"Assymetrical" veterancy system

A few things wrong about that. First why is 3v3 and 4v4 even a consideration? COH is not balanced for those modes, it cannot be done. Making 1v1 more balanced will trickle up, but it can never be as balanced because team games have unit combinations that aren't possible in 1v1. For example if Sturmtiger + Jagdtiger is a really OP combo, that issue only exist in team games. Then if you nerf those because of 4v4 casuals they become underpowered in 1v1.

More people play team modes than play 1v1. "Why is 3v3 and 4v4 even a consideration?" is as much a useless question as "why does CoH have skirmish AI or a campaign?"

The issue with balance in 4v4, 3v3, and to a lesser extent 2v2 is because CoH2 has been designed around 1v1. This isn't in itself an issue, as 1v1 balance can definitely scale well into team games. The problem is that Relic gave little to no thought as to how mechanics scaled (Old Opel Blitz, Caches etc.). Fixing the way resource income scales in team games and adjusting the maps would make 3v3 and 4v4 much more like 1v1.

And just because you start with veterancy does not make it ok to lose units. It makes it a little less painful, but you still lose the manpower, still lose the munitions if you buy another weapon upgrade, you might lose some map control, and you still feed vet to other guy when you lost the unit. Plus the process of earning vet has gotten easier than it used to be, vet is now a participation trophy for getting in combat rather than something you earn by getting kills. Receive damage earn experience, lel. Get a couple vehicles hits with infantry AT earn easy vet, lel.

Having bought veterancy matched against earned veterancy means the veterancy system doesn't scale well into larger game-modes, which clearly doesn't concern you, but is not something Relic is likely to be interested in given more play team games than 1v1.

The problem with veterancy via kills is that it favours bigger, tougher units (i.e., units that don't need veterancy).

Completely agreed on team game issues, they ARE relevant.

Maybe the game can't be balanced for 1v1 and team games at the same time. But there are ways of tweaking team games without touching precious 1v1s.

Example: if caches benefitted only the builder, there would be zero change to 1v1, but also there would be no more insane resource gain in 4v4s. If a player fields a heavy tank it could reduce fuel income by -10 for all teammates. Again, no change in 1v1, huge impact on 4v4s, etc.

Unfortunately Relic stuck to 1v1 balance as the key balance philosophy, but I posit they should have focused on team games instead. 4v4 is the most popular mode being played, and if the game was designed as a coop game at the core we would see none of the cheese and problems that arise from playing a game balanced for 1v1, except with four players at once.

It is misguided to think CoH2 has a large potential as a l33t esport. Its strengths lie in the large spectacular battles, to which 4v4 is far more suited. The primary focus of CoH2 encourages flanking, forethought and positioning, not micro for the sake of micro - so other strategic approaches such as encouraging cooperation and mutually complementing forces also arguably fall closer to the design philosophy than 1v1.

Look at CS:GO or LoL, or the upcoming hybrid Overwatch. Sure, CoH2 is an RTS but team co-op games obviously have a unique appeal that transcends genre boundaries. But Relic is apparently allergic to money, since they stick to their 1v1 first guns. A throwback to CoH1, which came out a year after youtube, to put things into perspective.

Gaming has moved on, yet Relic sticks to 1v1 which benefits only a small top few hundred players. 4v4 balancing, on the other hand, would benefit thousands and potentially bring in tens of thousands. Richer playerbase = healthier game and more cash for everyone involved.

If you want to tweak resource income for team 3v3 and 4v4, or make balance changes to the map, thats fine. But I don't care how much you think 3v3 and 4v4 should be catered to, theres 2 major issues. First off like I said, some units or commander abilities are really great in combination with each other and that cannot be addressed without fucking up 1v1 or possibly 2v2. Then another important thing to consider is the vast majority of 3v3 and 4v4 players aren't that great. Usually its l2p issues. I don't care what the majority is, its silly to balance the game to be more fair at a low skill bracket.

RTS games just favor certain factions at certain skill levels. COH1 favored US at the lower levels, then Axis at above average skill levels, and then from there the better you got the more balanced the game was. Terran is easier for low skill levels in SC, this is not unique to COH. I guess thats a product of asymmetrical faction design. Factions that require more use of glass cannon units or more combined arms are harder to master than factions that use more durable vehicles and more general purpose infantry. You can't be in favor of balance at every skill level without making all the factions identical.