The imbalance between Allied and Axis Infantry Anti-tank

That's retarded. So the game was designed to be frustrating for one player in the first half and frustrating for the other playing in the second half?

What you describe is how the game is like at the moment -- but you essentially have no idea whether the early/late game balance was intentionally made this skewed by Relic.

You do not know if Relic want the game to be like this, as they have never said that this was the intended game design.

The more likely case is that they tried to balance the game properly, but didn't succeed, as RTS balance is hard to get right. Especially with asymmetric factions.

Since it was like that in Coh1, we can pretty much say that Relic wants the game to be like that. Or they totally failed both game.

Now, let's go with volks.

Volks:
-if you increase the amount of xp required to vet, thats would be a huge nerf since you can't just depend on them getting shrecks and fighting vehicles in order to gain veterancy.
-if you decrease the amount of xp vehicles gave, you are just altering the whole ecosystem.

3rd option: reduce veterancy bonuses for all units, all factions. Fixes the efficiency of a vet volks/ober blob. Fixes the ability for vet inf to take HMGs head on. Fixes the advantage heavy tanks have over medium tanks too. Basically a lot of problems would be evened out if veterancy bonuses were redesigned.

3rd option: reduce veterancy bonuses for all units, all factions. Fixes the efficiency of a vet volks/ober blob. Fixes the ability for vet inf to take HMGs head on. Fixes the advantage heavy tanks have over medium tanks too. Basically a lot of problems would be evened out if veterancy bonuses were redesigned.

What if i told you that high dps (mostly due to upgraded weapons) is what makes infantry to take HMG head on.
If you plain reduce vet bonuses theres little point on having vet units*.

*Veterancy still requires a redesign.

Coh1 =/= Coh2

yes and no.

The games are different but not that much. Actually CoH2 is more like CoH1.5

While the balance, factions, maps and units are different somtimes outright somtimes only in details the basic concept is the same.

This is why changes in the basic functions have such impact on the meta. For example the change in the resource point system. It seems minor but since it was implemented without the basic concept being fully adjusted it creates shockwaves wich completly change the meta.
If CoH2 was vastly different from CoH1 that wouldn't matter. Most likely nobody wound realise. But since they are so similar its immediatly apparent.

Gameplay wise CoH2 feels a lot like CoH1 with BK mod. The units are not that squishy but allmost. In some circumstance they even seem squishier in CoH2.

None taken. It is absolutely possible that I do something wrong. Actually I think its likely. I don't play as much as I would like for lack of time. On top of that I have a bad tendency to play CoH2 like I did in CoH1 wich I played a lot.

The thing is two Shermans are not an option in this scenario.
What I do is the CoH1 like vehicle rush if I gained map controll early on. Often I even managed compete map controll with the OKW player only holding one or two sectors outside his base. I can't go in further since he diggs in, has short retreat ways and possibly suression weapons.
So I rush a Sherman to punch a hole in the defense for my rifles.
My experience is if there are three or more Volks with Schrecks my Sherman is not up to the task. Even if it bleeds manpower there is no shock value. The Sherman closes in takes hit goes down to half health or so and I have to disengage or risk loosing it. After I repair it the shock value is gone. The opponent knows there is a Sherman around and will bring more AT. If I wait for a second Sherman chances are the Volks will be supported by Raks and possibly a Puma. Wich more or less neutralises their offensive power. So I am in the defensive now wich is not a good thing for the US to be in.

This is why I stopped going for a M4 rush in 1v1 and either bring a Scott or no vehicles at all until I anticipate a need for M36.

Compared to CoH1 where an M8 rush or M4 rush was a powerfull tactic with conciderable shock value this is not the case anymore. The main difference I can see is that in CoH1 the Germans (WH and PE) needed to build special units to counter it. They cound't with T1 basic infantry. Schrecks were less accurate at range and there was no global fuel and muni income.

The Sherman isnt so much a shock unit anymore, but its ideal for attrition (like the Scott), especially if you reach a critical mass, and it also allows you chase down light vehicles and contain medium armor (unlike the Scott). The Sherman also is an excellent counter harassment unit, since its not only gonna force them to run but can actually quickly kill them if the RNG gods favour you.
As for COH, the M20 pretty much serves the same role against Ost as the M8 used to do against Wehr back then. Its actually easier, since you are almost guaranteed to have the M20 on the field before he can get a Pak or 222 out, and once he sees LT tech the Ost player virtually has to use T2 or he will get rolled, while in COH you could always call in the emergency storms and go straight for T3. On the flipside, the impact of the M20 is indeed less than the M8 had. That .50 cal was just brutal...

