Homogenization

I completely agree with you

Relic balances around what people whine about the most. Most people don't really care about seeing the side effects of the changes, they just want something OP to get nerfed. Then something else becomes OP and then nerf it, but oh wait this unit sucks, let's buff it andddddd now it's OP.

Nothing is allowed to be good at something, because suddenly x unit is supposed to do the same role as unit y but it's not as good at z so that means that both units should be equally good at z.

Just look at the ISG threads, yes the unit is bullpudding but every single suggestion is removing the suppression completely, in addition to other nerfs. Oh but they only got so OP because of a suppression addition? Remove it completely and nerf it too so it becomes even worse than it was before the buff. Let's ignore that OKW has nothing to supress it besides kubel, or that USF lacks unit variety.

We need nerfs and we need them now.

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.

Just wanted to show that I'm very happy somebody else also sees it and started the discussion about it. It is something I'm trying to tell people for more than a year now still I always hear that the game is in much better state than it was at the release. It is ofc ballance wise and overall but the depth of first release version, or even the beta is sth I'm still longing for...

Its not necessary bad thing, all comes down to how things done.

For example, in latest patch Relic buffed allied infantry to ease allied bleed in late game, and predictably axis late game suffered greatly, coz now allied infantry is better in early, mid and late game. This kind of one-sided buffs are bad.

But then how disgustingly op were obers before their nerfs was arguably even worse.

They should find middle ground. Different factions should have some advantage one over another in different stages of game, but this advantage should not be overwhelming.

As for ff, and other specific units, they should just ignore those cries. FF is not tank fighter, it is a tank burster. If brits want to fight tanks they have their superb AT guns. Anyone who cries over ff just using it wrong, it excellent unit for it niche.

p.s. Soviet tiering tech change were stupid. If you dont like old sov tier choices, ffs, just play wehr.

I completely agree with the OP. It's really annoying to see people making direct balance comparisons like "P4 stronger than Sherman->unfair" without taking the context into account. To me it feels like the factions are more and more becoming the same. An example for this would be people asking for more T0 units for USF like MGs and Mortars. The Rifle only early game is what makes them unique imo and has its very own pros and cons. (no variety early on and easy to predict but more mobile than the other factions early game and slightly more overall fighting power)

Just wanted to show that I'm very happy somebody else also sees it and started the discussion about it. It is something I'm trying to tell people for more than a year now still I always hear that the game is in much better state than it was at the release. It is ofc ballance wise and overall but the depth of first release version, or even the beta is sth I'm still longing for...

Thanks! Haha, I just sincerely hope a Relic employee might see this thread and acknowledge it. I know they read the forums. As long as they acknowledge that their playerbase might want an alternate to buff/nerfs, then that's good for me

More the factions are, harder to maintaim a good balance.

Before:
- Give Soviet possibility to build all of their tier buildings! Having only half of your stock unit options is boring!
- Give OKW anti-garrison tool in early game!

After:
- The game becoming too homogenized!

Next step:
- Rifleman is the only unit available to USF in early game! This is boring! Give USF mortar and jeep in T0!

Before:
- Give Soviet possibility to build all of their tier buildings! Having only half of your stock unit options is boring!
- Give OKW anti-garrison tool in early game!

After:
- The game becoming too homogenized!

Next step:
- Rifleman is the only unit available to USF in early game! This is boring! Give USF mortar and jeep in T0!

Hello, my post is more about individual unit balance than overall faction balance. I feel like overall, every faction should have tools needed for any situation, in varying effectiveness. Thanks.

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.

whats the point of having 4 t34-76s if you cant fight infantry or tanks??

i used the unit alot even before the tech changes and i believe that the current t34-76 is just a kamikaze stun tank and nothing more,it doesnt fight infantry well and cant handle tanks.

why should i spent 300mp and 80 fuel on a unit that will stun itself and damage its gun in order to stun for a little bit the enemy tank? mines and guards do it better and more reliably and cheaper

so again its only use is to fight what eever it faces which in turn sucks at doing so(unlike the sherman)

and here is GOOD asymmetrical balance

USF Paratroopers vs UKF commandos vs OKW fallschirmjager

these units are a good example of asymmetrical balance

but the Panzer 4 vs Sherman vs T34-76 vs Cromwell

the only unit here that doesnt have a unique aspect in the above example is the t34-76,and if you tell me"spamming it" is its unique aspect then i must guide you to the conscript example

conscripts unlike t34-76s come early,this is the only difference between those 2 units

whats the point of having 4 t34-76s if you cant fight infantry or tanks??

i used the unit alot even before the tech changes and i believe that the current t34-76 is just a kamikaze stun tank and nothing more,it doesnt fight infantry well and cant handle tanks.

