Why some historical resemblance matters

Bravo on strawmanning a strawman o.O

If they improved t34-76 to be like a P4, it would solve the Russian problem in a fell swoop.

I never wanted a simulator from Relic, Men of War does that, what I wanted was a fun WWII RTS from them and it's hard to have fun when so many things go the opposite way of what they were like in real life.

COH is not a realistic game, but its charme is that it represents battle scenarios through gameplay mechanics, you simulate territory control through capture points, supply lines by cutting off said capture points and so on, the same should happen for units, they shouldn't be exactly as they were in real life, but they should attempt to follow those lines, when you have the Pershing, a better armoured tank than a tiger and panther while being slower, be FASTER and LESS armoured that breaks my immersion, same for the weapon calibers being all over the place, su-76 and su-85 as mentioned above, t4 flaks penetrating shermans, 20mm scout car doing nothing to but PII and Centaur 20mm shredding.

There's balance, and then there's common sense.

Then we could get rid of ridiculous things like34/76 having worse armor/hp than PIV ausf G despite being better armored with its famous 60° front armor slope.

Just a sidenote: The hull armor of the Panzer IV G/H/J was 80mm thick and German crews were instructed to angle their armor, making it pretty much as effective as the T-34s armor.

Also the T-34/76 lacked in other categories that are much more important (cupola, gun, radios, commander and gunner being the same person, no turret base, vision slits etc.). So a Panzer IV outperforming a T-34 is perfectly fine.

What I find ridiculous is the randomness of stats and abilities like weapon damage, range or blitzkrieg. This is of course owed to balance, but Panthers getting out-ranged by other anti tank units still looks silly. The same as the Jackson doing more damage than an IS-2. I wished this was somehow influenced by realism. The same goes for Nascar Panzers.

So a late Panzer IV outperforming a early T-34 is perfectly fine.

Fix for you

Balance > Historical accutary.

If we want historical accutary Shermans should cost 40 fuel and 100mp, meanwhile Tiger I costs 400 fuel and 1000 mp and would break every 10 minutes

I'm still a proponent of the Early/Mid War and the Late War factions.

I.e., Coh2 launches with 1942/43 German and Soviet factions and the time period factions can't play against each other.

Each faction would have a similar basic structure, but some weapons and tanks would be different. There could be similar commanders as well, but also completely different ones.


This would've let coh2 expand on the Eastern Front (with a Finnish or a Finnish/German faction) and conceivably cover each area in Europe; N. Africa, Italy, 1944/45 France/Belgium/Netherlands/Germany.

also more $$$$$ for them. This would make balance more complicated, though.

I'm still a proponent of the Early/Mid War and the Late War factions.

I.e., Coh2 launches with 1942/43 German and Soviet factions and the time period factions can't play against each other.

Each faction would have a similar basic structure, but some weapons and tanks would be different. There could be similar commanders as well, but also completely different ones.


This would've let coh2 expand on the Eastern Front (with a Finnish or a Finnish/German faction) and conceivably cover each area in Europe; N. Africa, Italy, 1944/45 France/Belgium/Netherlands/Germany.

also more $$$$$ for them. This would make balance more complicated, though.

Ewwww, short barreled Panzer III/IV´s, even a KV-1 would rape them

I see lots of people make points and counter points about something not being historically accurate and then a reply that this game can't be historically accurate as it is an RTS not a comp sim war game. This is true, but it's no excuse to not use historical parameters to help dial in theme and asymmetric balance. What I am trying to say is sometimes doing things that aren't just not historical but actually completely 100% anti-historical is nonsense and should not be defended with "well we have to forsake accuracy for balance". Rather than just stabbing in the dark with unit values and then tuning they should try to get all their comparative data right not in absolute terms but in relative terms among other common units. Then we could get rid of ridiculous things like an SU-76 being same penetration as SU-85 and 34/76 having worse armor/hp than PIV ausf G despite being better armored with its famous 60° front armor slope.

This all happens because it seems like Relic just makes educated guesses at where values should be and makes the decisions almost in a vacuum then they start tweaking and tweaking and tweaking each unit without referencing it to its peers to get the game play not be game breaking based upon feedback. As they keep tweaking, you get to points where many weapon/unit comparisons don't make any logical sense. They should use weapons data from field tests to determine comparative accuracy and penetration between all armor and their guns then tweak cost and mobility/special abilities to get them into the right spot for their respective faction.

I couldn't agree more with this, I think historical accuracy would create a much better balanced game, as in reality Tanks were developed in response to enemy tanks, so in a way reality was always attempting to achieve parity or dominance, infantry combat is fine and more flexible, as in a game people cant dive into cover or hide behind a dead comrade etc, reality is not literal its merely a starting point from which you can finely adjust

Just a sidenote: The hull armor of the Panzer IV G/H/J was 80mm thick and German crews were instructed to angle their armor, making it pretty much as effective as the T-34s armor.

Also the T-34/76 lacked in other categories that are much more important (cupola, gun, radios, commander and gunner being the same person, no turret base, vision slits etc.). So a Panzer IV outperforming a T-34 is perfectly fine.

