"Assymetrical" veterancy system

1 For God sake, why was it garbage!? It was interesting, worked good with faction mechanics and it was veeery nice balanced.

2 I don't understand people here. vCoH's veterancy was bad, uniqe interesting doctrines like Elite or SU Industry were bad, Coldtech was bad... Everything, that made that game interesting and cool is bad.

1- As it has been explained before: if we talk about vcoh, it was "fine" on 1v1, anything above was broken. Veterancy also had different power levels. Brit/PE fomented blobbing, and you know the opinion of everyone about blobbing.

Been different, doesn't necessarily mean BETTER.

2- P2W is bad. The problem is not the concept rather than the implementation.

Elite: instead of giving x amount of XP for certain fuel + mp it should had been.
-For X amount of resources, for Y amount of time, units gain Z% more xp through combat. It foments aggression and the opponent has tool to counter it (stalling).
-Upgrade a unit: increase mp drain but unit gains vet faster.
The point is, veterancy MUST be gained, not bought. Regarding the Tiger Ace, it should cost mp and fuel, no drain, more popcap, maybe start with the increased vet2 range and utility/aura/skills oriented.

Industry:
Toggle with a long cooldown upon deactivation.

Coldtech:
I will remark, the idea is not BAD. How they implemented it was atrocious. It was a half baked concept just to sell more copies. See it as "levolution". I'll like seeing it back IF:
Show Spoiler

Several elements of CoH1's experience system was cool, but many more were not. Unsurprisingly this gave veteran players a bad taste so it's no wonder they're all over OP for it.

It sounds like OP just wants a similar diversification of veterancy among COH2 factions, it is only natural to look at past titles for inspiration. By now he's got the gist that we all hated it and don't want a clone copy...whether that's actually what he wanted is not clear, since the topic is assymetrical systems with a reference to the first game, not "make it like CoH1".

If you really want CoH2 to have a more diverse system, I say make the effects different.
For example, from the start the vast majority of CoH2 units simply unlocked an ability in vet1. Since then patches have removed some units' vet1 abilities since they sucked. Fewer units, especially OKW, unlocked more abilities in places like vet4.

There's a huge lack of consistency that used to exist, so it's that much harder to make design a system where one faction has a particular veterancy flavour. If, for example, Soviet units started at 5-men but all of their vet2 unlocked ability for a 6th, that would be cool. But then you have things like that would work in 1v1, but unlikely in 4v4, especially considering squadwipes.

If you want to "buy" XP, then the system should only be something like increasing XP rate. This would work for UKF since their unit design is largely small and expensive but tough; losing a vet3 Tommy would be pretty bad, but not as bad if you bought an upgrade that lets them vet a bit faster so new squads have an easier time catching up to Jerry and his vet5 Panzers.

USF's officer squads gain XP from nearby friendlies as well as themselves, though in exchange they weren't blob-centered support units like Axis officer squads. I liked Rear Echelon's 5th man unlock at vet2, I kind of want it to be applied to more USF squads, if not all.

On way to reduce blobbing is global effects, for example the OKW Sturm Offizier wouldn't boost units in proximity, but boost units in the entire map's friendly sectors. Under this effect you need not keep him close to your Volks because they already have the effects.

I'm also thinking of a "Kill Assist" modifier to XP, whereas a unit that indirectly contributes to damaging an enemy target gains some XP, this allows some units with lesser firepower and a greater utility role to gain XP without having to fight. Naturally weaker units would rely on this more than combat units for the majority of their XP gain. I don't know if the game can ever handle such individuation of information, though.

For God sake, why was it garbage!? It was interesting, worked good with faction mechanics and it was veeery nice balanced.

In the same sense that a 0 minute Kingtiger for 40 fuel would be interesting, work good with faction mechanics, and be veeeeery nice balanced.

You call Vet2 pak bonus of +20% hit points to be a good bonus that works for faction mechanics?
(A vet2 57mm meanwhile got substantial bonuses to penetration, accuracy, and damage?)

Wehrmacht "faction mechanics" was to build a medic bunker behind the hedge on Angoville and convert zombie Volksgrenadiers into elite Grenadiers, which, thanks to veterancy, meant you could get loads of free vet3 squads.

