Is 5 ranks of vet for only one faction fair?

There is nothing inherently wrong in a single faction having 5 veterancy levels as a faction bonus. A lot of asymmetry in this game's faction designs.

This would only be a problem if the 5 levels of veterancy were overpowering in late game .

But, the only units that will be consistently vet5 in late game are Volks (and prior to previous patch, Raketenwerfers). This is actually excellent design because this is what allows Volks to scale well into late game, thus justifying them being a bit more sucky than other infantry initially.

More expensive units (tanks) get above vet3 relatively rarely so it is sort of a cool and rare feature. You see a vet4 Panther, you KNOW that monster earned it.

But anyway, as Hagen said, each faction is a little unique.

See i think the problem is that they are TOO unique.

In comparison to factional differences in COH2, in COH1 the differences were there but were smaller. A med tent didn't = or come close to a med bunker even though they sort of served the same function. MGs looked similar, behaved similarly (both did damage, both had suppression) but came in different tiers. There were similarities (price and function) and differences (armor/mobility/veterancy, etc) to StuGs/M10s, etc. The biggest was veterancy, which was also sort of broken (but much less so) in big games.

The two factions played VERY differently. That is because an accumulation of little changes mean people will use tools differently. Each faction also had a viable way to play with mostly or all infantry (Paks/AT included) as opposed to going just for armor.

In COH2 they hit each faction with some sort of huge Difference bat. They will have different weapons, different teching, different veterancy, different late, mid and end game strengths, different things that commanders do for them. It is all TOO much difference. And to dig in and say that "difference" is the point means they are keeping themselves from adding some fixes. Adding a Pershing is not going to make the USF play like Ostheer or OKW or the SOviets. Nor is giving them some sort of elite infantry.

(this is not a recommendation but an illustration) If you had mirror image units but different teching or different ways to heal/reinforce you would still have the factions played differently and with a different feel, but the developers are so enamoured of the idea of "difference" that they apply it to everything they can find.

Added: Wehr was still easier for newer players to play because it is easier to understand positioning than mobility and because "defensive" buffed emplacements and units on the defense. It had weaknesses but the other player had to learn them then learn to execute them. Wehr had more "invisible" units which is easier for a noob to use effectively (Paks, Storms, & Goliaths). And some mechanics were Wehr favored; a medtent needed 6 (27 mp) bodies to give you one un-vetted rifle (270 mp) while a med bunker gave you a Grenadier at whatever your veterancy level for 4 (usually 22mp) bodies and was more durable.

OTOH most people came in having played the missions so they had some understanding of the US units (and some bad play habits to break as well).

Veterency 5 along with all the other strengths of OKW such as the King Tiger/Stuka being on the base faction, forward deploayable bases etc, was a means of balancing OKW in exchange for having a rediculously crippling economy. Except then they reworked OKW during the Alpha and they no longer have a crippling economy at all. Originally economy was about 33% of the other factions, now Munitions is 100% and as Cruzz pointed out Fuel is about 70% the income when you compare the teching Costs. Except then there's also Salvage to get fuel, and really the fuel handicap itself is neglected by how incredibly cost effective the OKW vehicles are. Pumas, Panzer 2's, Stukas, King Tigers etc.

I agree that Vet5 for vehicles would be fine for the vehicles to compensate for high costs, but for infantry I see no reason why Vet 5 is required, OKW infantry is already so cost efficient. Vet 5 OKW infantry are able to 1v1 Vet 3 Riflemen with double Bars. And that seems okay on its own, but when you compare it to all of the other late game factors such as USF's lack of AT and lack of any viable armour part from Easy 8's, compared to crazy OKW late game stuff such as King Tigers, JagdTigers, Stukas, Forward bases that locks down a large portion of the map and makes forcing retreats not as rewarding. It makes no sense for OKW to have the best late game infantry, and the best late game tanks, and forward bases with Defenses. USF Riflemen with upgrades and full vet should be the strongest late game to compensate for their awful armour and lack of hard hitting AT. That's exactly how it was in Coh1 for years, except now OKW has the best late game everything. As for Soviets the only reason they're viable late game is because of how much IS-2/ISU's, T-34/85's and Snipers are overperforming.

Despite my rant, I don't think vet 5 is that much of a problem because of the potency of AOE anti-infantry tanks for Allies. But in an ideal world when every single game comes down to anti everything tanks being spammed, and when Tank Destroyers might actually be used to destroy tanks, having Vet5 Volks being able to 1v1 Vet 3 Riflemen could be a bit of a problem. I do actually like Vet5, I think it's interesting and unique but I think for it to say some of the other incredible strengths of OKW need to be adjusted. Such as Allies lack of viable infantry based AT and Tank Destroyers (SU-85's + Jacksons) really under performing. It's also not like Vet 5 is ever going to leave, so it's a kind pointless discussion. Instead we should be talking about how to improve the meta and improve the balance and dynamic.

Vet 5 is not really "balanced" but most games will end before it really starts to kick in so it doesn't really matter.

The point is that every faction should be different, so.. Yes!

The point is that every faction should be different, so.. Yes!

you could put Ostheer in trucks and the factions would behave and be played differently. There is too much difference for difference's sake.

Except then they reworked OKW during the Alpha and they no longer have a crippling economy at all. Originally economy was about 33% of the other factions, now Munitions is 100% and as Cruzz pointed out Fuel is about 70% the income when you compare the teching Costs.

