Each Armie's performance in the diffrent stages of the game

If you ask me....

0-10 min: USF > Soviet = OKW > Wehr
10-20 min: OKW > Wehr = Soviet > USF
>20 min: OKW >> Wehr > Soviet >> USF

Early: USF>SOV>OKW>WER
Mid: SOV>OKW=USF>WER
Late: WER=OKW>SOV>USF

I personally dont like this. I wish every faction had equal footing in all stages of the game. It leaves the game to be decided more on skill. Currently for USF. u have to win in 20min or simply not win. Sov perform relatively well in all stages. OKW need to survive for vet and elite troops and heavy armor. Also a very campy Werh player can also hold out to a sure victory.

I am a mixed bag about this. Faction strength at different points in the game give that faction a unique flavor. However it feels very gimmicky and unbalanced at points. As a Soviet player, forcing a stalemate midgame is already a death sentence; you always have to attack attack attack! It is frustrating to see probable victories slip away even if you are constantly destroying your opponent. If AXIS (especially OKW) hold on long enough, then victory as a Soviet player becomes extremely difficult.

The difficult part is, this might be an intended design choice by Relic. Perhaps smoothing out the extremes of all factions will make it more balanced and less frustrating? Maybe all faction's late game should be potent; the early game and mid could be more fluctuating

I broadly agree with OP. I hate that they have (intentionally?) made part of the asymmetrical balance related to the stage of the game you're in. It makes the game impossible to balance equally in different game modes, since the modes (and to some extent the maps) dictate how late games will go on average. While Relic probably doesn't care much about 3v3 and 4v4 balance, I think they do care about 2v2, and I certainly do. Team games almost always go late, it's much rarer for a game to "end" in ten minutes or less. So in team games, the factions that are stronger later get an advantage, and in 1v1, where you don't have an ally to "average out" your successes and losses, the games are much shorter, and factions that are strong early have an advantage.

It's going to be very tricky trying to juggle the blaance to make OKW and Wehr "equally good" as the Allies at all stages of the game. I am a 2v2 gamer primarily and main USF. Even though I spend most of my time in 2v2 with a more or less equally skilled partner, my 1v1 rank is enormously higher than my 2v2 rank, it's like 300 for 1v1 and 2500 for 2v2 AT. These ranks are not directly comparable I understand, although it feels so much harder in team games - double USF team games I might add, where the weaknesses in lategame get magnified.

Half the problem is that when we win games in 2v2, it has rarely been a "good fight" - we got some early squadwipes, sometimes because we got lucky and sometimes because of great positioning on our part, but the small victories cascade and we've wiped half their army in < 8 minutes. They drop, we win, GG. But these victories are only a fraciton of how satisfying it is when you win a 30 minute or 40 minute match that features several back and forths. Those are often frustrating to lose, because you're not losing because you're less skilled (well sometimes you do), it's because at that stage of the game your faction is simply weaksauce and all these supersoldiers are appearing on the field backed up by supertanks and you can't keep up, gradually watching your victories turn to nothing and your forces dwindle until they kill you on VPs.

Wins are often unsatisfying, and losses are often incredibly frustrating. That's bad design, conceptually!

I not against asymmetrical balance related to the stage of the game each faction is best.

The issue here is that CoH2's upkeep system favours comebacks even if one has lost more than 80% of the map, so factions which are better at early game are at disavantage because the game is more kind with early game mistakes.

vCoH was much more punishing, once you lost your map control it was truly hard to do a comeback.

I broadly agree with OP. I hate that they have (intentionally?) made part of the asymmetrical balance related to the stage of the game you're in. It makes the game impossible to balance equally in different game modes, since the modes (and to some extent the maps) dictate how late games will go on average. While Relic probably doesn't care much about 3v3 and 4v4 balance, I think they do care about 2v2, and I certainly do. Team games almost always go late, it's much rarer for a game to "end" in ten minutes or less. So in team games, the factions that are stronger later get an advantage, and in 1v1, where you don't have an ally to "average out" your successes and losses, the games are much shorter, and factions that are strong early have an advantage.

It's going to be very tricky trying to juggle the blaance to make OKW and Wehr "equally good" as the Allies at all stages of the game. I am a 2v2 gamer primarily and main USF. Even though I spend most of my time in 2v2 with a more or less equally skilled partner, my 1v1 rank is enormously higher than my 2v2 rank, it's like 300 for 1v1 and 2500 for 2v2 AT. These ranks are not directly comparable I understand, although it feels so much harder in team games - double USF team games I might add, where the weaknesses in lategame get magnified.

