4 things that would make CoH2 instantly better

There seem to be quite a few errors in here:
1) bigger army = lower upkeep? In CoH1 upkeep rose with the unit count and therefore your manpower income diminished the bigger your army became.
2) more territory = lower upkeep. Strategic points and only strategic points granted an additional manpower income of +3 (+4 with an observation point built). The upkeep was at no point lowered by this, but the income increased by 3 times the number of held strategic points. Other held points (resource points) had no influence on upkeep and only served to raise the population cap.
3) (I already mentioned this) Global veterancy upgrades of the Kampfkraft centre had no influence on the manpower income to my knowledge.

1. Exactly, that's what I'm saying By lower upkeep I meant lower manpower income ie small army = +300 mp/m and big army = +200mp/m (totally arbitrary numbers to illustrate the point)

2. Manpower income basically = upkeep for the sake of the post, let's not argue semantics.

3. Not directly no, but you have less upkeep if you can get 1 elite infantry unit instead of two lesser units.

wehr upkeep is so insignificant vs US for example a rifleman squad is -14 mp/m but a gren squad is -5mp/m and so is a puma.

Actually fuel and munitions points also gave +3 MP/Min, regardless of size

1. Exactly, that's what I'm saying By lower upkeep I meant lower manpower income ie small army = +300 mp/m and big army = +200mp/m (totally arbitrary numbers to illustrate the point)

2. Manpower income basically = upkeep for the sake of the post, let's not argue semantics.

3. Not directly no, but you have less upkeep if you can get 1 elite infantry unit instead of two lesser units.

Upkeep is the amount subtracted from your manpower income. I would reformulate that to avoid confusion.

Apart from the imprecise wording, I agree with your point.

Actually fuel and munitions points also gave +3 MP/Min, regardless of size

I just checked and you're absolutely right. Every captured point adds +3 to the manpower income. Let me extend my apologies for the false statement.

If it ain't broken don't fix it.

What about experimentation?

The reason we got the vCoH we had today was because the developers broke some traditional bits of RTS (unit management, sectors, focus on keeping your units alive, not throwing them away) and inserted their own ideas. Many of the current changes may not be for the better right now, but if we want to play vCoH, we go play vCoH, if we want to play CoH2, we go play CoH2.

I will agree that there are some things which are better in CoH (map, tactical map and a whole lot of other things), but we need change in order to not grow stale.

Where is CoH2 innovating? Cold tech, true sight. Those are completely independent from the major issues the competitive community has right now. Those areas were either changed for the sake of change, or were intentional to dumb down the game.

Yeah, unless you make a statement that you want this game to become a competative e-sport arena.

I disagree. Especially in esports, both players need to have fun and feel optimistic, otherwise competitive games would consist largely of stomps. One of the reasons League of Legends is so popular as an esport is the constant potential for a comeback, not that whoever wins the early game is always going to win the rest of the game. Catering to the losing player is important to make the game more enjoyable to play and to watch, as is evident by the upkeep mechanic. The upkeep is too high, though, giving the losing player too much potential for a comeback.

I disagree. Especially in esports, both players need to have fun and feel optimistic, otherwise competitive games would consist largely of stomps. One of the reasons League of Legends is so popular as an esport is the constant potential for a comeback, not that whoever wins the early game is always going to win the rest of the game. Catering to the losing player is important to make the game more enjoyable to play and to watch, as is evident by the upkeep mechanic. The upkeep is too high, though, giving the losing player too much potential for a comeback.

I agree that there should be balance, because if casuals don't like it then the game probably has no longterm future. Though for me it seems that the casuals in coh2 has a too big of a priority.

what do you mean by casuals?

I agree that there should be balance, because if casuals don't like it then the game probably has no longterm future. Though for me it seems that the casuals in coh2 has a too big of a priority.

Surely if casuals are the focus then there wouldn't be a major sacrifice by listening to the interest of competitive players? Casuals usually complain about the same things we do.

In the beginning it was OP mortars, halftracks with flamers etc...

All we are doing now is seeing the problems early before the inexperienced do. I can guarentee eventually people will start to say the same things, if they haven't already. Unless we are talking about the Comp stompers, which will always want OP stuff...

they fixed one of them i can see in blizzards now.

I disagree. Especially in esports, both players need to have fun and feel optimistic, otherwise competitive games would consist largely of stomps. One of the reasons League of Legends is so popular as an esport is the constant potential for a comeback, not that whoever wins the early game is always going to win the rest of the game. Catering to the losing player is important to make the game more enjoyable to play and to watch, as is evident by the upkeep mechanic. The upkeep is too high, though, giving the losing player too much potential for a comeback.