What I find ridiculous is the randomness of stats and abilities like weapon damage, range or blitzkrieg. This is of course owed to balance, but Panthers getting out-ranged by other anti tank units still looks silly. The same as the Jackson doing more damage than an IS-2. I wished this was somehow influenced by realism. The same goes for Nascar Panzers.

the Panther was produced in response to the T34, although the PIV reached some parity with the T34/76, that was absolutely its highest watermark, both tanks could penetrate each other with a single shot and both had on par optics so armour and gun differences don't matter, it comes down to mobility, reliability, chance of deflection and turret speed, all of which the T34 wins on, I'm ignoring training, crew ability and communication because these are situational and to much of a variable, purely talking about the tank itself

If they improved t34-76 to be like a P4, it would solve the Russian problem in a fell swoop.

yes it would, they could even out the cost as well

the Panther was produced in response to the T34, although the PIV reached some parity with the T34/76, that was absolutely its highest watermark, both tanks could penetrate each other with a single shot and both had on par optics so armour and gun differences don't matter, it comes down to mobility, reliability, chance of deflection and turret speed, all of which the T34 wins on, I'm ignoring training, crew ability and communication because these are situational and to much of a variable, purely talking about the tank itself

Since the introduction of the panzer IV F2 version the T-34/76 was pretty much outclassed. Simply because of the engagement range.

This gap was only closed with the introduction of the T-34/85. If you are saying that the T-34/76 and Panzer IV long barreled versions were on par, I have to strongly disagree. Biggest flaw of the T-34/76 being an overwhelmed commander, also fulfilling the task of the gunner.

Since the introduction of the panzer IV F2 version the T-34/76 was pretty much outclassed. Simply because of the engagement range.

This gap was only closed with the introduction of the T-34/85. If you are saying that the T-34/76 and Panzer IV long barreled versions were on par, I have to strongly disagree. Biggest flaw of the T-34/76 being an overwhelmed commander, also fulfilling the task of the gunner.

But it was easy to produce and had great mobility. It's biggest drawback in early versions was cramped quarters and a bad cupola design so you could
Attempt some historical resemblance by making it less accurate and a little slower ROF. Keep better mobility, better armor, cheaper characteristics

+1 OP really good post.

I'm tired of seeing people on this forum argue that its either one way or highway when it comes to historical resemblance - either all of it or none of it, especially the proponents of having no historical resemblance whatsoever.

Stupid shit like a pack of SU-76 frontally penning and killing KTs....

You know, there was a reason why they were developing the SU-100 and used the SU-85 as a stopgap to deal with heavy German armour - because tanks like the SU-76 and T-34/76 couldn't deal with it. Not like whats happening in CoH2. There are ways to make the SU-76 relevant which doesn't involve raising its penn to SU-85 levels.

If there was no historical resemblance whatsoever, theoretically, we could have a single Luchs killing IS-2s frontally because who cares about historical resemblance right?

The fact of the matter is, while developers are allowed some artistic licence, at the end of the day, it is historical resemblance, not balance, that gives the game authenticity when it is being advertised and sold as a World War 2 Strategy game. The key question isn't really "are the numbers accurate to the nearest millimetre" but more like "Is this reasonable? Do I expect unit A to damage unit B or not". And this is where units like the SU-76 and kubels surviving AT hits becomes a problem.

There are many other RTS games out there that gives balance. Not many are like CoH2 though. Not saying that these two are independent of course, we can have balance and historical resemblance, and that needs a bit more work, but it will produce a more satisfying game like VCoH was.

The only thing that bothers me is how much more HP and armor the T34/85 has over the T34/76. It was literally the same tank but with a different turret, the 85mm turret. Likewise it somehow has less range that the SU-85 which has the same turret. It is a little confusing why they even bothered having the 85 a doctorinal unit at all. Considering the tech of the Germans they should have just had T34/85s. But now we have a 76 fighting endwar stuff. Check out these production numbers:
35,120 T-34/76
48,950 T-34-85
Since there was 13,000 more T34/85s why is it so rare in the game? I'd almost rather see the model for the t-34/76 with the 85 (stats exactly the same as the 34/76 but with a small increase to Pen). Then replace the doctrinal tank with an SU-100 and have it fit the same role. Just something that bugs me, not something I think they should do.



Another thing that bothers me is that the KV-8's turret was actually a 76 turret yet in the game it deals a third of the damage and way less of a rate. It is a mystery. Not that I am saying that the KV-8 should be boosted it is just something that bothers me.

Also why is the Tiger Ace a thing? In WW2 a Tiger Ace was a Tiger with a highly skilled crew. Why in the game does it have like, x2 HP, x2 Armor, and the like? Why does it stop fuel production and Manpower? It is just a Tiger with a cool crew. wat.

Why are there no Panzer IIIs in the game? Those things are cool.

Another thing that bothers me is that the KV-8's turret was actually a 76 turret yet in the game it deals a third of the damage and way less of a rate. It is a mystery. Not that I am saying that the KV-8 should be boosted it is just something that bothers me.

KV-8 had a 45 mm gun not 76 mm.

KV-8 (42) – A KV-1 fitted with the ATO-41 flamethrower in the turret, beside a machine gun. In order to accommodate the new weapon, the 76.2mm gun was replaced with a smaller 45 mm Gun M1932, though it was disguised to look like the standard 76 mm (The cannon was placed inside 76mm tube).

Theres a reason we have history courses. Kappa