How is that balanced, interesting, how does that work with faction design?

Wehrmacht's faction design was to be the bad guys in the campaign. That is why they got almost exclusively defensive bonuses until that was at least somewhat addressed at around the time Opposing fronts came out, but they never could get any good or cool veterancy bonuses because the bonuses applied to all units simultaneously so it would be utterly imbalanced to even approach the (godlike) US and PE veterancy bonuses.

British veterancy was utterly cancerous. Officer system, emplacements and movement penalty completely pigenholed the Brits into a single blobby playstyle.

Coldtech was a great gimmick and I was sad to see it go. I agree with elchino that it was atrociously implemented.

Keep Line of Sight penalty and inability to use airstrikes, remove movement penalty, make units out of cover lose hit points until they hit 1hp (like white phosphorous) but can't die of it. And voila, balanced cold tech. I suspect at least 50% of the reason coldtech was removed from automatch was that it was the biggest contributor to performance issues and Relic started caring about the game's image a bit more somewhere around the release of WFA.

I thiknk VCOH veterancy systems were interesting and made the factions that much distinct. Did they work though? Unfortunately no, that's just impossible to balance.
It's way too late to make changes like that in coh2 anyway.
If by some miracle we get another axis faction and it's something a bit different, but not as radical as wehr's purchased vet, sure, why not, OKWs vet5 did not break the game.

For God sake, why was it garbage!? It was interesting, worked good with faction mechanics and it was veeery nice balanced.

Here are my thoughts on vCoH's veterency.

The Wehrmacht's was pay to win. Not to mention they could get an instant Vet 3 Tiger tank once they unlocked the CPs and paid the vet in one of their buildings. The problem with this is that the player was dealing with an elite army that could be simply bought. It was in the Elite Troop Doctrine as an ability, but it was changed for that same reasoning.

The British faction in vCoH promoted blobbing. I'll elaborate on that. Officers were the only infantry TO GET PROMOTIONS. The rest couldn't and it lead to their Brit blobbing reputation just as the Volksgrenadiers of CoH2. To make matters worse, the British could legally have two units who buff the Infantry Sections and follow them without micro. In other words, they had two Sturmoffiziers.

Last, but not least the Panzer Elite. Their veterency promoted blobbing. You want to know why? Their starting unit, Panzergrenadiers, had this little description when it mentions their effectiveness. Effective in large groups. It promotes a certain kind of playstyle that everyone condemns. Not to mention, the veterency helped their large assault balls make Volksgrenadiers look tame in comparison. Plus, Panthers with a triple defensive bonus would be a nightmare for anti-tank based weapons.

To include such into CoH2 would be the nail in the coffin for this game.

It's widely agreed that CoH1's veterancy system was one of the major pitfalls of the game, and is one of the aspects CoH2 is undoubtedly superior in.

Last, but not least the Panzer Elite. Their veterency promoted blobbing. You want to know why? Their starting unit, Panzergrenadiers, had this little description when it mentions their effectiveness. Effective in large groups. It promotes a certain kind of playstyle that everyone condemns. Not to mention, the veterency helped their large assault balls make Volksgrenadiers look tame in comparison. Plus, Panthers with a triple defensive bonus would be a nightmare for anti-tank based weapons.

There was also the Group Zeal upgrade and Munition Halftracks encouraging blobs for them. PE's units gaining veterancy from other ones' kills did have one good point to it - it can help rubberband replacement units. But yeah, otherwise it encourages death balls.

I remember the PE death balls. I baited one into my hardpoint once. A M1917 MG Team, a Quad Halftrack, a Sherman, several BAR Riflequads, and a Calliope standing by. By the time the battle was ended, I lost the MG and Quad and maybe a Rifle. Heavy casualties to the Rifles and the Sherman was damaged. The blob had taken over 50% casualties mostly thanks to the Calliope.

It was back a few minutes later, stronger than ever. I managed to win by calling another Calliope. The first one hit the death-ball and the second one hit their retreat point soon after. Then I assaulted the base with what I had to wipe out the stragglers.

I really don't want to see this kind of play return, I think blobbing as-is is bad enough.