I am sorry m8 but right now , whoever wins the early game has absolutely no advantage whatsoever , what if you have contained the wehrmacht into 1/4 of the map and inflicted heavy losses they make a pak a pgren and a halftrack and they destroy your 2 t34s and concrips and what if they buff the soviets well we ll see something like 2 guards and a t17 capturing berlin by themselves .

And you know what ? Its very very reasonable because when you artificially ruberband the skill differnce between the players the faction makes the player victorious , thats not supposed to happen . Now that would not be relevant but were talking about relic , balancing is not their strong point and with a ton of doctrines bulletins maps (and bs units like snipercars) and so on its gonna be a nightmare . right now i see the staghound and think its fine and dundy MVGame

Also on comebacks , if you have too many of them they become mundane , they are not exciting they are part of the routine , kinda deafiting its own purpose isnt it ?

The game must be enjoyable either when you r winning or when your losing and games that involve any kind of competition have one basic component awarding the winner and not the one who is loosing .

Finally , LoL has been overtaken in North America by Dota2 which is especially designed to award the winner and punish the looser quite harsly too , tbh LoL didnt have much competiton anyways in its field .

I hope i was not offensive , i did not mean too

I am sorry m8 but right now , whoever wins the early game has absolutely no advantage whatsoever , what if you have contained the wehrmacht into 1/4 of the map and inflicted heavy losses they make a pak a pgren and a halftrack and they destroy your 2 t34s and concrips and what if they buff the soviets well we ll see something like 2 guards and a t17 capturing berlin by themselves .

And you know what ? Its very very reasonable because when you artificially ruberband the skill differnce between the players the faction makes the player victorious , thats not supposed to happen . Now that would not be relevant but were talking about relic , balancing is not their strong point and with a ton of doctrines bulletins maps (and bs units like snipercars) and so on its gonna be a nightmare . right now i see the staghound and think its fine and dundy MVGame

Also on comebacks , if you have too many of them they become mundane , they are not exciting they are part of the routine , kinda deafiting its own purpose isnt it ?

The game must be enjoyable either when you r winning or when your losing and games that involve any kind of competition have one basic component awarding the winner and not the one who is loosing .

Finally , LoL has been overtaken in North America by Dota2 which is especially designed to award the winner and punish the looser quite harsly too , tbh LoL didnt have much competiton anyways in its field .

I realize that there isn't a strong advantage for whoever wins the early game. That's the point of talking about upkeep. It needs to be fixed so the early game advantage actually matters.

I don't know how a pak, Pgrens and a Halftrack would beat 2 T34s and Conscripts unless you throw everything at them without trying to be tactical. Not really a good example.

Yes, faction and imbalances make a big difference as compared to base skill. That's what I said.

Yes, comebacks cannot be that common, which is another reason why upkeep needs to be reduced. I'm stating that comebacks are an important element to competitive games, not that every game should consist of a comeback.

The point is not to award the loser. The point is to give the loser a chance despite what has happened in the game, unless the skill or resource disparity is incredibly high.

This isn't the place to have a discussion on LoL vs DOTA2, but look at all the numbers for both games (consistent players, twitch viewers, twitch broadcasters, total payout across all tournaments, typical professional salary, number of countries playing the game) and tell me why you think Dota2 being more popular in North America (do you even have statistics that show this?) is a good point whatsoever, especially when a large portion of the COH and COH2 audience is European.

No offense taken, although you don't seem to have understood the intent of my original post and are making statements without backing them up with concrete evidence.

Surely if casuals are the focus then there wouldn't be a major sacrifice by listening to the interest of competitive players? Casuals usually complain about the same things we do.

In the beginning it was OP mortars, halftracks with flamers etc...

All we are doing now is seeing the problems early before the inexperienced do. I can guarentee eventually people will start to say the same things, if they haven't already. Unless we are talking about the Comp stompers, which will always want OP stuff...

I would largely agree with this, it seems a majority of the things that casuals complain about are things that the competitive players have already noticed. Or the casuals haven't spent enough time learning the game or doing research yet still expect to beat better players.

I would largely agree with this, it seems a majority of the things that casuals complain about are things that the competitive players have already noticed. Or the casuals haven't spent enough time learning the game or doing research yet still expect to beat better players.

Or they simply won't notice. If you didn't explicitly tell a casual player that mortars got nerfed, they would still complain, as some did over at the SEGA forums.

This is also noticeable because casual players tend to give feedback on "concepts" rather than balance. By concepts I mean stuff like "Soviets should have a heavier tank" instead of "how do I make the current Soviet lineup viable against Axis armor?"