Action Items: Balance Feedback Required!

Elite Riflemen:
The current changes are great. I don't think changing them any further is necessary.

Soviet Weapon Teams:
A successful flank with sturmpios already wrecks a maxim no problem. Reducing squad size to four could make it impossible to retreat in time. You need to find a way to make it more vulnerable to indirect fire and snipers (which are still useless) without making it any more vulnerable to assault troops... somehow...

Long Range Combat:
Not all short range units are suffering as a result. Sturmpioneers and shock troops are just right for the point they arrive on the field. Panzergrenadiers and any US troops with thompsons are weak. I would say reduce M1919 damage a little bit, but obersoldaten and upgraded grenadiers are fine.

Took a while to think about this. This post still sums up exactly how I feel.

I don't think it's elite riflemen that are a problem anymore, riflemen may need a SLIGHT nerf (slight is capitalized for emphasis) in the way of their long ranged damage, but that is it as far as riflemen go. Again, I don't think that's a problem with the doctrinal ability.

As far as the Soviet Weapon Teams. I'm a little perplexed that this hasn't been the case yet because I assumed that German Weapon Teams were hardier per model to compensate against the 6 man squads. Just take away two models from the soviet weapon teams and spread their stats throughout the remaining four. They are vulnerable to flanking maneuvers, the problem persists that snipers are WORTHLESS against Soviets and decent against US. This would fix that while not making them anymore vulnerable to small arms fire.

Long range combat isn't a problem. Infact, when I do play OKW, my time spent to microing a glass cannon (sturmpios) has really taught me just how important true vision and tactical movement really can be. Sturmpios drop like flies, but if you handle them well, bait a riflemen squad around a corner for example, you really can handle the long range advantage very well. As what Romeo said in the post I'm quoting, it's not short range combat, it's that certain units are underperforming. Paratroopers could use a little attention, though I've been pleasantly surprised with their thompson upgrades more than once, and PGs haven't been relevant in quite a long time.

So you want snipers to be able to garrison vehicles again? I think that's very sad. It was one of the worst features of this game.


To answer your question, they shouldn't because when they can, the play has the option to build almost exclusively one unit. One fun thing about CoH is that spamming comes with severe drawbacks usually. The drawbacks of spamming Maxims re not sever enough to stop people doing it and playing against Maxim spam is borrrrrrringgggg. Fun > "immersion".

You'll be lucky to catch a maxim capping alone that doesn't have another maxim behind it. Check ImperialDanes Jellydonut shoutcast for an example.

Yes, I want, actually. I don´t have much use for it myself, but still makes one wonder why can´t a 2-man squad hop into car where 6-man conscript squad can. Now I´m totally fine with snipers not being able to shoot from there, that was bs both gameplay and realism-wise.

About maxims, I do agree playing against spammers is boring. The problem is the spamming itself, not their ability to cap. Inventing such limitation would only harm those of us who don´t spam these units in the first place. Btw, you spesifically mentioned lone capping maxim in your post, not one supported with another, but that´s enough about it.

Took a while to think about this. This post still sums up exactly how I feel.

I don't think it's elite riflemen that are a problem anymore, riflemen may need a SLIGHT nerf (slight is capitalized for emphasis) in the way of their long ranged damage, but that is it as far as riflemen go. Again, I don't think that's a problem with the doctrinal ability.

As far as the Soviet Weapon Teams. I'm a little perplexed that this hasn't been the case yet because I assumed that German Weapon Teams were hardier per model to compensate against the 6 man squads. Just take away two models from the soviet weapon teams and spread their stats throughout the remaining four. They are vulnerable to flanking maneuvers, the problem persists that snipers are WORTHLESS against Soviets and decent against US. This would fix that while not making them anymore vulnerable to small arms fire.

Long range combat isn't a problem. Infact, when I do play OKW, my time spent to microing a glass cannon (sturmpios) has really taught me just how important true vision and tactical movement really can be. Sturmpios drop like flies, but if you handle them well, bait a riflemen squad around a corner for example, you really can handle the long range advantage very well. As what Romeo said in the post I'm quoting, it's not short range combat, it's that certain units are underperforming. Paratroopers could use a little attention, though I've been pleasantly surprised with their thompson upgrades more than once, and PGs haven't been relevant in quite a long time.

You do understand that a german sniper kills soviet 6 men teams as fast as a soviet sniper kills a 4 man team?

