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

Hey guys,

I just wanted to talk about each Armie's performance in the diffrent stages of the game.

A lot of you may have experienced that issue yourself, but the best example in my opinion is the Wehrmacht vs USF matchup.

While Wehrmacht struggles TREMENDOUSLY in the early stages of the game they got an relatively easy late game (if the unit preservation was alright of course). USF on the other hand have a really easy time in the beginning. With superb Riflemen it's not uncommon to achieve early map control (~70%) especially on maps with a lot of buildings like Semoisky, La Gleize, Stalingrad (hint: veto the hell out of these maps with Axis). But in the end they have to deal with Tigers and Vet 3 Mg42 which is just insane. Not to mention the MP upkeep.

Soviets do relatively well in all stages of the game which is ok. OKW is in a even better spot than Wehrmacht in my opinion, cause their early game is pretty good since the last patch (m34 > mg42 imo) und Sturmpios and early AT options. Don't even have to talk about vet 5 squads in the end.

The reason I bring this up is I dont think this is well designed. I love the armies, but since the WFA release I kinda have the feeling that this is wrong. I dont want to be forced to win a game in the first 20-30 min with USF or survive till the 20 min mark with Wehrmacht. Even players that are obviously worse than you might have better chances winning games against good opponents that way.

I think a player's skill (unit preservation, flanking, unit awareness, ...) and knowledge of the game should decide a match, not the fact in which state of the game your are currently in.

That's just my opinion, I'm interested what you guys think about that topic.

Well, I think a big part of the game's design revolves around making big comebacks possible. Since most strategy games have a really bad 'snowball effect', company of heroes pulls it off quite well.

I think this is just an artifact of that design decision. I would rather have a game where it's hard for me to win after 30 mins as US than a game where it's impossible for me to win after the first 7 minutes because I lost an engagement.

I don't think the design is perfect, and it's very hard to balance just right, but I think it's still pretty good.

Yeah, this definitely needs to be taken a look at.

Problems with Wehrmacht especially have been put on the back burner for a long time and need to be readdressed. There are certain maps you basically have to veto to stand a chance in the early game, and even though the late game is pretty strong, too often it involves going for a very standard strategy(gren mg's, tiger).

Maybe a basic redesign of its setup to encourage more strategic diversity could go a long way to balancing the games through the whole length of the match.

Well, I think a big part of the game's design revolves around making big comebacks possible.

Comebacks in CoH2 are awesome, but they should be the result of good tactics like flanking, taking advantage of your enemy's faults like blobbing up, exposed units, disabled tanks through mines.. stuff like that.

Just because your enemy has Vet 5 units on the field against your Vet 3 ones (as an example) has nothing to do with comebacks, these are just unfair odds.

Neither of the allied factions can afford to sit on their hands and doodle. Tiger/Tiger II are good against everything including AT guns in the allied arsenal.

I like the meta with an attacker and a defender. However USF vs Wehrmacht is a little too extreme I'll agree, USF has a sizable advantage early but must close the game out before stug E/Tiger hit the field or lose.

You're right, a lot of different factors go into the back-and-forth aspect of the game. The varying strengths at different stages is just one of them.

But another important factor to consider is tension/fun. As US, you know the clock is ticking. As axis, you know you're going to have to fight back wave after wave of super infantry. Trying to overwhelm your opponent as allies, or holding out for your heavy armor as axis, is what makes those factions special.

Do the factions need to be balanced at all stages of the game for the game itself to be balanced? I would argue no. A more skilled player will beat me, no matter what factions are at play.

Do the factions need to be balanced at all stages of the game for it to be fun? Again I'd argue no, for the reasons stated above.

Neither of the allied factions can afford to sit on their hands and doodle. Tiger/Tiger II are good against everything including AT guns in the allied arsenal.

I like the meta with an attacker and a defender. However USF vs Wehrmacht is a little too extreme I'll agree, USF has a sizable advantage early but must close the game out before stug E/Tiger hit the field or lose.

I'd also say that commander choices can help offset this effect a lot. For example, luftwaffe medical supplies can give OH a significant early-game boost while m10s can help a lot vs stugs, or easy eights vs heavy armor, etc.

Aye in 1's, I find as the game goes on, the USF vs Axis factions particularly gets increasingly difficult for the US. Not exactly new either admittedly as the old meta of Soviet 85's vs Tigers/Paks was in the Ostheer favour if the 85's did not do enough damage in the window of opportunity between when they hit the field and the Tiger.

But Soviets have a few options in this regard and they can do pretty well on the more open maps, where as USF imo you really want to currently veto them and if you reckon the match will go on, the Easy 8's is probably your best best.

You're right, a lot of different factors go into the back-and-forth aspect of the game. The varying strengths at different stages is just one of them.

But another important factor to consider is tension/fun. As US, you know the clock is ticking. As axis, you know you're going to have to fight back wave after wave of super infantry. Trying to overwhelm your opponent as allies, or holding out for your heavy armor as axis, is what makes those factions special.

Do the factions need to be balanced at all stages of the game for the game itself to be balanced? I would argue no. A more skilled player will beat me, no matter what factions are at play.

Do the factions need to be balanced at all stages of the game for it to be fun? Again I'd argue no, for the reasons stated above.

You have a valid point there. But it definately adds more tension to the game, but at what cost (sounds more dramatic than it should )? I would play Comp stomps with waves of Allied troops rushing to my few german lines for fun all day, but when I play automatch against good opponents I'd rather have my balanced game.

