Myths 1: "Realism VS Balance"

There seems to be some arguments that I regularly come across them and I find them weak. So instead of having to reply to them repeatedly I though feet to discuss them in a separate thread and try to save all of us some time and space.

Probably in singe thread that someone writes something in the line of:In real life (or historically), this unit did this thing, another person will reply by something like CoH2 is immerse, not realistic or balance trumps realism.

Imo realism or historic accuracy and balance are not conflicting concepts. In addition the closer one can get to realistic behavior or historic accuracy the better because it increases immersion and make the game more realistic.

Does that mean that realism is more important than balance? NO. Imo solutions on balance try to be historical realistic when possible.

In other words the argument that "balance trumps realism" is simply not enough, one would still have to explain why the proposed change upsets balance...

Imo realism or historic accuracy and balance are not conflicting concepts. In addition the closer one can get to realistic behavior or historic accuracy the better because it increases immersion and make the game more realistic.

So we lost, because Hitler was a terrible axis fanboy, had bad teammates and couldn't counter the T-34 spam and USF blob?

So we lost, because Hitler was a terrible axis fanboy, had bad teammates and couldn't counter the T-34 spam and USF blob?

He also let soviets decap Crimea fuel point in late game and completely failed at garrison clearing on Stalingrad, failed to build bonfires and cold tech owned him because he was too fixated on that single VP instead of base rushing when he could finish the game.
Plus, he fast tech'd to KT and JT/ele, wasting ton of resources instead of spamming P4s and stugs.

Well, that was to be expected from someone who stomped unprepared and underdeveloped noobs during three placement matches with rushed armor a-move.

He also let soviets decap Crimea fuel point in late game and completely failed at garrison clearing on Stalingrad, failed to build bonfires and cold tech owned him because he was too fixated on that single VP instead of base rushing when he could finish the game.
Plus, he fast tech'd to KT and JT/ele, wasting ton of resources instead of spamming P4s and stugs.

Well, that was to be expected from someone who stomped unprepared and underdeveloped noobs during three placement matches with rushed armor a-move.

Wow, perfect explanation
But what is more important, he didn't stay close enough to Japan teammates and he tried to capture both flanks at once instead of securing one and then developing the advance trough the center to another flank.

He also let soviets decap Crimea fuel point in late game and completely failed at garrison clearing on Stalingrad, failed to build bonfires and cold tech owned him because he was too fixated on that single VP instead of base rushing when he could finish the game.
Plus, he fast tech'd to KT and JT/ele, wasting ton of resources instead of spamming P4s and stugs.

Well, that was to be expected from someone who stomped unprepared and underdeveloped noobs during three placement matches with rushed armor a-move.

Thats why i love reading your comments, filled with humor and satyre.

Hitler lost cause he didnt Veto Stalingrad, which greatly favor Sov

Hitler lost because 30 min into the game his teammate quit and it became 3v1. Still took another 30 minutes to defeat him tho...

Soviets have managed to adapt to Close the Pocket abuse because they were obviously cheating - their manpower income was way more than Wehrmacht had.

Also germans failed to counter partisan spam as well as sweeping their mines placed on railroads. Hitler probably considered those 30 MU minesweepers as too expensive for him which led to constant supply line breaks and cutoff harassment.

Obvious L2P issues. He should have played all factions.

It comes down to how people define 'realism' and think it should be represented in the game. It's easy to get misled into thinking CoH2 is a historically accurate game because of the good graphics, smooth animations and fluff text in-game. But what CoH2 is really about is immersion or 'soft' realism, i.e. the game feels real and is consistent within the rules set out in its own universe. In that sense the goal is to represent the strengths, weaknesses and operational styles of the factions and units in the game, rather than making sure the effective range of a K98 is mirrored exactly in-game.

So with that in mind players are willing to accept obvious inaccuracies (e.g. soldiers being blind beyond 50m or artillery fire arriving directly on target within seconds) as long as the game remains consistent with its own established rules. However, there comes a point when things are just too silly and obviously unrealistic, which is why things like blobbing and the old panzer blitz had a negative reaction from players.

Those who desire 'hard' realism, i.e. battles should play out similar to how they did historically and the performance of units should match what one could expect in real life. Usually these people only want realism when it suits them, e.g. they cry foul when their panther can't one shot shermans but have no problem with a platoon's worth of infantry charging into battle shoulder-to-shoulder and sweeping all opposition aside. In these cases there is a need to point out how asking for hard realism in one area of the game doesn't make sense given how many unrealistic aspects (sight/firing ranges, unit requisition mechanics etc.) currently exist.

