Action Items: Balance Feedback Required!

Elite Rifleman: From yesterdays perspective I didn't really see a lot of issues in this. I was playing ~10 games with OKW and few games with USA. And I assure you, everybody used Rifle Company. But if there should be nerf, I think it best way would be to add more CP. To 1-2 so then they would not be second (or third) squad out. And other factions would have vet already. Or small fuel cost for delaying motor stuff. But please don't overnerf them (like giving higher CP AND fuel cost).

Soviet Support Weapons: Please don't do what you are thinking. The whole beauty of the game is asymmetrical factions. OKW already had the 100% muni income so it took part of that uniqueness away (and don't get me wrong, they needed something). I'm mostly 2vs2 player and I this hasn't been to big of an issue. I remember few games where there has been maxim spam and it's a bit tricky to counter but it's not game breaker. Again, if nerf needed, please increase the cost instead of lowering the numbers. As stated earlier, they would just EAT riflenades.

Long Range Weapons: Haven't really thought about this but I like Cruzz's idea.

While just reducing long range damage somewhat is an option, I do think it could be interesting if the LMG damage was made to spread damage on the entire enemy squad instead of focused on a single model. Right now a big part of the power of LMGs is that they will very quickly snipe off members from the enemy squad, forcing shorter range troops to just run away because having half a squad in melee doesn't really help them. Spread the damage out and you'll instead have a much larger though lower health squad coming into melee instead, which could actually do something. It would also make MGs a bit more efficient against LMG blobbing, because right now the gunner just gets instakilled in a row because all the fire is focused on him due to him being the most forward member of the MG squad.

And for the last part, thank you Relic for showing that you listen to your community. Much appreciated.

Soviet Weapon teams:

Maxim is troll weapon in the hands of someone skilled vs less skilled player. Leaving lesser skilled player feeling utterly overwhelmed and unable to do anything vs this monster OP weapon.

Team games are mix of players with very different skill levels

Everyone is using Maxims, because cons/eng are struggling hard vs OKW start

Soviet weapon crews die just as fast with 6 men when flanked as does 4 men Axis Mg42

Maxim isn't really OP when there 2 equally skilled players

Solution, fix cons/eng vs OKW, leave Soviet weapon crews 6 man as they are and make Maxim more like Mg42 a support weapon, not offensive weapon.

Doesn't really matter what you do with Squads, there will still be cry of Maxim OP if I can take 3 Maxims and suppress some noob that cannot figure how to fight vs HMG without getting pinned

Long range: Same thing, trolling lesser skilled players into rage because they cannot micro well enough to use cover/smoke/terrain/support weapons to fight 2-3 squads of LMG's in green cover.

Tho its possible to fight vs, it requires to much micro and effort to fight vs no effort. Should be looked into

Thanks

edit- by less skilled I mean not very skilled (I cannot fire of smoke mortar round and attack with infantry through the smoke)

Soviet Support Weapons:

1) -Reduce all to 4man.
OR
2) -Reduce model hp so it is overall same as a 4man.

I tend to prefer the second, because it:
A) Doesnt mess with Merge as much (though Merging models lose hp in the exchange)
B) Reduces nuke potential.
C) Is more of a middle ground solution.

-Maxim/ZiS/Dushka/120mm Mortar: Already have aligned asymmetric weapon stats and attributes. As weapons they are already equally effective and useful, as their rough mirrors, just in a different way.
-82mm Mortar: Add a vanilla short (2s) suppression effect in the AoE radius to compensate.
-45mm ATG: Change Vet ability to a Crew Shock or Button shot.

Long Range Weapons:

Cruzz's LMG suggestion sounds perfect.
LMGs need to otherwise retain long range potency to synch with Grens native long range efficacy.

Perhaps make upgrading to LMG remove Rifle Grenade (and perhaps other anti-infantry explosives) from the unit, alongside a small decrease in LMG Muni cost.

Elite Riflemen
Just an idea: Why not just an option to reinforce riflesquad with vetted models?
You build your squad, you fight, you lose models, you reinforce them with vetted models so the overall squad gain veterancy.
The downfall is obviously that you need to fight, lose models and pay to reinforce your squad.
vetted Models could be more expensive or the ability to need 1CP, don't know but this could bring a bit more strategy in the game.

Soviet Support team
Maxim spam is a consequence of conscript/penal poor performance. At first step, instead of looking into a way to modify his dynamic, found a way to make other T0/T1 units more efficient. And if people still prefers to use Maxim spam, here you start thinking of changing it.

Long range weapons
Reduce speed pace of any unit handling a long range weapon + Apply a cover penalty to them like green covers have yellow covers value, and yellow covers have no covers and no covers red covers.
The objective to increase their micro management and make them more vulnerable from flanking.