Coh1's vet system was bad. In OPs defense, though a well made unique vet system would be pretty cool. It's difficult to think of what that could be, though. Paid vet is awful. Group vet is arguably worse.

Maybe exp bonuses for actions consistent with the faction's style? Sovs get a lot of veterancy for dealing damage, not very much for taking damage. Or maybe a bonus for short range combat. Maybe a bonus while fighting in an oppoent's sector.

I remember the PE death balls. I baited one into my hardpoint once. A M1917 MG Team, a Quad Halftrack, a Sherman, several BAR Riflequads, and a Calliope standing by. By the time the battle was ended, I lost the MG and Quad and maybe a Rifle. Heavy casualties to the Rifles and the Sherman was damaged. The blob had taken over 50% casualties mostly thanks to the Calliope.

It was back a few minutes later, stronger than ever. I managed to win by calling another Calliope. The first one hit the death-ball and the second one hit their retreat point soon after. Then I assaulted the base with what I had to wipe out the stragglers.

I really don't want to see this kind of play return, I think blobbing as-is is bad enough.

This is the reason why we don't want that sort of veterancy back in CoH2, it's more likely to piss off both the Allies and the Axis.

Can we all agree that the choose your own veterancy for PE was cool as fuck if you ignore the blob xp boost?

Can we all agree that the choose your own veterancy for PE was cool as fuck if you ignore the blob xp boost?

Yes

(If you answer no, you are clearly a communist that abhors choice and freedom )

Vet for US and WM in coh1 works great (maybe it was flawed at one point but in the games final state is fine), most complaints against it are l2p issues. PE system also solid, but it were up to me I would make other changes to the faction (get rid of that damn group zeal upgrade mainly). Brit vet has issues. There isn't anything inherently flawed about earning vet on an officer unit, but the fact that they were needed to advance in enemy territory and could make the whole blob sprint through MGs with the push of a button at vet 1 were bad ideas.

If I were to design a faction that used a officer vet system, the officer would have a larger radius (to cut down on blobbing), have a squad of escorts like the USF officers, and here would be a stacking penalty. For example a lieutenant unit would only benefit 3-4 infantry squads in the vicinity. Then every additional squad in his command aura is actually detrimental to the blob. Would be an interesting concept if there was a new faction that earned vet on the leaders but had mechanics to punish Brit blob style play.

I think greater strategic diversity could be obtained more easily by just giving infantry greater options to stock weapon upgrades without locking into commanders.

Example. PPSH and PTRs options stock on Cons. Grens unlocking 43s or LMGs and so on.

Some maps can be an issue with your mainline infantry depending on its strengths and weaknesses. The option to choose between CQC and med/long range weapons as stock allow the ability to choose what works best in your current situation and adapt.

Because of you, CoH becomes more and more boring and similar to shitty korean Starcraft!

Starcraft is from CA.

Starcraft is from CA.

Sure, they own it, but does it really belong to them?

Sure, they own it, but does it really belong to them?

lol

Vet for US and WM in coh1 works great (maybe it was flawed at one point but in the games final state is fine), most complaints against it are l2p issues.

Uhm vet for Wehr maybe ok for 1v1, in team game vet 3 gren horde + zombie bunker = unbeatable, heck you can even spam volk and med bunker will give gren to you, also it throws unit preservation out of the window.

Uhm vet for Wehr maybe ok for 1v1, in team game vet 3 gren horde + zombie bunker = unbeatable, heck you can even spam volk and med bunker will give gren to you, also it throws unit preservation out of the window.

Well... That's 100% description of USSR. Units are so cheap and ineffective alone, that you have to spam then and use in faceroll attacks, which causing hard unit losses. Again - it's bigger problem to get Vet 3 T-34-76, than Vet 3 Pz4 or Panther. T-34-76 is just less combat effective and dies faster vs power of axis AT.

So, that system could be used for USSR... Just thoughts.

Uhm vet for Wehr maybe ok for 1v1, in team game vet 3 gren horde + zombie bunker = unbeatable, heck you can even spam volk and med bunker will give gren to you, also it throws unit preservation out of the window.

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.

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.