Allied 1v1 Dominace

For those saying I want homogenization, that's not what I want. SC2 has well distinguished races that are also well balanced at each phase of the game.

I don't want grens and rifles to have the same stats in different uniforms, I just want grens to be able to keep up with rifles early game in some way just like I want USF armor to keep up with Tigers and Panthers late game. You don't have to copy and paste units to do this. But creating factions with a more equal balance of power at each game stage should help balance all game modes.

I would also like to reiterate that balance should come from the top down but the game needs to be fun for everyone which is where you look at the middle and out. Top players care about winning more than fun, but other players need the game to be fun. I believe we can have both.

I don't want grens and rifles to have the same stats in different uniforms, I just want grens to be able to keep up with rifles early game in some way

That is the problem on faction design level, which will not be able to be fixed without overpowering grens. Or...?

USF have just RETs and rifles, they have locked up support weapons, which means they can't rely on them, they are forced to use basic infantry and nothing more, because they have nothing else.

Wehr on the other hand have access to various support units from the get go, plus these support units are most cost effective out of all other armies.

Grens simply can't keep up with rifles on the army design level for the sole reason of amount of tools they have at their disposal at this early stage of the game.

It boils down to field presence and I actually believe that this issue could be fixed by NOT giving USF squads for teching and instead leaving them as optional purchase, just like you have to re buy them after they get wiped.

As a result, matchup of USF vs OKW would be grossly imbalanced towards OKW, which again could be counterbalanced by stripping shreck/nade package as well as free truck side benefits(medics, rep pios, aa gun) to the tech and locking them behind side costs.

This way OKW wouldn't be as overpowering against brits, who would have more room in the early game, nothing would change vs soviets(except for the side costs for OKW, which would slow them down a bit if they wanted to get everything, not much to do vs sov T2 and cons can't pull it vs volks anymore), except OKW would now need to choose if they want early shrecks or early luchs, USF would have lessened field presence in early game while closing the army cost gap for early and mid game vs ost.

There, everyone is happy.

just like I want USF armor to keep up with Tigers and Panthers late game. You don't have to copy and paste units to do this. But creating factions with a more equal balance of power at each game stage should help balance all game modes.

This part we have pretty covered as well, zookas or USF AT guns alone aren't most effective things, but combined with themselves as well as with jackson support, USF have means to fight all armor except KT and JT.

"If you balance the game from the top down, the rest will inherently be balanced because any perceived imbalances at lower levels are, almost always, rooted in a lack of some form of skill. Not trying to offend anyone, but that is just the way it is. "

Right... So as a casual gamer I should just go and play bubble witch craft saga instead? Guess I made a mistake by buying a Relic game. Silly me!

Just out of interest are there stats for all games played rather than merely those between self appointed experts or those who spend their entire lives playing? I really don't care a hoot whether the someone with a weird name can use his l447 micro skillz to win with nothing but Bren carriers.

Someone made an interesting point earlier, namely that in terms of low actions per minute the Nazis were much easier to play. Now I have no idea whether this is true or not as I only own UKF - and frankly am unlikely to buy anything else just to compete. If the top players can't win with the Brits then should I consider my hard earned money to be well spent?

What I want to see, and as I'm probably ranked about 10,000th I suspect I am speaking for the masses, is a game that is playable at all levels.

I don't mean to offend anyone but with three kids and a mortgage to pay I'm looking for some immersion and fun, not whining condescension from people who seriously consider skill in a computer game to be a valuable commodity! I mean, really? Are you sure?

Sure I've seen there are tournaments but the prizes seem to be a few Euros so it doesn't seem as though l447 skillz pays very much. Why then is cohcharts only listing the top 250... Or 150 as it appears now?

Yes I am a noob. No I won't learn to play, frankly I have more important things to worry about than whether clicking A, left mouse button, Ctrl C whilst balancing on one leg with a Chicken in a pentagram - but only on specific maps if OKW has a 3 nazi wank sock opening works. Lets just assume I tried flanking with smoke ( hint: I didn't, too many fucking buttons to press).