While just reducing long range damage somewhat is an option, I do think it could be interesting if the LMG damage was made to spread damage on the entire enemy squad instead of focused on a single model. Right now a big part of the power of LMGs is that they will very quickly snipe off members from the enemy squad, forcing shorter range troops to just run away because having half a squad in melee doesn't really help them. Spread the damage out and you'll instead have a much larger though lower health squad coming into melee instead, which could actually do something. It would also make MGs a bit more efficient against LMG blobbing, because right now the gunner just gets instakilled in a row because all the fire is focused on him due to him being the most forward member of the MG squad.

I'm not so sure about this idea. Evenly spreading out damage might sound good on paper, but in practice it was awful the last time it was tried.

In CoH1, squad combat was very simple, a full squad targeted one member of the enemy squad until he died, then the next, then the next, etc. When Opposing Fronts came out, Relic changed it so that every member targeted separately. The result was DPS being spread out so much that the first few seconds of a fight nobody would die, then with the final volley a squad wipe would occur. That wasn't a rare occurrence either, it happened constantly, I remember one instance where I had a 4 man PE Panzergrenadier squad with one pixel of health. Unsurprisingly, Relic scrapped that system and hasn't brought it back since.

Personally, I'm not to keen on the idea of spreading damage out evenly, because such 'squad crits' like that could easily return.

I'm not so sure about this idea. Evenly spreading out damage might sound good on paper, but in practice it was awful the last time it was tried.

In CoH1, squad combat was very simple, a full squad targeted one member of the enemy squad until he died, then the next, then the next, etc. When Opposing Fronts came out, Relic changed it so that every member targeted separately. The result was DPS being spread out so much that the first few seconds of a fight nobody would die, then with the final volley a squad wipe would occur. That wasn't a rare occurrence either, it happened constantly, I remember one instance where I had a 4 man PE Panzergrenadier squad with one pixel of health. Unsurprisingly, Relic scrapped that system and hasn't brought it back since.

Personally, I'm not to keen on the idea of spreading damage out evenly, because such 'squad crits' like that could easily return.

Yes, in a way.

Would mean less model deaths in start of engagement, but an increasing chance of a chain model wipe at low hps.
(Depending on how Cruzzs suggestion would cause the final "crit"required to kill a model.)

Seems reasonable to me though, as infantry shouldnt be hanging around at range soaking LMG damage in the first place.

It directly translates to less attrition during approach, but more if you are stupid enough to hang back soaking LMG raking fire.

As is currently, the LMGs single model targetting causes huge dmg to a single model, in addition to incidental rifle fire. Meaning you lose models at a constant, high rate, due to rifle firing adding to the LMGs burst, to each one model in turn.

If the LMG dmg was generalised across the unit, you can soak it on approach without losing models (and hence, your own DPS output) though upon arrival your unit, overall, will have less hp, you are now at a range where your infantry weapons are more effective.

Its an ingenious solution with an intermix of dis/advantage that I think is perfect for playing to the strengths of both the side using the LMG, and the one engaging them.

TLDR: Would take much less model attrition on approach, which directly translates to having more models to bare DPS, once you reach optimum range and good cover. But, also retains Osts advantage, in that if they can stay at range, they will eventually drain units overall hp pool in a general fashion so far, that an assault at that point would result in models dropping like flies.

Its a significant buff to opponents vs LMG, IF they make their approach immediately, as compared to now.
Its a significant buff to Ost, IF they can retain range and apply the LMGs general fire for long enough to make the enemy unit very vulnerable to model wipes, as compared to now.

Its brilliant. Well done Cruzz!

Edited to add: Some concern relating to overlapping LMG fire. But, still, as compared to now, you would still take less immediate model losses on assault. At this moment, the single targetting of LMG just chews the fk out of one model at a time, with the biggest penalty feom that being you lose effective DPS before you are finally close enough.

Im calling it inhumane because its an unnecessary tax simply replacing manpower price, cooldown, and CP requirements.

If its 5-10 fuel, then sure. Its only for riflemen that dont even get a guarantee for vet 2.

Linking veterancy to fuel makes sense because it requires the player to make a decision. Manpower, cooldown, and CP requirements only affect the time that the vetted rifleman themselves arrive. They will not affect the time frame that vehicles or infantry upgrades will arrive. Linking vetted rifleman to fuel cost forces the player to decide whether they want an early infantry advantage, or the early game shock vehicle.

The fuel value itself could be determined by just how much you want to force the rifle company player to push their early game map control advantage. The higher the fuel cost, the better the USF player has to utilize his vetted infantry. It's an ease of use issue.

