Brainstorming: Coh2 improvements.

I really like the idea of collecting the feedback and possibly posting it on the sega forums - makes it easier for the devs, maybe we should even do some polls for hot topics?

- like the idea of a Soviet upgrade ("winter coats") that makes them more durable in blizzards and deep snow but then there should be something the Germans get on the other hand or Soviet should benefit on spring maps, too but weakening them elsewhere

- veterancy is an issue but personally I dislike the ability to purchase/upgrade veterancy - nevertheless I like the idea of gaining vet only through dealing damage or doing kills

- making tanks all the same is indeed boring

- I'm quite ok with panzerfaust like they are atm but at nades should get a smaller range, for me it is very difficult kite

- finally I concur with early-mid game - tanks are available a little too soon, so it would be great if caches had a bigger impact while they increase the fuel costs of T3 and T4 buildings - then players could either spend mp on caches and rush tanks or stay longer in T1/T2

I think call-ins from either the command tabs or the HQ would be best as well, though I'm open to hearing why this might damage gameplay in the new system. It seems like it could only make the meta-game more flexible, and IF you include the fuel cost, it wont be quite as forgiving a mechanism. Building tank after tank out of your command points will make it impossible to tech, so it might not be advisable. On the other hand, if the game went this route, it may have to impose the limits that existed in vcoh, otherwise, the gain might exceed the loss. Whatever the case, pricing definitely needs to be reconsidered...probably a much higher manpower cost for call-ins(to truly limit the # you can expect to see on the field if you don't want to hard-cap), and a reduction, but not elimination of fuel cost, to make it so that teching post call-in doesn't take a century.

it would be good if the game told you if one of your units is under attack in the same way vcoh informed y about units sniped , cause now i may move to another point of the map only to find my tank destroyed a couple of seconds later , also the criticals are way too stupid , mortars damaging tanks ? damaged engine on the second shot ? firepits doing temporary damage to tanks this last one is completely wtf how on earth some burning pieces of wood can damage a tank ?? Other than that , i see some people wanting to nerf the soviet at , su barages , to what end ?? half the time they miss without fow and when they land the damage they do is meh at best

Yeah, if fires have to damage tank engines at all, say for the sake of deterring people from driving around the map running over fires with glee, then the engine damage should be very temporary and repair on its own, after say 5 to 10 seconds. Its already unfortunate to have your fire-pits get run over on your side of the map when all you did was point the tank to a destination, but to also have a crippled tank is just a drag that only hurts gameplay. You shouldn't have to spend time microing tanks around fires.

ON EDIT: this is the second time i've thought of a brilliant idea that probably already existed in the game. I was playing around with my panther in one game and driving over camp fires, and taking engine damage, and then 10 to 15 seconds later, having a fully funtional uninjured tank to drive around with. The other idea was that blizzard should shrink line-of-sight...heh, how I never noticed that it did I'm not sure...but pretty embarassing.

I'd be nervous about requiring vet 1 for at guns and the mobile at(name?) to get artillery, if simply because they both really suck as AT. That could be tweaked, but I don't feel qualified to talk balance, so I'm not sure Russia needs better AT, or whether their current balance is working. Granted, a nerf to at grenades has already happened, in terms of damage, and AT guns are abysmal at taking out half-tracks currently, (though between engine damage from an at grenade and an at gun, I would hope that a flame-half-track could be brought down at this point), so maybe an at gun buff wouldn't be bad, but the artillery ability is really the more reliable ability of the two currently, and the more reliable way to get vet on the gun(unless vet works the same way for at guns as for infantry, then I'm not sure). I suggested, and think its a less drastic way of making the change, that the artillery abilities come at a fuel cost upgrade, and one of the advantages of this is that it plays into the need for more teching choices, in order to diversify play-styles.

@Kafrion: I agree about the crits. They need to happen less freqently and more predictably. Just the other day I destroyed the engine of a PIV with a single AT-nade. As for firepits, I think Joshua's suggestion is good. In addition, tanks should just avoid firepits unless forced to traverse over them.

@Joshua: I thought about what you said about German's gaining cold resistance as well. I honestly don't think that it's required in their design, being the more static and strategic nation, but nevertheless it might become a problem in the latter stages of the game when both sides are scrambling for VPs. My suggestion is to give German units cold resistance with vet. I.e. Vet 2 -25%, Vet 3 -50%.
Also, the upgrade for Russians shouldn't be great coats, simply because it would require too much modeling work (maybe in the future change the model). I'd suggest survival training of some sorts (boy scouts? ) and add an icon somewhere that displays that the upgrade has been purchased.
As for AT, I don't mind the SU76 being used as Arty from the get-go. However, an ATG should be primarily used as AT (this is a design principle), and so I think it's only logical that the arty barrage requires vet 1. It would really help competitive play where every teching mistake counts.

Yeah all of your suggestions are reasonable, and I kind of like the idea of allowing germans to gain cold resistance through vet, my thoughts were primarily attempting to address concerns about not enough alternative ways to spend resources, and thus play the game. As to my suggestion about a muni cost for ostheer, I never pictured that as being as effective as the russian option, because you would have to buy it individually, and the trade-off would be less shrecked squads or no flame halftrack for another couple minutes...etc. This for a single survivable squad. If you wanted to buy it for a lot of units for mid-late game, you would be cutting into your off-map abilities for the privilege.

On the other hand, I don't know that ostheer need any more munitions sinks, between their more expensive shrek buys and their expensive mine placements, at the moment. Paying 75 munis on extra cold protection for one unit might not be worth it. I'm more concerned about there being alternative fuel techs for ostheer, as currently there are no upgrades, and you addressed that with your veterancy buy suggestions.

As for AT, I don't mind the SU76 being used as Arty from the get-go. However, an ATG should be primarily used as AT (this is a design principle), and so I think it's only logical that the arty barrage requires vet 1. It would really help competitive play where every teching mistake counts.

on everything else i agree , so i ll comment on this ,
i dont quite agree because 1 you have to pay for an ability that is sort of crappy at what it does , 2 60 munitions early in the game are not sth to be spent willy nilly , 3 the soviet atg is not that good at what it does other than it is a bit more durable due to the crue , 4 the artillery of the atg is a poor mans artillery it hardly affects the balance imo + that you can get a mortar from the same building so the teching choice is not that big a deal , 5 because the game design allows for floating mp and sometimes actually rewards you for saving and spending at the right time so teching mistakes are not so detrimental esp since y can have your counter up in 1 or 2 mins

,,,meant to edit, replied instead