Ciez is right you need to balance the game from the top. There isn't a specific line to draw where players are allowed or not to have input but I think the input from the best of the best will be more trustworthy than the rest. I'm going to be honest and say I haven't played the december patch at all but since they haven't changed the design of the USF faction or soviets Im still going to take a guess that in the case of USF its still the same pattern, allied factions in CoH2 have an easier time being agressive due to the fact that their "normal" infantry are better earlier on, while german factions usually have the better support units that entails a more safe gameplay. With that said that doesn't mean thats the issue at hand, I don't think that is what makes allies stronger in a 1v1 scenario since as for me personally I can ostheer as agressive as I play with USF. Im going to be specific here and talk about the USF vs Ostheer match up which I think is perfect to address this, USF has access to earlier tech which means you will often see the captain way before ostheers T3, this tech that USF has is however weaker than the opponent counterpart. What this means is that you will see a stronger showing of the USF faction right off the bat but as the game goes on they start getting outscaled in every sense,which means that in hands of good players these advantages will often snowball to levels where the other player cant comeback. In fact as ostheer I usually do double sniper against USF because I know that will drain my opponent out and let me get to the long run or late game plus since USF is flawly designed, they hardly can get to the sniper without suiciding a unit (usually the m20). I dont know how many players here played CoH1 but the US vs Wehrmacht match up was in my opinion one of the most perfectly done things balance and design wise, both factions had access to units that made them be able to agressive but Wehrmacht still had more support units right at the start (MG,sniper,motorcycle) while US had the riflemen and jeep at their barracks, what that means is WM was more about combined arms to survive the early game and later on to the game that role passed on to US since they needed pretty much a bit of everything to survive the later stages. Now coming back to CoH2 USF has no healthy way gameplay wise to do well in the lategame, you have these 2 commanders that have the pershing and calliope and thats pretty much if for your late game, and I hate when you have to rely on a thing that isnt implemented on the faction itself to actually do well on a stage of the game. The USF at guns are lackluster, there is no sniper available for USF so you have to rely on RNG artillery or get a good flank on the sniper which is only possible usually usually more in the early to mid game.

So to briefly put this:
-Game should be balanced from the top players
-Many factions are flawed in design (usually to cover up something that is missing another thing is buffed which may be or not be stronger for certain skill levels of players) which means that win rates between the different tiers of players are very different
-The fact that in CoH1 WM and US were well designed and balanced at a 1v1 level, meant that in all other modes (2v2,3v3,4v4) there were all the available tools to the players to survive each stage while creating dynamic gameplay around the strengths of the factions on these stages of the games.

That is my opinion so dont take it as facts.

For those saying I want homogenization, that's not what I want. SC2 has well distinguished races that are also well balanced at each phase of the game.

I don't want grens and rifles to have the same stats in different uniforms, I just want grens to be able to keep up with rifles early game in some way just like I want USF armor to keep up with Tigers and Panthers late game. You don't have to copy and paste units to do this. But creating factions with a more equal balance of power at each game stage should help balance all game modes.

I would also like to reiterate that balance should come from the top down but the game needs to be fun for everyone which is where you look at the middle and out. Top players care about winning more than fun, but other players need the game to be fun. I believe we can have both.

But then also USA need to have some mortar and AT gun in tier one , because if grens will be theoretically as strong as riflemen and will have mg support then ostheer will be better. Not talking about snipers

So to briefly put this:
-Game should be balanced from the top players
-Many factions are flawed in design (usually to cover up something that is missing another thing is buffed which may be or not be stronger for certain skill levels of players) which means that win rates between the different tiers of players are very different
-The fact that in CoH1 WM and US were well designed and balanced at a 1v1 level, meant that in all other modes (2v2,3v3,4v4) there were all the available tools to the players to survive each stage while creating dynamic gameplay around the strengths of the factions on these stages of the games.

That is my opinion so dont take it as facts.

Flawed factions are per design to create unique flavors (stupid idea imho). Now since they change so drastically OKW, we may expect something done with the USF as well. Removing free lieut/capt is an option.

"If you balance the game from the top down, the rest will inherently be balanced because any perceived imbalances at lower levels are, almost always, rooted in a lack of some form of skill. Not trying to offend anyone, but that is just the way it is. "

Right... So as a casual gamer I should just go and play bubble witch craft saga instead? Guess I made a mistake by buying a Relic game. Silly me!