It also depends a lot on what doctrines you are using. Soviets are good at all stages of the game if you are using one of the handful of doctrines with call-in tanks. Use for example Soviet Reserve Army against OKW and suddenly your lategame is weak. With this doctrine, and many others like it, your best tank (T34/76) gets matched in numbers by Pumas, and your basic infantry gets pummeled by both fresh OKW elite infantry and vetted up early game infantry.

I would say that the fact that allies are pushing to win early and axis are trying to hold territory in order to roll out their armour is a design far from first coh and it is as crucial for the franchise as for example retreating and remanning the squads. It's not something you can delete from the game.

Fortunately, I think getting that balanced game is a balance problem, not a design problem. For example, as you and others have noted, most (but not all) of the issues are doctrinal. The tiger/tiger ace/stug E, the Dodge/vet riflemen/M1919 can all be tweaked to make the difference less extreme.

I think the trick is in blending the tension and balance as well as possible to get the best of both worlds.

I kinda agree. vCoH had it aswell, although more smoother.

The performance differences generally are a little bit over the top. While the OKW/US and Wehrmacht/Soviet matchup feels alright, everything else is quite... extreme.

For example: The US infantry can't be fought manpower efficiently with Wehrmacht infantry, because the discrepancy between Riflemen (-with double 1919) and Grens is huuuuuuge. The same goes with OKW elite infantry and Soviets. You are forced to get hardcounter vehicles, snipers, M3 - not to fight fair infantry battles, but to "cheese" it out. The infantry DPS with the new factions can reach a point where even MGs won't cut it, unless in heavy cover.

And yes, the importance of maps can't be stressed enough. Winning as OKW on Semoisky winter north or on Langreskaya south is a night-and-day difference.

And yes, the importance of maps can't be stressed enough. Winning as OKW on Semoisky winter north or on Langreskaya south is a night-and-day difference.

Agreed. It's critical that all maps maintain roughly the same pacing, otherwise it's impossible to balance this aspect of the game. Currently they don't.

I kinda agree. vCoH had it aswell, although more smoother.

The performance differences generally are a little bit over the top. While the OKW/US and Wehrmacht/Soviet matchup feels alright, everything else is quite... extreme.

For example: The US infantry can't be fought manpower efficiently with Wehrmacht infantry, because the discrepancy between Riflemen (-with double 1919) and Grens is huuuuuuge. The same goes with OKW elite infantry and Soviets. You are forced to get hardcounter vehicles, snipers, M3 - not to fight fair infantry battles, but to "cheese" it out. The infantry DPS with the new factions can reach a point where even MGs won't cut it, unless in heavy cover.

And yes, the importance of maps can't be stressed enough. Winning as OKW on Semoisky winter north or on Langreskaya south is a night-and-day difference.

+1

I´m just gonna add that it may require LITTLE buffs and nerfs to solve this situation. Some tweaks here and there.
I´ve this feeling that we might just see ANOTHER big patch which is gonna change several things alltogether.

Personally I think it's a design flaw.

Maybe for 1v1 it is okay, but what is "early" in 1v1 is not the same as what is "early" in 2v2 and above. The early game goes away much quicker in team games, which makes the late game units come out faster and become more prominent. Thus, the "early" advantage largely goes out the window. A victory point match even in a 1v1 with equal players is always going to have a longer "late" game period. It is a time based match by definition, unlike starcraft which is elimination. Why would you want to have any kind of early advantage when that window of time will almost always be smaller than the late game window?

I mean Relic even balances the game by tweaking the CP cost for things because they feel a unit comes out too early or late. Well, this is a linear function and obviously this is not going to translate well in team games.

I suppose it boils down to whether you like 1v1 or team games the best. I think 1v1s are boring as hell personally. I also don't like knowing that I have to win in this tiny timeframe and if I don't I'm in for a long battle of frustration. Why would anyone want to fight the longer late game uphill battle?

Like I said, for me it's a flaw in that I don't find this concept to be enjoyable nor do I think the game can really be balanced in this way that will be amenable for 1v1 and team players.

Not to say that I don't love this game, I certainly do, but there are simply things I don't agree with that they didn't learn their lessons from COH1.

vCoh had it more smoother because the game was different , Call ins would come later and as Wehr you could buy your vet , which meant you had strong units flat out , however US vet was stronger , yet harder to maintain as you needed good unit preservation.

The current Vet system is good aswell if you ask me, however the USF lack a way to deal with vet 5 units as they fall off and dont have snipers .

what would you guys suggest to change ?
I think OKW early is fine as it is ( just like Luvnest , if i dont misunderstand it ) - Maybe tone down vet on OKW a bit ? The Vet 5 still is a disign choice which represents their elite units.

The current Vet system is good aswell if you ask me, however the USF lack a way to deal with vet 5 units as they fall off and dont have snipers.

Build more M8's.

They will vet up faster from the high vet obers and such.

Well, I think a big part of the game's design revolves around making big comebacks possible. Since most strategy games have a really bad 'snowball effect', company of heroes pulls it off quite well.

I think this is just an artifact of that design decision. I would rather have a game where it's hard for me to win after 30 mins as US than a game where it's impossible for me to win after the first 7 minutes because I lost an engagement.

I don't think the design is perfect, and it's very hard to balance just right, but I think it's still pretty good.

This. Its what makes the game great. Every faction is completely different rather than being the same with different skins. Pick which one works best for you. The game is really balanced in its current state. If I lose a game its because I screwed up. Plain and simple. With any faction.

early game USF > sov > wehr > OKW
mid game USF >wehr > OKW > sov
late game OKW > sov = wehr > USF