Half the problem is that when we win games in 2v2, it has rarely been a "good fight" - we got some early squadwipes, sometimes because we got lucky and sometimes because of great positioning on our part, but the small victories cascade and we've wiped half their army in < 8 minutes. They drop, we win, GG. But these victories are only a fraciton of how satisfying it is when you win a 30 minute or 40 minute match that features several back and forths. Those are often frustrating to lose, because you're not losing because you're less skilled (well sometimes you do), it's because at that stage of the game your faction is simply weaksauce and all these supersoldiers are appearing on the field backed up by supertanks and you can't keep up, gradually watching your victories turn to nothing and your forces dwindle until they kill you on VPs.

Wins are often unsatisfying, and losses are often incredibly frustrating. That's bad design, conceptually!

+100000000

This is completly correct!

I not against asymmetrical balance related to the stage of the game each faction is best.

The issue here is that CoH2's upkeep system favours comebacks even if one has lost more than 80% of the map, so factions which are better at early game are at disadvantage because the game is more kind with early game mistakes.

vCoH was much more punishing, once you lost your map control it was truly hard to do a comeback.

Great point!!! Although i am against a huge snowball effect, games should be won by tactical skill and strategy not by "oh it is past 30 minutes, i should give up hope now because my faction sucks at this point in the game!". I felt that vCOH allowed u to make some mistakes and still gave u a chance to get back into the game. However, in COH2, it seems like a player could get wiped destroyed over and over (losing squads, constantly losing territory), and still have units to come back and wreck face.

I broadly agree with OP. I hate that they have (intentionally?) made part of the asymmetrical balance related to the stage of the game you're in. It makes the game impossible to balance equally in different game modes, since the modes (and to some extent the maps) dictate how late games will go on average. While Relic probably doesn't care much about 3v3 and 4v4 balance, I think they do care about 2v2, and I certainly do. Team games almost always go late, it's much rarer for a game to "end" in ten minutes or less. So in team games, the factions that are stronger later get an advantage, and in 1v1, where you don't have an ally to "average out" your successes and losses, the games are much shorter, and factions that are strong early have an advantage.

It's going to be very tricky trying to juggle the blaance to make OKW and Wehr "equally good" as the Allies at all stages of the game. I am a 2v2 gamer primarily and main USF. Even though I spend most of my time in 2v2 with a more or less equally skilled partner, my 1v1 rank is enormously higher than my 2v2 rank, it's like 300 for 1v1 and 2500 for 2v2 AT. These ranks are not directly comparable I understand, although it feels so much harder in team games - double USF team games I might add, where the weaknesses in lategame get magnified.

Half the problem is that when we win games in 2v2, it has rarely been a "good fight" - we got some early squadwipes, sometimes because we got lucky and sometimes because of great positioning on our part, but the small victories cascade and we've wiped half their army in < 8 minutes. They drop, we win, GG. But these victories are only a fraciton of how satisfying it is when you win a 30 minute or 40 minute match that features several back and forths. Those are often frustrating to lose, because you're not losing because you're less skilled (well sometimes you do), it's because at that stage of the game your faction is simply weaksauce and all these supersoldiers are appearing on the field backed up by supertanks and you can't keep up, gradually watching your victories turn to nothing and your forces dwindle until they kill you on VPs.

Wins are often unsatisfying, and losses are often incredibly frustrating. That's bad design, conceptually!

Really well put man. Totally captured what i wanted to say about the issue

you guys do realize that if the game was balanced all the way through allies are going to have a real hard time at the beginning. you do realize you are asking for huge buffs to the german infantry to make it equal to allied early game. also what would you like for the lategame? you have cheap spammable e8 and jackson. pershing? what is that going to do? be in 1 doc? allied armor would not be getting this super buff that you think it would. american armor is equal if you can actually micro and know the game. soviets have equal if not better late game units(b4 and isu). is2 is near the damn same as tiger.

you guys do realize that if the game was balanced all the way through allies are going to have a real hard time at the beginning. you do realize you are asking for huge buffs to the german infantry to make it equal to allied early game. also what would you like for the lategame? you have cheap spammable e8 and jackson. pershing? what is that going to do? be in 1 doc? allied armor would not be getting this super buff that you think it would. american armor is equal if you can actually micro and know the game. soviets have equal if not better late game units(b4 and isu). is2 is near the damn same as tiger.