Just out of interest are there stats for all games played rather than merely those between self appointed experts or those who spend their entire lives playing? I really don't care a hoot whether the someone with a weird name can use his l447 micro skillz to win with nothing but Bren carriers.

Someone made an interesting point earlier, namely that in terms of low actions per minute the Nazis were much easier to play. Now I have no idea whether this is true or not as I only own UKF - and frankly am unlikely to buy anything else just to compete. If the top players can't win with the Brits then should I consider my hard earned money to be well spent?

What I want to see, and as I'm probably ranked about 10,000th I suspect I am speaking for the masses, is a game that is playable at all levels.

I don't mean to offend anyone but with three kids and a mortgage to pay I'm looking for some immersion and fun, not whining condescension from people who seriously consider skill in a computer game to be a valuable commodity! I mean, really? Are you sure?

Sure I've seen there are tournaments but the prizes seem to be a few Euros so it doesn't seem as though l447 skillz pays very much. Why then is cohcharts only listing the top 250... Or 150 as it appears now?

Yes I am a noob. No I won't learn to play, frankly I have more important things to worry about than whether clicking A, left mouse button, Ctrl C whilst balancing on one leg with a Chicken in a pentagram - but only on specific maps if OKW has a 3 nazi wank sock opening works. Lets just assume I tried flanking with smoke ( hint: I didn't, too many fucking buttons to press).

I think you might like COH1. it is more crowded during european evenings and on weekends, but the community is still pretty active. The feeling of immersion is great. The campaign is great. There are stages through out in which the balance between the factions switches as your skills progress. And there are more tactical choices than just out-apm'ing your opponent. And it is cheap, as low as $2.99 on sale I think.

"I think you might like COH1."

Mate of mine told me to avoid COH1 like a plague because relic nerfed the Brits into the ground. I think he played tournaments, said no-one ever chose Brits even at the highest level, he didn't mention the Soviets though.

All I want is to come home from work, turn on my computer, and play a game where I can realistically win just as easily no matter what faction I play. I fucking hate all this high level casting tournament bull.
The game is already balanced from the top down. It's just balanced from the top 250 and it's pretty well balanced at that. But that's not good enough for you guys, you want it balanced for a select few tourney players. The truth is that doing that will destroy balance, because you are left with factions that can only be effective in the hands of the absolute pros. The balance wont scale down because the micro skill won't scale down.
At this point we aren't talking about balancing from the top. We are talking about making large changes to pander to a couple a dozen players while disregarding the entire playerbase.

For those saying I want homogenization, that's not what I want. SC2 has well distinguished races that are also well balanced at each phase of the game.

I don't want grens and rifles to have the same stats in different uniforms, I just want grens to be able to keep up with rifles early game in some way just like I want USF armor to keep up with Tigers and Panthers late game. You don't have to copy and paste units to do this. But creating factions with a more equal balance of power at each game stage should help balance all game modes.

I would also like to reiterate that balance should come from the top down but the game needs to be fun for everyone which is where you look at the middle and out. Top players care about winning more than fun, but other players need the game to be fun. I believe we can have both.

If grens become as good as rifles, USF winrates will drop like a sack of hot potatos. You can't just remove the US's only advantage and think they will still be able to stay in the game when ostheer can do better at everything else. USF can simply has more options to invest into the early game and general infantry then whermacht.

The problem isn't grens but the vehicles. Whermacht is a vehicle and support weapon based army and rely on their vehicles to support their aggressiveness and contain harrassing infantry. The problem is in those early phases their light vehicle game sucks, when it should honestly be better then USF. Buff the 222 and whermacht will actually be able to be aggressive within their intended design. Which is better then making them as good as USF at the only thing they can really can do which will lead to disaster.

"I think you might like COH1."

Mate of mine told me to avoid COH1 like a plague because relic nerfed the Brits into the ground. I think he played tournaments, said no-one ever chose Brits even at the highest level, he didn't mention the Soviets though.

Don't avoid like the plague. Still one of the most engaging and fun games there is.

A lot would still claim the Brits are overpowered in team games (has to do with the way they are designed and the synergies). And some avoid it for different reasons. In 1v1 they are probably UP (lots of cheesy strats that will defeat all but the very best Brit players) and many sort of look down on the faction or just dislike it. (Same can be said for the Panzer Elite.) Brits take a lot of knowledge to play but they can have effective blobs so they are sometimes looked down on as low skill.