If soviets are to get 4 man weapon teams, axis should get 2.75 man weapon teams, because ALL axis units have proportionally higher DPS, so for example, a gren squad kills a 6 man maxim team just as fast as a conscript squad kills a 4 man weapon team.

You do understand that a german sniper kills soviet 6 men teams as fast as a soviet sniper kills a 4 man team?

If soviets are to get 4 man weapon teams, axis should get 2.75 man weapon teams, because ALL axis units have proportionally higher DPS, so for example, a gren squad kills a 6 man maxim team just as fast as a conscript squad kills a 4 man weapon team.

Yes, reaolving this issue is more difficult now than it once was, back when there was infantry armor, no incoming small arms +%modifier and before small arms was scaled to match those. But its too late to cry about that now. Relic made the decisiins they made, based on whatever "feedback" they received at the time, and this is the situation we are left to deal with on an old problem.

The challenge is to somehow keep the current small arms balance as intact as possible, but reduce durability vs non-small arms weaponry.

You are right to point out Sniper as a particular element that makes this difficult, because even if Sov Support teams are changed to have less men, or any other of the 4 suggestions I considered pros and cons on, (and because Sniper doesnt care about hp, infantry armor or small arms modifiers), its not directly feasible to reduce Ost Sniper rate of fire, because then they will suffer against Sovs 6man infantry units. Having said that though, it should be remembered that Maxims have a fast de/setup, and are therefore somewhat less vulnerable to Snipers than their equivalents, even cobsidering the difference in squad size and the Snipers relative rates of fire. And also that Sovs Sniper will still carry the 2man advantage.

Of the options I have considered (and unfortunately a lot ofpeople arent really brainstorming all that many into this thread), Itend to prefer the one that is keeping them as a 6man unit, but reducing their HP to equal, overall, that of a normal 4man Support Team. Its a compromise solution, not ideal, but the one I think comes closest to dealing with this issue, with the least associated problems.

The other two options, are reducing Sov Support to 4man, but also reintroducing infantry armor onto them and/or removing the small-arms +% modifier against them. Sniper and RNade, inparticular, however present a problem in those ( but it must also be said that both of these are counters to Support Teams anyways, by design, so its more a questiin of whether they become too effectivr, rather than of them becoming an "extra" counter, because they already are a designed counter).

I do not like any abilities that give free exp. This includes both the Elite rifle callin as well as the Ostheer Elite troops doctrine. I think they fundamentally break the game balance by giving easy, guaranteed access to abilities that are gated behind exp for a reason. I'd rather see them both changed to things like increased exp gain for units, even if that would be a passive ability that is fairly boring gameplay wise.



They don't overperform in 1vs1, period. Anyone complaining about them based on 1vs1 just needs to learn to play against them. Meanwhile in team games, all of the possible soviet early game infantry choices (penals and conscripts and combat engineers) just scale badly, maxims and snipers are the only things that can remain relevant throughout the game so you end up seeing them every single time with more organized teams. Before any sweeping changes to maxims, the long-term performance of conscripts and penals should be looked into to give more actual options for team game soviets.

If you were to reduce the durability of these squads, the performance of the guns would have to go up by quite a bit, which would create a whole boatload of new balance problems and would likely lead to just as many complaints from the anti-soviet crowd.



While there are some minor performance issues with short range firearms, the fundamental issue is just ease of use. With how the system is setup right now, you get very good performance just by selecting all your LMG armed long-range infantry, and amoving towards the enemy. By contrast trying to use short range troops generally involves much more roundabout maneuvering to setup flanks, use of smoke, and so on, yet the cost performance of these short range units is generally not THAT much better than the LMG blob.

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.

+1
I completely agree with this.

Meanwhile in team games, all of the possible soviet early game infantry choices (penals and conscripts and combat engineers) just scale badly, maxims and snipers are the only things that can remain relevant throughout the game so you end up seeing them every single time with more organized teams. Before any sweeping changes to maxims, the long-term performance of conscripts and penals should be looked into to give more actual options for team game soviets.

If you were to reduce the durability of these squads, the performance of the guns would have to go up by quite a bit, which would create a whole boatload of new balance problems and would likely lead to just as many complaints from the anti-soviet crowd.


While there are some minor performance issues with short range firearms, the fundamental issue is just ease of use. With how the system is setup right now, you get very good performance just by selecting all your LMG armed long-range infantry, and amoving towards the enemy. By contrast trying to use short range troops generally involves much more roundabout maneuvering to setup flanks, use of smoke, and so on, yet the cost performance of these short range units is generally not THAT much better than the LMG blob.

