Homogenization

I have a question for you guys. Is the game becoming too homogenized? Are all of the factions being blended to become the same?

"Asymmetrical balance" has been toted around as the pinnacle of this game's design since for as long as I've played this game. And it is a pretty cool concept. If factions all have unique strengths and weaknesses, then people can more easily find a faction they can find fun and engaging to play, as well as providing a varied gameplay experience for others who want to switch it up.

But it's strange to me that, although people clamor for asymmetrical balance, they, in the same breath, demand it.

For example, I'll pull up 2 current topics that are on the forums right now: Churchill and Flak HT. Churchill is tanky, so people want to nerf its armor. Flak HT is immobile, so people want to reduce its setup time. But where is the asymmetry in that? What's the point of eliminating or reducing what makes the unit unique? If Churchill loses its tankiness, it's a slow Cromwell. If Flak HT loses its setup time, it's a German AA HT.

I have ideas, and I was wondering if they were good or not. Tell me what you guys think, okay? Instead of eliminating what makes individual units unique, why not expand on their weaknesses while keeping their strengths?

I'll use Churchills as an example again. If the Churchill's gimmick is "tanky but slow," but it's still too strong, how about making it even slower? It'll allow it to be caught out of position much more easily, so it can be destroyed. That way it's an indirect nerf to its "durability" but still keeping its unique flavor.

Same for Flak HT. If it's immobile, then let it stand its ground. Increase sight and range by 5-7 but keep its long setup time. In that sense, it would have a distinct role in area denial that is different from the AA HT that it keeps being compared to.

On a sidenote, I thought ISG and pack howitzer's thing was that they were drastically powerful light artillery pieces, but not really fire-and-forget units like mortars which can fire over buildings. By having their min angle of fire be 40 percent, then they are basically heavy mortars that suppress now. Why not keep the angle of fire at 10 so they are less effective behind a lot of buildings, and disable their auto-rotate while keeping their heavy shells? Then they would truly be light artillery, since you'd have to manage them similarly to ML-20 or that other german thing.

I think it would be really cool if we thought about balancing in that light instead of direct nerfs to the uniqueness of each unit. But I don't see anyone else thinking along the lines I do. Is it an effort in futility to want the game to ideally be this way? Or maybe just direct nerfs to core strengths is just the easiest way to think about balance, so people take it?

EDIT: As a disclaimer, since I know there are some hotheaded people out there, I want to stick with the discussion of "homogenization" and balancing in a way that keeps unit strengths. I don't want this to devolve into a Churchill or Flak HT discussion just because I used them as examples. AKA Keep your "grenade ability needs nerfs" posts in their proper topic pls

one word: fanboys

Different for the sake of different doesn't make something good. Want a good example? Look at the T-34/76, nobody uses it, everyone complains about it. Why? Because it's different, it's not a Sherman or a Cromwell.

one word: fanboys

That and players thinking their tried and true tactics should always work. One thing I have learned is if you think a unit or ability is so OP as to be game breaking then go and try 3-4 games and try to abuse that ability/unit. If you are able to make it work and post them replace and make your case; but if you going to get countered even with what you thought was an unstoppable/game breaking unit if you are able to make it work and post some replays and make your case; but if you go and get countered even with what you thought was and unstoppable/game breaking unit then maybe consider that your opponent knew something you didn't or did something you could learn from. Once I did this for myself I became a much better player and I also started thinking ZOMG OP a lot less. Problem is we have a lot of players and only play one faction, maybe two and while that is certainly their right it also means they have no idea what it feels like to be on the other side.

Different for the sake of different doesn't make something good. Want a good example? Look at the T-34/76, nobody uses it, everyone complains about it. Why? Because it's different, it's not a Sherman or a Cromwell.

bad example here

the t34-76 is just a nerfed version of the sherman wwhile costing less,there is nothing unique to it other then dying to anything that has AT fire arms.

Look at the T-34/76, nobody uses it, everyone complains about it. Why? Because it's different

No, because it's in the wrong tier and that amount of fuel/MP better spent somewhere else. Also it isn't exactly spammable, so you can't put the "effective in numbers" bullshit principle into practice (the way it's meant to be used".



Basically a sloped version of AEC.

bad example here

the t34-76 is just a nerfed version of the sherman wwhile costing less,there is nothing unique to it other then dying to anything that has AT fire arms.