I feel like we're missing the point here...

We should be focusing on improving allied infantry AT.

Not nerfing Axis Infantry AT, because unless the Axis are forced to use AT rifles themselves, their infantry AT is simply going to be superior to Allies on almost all levels.

It's fair enough that one side has better infantry AT, that's okay. But it needs to balance out.

Currently, the Axis have superior tank AT, infantry AT and AT guns. That's fundamentally imbalanced to my mind... Something needs to give and my feeling is that it has to be some form of buffs to the allies...

3rd option: reduce veterancy bonuses for all units, all factions.

That is a complete no go. It would stop CoH2 from being CoH. CoH is about unit preservation and getting Vet to make units more effective so the starting units scale into the late game.

Veterancy needs reworking. Because some units scale better than others for example. Some get very usefull abilities while some get useless wast of resource abilities etc
If anything the difference between no Vet and Vet 3 needs to be even more obvious. Currently infantry even with Vet is usually to vulnurable in late game. Even the Vet5 OKW units become pink mist if high payload explosives start flying. This kills tactics and micro to a large degree and reduces the late game to a slug fest in wich the bigger guns and the thicker armor allways wins.

I feel like we're missing the point here...

We should be focusing on improving allied infantry AT.

Not nerfing Axis Infantry AT, because unless the Axis are forced to use AT rifles themselves, their infantry AT is simply going to be superior to Allies on almost all levels.

It's fair enough that one side has better infantry AT, that's okay. But it needs to balance out.

Currently, the Axis have superior tank AT, infantry AT and AT guns. That's fundamentally imbalanced to my mind... Something needs to give and my feeling is that it has to be some form of buffs to the allies...

Your argument strikes me as wrong since you seem to be neglecting the way the different units within the respective factions actually synergise, the time of their arrival etc. In the modes of game I play (1v1/2v2) Axis quite simply are not in any way, shape or form superior in this patch and in 2v2 there actually are constellations (double Soviets) where Axis are tangibly inferior....

The Sherman isnt so much a shock unit anymore, but its ideal for attrition (like the Scott), especially if you reach a critical mass,

The thing is I don't like playing an attrition battle. I am more of a shock and awe type. My personal strength is early game. Good micro and tactics with a managable number of units. During mid and late game I loose efficiency.
This is why I like to use shock tactics and end the game in 10-15 minutes. Because I know my time is running out and the longer it takes the more stressfull its going to be and my chances dwindle.

As for COH, the M20 pretty much serves the same role against Ost as the M8 used to do against Wehr back then. Its actually easier, since you are almost guaranteed to have the M20 on the field before he can get a Pak or 222 out, and once he sees LT tech the Ost player virtually has to use T2 or he will get rolled, while in COH you could always call in the emergency storms and go straight for T3. On the flipside, the impact of the M20 is indeed less than the M8 had. That .50 cal was just brutal...

The M20 might be supposed to fill the same role but like you say in your last sentence it isn't up to it. The fact that the Faust of the T1 basic inf is a snare and that Schrecks can snipe it prevents it from doing so. The M20 simply lacks punch and survivability.

In CoH1 the Stormtrooper were no real counter against M8. They were doctrinal and 3 CP. Its not a given they would be there if the first M8 hits the field. Even if, the Schreck was way to inaccurate. Of the two shots one would usually miss a moving M8. This gave it time to rush in and force a retreat because killing a M8 with upgraded skirts would need at least four hits. Trying with a four man Storm squad would be a gamble.
In CoH1 1v1 T2 was more or less a no brainer for WH. T1+T3 could work but it dependet on lots of things. T1+T2 was the safe bet. Actually T2 was all you needed. T3 and T4 were fully optional if you had T2.
T1+T3 strat was based on having a strong T1 map presents and prevent the US from getting enough fuel to rush M8 faster than Storms and Pumas were available. It also relied on mines etc. It was not like "oh he has an M8 i call in Stroms, upgrade them and M8 begone!" In the time it took to move the Storms to the front and upgrade them wich, was quite expensive munitions wise, the first M8 most likely would have cause conciderable damage possible even force a mass retreat and a second one would be about to hit the field.
The hard counter for an M8 was the Pak and even if you had one a single M8 would overpower a unsupported Pak every time. It would take on hit guranteed and maybe a second but then it would circle strafe the Pak to death. Try to rush and circle strafe a unsupported Pak in CoH2... even a Vet1 MG42 and shoot the M20 up. A single Gren squad can assure its doom by fausting. Seriously I fail to see any shock value in this unit. The M20 is intresting for harrasing and counter harrasing. Kübel hunting and an early Bazooka but rushing it and building a second and third as quickly as possible will hardly win you the game.
At least it won't with my skill.