No, you made these suggestions up. I never told anyone to buff german infantry.

I merely pointed out that balance should not be determined by in which state of the game you are in, as it is the case right now.

I mean there's a little Soviet advantage in the early game in a Wehrmacht/Soviet matchup, but mid and lategame works great. I don't know why the new factions are designed like that. Incredible Strong USF early game vs a vet 5 elite troops in the end. That's not how I would define balance to be honest.

i was talking to ninja greeb and queen. but how do you propose to make germany equal to allied early game? how are you going to make allied late game equal to german? i agree it can be done. i am also sick of the early game have to win as US. but, it cannot be buff the US to equal german late game and no buff to german early game. that is not balance either.

i was talking to ninja greeb and queen. but how do you propose to make germany equal to allied early game? how are you going to make allied late game equal to german? i agree it can be done. i am also sick of the early game have to win as US. but, it cannot be buff the US to equal german late game and no buff to german early game. that is not balance either.

i understand where you are coming from. I understand that it is going to be a tricky solution. I suggested toning down the extremities of the factions (strong U.S early and lategame OKW). This will probably involve buffs and nerfs but i am certain that an overhaul or reorganization of units and tiers is necessary. I think buffs and nerfs will only be a bandaid remedy. However, we have to know if these imbalances throughout the stages of the game are:


1. intentional design choices made by relic
2. how much change and what changes are necessary to solve the problem


I sorta feel that commanders are the issue. Some factions rely on commanders extensively, and/or some commanders provide amazing units. Players have been skipping tech just to rely on call-in units. This makes the game even harder to balance. It would be a little easier if there was an identifiable "midgame" "early game" or "late game" section. Since players skip techs, it becomes difficult to implement changes to which stage the game is in.
There should always be an incentive to tech up so there is an identifiable "progression" of the game. I hate to use starcraft as an example, because that is a different strategy game than COH, but in Starcraft, players need to tech in order to get stronger units. In COH, balance seems to be all over the place at different points of the game, which makes it very difficult to change

The only solution is to nerf the early game of those factions what have too much advantages while buffing their mid-late game performance. The root of the problem is the allied design, they are not meant to scale into late-game.

All they can do it:
- Spam aka outnumber the opponent.
- Spam arty to squadwipe lower member german squads.
- Use doctrinal units.

These are not always available and can be easly outplayed as they aer expected.

IMO this system has to go.

Without any doctrines it should look like this:

Usf=Sov=Ost=Okw in every stages of the game and let skill/tactics decide who wins early-mid-late game, not the faction's performance design.

Every army must have reliable strategies built around combined arms for each stage of the game without any doctrine. Same logic should be applied to every unit, all of them should have a clear role in every part of the battle.

i was talking to ninja greeb and queen. but how do you propose to make germany equal to allied early game? how are you going to make allied late game equal to german? i agree it can be done. i am also sick of the early game have to win as US. but, it cannot be buff the US to equal german late game and no buff to german early game. that is not balance either.

I'm not proposing to make all factions equal. What I'm saying is that USF, for example, have to win in the early-mid game, but CoH2 is too forgiving about map control and although you are pushed back to your base, you still can call-in a super-maxi-uber tank that allows you to retake the map.

The upkeep system favours factions that are best at lategame, as it is very hard to win a game in the early game because your enemy will always receive a good amount of manpower to make a comeback.

CoH1 was less forgiving and that balanced the US and Wher factions, which each one were best at one stage of the game.

In short,
Factions are fine as they are, but good early game pushes should be rewarded with a fast victory. Currently, CoH2 allow crazy comebacks thanks to its upkeep system and call-in units.
All of that favours lategame factions.

I'm not proposing to make all factions equal. What I'm saying is that USF, for example, have to win in the early-mid game, but CoH2 is too forgiving about map control and although you are pushed back to your base, you still can call-in a super-maxi-uber tank that allows you to retake the map.

The upkeep system favours factions that are best at lategame, as it is very hard to win a game in the early game because your enemy will always receive a good amount of manpower to make a comeback.

CoH1 was less forgiving and that balanced the US and Wher factions, which each one were best at one stage of the game.

In short,
Factions are fine as they are, but good early game pushes should be rewarded with a fast victory. Currently, CoH2 allow crazy comebacks thanks to its upkeep system and call-in units.
All of that favours lategame factions.

Exactly.
The large fuel income make comeback with axis too easy.