Changes to 3v3/4vs4 mechanics

Imo these are the mechanics that should change to make 3v3/4vs4 a better game mode in overall:

1. Lower the ressource income in 3v3/4vs4: Owning half oft he map should always result in having the same ressource income no matter the map size or game mode. So points should generate less ressources in bigger game modes. The reason is simple:
- early and mid game is way to short in 3vs3/4vs4 because of higher ressource income leading to a faster tech (+ teching beeing less risky if you have a mate that is covering your tech)
- all CP call-in units come too late in 3vs3/4vs4 because the teched counterparts hit the field minutes before (you can field a KT long before a Tiger, a M10 comes after the Panther has arrived and so on)

2. Make more maps with 5 VPs and maybe 3 fuel/munition points, because it is more fun and more epic to fight in bigger scale at multiple locations. There could be some bigger maps too to give room for the additional points. It would punish sim city playstyle in addition and thats a good thing.

3. Make teching linear with multiple sidetech options for all factions. If you look at brits tech-wise they are very well designed. They have a linear main tech with lots of interesting side techs at each tech level that are slowing down the main tech but are worth affording it depending on the situation. This would help to solve some problems:
- OKW/USF are very hard to balance atm and their unit positioning at their tech levels is a tough one. The problem is their non-linear tech. They already changed soviets in a linear tech for a good reason, why not reworking tech of OKW/USF?
- some units that don’t fit very well in their current tech level could moved to a sidetech. T34/76 could be a sidetech of T3, so it would be a kind of an optional T3,5 like AEC/Bofors or Hammer/Anvil

4. Remove any kind of Forward Retreat Point, without removing healing and reinforcing on the field. This really encourages blobbing in bigger game modes and gives a huge advantage in infantry combat. People should be rewarded to withdraw troops in time. Retreating should always result in going back to your base sector.

5. Integrate all kind of doctrinal call-in vehicles into the techtree like T34/85. There could be a T4,5 Upgrade for the heavy tanks. Setting them to 0 CP would address the problem with late coming call-in units too (see number 1, second aspect).

6. Give all factions non-doctrinal suppression, indirect fire and artillery (or rocket artillery). This is not about making all factions the same, they still would be different enough. It is about giving all factions this important mechanics of the game instead of forcing them to start every game the same way with multiple units of the same type. The units we need are already in the game, just take them from the appropriate commanders and add some new abilities instead. Choosing a commander shouldn’t be an all-in choice but a a tactical decision of useful support units/abilities. Especially when I get this annoying bug from time to time when I get no commander at all to choose from.

Just my thoughts to improve 3vs3/4vs4.

1. no
2. no
3. no
4. yes
5. sure
6. sure

1. Would only make things worse by rendering manpower useless, wipes meaningless and blobs overwhelming. Early and mid game is short only if you are bad, no offense, same goes for call-ins. If you play agressively, you can get them very fast.
2. Wtf? While bigger maps could be better, all maps should be linear 2fuel 2 muni 3vps for balance reasons.
3. No, different factions have different design, if you dont like non-linear teching and design and cant use advanatges of your faction to cover it holes, play other factions which suit you best like wehr. Brits are terrible designed btw, and still, half a year after their release depend on op bs units/commanders to stay in game.
4. No, see above. They can use price increase tho.
5. Whatever, meaningless change.
6. See 3.

1 no.
2 no.
3 no.
4 no.
5 see 2.
6 no.

5. Whatever, meaningless change.

Please explain. Why meaningless? Isn't the timing off vehicle call-ins a very important point? Lets say for example Royal artillery commander would be of any use and people would choose it. While the Valentine isn't very early in 1vs1 already it hits the field in a 4vs4 when it is absolutely redundant because there are multiple medium tanks on the field (+shreks +pak..).

Binding it to a Tier level (even if it is a side upgrade) would be the only way to have the timing the same across all game modes.

1. I don't agree with the logic, but the CP income rate in large games is indeed wonky. Resources are shared, but command XP is not.