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.

Absolutely spot on.

Playing recently and having to fight heavy Maxim spam almost every game I can into a conclusion that they are too resilient at the moment and that's the biggest issue with them.
I don't have any problems with flanking them but it takes too much tame to finish them off even with Sturmpioneers. It's not a rarity for a Maxim to escape having 1-2 members left even if I flanked it completely with SP squad. Unless I won't get lucky and kill the gunner there is enough time for a Maxim to puck up and escape. It reminds me situation with MG42 back in the day when they were able to escape having Cons squad on their back.
To summarize, after some playing and thinking about it 4 men squads for Soviet weapon teams seems like a good idea.

Good day dev team.

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.

ER now is just to good for the cost. I think you should make approach from mp increase side AND more recharging time. Let it be +15-20 seconds. You should suffer with map control if you want some veteran troops.

Soviet Weapon Team:
This has been a hot topic for a while but we are experimenting with 4 men Soviet Weapon Teams. Issue being they are too durable. If a 4 men team loses 2 men, chances of losing that whole squad would go up exponentially. When a 6 men squad loses 2 men the chances of losing that squad still remain fairly low. If overall performances needs to be compensated for reduced durability that is something we could also explore.

5-4 men should be fine IF you increase SovWT perfomance on the field. Problems with Maxim
- it's a good a-move unit to support AND solo pushing(couse of it setup time) - Ost have a tool to handle it, OKW doesn't. Don't make same aproach as with KV-8 here. Don't nerf the Maxim. You can make a some improvements with t0-t1 OKW units, give them some tool to handle Maxim.
- second is that Maxim the only good thing to counter OKW at city scale maps. CE and Cons are dead meat against StPios. You can always go m3 with penals, but you know...Maxims...
Or you can buff the crew members damage, so they can defend themselfs then Maxim beign flanked.
To the mortar team, its already very slow firing, and only good thing here is aimed shot. So you can improve rate of fire AND add damage. If I remember correctly Sov mortar dealing less damage that Ost one.
Almost same with Zis. It's SOOOOO slow firing... almost every time German tanks are allowed to escape.

Long Range Combat:
With our change to lethality in a previous update to make cover more important. A side effect of that change was that it made long range weapons extremely effective, especially LMGs. The combination of cover, lethality, and long range has resulted in medium to short range units being overall less effective. In most situation, units that require closer range will lose too many men on approach resulting in a significant drop in offensive performance.

Told ya a 1 year ago about this. Glad what you get to this.

Will wait till you get to balance feedback with Sov offmaps...

p.s. Then we get soviet marines?

Elite Riflemen:
The main issue with this ability is that it invalidates all other commanders for the Americans, especially given the strength of the doctrine itself. I don't think the problem is with the doctrine, but rather that the other doctrines are a bit too weak by comparison.

Also, can we get a pack howitzer buff? The Americans are in desperate need of something to break MG spam.


Soviet Weapon Team:
If you're going to do this, please don't make this a flat-out nerf. Maxim spam is a response to Oberkommando, because it is effective at early game map control if the OKW player mis-micro's and can't use grenades on his volks or flank with Sturmpios. I am okay with the change because it promotes the use of actual infantry, but if that's the intended goal, then please buff conscripts or penals because they don't really stand a chance against OKW infantry; without a buff, the only infantry that will really be used are doctrinal infantry, which will make the majority of Soviet commanders even more worthless than they already are. I understand wanting to make these weapon teams mortal, but Soviet infantry are already weak enough in my opinion.

Long Range Lethality:
This is an interesting subject. On the one hand, Obersoldaten are near impossible to beat with other infantry, but on the other hand, if long range damage gets nerfed then the blobs of riflemen or bumrushing Sturmpioneers will become even more difficult to deal with. I feel like this issue needs to be looked at in a more precise unit-to-unit basis rather than as a whole subject.

Elite Riflemen:
The main issue with this ability is that it invalidates all other commanders for the Americans, especially given the strength of the doctrine itself. I don't think the problem is with the doctrine, but rather that the other doctrines are a bit too weak by comparison.

Also, can we get a pack howitzer buff? The Americans are in desperate need of something to break MG spam.


Soviet Weapon Team:
If you're going to do this, please don't make this a flat-out nerf. Maxim spam is a response to Oberkommando, because it is effective at early game map control if the OKW player mis-micro's and can't use grenades on his volks or flank with Sturmpios. I am okay with the change because it promotes the use of actual infantry, but if that's the intended goal, then please buff conscripts or penals because they don't really stand a chance against OKW infantry; without a buff, the only infantry that will really be used are doctrinal infantry, which will make the majority of Soviet commanders even more worthless than they already are. I understand wanting to make these weapon teams mortal, but Soviet infantry are already weak enough in my opinion.