Later tourneys I think avoided the expansion factions completely (Brit and PE).

Lots of youtubes to learn, still some good streamers online.

No Soviets in COH1, only US, Wehrmacht, British and Panzer Elite. The basic game will give you the first two of those factions but that should keep you busy for a while. You only need one of the other expansions to get the other two ($4.99 when on sale I think).

"Don't avoid like the plague. Still one of the most engaging and fun games there is."

I'm rather unlikely to give more money to Relic, I'm starting to think at least one of their testers ( devs tend to have higher professional standards) was once gang raped by someone with an English accent without even the courtesy of a reach around or a cup of tea afterwards.

All I want is to come home from work, turn on my computer, and play a game where I can realistically win just as easily no matter what faction I play. I fucking hate all this high level casting tournament bull.
The game is already balanced from the top down. It's just balanced from the top 250 and it's pretty well balanced at that. But that's not good enough for you guys, you want it balanced for a select few tourney players. The truth is that doing that will destroy balance, because you are left with factions that can only be effective in the hands of the absolute pros. The balance wont scale down because the micro skill won't scale down.
At this point we aren't talking about balancing from the top. We are talking about making large changes to pander to a couple a dozen players while disregarding the entire playerbase.





If grens become as good as rifles, USF winrates will drop like a sack of hot potatos. You can't just remove the US's only advantage and think they will still be able to stay in the game when ostheer can do better at everything else. USF can simply has more options to invest into the early game and general infantry then whermacht.

The problem isn't grens but the vehicles. Whermacht is a vehicle and support weapon based army and rely on their vehicles to support their aggressiveness and contain harrassing infantry. The problem is in those early phases their light vehicle game sucks, when it should honestly be better then USF. Buff the 222 and whermacht will actually be able to be aggressive within their intended design. Which is better then making them as good as USF at the only thing they can really can do which will lead to disaster.

Are you seriously suggesting the game can't be balanced by top players because lower level players wont be able to micro as well? I have seen about everything now.

Are you seriously suggesting the game can't be balanced by top players because lower level players wont be able to micro as well? I have seen about everything now.

No just that even top 250 can't micro at the level of top tourney players. And forming balance around expecting them to be able to will lead to a disaster of balance.

It might surprise you to learn that 99% of players just aren't anywhere as good as you are. And can't do the things that you do.

"Are you seriously suggesting the game can't be balanced by top players because lower level players wont be able to micro as well? I have seen about everything now."

I get what he is saying...

Hell there are all sorts of Brit abilities which I've tried once and found wanting, a good player might be able to make them work rather well in particular situations.

So at the top level it might be roughly balanced, but frankly hunting through forums to find non existant hints and tips or strategies / build orders in order to hopefully 'enjoy' your game a bit... Isn't fun.

So there might be excellent counters to heavier armoured tanks if you press Ctrl right shift ` whilst microing three snipers. Personally I'd rather have the armour.

No just that even top 250 can't micro at the level of top tourney players. And forming balance around expecting them to be able to will lead to a disaster of balance.

It might surprise you to learn that 99% of players just aren't anywhere as good as you are. And can't do the things that you do.

It might surprise you that top players are there because of their game knowledge rather than micro, it's actually quite funny that micro is such a heavy topic when in CoH2 it hardly matters past a certain point (which isnt hard to reach btw).

Are you seriously suggesting the game can't be balanced by top players because lower level players wont be able to micro as well? I have seen about everything now.

No, i think the suggestion is in cases where perhaps two factions are "balanced" but one requires more micro (think US crew repairs to make up for the fragility of their tanks, or having to click on the ambulance heal instead of a passive heal). If 40 APM will be able to handle one faction and 50 or 60 will make handle the other, then for someone with 70-80 apm all the factions are an L2P issue.

For someone with 30 apm vs someone else with 30 apm, those factions are imbalanced even assuming perfect game knowledge on both sides. One will be able to get more out of their faction than the other one would out of his/hers. This gets exacerbated by the asymmetrical-over-time balance (which you were complaining about). More mistakes on both sides also means the games will last longer as each side makes mistakes, but longer games in COH2 are much worse for Allies than they were in COH1. (Not least because you get to "late game" faster but have the same VP system.)