Ramming infantry and cheapness are its hallmarks

Also

+1 to OP

bad example here

the t34-76 is just a nerfed version of the sherman wwhile costing less,there is nothing unique to it other then dying to anything that has AT fire arms.

Ah I see, asymmetrical balance is only good if it's the way you like it, right? You have no argument, you can't argue against the T-34 being different and complain that Armies are becoming too similar, that's hypocritical. The T-34 is asymmetrical because it's very cheap, you can amass them. In regards to the Red Army, Stalin once said "Quantity has a quality all its own." and that's what makes the T-34 unique to the Sherman or Churchill.

Thanks for the input, guys. I'd also like to introduce the concept of "counterplay" and how expanding on a unit's weaknesses rather than their strengths can help with that. In my opinion, the ability for counterplay is integral to a competitive game. Basically, it's exploiting your opponent's weaknesses. Usually this involves building AT when your opponent has tanks or something. A Jagdtiger's tendency to be stunned when penetrated is also an example of counterplay.

When you nerf the strengths but not expand on weaknesses, counterplay becomes less important. Nerf a Churchill's health? You don't need to rush it to kill it anymore, you just kill it like any other tank. Nerf it's speed? Counterplay can come in where you can drive back its support and then finish it off as it tries to retreat.

I wanted to emphasize counterplay because it's really integral to a person's enjoyment of the game. If there were a situation where HMG suppression gets nerfed, and your HMG squad gets rushed head-on by core infantry and wiped with a grenade, you'd feel bad because you were powerless to stop that even though you should have. However, if suppression remains strong and your opponent sneaks up behind and clears your nest, then you won't feel so bad because you are aware that you got outplayed.

On the other hand, it's enjoyable for the person doing the counterplay as well. He'd feel a sense of reward for good tactics that would not have been present otherwise. If more units had weaknesses to exploit, then you would definitely never feel powerless and helpless when trying to deal with that unit.

Ah I see, asymmetrical balance is only good if it's the way you like it, right? You have no argument, you can't argue against the T-34 being different and complain that Armies are becoming too similar, that's hypocritical. The T-34 is asymmetrical because it's very cheap, you can amass them. In regards to the Red Army, Stalin once said "Quantity has a quality all its own." and that's what makes the T-34 unique to the Sherman or Churchill.

Re: the t34-76, I feel like it's in a bad place NOT because it is cheap and easy to produce. In fact, I think it's a very, very good thing. The problem is, I feel like Relic did not go all the way in their philosophy. A half-cooked idea is worse than an idea that's not cooked at all. They should have gone ALL THE WAY with the productability of the unit. Reduce its manpower to 240. Reduce pop cap to 8. Problem solved.

EDIT: Oh, and fix its scatter vs. infantry because it's nonexistant until vet 2. Remove or reduce vet 2 scatter bonus if needed. There is "playing to weaknesses" but there should also be SOME strength. This also helps with the tank's spammable nature because then it will allow 2 vet 0 tanks to be useful, instead of waiting and intensely micromanaging the tanks until vet 2.

EDIT 2: You're also talking to your quoted post like he was the one that made the thread, but it was me.

Re: the t34-76, I feel like it's in a bad place NOT because it is cheap and easy to produce. In fact, I think it's a very, very good thing. The problem is, I feel like Relic did not go all the way in their philosophy. A half-cooked idea is worse than an idea that's not cooked at all. They should have gone ALL THE WAY with the productability of the unit. Reduce its manpower to 240. Reduce pop cap to 8. Problem solved.

EDIT: Oh, and fix its scatter vs. infantry because it's nonexistant until vet 2. Remove or reduce vet 2 scatter bonus if needed. There is "playing to weaknesses" but there should also be SOME strength. This also helps with the tank's spammable nature because then it will allow 2 vet 0 tanks to be useful, instead of waiting and intensely micromanaging the tanks until vet 2.

EDIT 2: You're also talking to your quoted post like he was the one that made the thread, but it was me.

It was reverted to 8 pop cap in a very recent patch and Relic admitted that changing to 10 was counter to its role as a mass producible tank. Scatter point I can agree with.

OP, I absoultely agree.

But people work like this: They look at sth and compare. In everyday life, people compare themselves to their surroundings. In game terms, they compare units of faction a and faction b. Even if the units were designed to be different, people search these diffences, and bias leads to false assumptions then. This is why they will say stuff like ,,why is unit a's armor lower than unit b's armor, that makes no sense and should be changed.''