Long Range Lethality:
This is an interesting subject. On the one hand, Obersoldaten are near impossible to beat with other infantry, but on the other hand, if long range damage gets nerfed then the blobs of riflemen or bumrushing Sturmpioneers will become even more difficult to deal with. I feel like this issue needs to be looked at in a more precise unit-to-unit basis rather than as a whole subject.

Elite rifle doc
Maxim spam is a response to Oberkommando, because it is effective at early game map control
Perhaps the other commanders are a little weak but anyway this one is pretty damn strong. EZ is currently overpowered and spoiling a lot of games.

Maxim spam:
"Maxim spam is a response to Oberkommando, because it is effective at early game map control"

It is TOO effective for early game map control. And it has been abused before OKW. It's effective vs a lot of things. Have you played against Maxim spam much? Do you know how boring CoH2 can be with 5 Maxims on the field?

Pack Howitzer Buff:
Currently it seems to be performing well. Perhaps a price descrease rather than a buff? Same for OKW inf gun...

Long range lethality:

I think it will reduce the effectiveness of rifleman blobs. Theier ability to kill well at all ranges is why they're being used this way. Although tbh USF doesn't have a lot of options for the first half of the game other than riflerifleriflerifle.


And Sturmpioneers may be strong, but they're 9popcap and high upkeep. They're expensive to OKW for every second they are on the field.

I don't think lowering the number of squad members for maxims and mortars is a good solution. I prefer soviet army as it is now, with all its "abusive" strategies rather than have maxims nerfed in any way and on the other hand have cons and penals buffed.

Maxim spam is not an response to OKW. Maxim spam is an easy way to secure victory for a Soviet player and it works well almost everywhere besides high top players. HMG were supposed to be crowd control weapons but Maxim is a crowd control weapon that can serve as main infantry unit.
Excuse that SU got nothing except Maxims is not enough to justify its performance provided it was actually the truth. The same goes for the delusional idea that Cons will have to be buffed if Maxims were to be adjusted. Sorry, but no. Cons aren't supposed to scale into late game due to the fact that you have doctrinal infantry and tanks that are supposed to help Soviet player in AI department. I don't understand why so many SU players don't get this and don't understand how their favorite army works.
Guards and Shocks are more than capable to deal with everything OH or OKW player can throw at you. Sturmpioneeres, LMG Grens, Panzergrens - you name it. The only problem are Obersoldaten but you're not supposed to fight them 1 on 1. Either bring more units into a fight or a tank. Obers are usually 2 shooted by anything that got decent AI.

OZ I feel like your trolling soviet players.

Soviets cannot win any infantry fight with conscripts, unless they outnumber their opponent 2 to 1. That is why Maxim spam is preferred and it works.

Your demanding that soviets rely on doctrine units and abilities when... absolutely no other army does. What? Why? There is no reason for that to be the case. Conscripts are supposed to scale very well, like grenadiers and volks and rifles... and every other core infantry unit. So why do they not?

Guards and shocks are both highly specialised and expensive infantry. Guards use PTRS's and need a very expensive upgrade to compete. They lose any models and theres a huge chance they will drop a weapon they need desperately. Shock troops are... well, shock troops. They aren't core infantry for a fight, their designed to flank or charge a positions with grenades.

Have you seen how powerful the grenadier blob from OH is at the moment? It's ridiculous. Thats why its a design issue they want feedback on.

I'm sick of this anti-soviet bullshit that prevales on these forums. You think they are so great? Play with them for a bit. And do it without a conscript buffing doctrine. It's not fun to play and makes half the doctrines useless.

I see no issue with reducing squad members to 4 and moving the HP etc to the reduced numbers. This will indirectly buff the OH sniper (making it far more attractive) and will stop the MG from getting unmanned so regularly (because the gunner dies so bloody often). It will also reduce the impact AOE has, and improve pathing. I see no reason for it not to happen.

I played Soviet to death. I know what I am talking about.

I played Soviet to death. I know what I am talking about.

I can attest to that. OZ used to be, at one time, a proper dyed in the wool Sov player.

Big BIG kudos and respect to him for making the jump and playing other factions too since then.

He put his money where his mouth is, and now has a real informed unilateral voice on balance.

