactics and differentiate the factions again.

Having played a few matches against Sov in the last few days where I forced them off the map almost completely. Kept wiping squads and winning the manpower battle only to be (very) surprised when all of a sudden T34-85 dual call-ins arrived and changed the game quickly. In both cases I was left wondering how they had afforded the call-ins and would be interested to see as it felt forgiving for players in that position to be receiving the heavy armour call-ins they got. I understand a comeback mechanism but inept play is inept play.

More on topic I also feel that the lack of Ger "heavy" infantry and the death of the panzergrens is a big issue with the M3. The lowered armour values seem to make this car much more effective and also homogenises the feeling of the vanilla factions (something I think will become starker once US and OKW are in play). Ger inf need to be a little tankier I feel, to compensate for M3 tactics and differentiate the factions again.

so basically you want grenadiers to beat conscripts 100% of the time, regardless of cover. A grenadier squad does higher DPS than a conscript squad at ALL ranges. There is no heavy infantry in the game currently except shocks , everyone else has 1.0 armor. And i like that. I don't like bulletproof infantry.

We already discussed this and the best solution without nerfing the m3 is to decrease the fuel cost of BF 2 with 20 and increase the fuel cost of BF 3 with 20.

that's how the soviets were designed, they lack flexibity, they rely heavily on their doctrine.

Soviets were designed as the "spam" faction.

Germans love spam too. The entire game is based on spam, this is not a man of war, where you can use one soldier and one anti-tank grenades to destroy Jagdtiger. All spam.

Germans love spam too. The entire game is based on spam, this is not a man of war, where you can use one soldier and one anti-tank grenades to destroy Jagdtiger. All spam.

For germans is feasible to do one type of spam. Gren spam. And this will work untill mid game. After that, it won't work so well.
Soviets can do more types of spam: cons, maxim, penals, etc, and this spam will work nicely even in mid game and beyond. It's the design of the faction, I agree. But don't tell me that spam works for germans as well as for soviets because I will tell you right now L2P.

My solution:
- Make it impossible for garrisoned units to fire from any loaded unit while it moves.
- Move the FlammenHT back to T2, but make it unable to fire on the move.

This way, the game is much, much simpler to balance - it is way more authentic and it rewards positioning.

i want to punch your balls so hard.. you talk about soviet whiners yet all you do is whining about soviets and only trying to buff germans. you dont see a single balance issue with the germans that the soviets might have (negative for soviets). im getting so sick of it..

Look at what you wrote. Stop polluting the forum, write politely. And if you're so sick of people being unobjective, pls give us a list of your own posts where you complain about soviet units being OP.




I agree with OP. He's not saying the Scout car is an automatic game winner. But it has a huge effect on the game despite being first tier and low priced. The hard counters come much later and require teching and they arrive after their own hard counter is on the field (ATG/Guards)



The main point is, it's not fun to play against I quit for 2 months recently because of this and maxims. I'm guessing I'm not the only one.