The human mind can't be changed. And the devs actually listening too much to the mob is a danger to gamedesign. Yup, there, I said it

Am I the only one that makes 3 t34-76s and loves them?

Re: the t34-76, I feel like it's in a bad place NOT because it is cheap and easy to produce. In fact, I think it's a very, very good thing. The problem is, I feel like Relic did not go all the way in their philosophy. A half-cooked idea is worse than an idea that's not cooked at all. They should have gone ALL THE WAY with the productability of the unit. Reduce its manpower to 240. Reduce pop cap to 8. Problem solved.

EDIT: Oh, and fix its scatter vs. infantry because it's nonexistant until vet 2. Remove or reduce vet 2 scatter bonus if needed. There is "playing to weaknesses" but there should also be SOME strength. This also helps with the tank's spammable nature because then it will allow 2 vet 0 tanks to be useful, instead of waiting and intensely micromanaging the tanks until vet 2.

EDIT 2: You're also talking to your quoted post like he was the one that made the thread, but it was me.

I like you and i like the way you think.


it seems like since relic removed the rifleman ability that lets m1919s suppress then everybody is hopping on the "remove x unit/item/ability" as a balance move. Case in point... the sherman firefly.

half of the stuff this community requests regarding balance is downright stupid. Like when budwise complained that conscript sandbags are op and they got nerfed. that was a pretty sad day in my mind.

It seems like since relic removed the rifleman ability that lets m1919s suppress then everybody is hopping on the "remove x unit/item/ability" as a balance move. Case in point... the sherman firefly.

People were complaining "remove ___" way before that happened, and they do it for anything, because they're whiners. On official forums there was more support for removing the M-45 than there was for buffing it, disgusting. That said, I have yet to see anyone ask for the Firefly to be removed?

Asymmetry and our current commander system are always at odds because faction dynamics don't change. Realistically, I don't think there has ever been a time when CoH2 has had more than a one-dimensional tech/balance structure that hasn't fulcrummed around a shock unit. So until we see more functionality in things like Radio Silence, Tactical Movement, Windustry, things which change how a faction plays, balance will be based around units, and therefore, will have to naturally slowly creep towards the center.

there's also a huge lack of upgrades which are something that really diferentiates units. dow2 had at least one upgrade, and often 2 or 3, on almost every squad and the squads were radically different because you had range and melee and heavy and light infantry. coh2 has infantry with each faction have a basic and a better squad and a few having a third one that is crammed in somewhere. the unit variety is split pretty evenly between vehicles and infantry but the game is very infantry focused so you end up seeing a lot of the same infantry and a vehicle or two. this means that any vehicle that under preform will never be seen and those that over preform will be seen all the time because it's safe.

People were complaining "remove ___" way before that happened, and they do it for anything, because they're whiners. On official forums there was more support for removing the M-45 than there was for buffing it, disgusting. That said, I have yet to see anyone ask for the Firefly to be removed?

It wasnt the firefly people wanted removed. It was the tulip upgrade. Either removal or a nerf so that it would basically be worthless along with a rof buff to basically turn the thing into a slower Jackson.


As op mentioned. Relic's nerfs always affect a units effectiveness in its intended role as opposed to accentuating its flaws/ weakness.

This leads to us having once useful units becoming garbage in their role.

T34 ram nerf and fuel increase. Maxim setup time nerf. 120 mm mortars accuracy nerfs. Ml20 damage nerf. Panzerwerfer rocket nerf. aa ht accuracy nerf.us non doc Sherman accuracy nerf. Greyhound canister nerf.... i could go on.

You are right ofc, homogenisation is something that happens to the game from very beginning (3 into 4 men ost team weapons, killing all soviets and ost vet bonuses and so on) due to unsatisfied community members being more vocal than satisfied ones. And relic always listens to the crowd...

You are right ofc, homogenisation is something that happens to the game from very beginning (3 into 4 men ost team weapons, killing all soviets and ost vet bonuses and so on) due to unsatisfied community members being more vocal than satisfied ones. And relic always listens to the crowd...

Sure, I'm very aware that homogenization is happening. I want to make people more aware that their calls for buffs/nerfs perpetuate that. Like I said before, it's probably because buffing/nerfing the direct role of the unit is the easiest way to "balance" out a unit, so it does become the most popular idea. But it might not be the smartest.