2. With 2 fuel points and 3 VPs you already have the potential to create five frontline battlefields. This game doesn't fully realize cut-off points but those are also potentials for engagements. Problem is, this has everything to do with map design, not game mode. Many of the existing 3v3 and 4v4 maps are not really designed or balanced with gameplay in mind, to put it bluntly.

3. The Brits aren't so much well designed as they have access to more tools and options without doctrine choice than other Allied factions. They're like an Allied Ostheer that has the option to be a major dick in team games. But even though the t34/76 is in an awkward place, soviet players are still only going to build T4 for the katyusha. The Soviets already have a strong initiative with their T3. Putting out a tank that is weaker than anything that counters everything in Soviet T3 is still a bad investment. (Also what's the difference between skipping a tier and skipping a side tech, really? Having to retreat an engineer?)

4. Yeah the Forward Retreat Point thing can be kind of annoying, especially when you're the lone Ostheer or Soviet. But at the same time, sometimes it's nice to know your army isn't perpetually about to get bombarded with artillery as they reinforce. Plus, halftracks are neato.

5. I feel like this is leaning into the punch. All this means is players would cheese out doctrinal units as fast as they get the fuel. If there's a problem with KTs coming too quickly the solution isn't to make everything else come out too quickly to match.

6. Everyone has indirect fire, except maybe brits because emplacements make the baby jesus cry, and only OKW lack non-doc suppression. The artillery thing is kind of a mixed bag, but commanders are pretty much a choice between what flavor of artillery or heavy tank you want as it is.

Point is, I don't think any of this would particularly improve 3v3/4v4s, but it does highlight that there may be issue worth addressing with how xp for CPs are handled in team games.

Sooo basically you want a modded game specifically for 3v3 and 4v4 games? Have you tried looking on the workshop?

The inflation of ressources in 4vs4 and 3vs3 need to be fixed

Point 1 (less resources on larger maps)

Definately a valid point. Early mid game is over way too fast due to the above average amount of fuel resources.

This could be simply solved by giving larger maps an inherent global resource modification like -25% or something.

First point seems like a good idea to me. Different teching speeds is the main reason why balancing all game modes has been so difficult so far. Adjusting fuel/mun incomes in larger games is a good thing in my eyes. The option to forego the mid-game in order to rush straight to tanks is still there, it just has more risk and requires a greater degree of teamwork to pull off.

Before I give my opinion on the original 6 points, I propose to add the following to the original list:

7. Restrict aura effects, so that they only benefit the controlling player; not the entire allied team.

This includes:
- All command tanks
- All officers
- All timed aura abilities (e.g., Heroic Charge, On-Me, etc)
- Soviet HQ
- Mark target abilities (e.g., Soviets, Command Panther, Sturmofficer)

The reason is that these abilities are (should be) balanced for 1v1. When you multiply their effect they become OP as hell.

8. Make all recon abilities cost something and have a cooldown period (so that flanking is possible).

The abilities I am thinking of here are:
- UKF Command Vehicle (F R E E R E C O N)
- OST Spotting-scopes Scout Car
- IR Halftrack
- Kubelwagen
- Valentine

(am I forgetting any?)

- - -

Now, regarding the original list:

1. No.

As an experiment, Relic could try adding a map with fewer resource points present. I think we will arrive to the same conclusion as Jadame.

2. Depends.

So far, neither of the 5-VP maps are great to play in.
- That castle at Lorch assault...
- Montargis suffers from terrible resource point placement.

Perhaps that's a fault with the maps rather than the 5-VP system. I would love to see more types of maps added to the map-pool, provided I get enough vetoes.

Also, bigger is not better. Hill 400 is one of the more epic-oriented maps in the map-pool currently. It's wide-enough to facilitate flanking, yet short enough to force FRP-parity on all factions.

3. No.

Not only will this do away with faction flavour. It will also be a nightmare for Relic to retain balanced (assuming they even want to keep a close eye on 4vs4 balance in the first place)

4. Yes, but with reservations.

An alternative would be:
Make retreating to a FRP a separate ability with a long cooldown (in the order of ~1 minute); kind of like retreat-to-captain in CoH1. UI-wise, I've no idea how to implement this.