There's also the uncanny valley effect, wherein the more realistic you try to make the game, the more players will notice those aspects of the game which are unrealistic. All the silly and poorly-written fluff text doesn't help either.

So we lost, because Hitler was a terrible axis fanboy, had bad teammates and couldn't counter the T-34 spam and USF blob?

Don't forget tunnel vision, terrible over-confidence and inability to use some of most OP commanders ever properly.

Hitler just fell in the noobtrap of trying to techrush to your super heavy tank after a good opening. Of course the Soviets just countered standard medium armor play and this made Hitler lose too much mapcontrol to get his King Tigers out.

Don't forget tunnel vision, terrible over-confidence and inability to use some of most OP commanders ever properly.

Yup, Hitler definitely was the typical 4v4 axis noob who kept playing that 3v3 when japan wanted to surrender and went AFK after USF used off-map strike on their base and Italians being Italians never tech'd, played with osttruppen level infantry regardless of what opponent used and just started team killing when they've seen its too late, just one went on, being a noob try hard

ok lets make realistic coh2

5 men rifles walk to mg42 fire
BOOM ALL DEAD

OKW has 2% fuel income compared to americans
Shermans cost 15 fuel 50 mp
All americans have a truck to move around
Tanks are oneshotted by anti tank guns
Volksgrens are shitty old granpas and green 16-year old hitlerjugend guys
FG42s cost 2000 muni (there were literally around 1000 of these guns lol)

If you want to play unfun realistic game, play men of war or blitzkrieg mod

He also let soviets decap Crimea fuel point in late game and completely failed at garrison clearing on Stalingrad, failed to build bonfires and cold tech owned him because he was too fixated on that single VP instead of base rushing when he could finish the game.
Plus, he fast tech'd to KT and JT/ele, wasting ton of resources instead of spamming P4s and stugs.

Well, that was to be expected from someone who stomped unprepared and underdeveloped noobs during three placement matches with rushed armor a-move.

He didn't pick the best allies either.

The Italian faction were severely UP and all their stock commanders were terrible-the Rommel dlc commander was the only one worth using.

in the real world war 2, dense infantry(we can call it blob) counter was artilleries.
in coh2, infantry can easily walk away from artillery fire.
coh2 lost both balance and realism on heavy arty balance.

Soviets have managed to adapt to Close the Pocket abuse because they were obviously cheating - their manpower income was way more than Wehrmacht had.

Pfff. They were using the no retreat, no surrender commander. They just cheesed with conscript and T34 spam.

Ontopic: I sense this is mainly referencing the Heavy assault gun vs Fortifications thread. Mechanics should be change in order to improve gameplay, not to only satisfy realism. Abilities n units should require a certain degree of counterplay and give the possibility of reaction.

There seems to be some arguments that I regularly come across them and I find them weak. So instead of having to reply to them repeatedly I though feet to discuss them in a separate thread and try to save all of us some time and space.

Probably in singe thread that someone writes something in the line of:In real life (or historically), this unit did this thing, another person will reply by something like CoH2 is immerse, not realistic or balance trumps realism.

Imo realism or historic accuracy and balance are not conflicting concepts. In addition the closer one can get to realistic behavior or historic accuracy the better because it increases immersion and make the game more realistic.

Does that mean that realism is more important than balance? NO. Imo solutions on balance try to be historical realistic when possible.

In other words the argument that "balance trumps realism" is simply not enough, one would still have to explain why the proposed change upsets balance...

I am currently working under the theory the OP is playing the wrong game, oh and Hitler picked noon teammates which is why he lost .

in the real world war 2, dense infantry(we can call it blob) counter was artilleries.
in coh2, infantry can easily walk away from artillery fire.
coh2 lost both balance and realism on heavy arty balance.

Real life doesn't have a veterancy mechanic to balance.

Or anything to balance, real life just doesn't give a shit in general.

Hitler also failed to rebuild his caches after allied air strikes destroyed them and refused to retreat his best troops.

If you want to play unfun realistic game, play men of war or blitzkrieg mod

Because its so un-fun when you cant blob, cant brainlessly rush, use cover and have to use at least some basic tactic. Tactic is more important then cheesy build and better clicks per-second, totaly un-fun