Gameplay/Balance Issues

There are a few things that I feel are some very annoying issues as of now in COH2: WFA and could use some revisiting.

Cover
Somehow this doesn't feel as prevalent within an infantry engagement as it should. Compared to COH2 Beta, the mechanic has improved over the year but it still feels somewhat lackluster. Most of the time within an infantry engagement, it feels as if cover is secondary compared to overall DPS of the squads. Flanking is also meaningless because when it comes down to it, its all about DPS.

In a closed scenario, If I have a squad in yellow cover, I should more or less defeat a squad standing in red cover regardless if they have LMG or not. Right now, it's the other way around just because DPS matters more than cover. Overall, I think if this changed, it would also help with the blobbing issue.

Sight Issues
If infantry can use hearing and logic to deduce what's behind them in a 360 degree arc, why are my soldier's memory so bad they suddenly forget about the tank they were in the middle of firing at in OPEN GROUND? The situation with tanks chasing/forgetting other tanks and TDs firing on infantry is mainly due to this.

Every tank that just fired and left sight radius should stay visible for more than a split second even if they go into the fog of war. Right now, this punishes players very hard if they even want to chase down 10% hp tank due to the high risk of dementia / forgetting something in front of you. Players should be fighting against other players, what they shouldn't be fighting is the game itself.

Long range meta, Lack of variety
This by far has been my biggest problem with COH2 WFA. Right now, there really isn't much to argue about the need for long ranged damage in all factions. Every faction wants LMGs or something that can kill everyone before it gets close. While I feel LMGs should be powerful, I also dislike that in every single game, it dominates every other infantry weapon in turns of efficiency.

Although I would like to see a curb in LMG power, I would much rather see some adjustments to highlight the identity of SMGS and other close combat oriented weapons. Whether it's a problem with the open maps in the current map pool or a lack of proper shot blockers within the true sight mechanic, I know for sure that close range automatic weapons really needs to be looked at. They need to have a better purpose other than for bum rushing rifle equipped squads 2 minutes in the early game and cannon fodder for late.



There might be more, but off the top of my head these are the most annoying problems I can think of as of now. Please discuss below.

+1

All good points. Especially the long range weapons. Just look at paratroopers. Getting thompsons is unthinkable when for just 30 munitions more you could get something that's actually useful.

All good points. Especially the long range weapons. Just look at paratroopers. Getting Thompsons is unthinkable when for just 30 munitions more you could get something that's actually useful.

For 90 or so munitions, Thompson are by far the worst offenders. Smgs absolutely cannot do any reasonable damage unless if you get within sword range. Even then, you have to STOP and THEN SHOOT to inflict the max DPS possible.

Also I'm not sure if this is correct but I heard SMG troops have a negative received accuracy modifier (they gets hit more). Something about back a nerf to MP 40 units after the introduction of Assault grenadiers and Pioneer OP patch, so correct me if im wrong.

Also I'm not sure if this is correct but I heard SMG troops have a negative received accuracy modifier (they gets hit more). Something about back a nerf to MP 40 units after the introduction of Assault grenadiers and Pioneer OP patch, so correct me if im wrong.

Yeah, this is wrong, there's no such thing and there never has been. Just weapon crews get incoming accuracy penalties against them.

The thompson paratroopers get an ability that makes them take more damage but deal more as well. Maybe that's what you are thinking of?

Your points are contradictory, on one hand you want cover to be even more relevant on the other you want smgs to be better, smgs weren't nerfed or anything like that, in fact some were buffed (like PPSH) and thompson are the ones with the highest dps in the game, what changed is the cover and armor mechanics wich became more important after the march patch.

You want cover to be even more important? That will destroy any sort of flank or close range weapon, not to mention will make hmg play even more common.

Your points are contradictory, on one hand you want cover to be even more relevant on the other you want smgs to be better, smgs weren't nerfed or anything like that, in fact some were buffed (like PPSH) and thompson are the ones with the highest dps in the game, what changed is the cover and armor mechanics wich became more important after the march patch.

You want cover to be even more important? That will destroy any sort of flank or close range weapon, not to mention will make hmg play even more common.

I don't see your point here, since most green cover are directional except crater created by US or Soviet Engineer's demo charge. Emphasis on cover should therefore promote more flanking maneuver attempt. Thus HMG can't suppress infantry in green cover.

To the topic, we should acknowledge that the fact that there isn't much green cover available after all,yet cover became less emphasized as the game progress. Over-emphasis on cover mechanic might cause more balance issue, such as conscript(s) are either forced to fight grenadier in long range or to charge them but still lose the fight due to punishment for no cover.

For long range fighting, I do agree that LMG shouldn't be a DPS weapon (despite it is expensive) that deals a lot of damage even at long range. Normal Rifle should probably have more accuracy or be more lethal(DPS)than the current state. And I would suggest lowering the hit chance of LMG while increase bullet damage output, one instance is how MG42 for gren used to performed before patched (high damage but low accuracy) compares to its current state.

Yeah, this is wrong, there's no such thing and there never has been. Just weapon crews get incoming accuracy penalties against them.

Ahhhh ok, thanks for clearing that up.

Your points are contradictory, on one hand you want cover to be even more relevant on the other you want smgs to be better, smgs weren't nerfed or anything like that, in fact some were buffed (like PPSH) and thompson are the ones with the highest dps in the game, what changed is the cover and armor mechanics wich became more important after the march patch.

You want cover to be even more important? That will destroy any sort of flank or close range weapon, not to mention will make hmg play even more common.

Yes, I want cover to be more important, but you also missed the point where I want SMGs to be better too.

I don't think wanting a buff to cover and SMGs contradicts each other for the exact reason that flanking would require better automatic weapons than the current balance provides.

Also, if Thompson really do have the highest overall DPS in the game, why do all American players avoid it and get their 2x LMGs?

Regarding HMG play, cover reduces suppression correct?

To the topic, we should acknowledge that the fact that there isn't much green cover available after all,yet cover became less emphasized as the game progress. Over-emphasis on cover mechanic might cause more balance issue, such as conscript(s) are either forced to fight grenadier in long range or to charge them but still lose the fight due to punishment for no cover.

Because cover becomes less emphasized as the game progresses, it should be made just that much more effective. Right now, I can just A move my LMG squads and they would wipe the floor with any defending infantry without any risk what so ever for standing in little to no cover.

Regarding balance, I don't think it would skew it that much at all. A fight between two infantry squads isn't just with their on hand guns, it also involves the player's ability to control grenades/molotovs, both of which negate the advantage of cover.

Edit: to prevent a double post

thompson are the ones with the highest dps in the game

At sword range perhaps, but that's pretty useless in a game where there are Obersoldaten. The problem is that since WFA two LMGs have been added that are so insanely strong that its almost impossible to get your SMG squads in a range where they actually do something.

Given that SMGs are fully automatic, in gameplay terms it shouldn't matter whether they're moving or not DPS wise. I know realistically that's not strictly true, but the differentiation needs to be made. I've seen G43s closing into sword range and wrecking all opposition.