Currently, the FRP mechanic is a bit unfair, as it gives too much of an advantage to FRP-capable factions on (i) bigger maps and (ii) maps with chokepoints (rinse-and-repeat).

Removing the FRP mechanic from the game might have to come with a compensation to OKW (they lack suppression to lock down territory, and they lack smoke to assault enemy territory -- FlakHQ won't work without FRP). USF major artillery strike could also use a buff.

Regardless, I would really love to see how the game feels without FRP clutter.

5. Yes, but only for light/medium vehicles.

This is something I would love to see done in the 1v1 setting as well (the call-in system works in reverse, as it allows you to get vehicles faster, and without the required tech).

(we don't want heavy vehicles arriving too early in the game before the enemy team can muster a counter)

6. No. However I would rephrase it as follows:

"Give each faction a set of free, non-DLC commanders that are viable and cover said weaknesses"

examples:
USF: Infantry company (for indirect fire), Rifle Company (decent medium tank + flamers -- maybe they could release it for free, now?)
OKW: Luftwaffe support
UKF: Royal Artillery (if it ever gets fixed)

1. Lower the ressource income in 3v3/4vs4: Owning half oft he map should always result in having the same ressource income no matter the map size or game mode. So points should generate less ressources in bigger game modes. The reason is simple:
- early and mid game is way to short in 3vs3/4vs4 because of higher ressource income leading to a faster tech (+ teching beeing less risky if you have a mate that is covering your tech)
- all CP call-in units come too late in 3vs3/4vs4 because the teched counterparts hit the field minutes before (you can field a KT long before a Tiger, a M10 comes after the Panther has arrived and so on)

Probably caused by the patches over time that raised CP costs for call ins. First thing I thought was, as a 4v4 player, this meant non-doctrinal stuff ends up coming earlier. Obviously the change was designed to FORCE you to use non-doctrinal stuff, but then you have things like Churchills and King Tiger. ;/
In any case, a simpler method may be to just reduce the number of territory sectors in larger maps to closer to the number you find in smaller maps, though this presents issues like building/ upgrading in neutral/ enemy sectors. I mean taking an example out of Sittard, removing a total of like four points may considerably alter strategy without presenting spatial issues, though that's largely due to the nature of that map's overall design (divided urban map with river + bridges in middle).

2. Make more maps with 5 VPs and maybe 3 fuel/munition points, because it is more fun and more epic to fight in bigger scale at multiple locations. There could be some bigger maps too to give room for the additional points. It would punish sim city playstyle in addition and that's a good thing.

I do like this idea, but of course liking an idea doesn't automatically make it a good idea. We can start with moddres or most large maps to make sub-variants that replace some resource points with VP points instead. Some maps might be too small or their design doesn't allow for this though, especially if the converted points turns means less resources (which might alleviate Point #1).

3. Make teching linear with multiple sidetech options for all factions. If you look at brits tech-wise they are very well designed. They have a linear main tech with lots of interesting side techs at each tech level that are slowing down the main tech but are worth affording it depending on the situation. This would help to solve some problems:
- OKW/USF are very hard to balance atm and their unit positioning at their tech levels is a tough one. The problem is their non-linear tech. They already changed soviets in a linear tech for a good reason, why not reworking tech of OKW/USF?
- some units that don’t fit very well in their current tech level could moved to a sidetech. T34/76 could be a sidetech of T3, so it would be a kind of an optional T3,5 like AEC/Bofors or Hammer/Anvil

This is a fundamental faction design issue though, and making it exist ONLY for larger maps means you effectively have two very different games, not merely game versions. Given the way UKF works it only really works because of how Relic designs their commanders; you cannot really replicate the same thing into the other factions without having to go back and reexamine, and likely revamp, the commanders too. And it's not an equally large issue between the other factions either- Soviet and Ostheer commanders are abundant but largely shite, whereas WFA factions have tech issues but overall some good commander designs.
Non-linear teching design is good IMO. A bit hard if you have to compose them against factions utilizing (more) linear tech design, but to me the current design isn't terrible, if also definitely not great. If you're to focus on infantry then as OKW you must go Regimental HQ and forego Luchs/ Stuka/ Puma, and vice versa.