Well done, OZ. Big respect on that, bro.

And yet you stand by your decision that soviet balance should hang on commanders call in infantry purely?

I did see genuine thought and I know OZ posts constructively, but this statement baffles me. It's the absolute worst part of COH for me, the reliance on commanders. I WANT to play with silly, quirky mad commanders like armoured assault. You know why I can't do that? Because of people like OZ.

A race should not be balanced around the shit it gets as DLC. Advanced Warfare doctrine, locked behind the war spoils system is enough evidence of that. It's not cool, not fair and not enjoyable.

And if you are honestly telling me Grenadier blobs are fine for regular players, then sure, great, I'll buy that.

For a noob like me, your statements are baffling. "Don't know how to play their army" and "Maxims are easy wins". They are not. Maxims die to grenadier blobs. The counter to a blob dies. Yeah.

I want to understand your thought process. I really do. But its nice to see you ignored all the points in my post, and didn't provide any counter arguements. Good discussion.

And yet you stand by your decision that soviet balance should hang on commanders call in infantry purely?

I did see genuine thought and I know OZ posts constructively, but this statement baffles me. It's the absolute worst part of COH for me, the reliance on commanders. I WANT to play with silly, quirky mad commanders like armoured assault. You know why I can't do that? Because of people like OZ.

A race should not be balanced around the shit it gets as DLC. Advanced Warfare doctrine, locked behind the war spoils system is enough evidence of that. It's not cool, not fair and not enjoyable.

And if you are honestly telling me Grenadier blobs are fine for regular players, then sure, great, I'll buy that.

For a noob like me, your statements are baffling. "Don't know how to play their army" and "Maxims are easy wins". They are not. Maxims die to grenadier blobs. The counter to a blob dies. Yeah.

I want to understand your thought process. I really do. But its nice to see you ignored all the points in my post, and didn't provide any counter arguements. Good discussion.

you expect wehr to be completely dependent on tiger doc, but, its not fine when sovs have to choose out of all their over performing call-ins? maybe some of the commanders have been designed for team games and not so much 1v1 IE ARMORED ASSAULT. If i go is-2 4v4 i use armoured assault and it works very well. i dont think that is oz's fault that it doesn't fair so well in 1v1.

to let you know oz was pro soviet and katitof's bestest friend for a long time. then he played germans.

Maxim spam is not just OKW counter..its used universally vs wehrmacht..and in team agmes urban maps absolutely kills the game.Put 6 man maxims into buildings and laugh while mortars and snipers try desperately to dislodge u.Down on members?Just merge on field....its even more shit because u can't counter with mg 42 in buildings.

you expect wehr to be completely dependent on tiger doc, but, its not fine when sovs have to choose out of all their over performing call-ins? maybe some of the commanders have been designed for team games and not so much 1v1 IE ARMORED ASSAULT. If i go is-2 4v4 i use armoured assault and it works very well. i dont think that is oz's fault that it doesn't fair so well in 1v1.

to let you know oz was pro soviet and katitof's bestest friend for a long time. then he played germans.

Ost are expected to rely on 1 infantry unit and 1 tank..but soviets must have a-move spam .

For a noob like me, your statements are baffling. "Don't know how to play their army" and "Maxims are easy wins". They are not. Maxims die to grenadier blobs. The counter to a blob dies. Yeah.

I want to understand your thought process. I really do. But its nice to see you ignored all the points in my post, and didn't provide any counter arguements. Good discussion.

Yes. I for one, can't speak for the others, ignored them because they are sarcastic, besides the point and argumentative without providing an actual position of your own as relevant to the topic. If I responded, I would just be biting the bait, and taking the thread further from its point. I will not do that.

The first line in your post, is accusing another poster of trolling, who clearly wasn't.
Thats just wrong, and reflects very badly on you. Respond constructively, objectively and respectfully, or not at all.

First of all, this is a quasi-official Relic feedback request thread, with very specific questions.
Refer back to OP for the core issues, if you have not already read it.

Second of all, its generally considered you should have 100 games played overall inorder to be taken seriously. Sort of general thumbrule for credibility. Im sure you understand.

Third of all, taking the second point even further, it should be atleast 100 games for the faction you are commenting on.

Now, the second two are largely irrelevant, and just an informal community policy, but the first, stands true.

Read the initial Relic request for feedback, and provide according to and specifically to that.
The discussion we have here is interesting, but it all needs to draw a red line back to those key feedback questions, or we are wasting Relics and our own time.