Okay, can tell me how the synergies work?

Soviet Infantry AT - basically non existent. Tanks these days tear apart guards and PTRSs do nothing. All they possess are a convenient AT trap from cons (which keeps bouncing of P4s for me). Button is rubbish these days.

ATG AT - Okay, inferior to Ost counterpart, but undoubtedly superior to that crappy Puppchen. Can be deadly with Mark Target (but that's doctrinal)

Tank AT - non-doctrinally inferior across the board, either slow and poor chance of damaging hits, or else is invalid by late game. Invalidated by Axis callins Doctrinally pretty good, but still inferior to top of the line Axis call ins (I'm talking about JT/Elefant).


US
- Infantry AT - better, Bazookas are okay, if they hit... if they penetrate, markedly inferior to shreks. But better than nothing. Soviets would kill for bazookas. AT rifle nade keeps screwing me over for some reason...

- ATG AT - Okay, longer range is nice, not very effective against heavies with muni cost...

- Tank AT - Okay, nondoctrinally the M36 is a major threat to Axis armour, however, the rest of their line up is pretty meh versus tanks... Doctrinal tanks, named the Easy Eight, are pretty effective, but suffer the same problem as the Soviets when it comes to Axis Superheavies...



Ostheer
Infantry AT - Panzerfaust has longer range (and higher pen iirc) then Con AT nade, and deals with more lightly armoured foes. Small squad sizes mean facing tanks requires a bit more caution (not blobbing seems to do the trick). Shreks meanwhile are deadly versus all non- doctrinal allied tanks.

ATG AT - nerfed, but still pretty good, target weakpoint is a significant danger, if its microed...

Tank AT - Fearsome. All Ost tanks with the exception of the Ostwind (and even then) are more effective versus tanks then their opposite number, with the exception of the StuG, and even then I'm not sure if it can be called an equivalent to the SU-85... Also boast the best non-doc tank the game, the Panther, which is deadlier then some doctrinal tanks...

OKW

Infantry AT - good. Early game the worst, because of the lack of a trap, but late game is devastating thanks to vet5 Volks, which, when blobbed with Obers can nullify Allied ATGs and easily defend themselves against most doctrinal and probably all non-doctrinal tanks... thanks the Obers AI potential and defend itself against tanks. Doctrinal AT not really much compared to the volks.

ATG AT - crap, unless vetted (in my experience).

Tank AT - Deadly, more panthers, KT is fortress and non-doctrinal. Puma is dangerous too with some micro. With vet its very powerful.




These are based on my own experiences and watching Dane's casts.

What I notice always is that for the most part, the allied tanks are constantly being massacred, whilst often the Axis tanks rack up impressive veterancy bonuses and kill scores. If an axis tank is caught, a quick smoke or, if its engine isn't damaged, blitz (still the stupidest ability in the game), does the job swimmingly...

OKW volk + shrek should be nerfed or changed in some way, but if they do they need to give OKW an ability to damage engines.

Snip

Agree 100%. And I too would like to see the Zook buffed to Shrek levels. Less damage per shot higher ROF same DPS same Pen realistic or not its still fighting heavier armor. But the squad still melts under the AI/AT A move blob.

I would also like to see all LMGs nerfed across the board and yes even the USF ones. They are just plain stupidly powerful on the defense. Its just plain insane. They are far far far too easy to use. I think these changes would put USF in a good spot and all elite infantry. You may see Thompson Paras and STG44 Obers more if the LMGs werent so obviously OP.

Agree 100%. And I too would like to see the Zook buffed to Shrek levels. Less damage per shot higher ROF same DPS same Pen realistic or not its still fighting heavier armor. But the squad still melts under the AI/AT A move blob.

I would also like to see all LMGs nerfed across the board and yes even the USF ones. They are just plain stupidly powerful on the defense. Its just plain insane. They are far far far too easy to use. I think these changes would put USF in a good spot and all elite infantry. You may see Thompson Paras and STG44 Obers more if the LMGs werent so obviously OP.

i would prefer to see schrecks and zooks relegated to AT support roles like back in vcoh, deadly, powerful but only effective in the close range where they mostly serve to protect dedicated AT units from flanking tanks. well microed medium tanks should shit on them at range.

yes to LMG change. agreed with what you said completely. they are the reason why infantry combat is so bland, its always a rush to lmg units. flamethrower and smg troopers dont even have the dps to compete with lmg units even catching them at close range. tossing a nade is also dangerous if you have to break cover and run into nade range. sheer dps from lmg well tear squads apart.