4. Remove any kind of Forward Retreat Point, without removing healing and reinforcing on the field. This really encourages blobbing in bigger game modes and gives a huge advantage in infantry combat. People should be rewarded to withdraw troops in time. Retreating should always result in going back to your base sector.

Forward Retreat is a problem simply because certain factions have it and some don't. The ones that don't, don't even have the luxury through a commander unlock and even if they did, it's a rather bad design because it heavily skews the advantage towards other factions in larger maps. It's a different (and IMO a lesser) kind of problem when it's something like General Mud and only Soviets vs. Ostheer, because at least then you got both sides no having that advantage. But of course you have three of the five factions having said ability, and one that's frankly fundamental to usefulness of infantry as time goes by.
As for rewarding troops in time, you still do this regardless of FRPs, the difference is when you have a FRP, you come back earlier. That's it. You don't lose less men nor does that mean you get less manpower, it just means you have infantry presence back sooner than if you were Ostheer. If anything it allows players to be more haphazard and risk losing troops because hey, I can always retreat and come back faster.
If anything this is better addressed if there were map-based FRPs in larger maps, like the rare mechanics or hospital points from maps like Lazur or City 17 Winter. These would be fixed, and used by whoever controls the point, and such points would naturally be contested ferociously. Like your 5VP idea I think this can be tested be selecting certain maps' certain territory points. Would be very popular for Ostheer/ Soviet players, I'd imagine, due to the conditional advantage it brings (you must take it, and make sure the enemy doesn't).

5. Integrate all kind of doctrinal call-in vehicles into the techtree like T34/85. There could be a T4,5 Upgrade for the heavy tanks. Setting them to 0 CP would address the problem with late coming call-in units too (see number 1, second aspect).

I'm not sure how this makes 3v3/ 4v4 better. If anything, setting ALL vehicle call-ins to 0CP would be a better solution, because you'd then have the option of having zero vehicle presence in the game but manage to sport a Tiger early on, only to get your arse whipped because your opponent rushed for tanks and swarmed your single unit.
Either way, an upgrade to access heavy tanks is really just another obstacle to getting doctrinal that pretty much serve the same purpose. If you're winning the game so well that you're floating resources, you're likely fighting a total noob that's gone AFK, or you've fought to the point where you've reached the required CP to access them like you'd normally would, anyways.

6. Give all factions non-doctrinal suppression, indirect fire and artillery (or rocket artillery). This is not about making all factions the same, they still would be different enough. It is about giving all factions this important mechanics of the game instead of forcing them to start every game the same way with multiple units of the same type. The units we need are already in the game, just take them from the appropriate commanders and add some new abilities instead. Choosing a commander shouldn’t be an all-in choice but a a tactical decision of useful support units/abilities. Especially when I get this annoying bug from time to time when I get no commander at all to choose from.

All factions already have non-doctrinal suppression, indirect fire and artillery. They all approach it differently sure, but they all have them. OKW has shittiest of the suppression side all because there is no HMG to train, but that's really just a problem of flaktrak that needs to be reworked rather than ignoring that issue and swapping a unit that works with MG34.

7. Restrict aura effects, so that they only benefit the controlling player; not the entire allied team.

I do not like this idea since I play CoH2 from a basis of playing for the teamplay fun. Making teamplay effectively reduced by having allied effects removed would greatly discourage players from playing as a team. Sure that already happens but that's not a good thing. I think a suitable compromise is that teammates get reduced effects compared with your own units. That way you still get the teamplay effect but with the additional "I'm helping you but not as much as it would me" vibe. Which is fair, that pretty much happens in the team games I play, where allies achieve their own goals which I benefit largely as a side effect (re they prevent a flank attack) more often than being their main objective (they break push back against a direct attack, which happens to result in flanking me if it succeeded).
In additional, some factions utilize these effects more than others.