This also has to do with how Relic wants to market their commanders. Does shelling out 3.99 ensure an easier path to victory? Or does it allow you play in a unique way that fits your playstyle and allows you to play with more flare than the standard commanders. Overpowered DLC commanders are part of what have brought on the P2W label to coh2 in the first place. A vetted rifle squad can have a significant impact on the early game if used well. This should be a key point of the commander, not a spammable no brainer. If the Rifle Company player does this well he can consolidate his early game advantage into the mid game and try to seal the deal with easy 8s. (I think easy 8s are far to cost effective by skipping the Major at the moment but that is a topic for another discussion).

If he doesn't make great use of his vetted rifleman, he will have wasted the fuel on an infantry squad that will vet up on its own through combat anyway. This creates a risk/reward dynamic that is a little more interesting than a passive experience gain buff.

I don't know that this is the best way to approach the ability, but in my opinion it is more interesting than a simple passive xp gained buff, and would be more engaging to play both with and against.

Elite Rifleman:
At the moment this ability provides no real downfall to its usage except for its long recharge time. We implemented slight cost increase as well as starting it on a cool down. However we are currently exploring possible redesigns of the ability such as increasing the rate in which rifleman will accumulate Veterancy.

The problem I see with a simple EXP buff is that it offers no counter play to your opponent. It would leverage rifleman into the mid game much faster with no real risk on the behalf of the Rifle Company player. It simply makes your rifleman better, faster, regardless of how you play. Veterancy is gained from both receiving and taking damage, and rifleman are effective at all ranges. If the ability grants a passive exp boost for rifles, it will either cause them to vet up so fast that they snowball out of control, or the value will be so low that it isn't noticeable and the ability will feel useless. Even if you hit the sweet spot, its not very interesting to play against beefcake rifleman just because he chose the juiced up rifleman commander.

I would prefer that commander abilities feel impactful and interesting. They should shape the way that you play the game. A passive exp boost would dangerously toe the line between making your rifleman scale out of control, or be so weak that the ability goes relatively unnoticed.

As to fuel related to infantry/support purchases, I see no reason why some future Commanders couldnt be built around this.

Would be quite a challenge to design, but I think its perfectly possible in regards to Commanders with an ability bar that sits ontop of conventional faction balance and game mechanics.

I dont think any faction, as they are now, should rely on fuel for infantry/support on a vanilla basis though. But a dedicated and designed Commander, why not.

Soviet Weapon teams:


Everyone is using Maxims, because cons/eng are struggling hard vs OKW start

Soviet weapon crews die just as fast with 6 men when flanked as does 4 men Axis Mg42

Maxim isn't really OP when there 2 equally skilled players

Solution, fix cons/eng vs OKW, leave Soviet weapon crews 6 man as they are and make Maxim more like Mg42 a support weapon, not offensive weapon.

Doesn't really matter what you do with Squads, there will still be cry of Maxim OP if I can take 3 Maxims and suppress some noob that cannot figure how to fight vs HMG without getting pinned

THIS is absolutely on the point! cons are ok and even good sometimes vs ostheer but vs okw they are just useless. Snipers, M3 or Maxims is the only thing soviets can field in the first ~6 mins to deal with sturmpios/volks.

that doesn't mean the OKW inf health or DPS should be lower, but i'd be interested to know if there is a certain way that i tought of the last weeks.

is it possible to make certain units more vulnerable to a certain weapon profile? speaking of the Mosin Nagant dealing more damage against volks and sturmpios than they do to other units?

if that was possible it would open more possible game openers and change the current meta.

and yes i'm somekind of a soviet fanboy and play mostly 2v2 but i also played the OKW enough to know that any start beside m3/sniper/maxims doesn't work. you can look at my playercard and see that i dont lie.
http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198117177774

reducing the weapon teams for soviets is the wrong way, introducing a algorithm would change the spamm.
a maxim costs 240mp, what if the second maxim would cost 280 mp? and the 3rd 320 mp? this could be applied to all factions to make spamming less rewarding.



and fix the goddamn ISU it still one shots every fucking german squad

is it possible to make certain units more vulnerable to a certain weapon profile? speaking of the Mosin Nagant dealing more damage against volks and sturmpios than they do to other units

It is not possible.

And even if it was, it would result in an enormous mess of unit specific stats which invariably would lead to all kinds of exploitation and balance problems.

And making Maxim a more "defensive" weapon is a bit besides the point, because it already survives better than an MG4, so it is infact already a better defensive weapon in that sense (as well as its obvious offensive potential).

See what I mean?