I'm blown away at (volks)grenadiers ability to both hit and penetrate at max range with their shreks.

It makes for some extremely powerful blobs of infantry. The first volley nearly assures a vehicle explosion.

At that point, even a full Axis retreat is still an Axis victory.

...
i would prefer to see schrecks and zooks relegated to AT support roles like back in vcoh, deadly, powerful but only effective in the close range where they mostly serve to protect dedicated AT units from flanking tanks. well microed medium tanks should shit on them at range...

+1
There should be a skill gap in using a lot of Shrecks, as in using LOS and flanking, not just blob & a-move.
It's often too effective on long range, and even with a damn blob there's rarely enough casulties when engaging like this.



Can't agree with the Zook part from JH at all though. Giving the strongest early game infantry the option to also have the strongest AT, that's just stupid. There's also the not so slight difference between AI capabilities and squad size - between fighting a P4 against a T0 5 men squad (which should have some vet also), or a Sherman & HE versus a 4 men squad of pricy T1s.

+1
There should be a skill gap in using a lot of Shrecks, as in using LOS and flanking, not just blob & a-move.
It's often too effective on long range, and even with a damn blob there's rarely enough casulties when engaging like this.



Can't agree with the Zook part from JH at all though. Giving the strongest early game infantry the option to also have the strongest AT, that's just stupid. There's also the not so slight difference between AI capabilities and squad size - between fighting a P4 against a T0 5 men squad (which should have some vet also), or a Sherman & HE versus a 4 men squad of pricy T1s.

Well the Alternative is either:

Nerf Shreks
Buff Allied Armor Values
Nerf Axis Armor Values

Zooks arent worth it and really should be. I doubt that Relic will make them useful in their current state by allowing them to be shouldered like the OKW mine sweepers. Right now you put your self to the AI of an unupgraded Gren without Rnades or a reliable Snare and are still more expensive. Why would you want to do that to your Riflemen?

Rifles are strong Early but the weakest at Vet 2 (IMHO) due to their Ass Backwards Vet Bonuses. And have the weakest vet bonuses as well. They dont perform as well as one would expect a unit that costs 50 more MP and have to pay for all their upgrades.

I like the idea of COH1 style handheld AT as well.

That is a complete no go. It would stop CoH2 from being CoH. CoH is about unit preservation and getting Vet to make units more effective so the starting units scale into the late game.
Veterancy needs reworking. Because some units scale better than others for example. Some get very usefull abilities while some get useless wast of resource abilities etc

Firstly, I advocate for toning down veteracy bonuses, not remove it. But the current modifiers are simply crazily high, and the adverse effects are very significant (fx volks blobs and heavy tanks)

Secondly, you overestimate the significance of veterancy for the CoH gameplay. It's actually one of the least important mechanics. The most important are squads, cover, garrisoning, light arms ineffective vs. tanks etc. Vet is very low on that list.

If anything the difference between no Vet and Vet 3 needs to be even more obvious. Currently infantry even with Vet is usually to vulnurable in late game. Even the Vet5 OKW units become pink mist if high payload explosives start flying. This kills tactics and micro to a large degree and reduces the late game to a slug fest in wich the bigger guns and the thicker armor allways wins.

Another reason why vet currently means too much and should be toned down. Because vet gives so huge bonuses, it is devastating to lose a vetted squad to RNG.

Vet is simply a major source of late game problems including volk shreck blobs. Vet bonuses need to be toned down and normalized across factions. God damn, it would improve the game a lot with little consequences.

If you plain reduce vet bonuses theres little point on having vet units

Not true. The veterancy bonuses are so high at the moment that there is plenty of room for reducing them without making them insignificant.

Not true. The veterancy bonuses are so high at the moment that there is plenty of room for reducing them without making them insignificant.

Hmmm, OH-SU-USF veterancies are fine. In fact, vet1 from vcoh2 factions should get a massive overhauling (i made a post about how lackluster they are).

How about infantry dont get any XP for damaging vehicles? Infantry themselves arent supposed to be dedicated AT... Being able to hit vehicles at all is rewarding enough.