8. Make all recon abilities cost something and have a cooldown period (so that flanking is possible).

Besides UKF Command Vehicle recon (which cost nothing and lengthy duration despite rather long cooldown), don't the list you have already have drawbacks? Spotting scopes cost munitions and the best units are the worst combat units, IR halftrack need to be positioned correctly and doesn't fight at all, and IIRC Kubel's recon makes it move slower?

So far, neither of the 5-VP maps are great to play in...
Perhaps that's a fault with the maps rather than the 5-VP system. I would love to see more types of maps added to the map-pool, provided I get enough vetoes.

Indeed, when I first played Lorsch my first though was "great, new 4v4 map" followed quickly with "FFS this is gigantic", there were lots of open fields that made travel a drag. Hill 400 hwoever works well as a 4v4 map, its large enough for 4v4 as well as for flanks, but small so that all players are forced to fight together as teams rather than isolated sections like in larger maps like Steppes.

6. No. However I would rephrase it as follows:

"Give each faction a set of free, non-DLC commanders that are viable and cover said weaknesses"

Never gonna happen, because that would directly affect Relic's bottom line.

I do not like this idea since I play CoH2 from a basis of playing for the teamplay fun. Making teamplay effectively reduced by having allied effects removed would greatly discourage players from playing as a team. Sure that already happens but that's not a good thing. I think a suitable compromise is that teammates get reduced effects compared with your own units. That way you still get the teamplay effect but with the additional "I'm helping you but not as much as it would me" vibe. Which is fair, that pretty much happens in the team games I play, where allies achieve their own goals which I benefit largely as a side effect (re they prevent a flank attack) more often than being their main objective (they break push back against a direct attack, which happens to result in flanking me if it succeeded).
In additional, some factions utilize these effects more than others.

1. Ask yourself the following:
Just how OP would it be if only one USF player had to tech nades/gun racks for all teammates (regardless of faction) received access to their respective racks/grenades?

This is exactly how OP aura units are teamgames.

(You could argue that we could increase the cost of tech unlocks in 4v4s. However, what happens if matchmaking makes it so that no USF is present in a match-up?)

2. There already exist multiple mechanics in the game that lend themselves to a friendly teamplay atmosphere:
- Sharing healing abilities with your allies
- Building reinforce bunkers/HTs
- Building green cover if the teammate doesn't have access to it
- Coordinating flanks
- Specialized on a particular type of role (e.g., one player focuses more on AT while the other on AI)
- Building caches
- Using your units to provide recon
- Repairing your teammates' tanks
- etc...

Each of these abilities help strengthen communication within one team and award teams that try to coordinate their attacks.

3. Aura units, instead, only promote megablobbing. The nature of their buffs also bestows a ridiculously OP advantage to the team that has them, and severely punish the team that has to fight against them.

4. Nearly all of the aura units are locked behind a specific faction/doctrine which limits the synergy provided by the aura so that we don't have over-the-top combinations.

For instance; none of the OST doctrines contain both a Command Panzer IV AND a Tiger in the loadout. That would be OP as hell. Instead, teamgames regularly have to contend with Command Panzer IV's & King Tiger combos (or other tanks as well).

5. Restricting aura units to only benefit the controlling player will not make them irrelevant. Each aura unit will remain competitively strong, but they will no longer be gamebreakingly-OP.

In fact, this might promote even better teamplay.

One guy could build a Command Panzer IV for their Panther herd, which would make them more resilent (and more suitable as a damage-soaking unit), while another guy with the Command Panther would specialize their armour for a more aggressive flanking-oriented role.

Besides UKF Command Vehicle recon (which cost nothing and lengthy duration despite rather long cooldown), don't the list you have already have drawbacks? Spotting scopes cost munitions and the best units are the worst combat units, IR halftrack need to be positioned correctly and doesn't fight at all, and IIRC Kubel's recon makes it move slower?

Currently, the player pays an X amount of resources to unlock a recon ability up front. Then, for as long as the unit lives, the player can still benefit from passive (and micro-free) recon without any additional cost.

What I had in mind is that if we force the player to pay-per-use, the up-front cost could be reduced/removed. The rationale is that no matter how expensive the recon units become, the call-in cost will be trivially amortised by the (extensive) game length.