And just to remind people, the Relic request for feedback involves ALL Sov support teams, on the issue of durability, not just Maxim, as seems to be the only feedback point for many posters.

I like Cruzz's idea for LMG change +1

It is not possible.

And even if it was, it would result in an enormous mess of unit specific stats which invariably would lead to all kinds of exploitation and balance problems.

well it was possible in a game that is 9 years older.

the pikemen dealt 8 damage against units but that damage got multiplied by 5 vs cavalry and 3.5 times vs light infantry

the skirmisher dealt 15 dmg and had a negative multiplier vs cavalry so it only dealt 12 dmg against it while it dealt 30 dmg vs heavy infantry


this could be taken further and somehow solve the long range vs short range weapon problem.
in this game it was necessary to kite with your skirmishers against heavy infantry. and melee units had a small resistance vs ranged fire so it would be easier to close the gap.

9 years apart and that game was more advanced in its core unit balance


and you tell me it is impossible to label units and give them these things?
are you fucking kidding me?

These are just suggestions

Elite Riflemen
Standard 1 vet when coming out, not a chance to have a squad with 2 stars.
2 vet is an extreme jump forward without setback.
330 MP and a cooldown long enough.

Soviet Support team
Make them a bit less durable?
Or 4 man squads and even durable as OSTH seem fine for me.

Another note on support teams - please have a look at the packup and retreat, it's just too long and too ineffective. (MG's and mortars, maxims are fine imo.)

Long range weapons
I play a lot of soviet and that makes me an "expert" in knowing that long range combat is hell for them.
OSTH: LMG's, grens.
OKW: Obers
US: Bars, Rifleman
Sov: ? (Cons should have an upgrade / doctrinal / non-doc so they can fight (i don't say win against) LMG's, Bars and other effective long range units. Now they are 'completely' useless in the late game cause they get outperformed every time)

Bars & LMG's are indeed too effective.
Can't there be a cooldown for the pick up of bars? In that case, you want that squad with a bar to survive whatever the cost. Now there are many guys just spamming bars.
Bars can't shoot on the move - or they should not be that effective on the move.
Give them a small setup time, just like the MG42 but ofcourse not that long.

While I'm here, I want to address the current Bazooka & Panzerfaust spam of US & OKW.
Now, every damn squad has a panzer or a bazooka. That's just not fun.
There is no downside of it. Make the squad move a little slower so there is less attraction of spamming.

I also agree with the comment above me.

Last, thanks for making time to read all of our comments.

Skinless:

Let me rephrase.

It would be possible to implement such a system, but it would require a core redesign of the game to include so called "target tables", which where universally considered a bad thing and deliberately not implemented in CoH2.

So no, I am not "fucking kidding you".

CoH2 has a different system of "rock scissor paper" than the one you are referring to, and deliberately so.

We can theorize on hypothetical system changing alterations all we want, but it is more constructive and practical to look for solutions in the existing system, rather than put solutions beyond reach pending a complete game system overhaul.

I recommend you learn about how CoH2 stats and mechanics work, before arguing from a completely different games basis.

Another note on support teams - please have a look at the packup and retreat, it's just too long and too ineffective. .

Which units, specifically, are you referring to?

Skinless:



I recommend you learn about how CoH2 stats and mechanics work, before arguing from a completely different games basis.

well it isnt working this way, so yeh there has to be a change.

and what do you recommend? how do you want to buff conscripts against okw without making them OP vs ostheer or render okw useless vs USF?

no idea? yeah tought so....

well it isnt working this way, so yeh there has to be a change. .

Its not "working that way" because this is a completely different game, with a completely different design principle.

how do you want to buff conscripts against okw without making them OP vs ostheer or render okw useless vs USF?..

I think you should re-read OP Relics initial post.

I think you should re-read OP Relics initial post.

you seem to work for relic since you dont seem to understand that maxim spam or other nasty things are a result of bad backbone/early game inf balance between Soviets and OKW.

well it isnt working this way, so yeh there has to be a change.

and what do you recommend? how do you want to buff conscripts against okw without making them OP vs ostheer or render okw useless vs USF?

no idea? yeah tought so....

It's not working this way? Maybe you're exaggerating a bit?

It isn't anything game breaking at the moment? These are small tweaks (towards better game) compared to what kind of stuff Relic has fixed during CoH2 lifecycle.

Skinless: As I said, you really should re-read and comprehend Relics initial post.

First you try to suggest changing the games systems completely to a different games ones, without actually understanding why this game has this system or how it works.

Then you want to argue about things which are not explicitly or implicity stated in OP relics request for feedback.

I honestly dont know what you think you are achieving with this, especially considering how hostile you are being about it.