That is not fully right. The Trucks in the beta gave 100% ressouce income in the sector they were set up. The Problem was that the OKW in that time of the beta just defended this 3 sectors (T4 also only cost 40 fuel that time) and dont cared about the rest of the map. It just did everything to cut of the allies. I think Relic wanted to change that and because of that they used the current system.

you could put Ostheer in trucks and the factions would behave and be played differently. There is too much difference for difference's sake.

Honestly, asymmetric balance is one of the few things that keeps me hooked to this game. Every faction is so remotely different that every game plays very differently. The only bad aspect, is that even with all this diversity, only a few strats are viable, so in the end, every competitive game looks like any other.

Honestly, asymmetric balance is one of the few things that keeps me hooked to this game. Every faction is so remotely different that every game plays very differently. The only bad aspect, is that even with all this diversity, only a few strats are viable, so in the end, every competitive game looks like any other.

Perhaps I should have added more because that is my point. You can get big differences even when things look somewhat similar, and small changes are easier to make when things have some similarity without breaking other big parts.

So many balance choices don't seem to happen in COH2 because.... DIFFERENCE! So we have very different factions that are only competitive if played in only a few particular ways. And this is better how?

You can still watch good players stream COH1. Wehr and US LOOK really similar, particularly to people new to the game (both have doctrinal MGs, mortars, basic infantry, scout vehicle, snipers, AT guns, HTs, light armored vehicles, AT armor, medium tanks, AI armor, med tents, FHQs, mines, wire and tank traps, etc. etc. etc.) But they play differently, they are very well balanced, and because there isn't lots of cheese to use or defend against there are multiple viable strategies for both. (with the bonus that you could sometimes change your style/strategy in mid game if it was necessary.)

Another game deisgn flaw I think is the VP system. at 500 points with ticks every 3 seconds it is designed more or less around the same length of game as COH1, but the tech to end-game is faster than it was in COH1.

I like the fact that factions are different. And OKW is a faction that gets uneasily great if the opponent does not eliminate squads. Nice thing.

@PwnageMachine
Pretty much what you said.

A vet5 faction design is interesting, but currently OKW doesn't have enough weakenesses to make for their great vet bonuses.
Let Vet 5 stay, but balance is required.

@PwnageMachine
Pretty much what you said.

A vet5 faction design is interesting, but currently OKW doesn't have enough weakenesses to make for their great vet bonuses.
Let Vet 5 stay, but balance is required.

Vet5 Rifles!!

I don't like the idea of vet 5 squads. OKW players automatically gain an advantage the longer the game lasts (given the required unit preservation of course), but at the same time having trouble early on. As an allied player, you either have to win the game before the 20 min mark or you gonna have a bad time in the later stages of the game.

For Sovs you forgot:
Combat engineers (Their demo is very powerful)
Snipers (Anti-OKW unit)
Irregulars
Partisans

Ya.... none of those are mainline infantry. They're all support units.

I don't like the idea of vet 5 squads. OKW players automatically gain an advantage the longer the game lasts (given the required unit preservation of course), but at the same time having trouble early on. As an allied player, you either have to win the game before the 20 min mark or you gonna have a bad time in the later stages of the game.

I will put a comment here I have said previously (in case there is a different audience).

The asymmetry-over-time is an inherently bad game design. A USF player has to have won early on, making the rest of the game feel like a stomp and hence unsatisfying. An OKW player has to hang on and then they will stomp at the end, which will feel inherently more satisfying. To make that balance equal (same percentage wins and losses) will feel inherently less fun if you play one faction. More to the point, that balance will FEEL like too much of an imbalance to the OKW player since we feel losses more pronouncedly than we feel wins (this is VERY studied in financial markets) so those players will cry for a "NERF!" even when one may not be indicated by the statistics. The USF wins on the other hands won't feel so good because they were "easy" (came early in the game) by definition.

It is just piss-poor game design.

An example of how beautifully COH1 was designed is that though Wehr got a big advantage as time wore on... If it lasted EVEN LONGER the US would gain the advantage if they had unit preservation. Get your rifles, m8 or Sherman to vet3 (or heavens... a ranger squad.) and they would then outclass the Wehr units. But if you lost them they would never be replaced in the same game. So the advantage was there, was not pronounced, and could swing both ways over time.

(Note: I was seldom good enough to do this myself except in large games, but I have certainly seen it and seen it in casts.)

Vet 5 squads... why not? They die just like the others.

I don't like the idea of vet 5 squads. OKW players automatically gain an advantage the longer the game lasts (given the required unit preservation of course), but at the same time having trouble early on. As an allied player, you either have to win the game before the 20 min mark or you gonna have a bad time in the later stages of the game.

I also think that 5 vet levels are problematic, but keep in mind that it gets to a degree counteracted by the lower fuel income in the long run. Earlygame the fuel income does not really affect you due to the lower teching costs. As the game progresses and the higher veterancy kick in, so does the fuel income start to be more of a boon. Still, I think 5 vet at .2 value per level is too much.

i like vet5 units. but, relic REALLY needs to balance team games

I dont get it... 5 vet, strongest inf, strongest tanks, strongest mobile arty, economy same as rest faction (70% fuel but lower tech cost, salvage and coversion ammo to fuel).
This is just wrong.

Even more. Great early-game units. Good mid-game and awesome late-game units.

have you all forgotten army essence of OKW? It is all centered about it, for example vet5:

• Formations were reconstituted from Normandy and Ostfront divisions; they were battle hardened and newly equipped. Elite new units like the Obersoldaten are fearsome infantry squads and automatic weapons are featured on many squads.