For instance (prices/changes are indicative, just to give you an idea):
- UKF Command Vehicle conversion could cost 30 munitions, and pay per recon pass could be 20-30 munitions.
- Kubel 360° scan could cost 20 munitions for 20-ish seconds (with reduced speed)
- Spotting Scopes/IR halftrack could be limited to giving vision in a fixed cone in front of the vehicle (as opposed to nearly the entire front, as is currently the case).
- IR Halftrack/Valentine could have a free-to-use recon ability that has a cooldown (e.g., 30 secs active, 45 secs cooldown after that).

PS: The Kubel can currently instantly disengage recon mode and run away from danger if needed.

1. Ask yourself the following:
Just how OP would it be if only one USF player had to tech nades/gun racks for all teammates (regardless of faction) received access to their respective racks/grenades?

This is exactly how OP aura units are teamgames.

Would be quite OP, but I don't see how auras affecting teammates are remotely similar. You don't exactly let allies bypass the need to spend resources or queue time to research something on their own; you bring your Command Tank elsewhere far enough and your allies don't get the aura. That's kind of the same with being near units in general.

2. There already exist multiple mechanics in the game that lend themselves to a friendly teamplay atmosphere

Are you implying that there are far too many things that promote teamplay? Because the "there are plenty of them" isn't justification to remove some. A proper justification is if they are toxic, don't actually promote teamplay, or produce undesirable effects. Obviously tour case is the third, being they are OP. I just don't agree.
More importantly, the ones you list are universal elements of teamwork more than passive bonuses that aura units are meant for.

3. Aura units, instead, only promote megablobbing. The nature of their buffs also bestows a ridiculously OP advantage to the team that has them, and severely punish the team that has to fight against them.

I think part of the problem with aura units is that it's largely an Axis thing. You don't have Command Tanks in Allies, it's either Panzer 4 or Panther. The closest Soviets have is doctrinal and in the form of converting ambient buildings (and IIRC only for infantry); USF has officers that leech but don't grant auras themselves, and Sherman Radio Network, though that first requires at least one Sherman to reach vet1, and only affects certain units (and not allies) UKF has this ability yes and it can be put onto any vehicle, but it comes at cost of vehicle speed (death sentence for anything besides the weakest fastest light vehicles). I think you should elaborate on why you think they are OP at all in a large team context.

Anyhow I think one way to keep auras for friendly units is that the auras are no longer passive, but instead utilize timed (or toggled?) abilities that cost munitions and has cooldown; that way, players choose when to grant the aura at all, so there is micromanagement in terms of units, tactics and economy. The most popular aura units are potent in their own right anyways, so they're still the sort of units you would want regardless of whether their auras are active or not. Ostheer's Field Artillery Officer squad works on this principle, and that unit is arguably the worst of them all given its inability to pick up weapons and have passive aura (compare with Sturm offizier that CAN pick up weapons, is a great combat squad in itself, on top of the passive buff.
Of course this is more about revamping units in general rather than 3v3/4v4 mechanics.

4v4 and 3v3 just needs better players and teams, thats it MVGame

like more of them

Would be quite OP, but I don't see how auras affecting teammates are remotely similar. You don't exactly let allies bypass the need to spend resources or queue time to research something on their own; you bring your Command Tank elsewhere far enough and your allies don't get the aura. That's kind of the same with being near units in general.

1. Aura-stacking is OP.

The similarity is that in both cases are that:
- The benefits are multiplicative (the bigger the army, the greater the benefit)
- Your allies receive undue benefits because somebody in the team happened to field an aura unit (the benefit of the unit itself, + the benefit of the aura)

In an 1v1 you have to make the strategic choice between:
- Fork the money to field a Command Tank
- Or spend a bit less money to buy a normal tank (with, perhaps greater or equal combat capability to the Command Tank)

(currently, Aura units are attractively-enough priced to be the 1st unit you can field, but that's besides the point)

In teamgames, the choice becomes trivial:
- You always buy the Command Tank
- Because your 3 other teammates will buy the normal tank each

The reason is that:
- Resource-wise 1 Command-Tank & 3 Battle-tanks are stronger than 4 Battle-tanks
- As the Command Tank gains veterancy, the composition will scale way better.