So "balance" does mean something different at different levels of skill, not just different levels of game knowledge. COH1 (in its later stages) didn't have this. At almost every stage of the game US vs Wehr was a L2P issue, not one of assymetric faction design.

It might surprise you that top players are there because of their game knowledge rather than micro, it's actually quite funny that micro is such a heavy topic when in CoH2 it hardly matters past a certain point (which isnt hard to reach btw).

I've been playing this game since beta. I know it's workings inside and out. But I have only decent micro control, and will most likely never break top 100 no matter how much I try.

Micro is extremely important in this game. Being able to control multiple engagements, react to every grenade, dodge call-ins, and generally giving more orders faster will generally get you further in this game then knowing what units to build and when.

Game knowledge definitely plays a part, but micro is king in this game.

No, i think the suggestion is in cases where perhaps two factions are "balanced" but one requires more micro (think US crew repairs to make up for the fragility of their tanks, or having to click on the ambulance heal instead of a passive heal). If 40 APM will be able to handle one faction and 50 or 60 will make handle the other, then for someone with 70-80 apm all the factions are an L2P issue.

For someone with 30 apm vs someone else with 30 apm, those factions are imbalanced even assuming perfect game knowledge on both sides. One will be able to get more out of their faction than the other one would out of his/hers. This gets exacerbated by the asymmetrical-over-time balance (which you were complaining about). More mistakes on both sides also means the games will last longer as each side makes mistakes, but longer games in COH2 are much worse for Allies than they were in COH1. (Not least because you get to "late game" faster but have the same VP system.)

So "balance" does mean something different at different levels of skill, not just different levels of game knowledge. COH1 (in its later stages) didn't have this. At almost every stage of the game US vs Wehr was a L2P issue, not one of assymetric faction design.

Those are subtle mechanics that should be there (at least in my opinion) to distinguish good players from great players, there were actually a lot of those in vCoH, the first example that comes to mind is the motorcycle micro that you needed to make the MG Bike combo work, you needed a lot of control for that kinda like the one you need to do that fast repair on the tanks. That, however, does not mean that if you balanced the game from the top players that it would mean you had to micro more to make a faction work, those are little things envolving the outcome of the game. Assuming the factions are well balanced AND designed, design being key, means that each factions has its little "secrets" and perks that only top players will make most use of by being faster but that does not mean that the faction as a whole will be unplayable for players with less micro. Again ill refer back to US vs WM on vCoH since I believe it was done to near perfection, US was a faction that needed most micro to make it work at a top level that doesnt mean that at a lower level of play the faction was better or worse because you still had the things you needed and those easier to use units or whatever you might call them, just that as a player gets more efficient playing a faction they can diverse from that type of play and make more use or better use of riflemen for example (big part of US gameplay both in Coh1 and Coh2, that requires a lot of micro to perform well).

EDIT: I also would like do distinguish "normal micro" from "smart micro" , which is why I believe game knowledge is heavily into how efficient you can do things in coh2, if I know more or less when a unit is going to throw a grenade, I know the timing to look back at the unit when I need to to ensure that it didnt get grenaded, that is in my opinion smart micro, while I guess people must think that a player is so fast that is always watching if the guy is going to throw the grenade. There are A LOT of these examples, im able to do so much in a game so quickly because I have the game knowledge to back up my micro so I dont do unnecessary clicks or keep my focus on the unit that is right while not losing the others to small little details.

It might surprise you that top players are there because of their game knowledge rather than micro, it's actually quite funny that micro is such a heavy topic when in CoH2 it hardly matters past a certain point (which isnt hard to reach btw).

I don't know what is possible for the rest of humanity. I do know that COH2 feels like it needs more APM and less strategic thinking than COH1 and top levels of COH1 are beyond my abilities.

But part of the point is I am not sure if those at the top are in the best place to judge what is and isn't possible or balanced at lower skill levels. The fact is there are people who know the game well, often really well, but some factions are harder against others even at supposedly equal levels. No one enjoys getting stomped.

(Ok, mostly no one. I have seen players play 1000s of games even while having only 20% win rates.)