why should i spent 300mp and 80 fuel on a unit that will stun itself and damage its gun in order to stun for a little bit the enemy tank? mines and guards do it better and more reliably and cheaper

so again its only use is to fight what eever it faces which in turn sucks at doing so(unlike the sherman)

and here is GOOD asymmetrical balance

USF Paratroopers vs UKF commandos vs OKW fallschirmjager

these units are a good example of asymmetrical balance

but the Panzer 4 vs Sherman vs T34-76 vs Cromwell

the only unit here that doesnt have a unique aspect in the above example is the t34-76,and if you tell me"spamming it" is its unique aspect then i must guide you to the conscript example

conscripts unlike t34-76s come early,this is the only difference between those 2 units

I suggest get back t34/76 to t3 and make it more reliable AI unit and please give us KV1 on t4 as none doctrinal unit

Actually they should nerfed churchill crocodile like it fires flame like hulled mg of tank and tank does not move if you order it to attack it only attack with it main gun so you need a micro to use it agains moving infantry , not nerfing its armor

I wish they had varied faction design a little more. In vCoH each faction had a unique veterancy system, in CoH2 only the OKW are different.

In any competitive game people will sadly end towards homogenization because there is no game more balanced (and more boring) than a perfect mirror match. Due to setting limitations, CoH2 can't be Starcraft (though if you squint Shocks are pretty much reskinned Protoss Zealots and Osttruppen are Zerglings ) but the difference in materiel available to different factions, as well as difference in teching, is enough to produce unique experiences with each faction.

Homogenization has been around for a long time in coh2. Remember when IS2 had 11 second reload but its shell hit like a truck? Remember when they changed Blizkrieg so they also added munitions cost for Soviet light vehicles Overdrive (because otherwise it would be unfair, right? I mean, hordes of overdriving halftracks would totally wreck Ostheer, right?) ? Remember when a 152mm howitzer hit much harder than a 105 mm howitzer? Remember when t34/76 cost 40 fuel (me neither, I wasn't in the alpha that early)?

Relic has a track record of doing great divergent design, and then the balance team steps in and homogenizes the game because turns out Sturmtiger launching nukes, Churchill having 3000000 HP, Obers having 10x the DPS of other squads etc. kiiiinda slightly remove any intelligent counterplay and competitive aspirations the game might have.

Sometimes, as is the case with 34/76, this removes the core design intention of the unit. You can see the remains of this ingame. When Axis tanks spot a T34/76 the commander will sometimes say "keep your eyes out, they always travel in packs" or something like that. Such units, once changed, are often marginalized and are impossible to balance properly.

Another thing that leads to direct comparisons is people (and Relic balance team ) often fall into the trap of looking at units in isolation, instead of their position in the tech tree and the faction they play. This leads to comparisons between units and a feeling of unfairness. Who wouldn't like to have a vehicle crew pop out of their Panther and instantly remove engine damage? Well, okay, but to be fair, the US faction doesn't have Panthers and Tigers, that Sherman with superglue is the heaviest thing they get to field, so they really do need that leg up.

Players often neglect the "to be fair" part of the argument and focus directly on the weak points of their preferred unit.

I definitely agree.

Just look at how everyone has pretty much the same mines now. Most unique stuff is cordoned off to doctrines. (Riegal mines for example) Even Americans have the classic 30 muni mine now with doctrines.

Just look at how similar weapons like brens, lmg's, bars etc are. Stat monkies may argue, but in terms of gameplay and they all feel the same. (And cost the same amount too) It's one of the reasons I really like PIATs since they are cheaper but also require a bit more micro to use effectively. (But people want to turn them into reskinned bazookas.)


In Dawn of War 2 I think Relic did a much better job of this. For example, 5/6 factions have suppression teams. But each one is unique. Space marines can get targeters that massively increase damage but temporarily lose suppression, imperial guard can get a sergeant that prevents the gun from being knocked down or suppressed, havocs suppress much quicker than other teams but take slightly longer to setup, lootas have cloaking and a wider arc of fire, shuriken platforms can't have the gunner killer and have a higher rate of fire and movement speed. And then there's a whole other whack of unique upgrades that change those weapons in the mid game that are just as distinct.


Meanwhile in CoH2, maxim's and mg42's were very distinct. .50 cal, vickers and mg34 not so much. I'm fairly certain the .50 cal is just a copy paste of the maxim and the vickers is a copy paste of the mg34 which is just a shittier mg42 but I don't really bother looking up stats so maybe someone can correct me there.

The one thing they've got right imo is infantry balance. The basic infantry unit for each faction feels very unique to the faction. The only ones that blur together a bit are volksgrenadiers and grenadiers. (But then their abilities and upgrades distinguish them.)