I'm not sure how I can convince you otherwise that this is something which is completely unfair.

2. Removing aura stacking (rather than proliferating it to all factinos) will make the game more interesting in the long-run.

Having a particular commander-combo that is vastly overperforming over all other combos obviously means that (i) the game will "force" you to pick that particular combo (if you care at all about winning) and (ii) you will constantly have face the same commander-combo game after game.

Just think about how interesting the game would be, if every game-after-game you would be forced to fight against:
- A UKF player that will always go Advanced Emplacements (just because the doctrine is difficult to counter)
- Or a UKF/USF Tactical Support combo (pre-nerf)
- Or a OST/OKW double-command-tank combo (bonus: Elefant/JT present on the map too)

In the case of the aura-stacking problem, the prescription is simple: Just remove aura-stacking. This will also liberate the players of the affected doctrines to try other doctrines/combinations instead.

Actually, a more to-the-point example why Aura stacking is broken.

Let's assume that currently:
- The best line-infantry in the game is Vet3 Lmg-Riflemen
- The best aura buff in the game is "For Mother Russia"

Let's also assume that Riflemen and For Mother Russia are currently well-balanced by themselves, for the factions/doctrines they are in.

Q: How would it affect teamgame-balance if "For Mother Russia" would also affect all allied troops?

According to a hasty appraisal of aura-stacking this would be OK:
- LMG riflemen are OK
- "For Mother Russia" is OK
- Aura-stacking is OK, because the Soviet player has to pay something for it.
- It is a welcome dynamic to see an ability affecting teammates, because that would promote teamplay.

However, it should be obvious that combining the two creates an unforeseen synergy between a powerful buff and a powerful unit. This is exactly the same kind of synergy that occurs with aura stacking currently. Examples:
- Command Panzer IV + high-HP units
- Mark-target + high-damage units (e.g., JT/Elefant)

1. Building too many fuel caches is already a problem this would make it worse.

2. 5vp maps are literally aids and always have my veto.

3. This doesn't seem to be a problem.

4. Good, blobbing only makes them easier to run over.

5. That really wouldn't help much of anything.

6. Git Gud

Who actually cares about 3v3 and 4v4 balance lol.

Honestly, the only things that need to be removed in the game are the caches.

Please explain. Why meaningless? Isn't the timing off vehicle call-ins a very important point? Lets say for example Royal artillery commander would be of any use and people would choose it. While the Valentine isn't very early in 1vs1 already it hits the field in a 4vs4 when it is absolutely redundant because there are multiple medium tanks on the field (+shreks +pak..).

Binding it to a Tier level (even if it is a side upgrade) would be the only way to have the timing the same across all game modes.

It would be meta flip, but would not change much as a whole. Honestly, only call in i see as crucial is croc and calliope because of their crazy shock value. With soviets you usually spam maxims, which means t2, which means at, and also mines, all of this plus some teammates help would be enought to get kats (there is no reason not to), and get cp from kats. Your IS2 and t34-85 may or may not be delayed depending on fuel control, but they are not so cruclial to count them as a game changing factor. It is more of a compliment for already strong lategame than lategame deciding factor itself.

Royal arty problem is units cost-efficiency, even if they were 3cp, they dont look so amazing.

Plus units are wastly different, just look at light tanks: p2 is good infantry killer with lots of hp, comes faster, but cannot fight other light tanks; t70 is good overall, have recon to spot for itself, but dies to 2atg shots (3 if you can pop repair inbetween), thus more risky to use; than stuart which is good against vehicles, bad against inf, have lots of hp and can repair itself.

Same goes for heavy call-ins. is2 and tiger1 being 13cp doesnt mean they come at same time, soviets probably would have is2 faster since they play more agressively, while wehr is more of a defensive faction. Plus, again, different performanse, different roles. Is2 basically is a damage sponge with ocasional RNG wipes, while tiger is fastfiring tank, which you want to use on med-long ranges.