Look to the new Chart. Germans were slaughtered.

btw i called it just 1 dfay after the patch guys
i want my 10 $

HA

I called it just when it was still a balance mod freshly announced.

I want my $420 dolers plz

Not really surprising. I really don't see things settling to an even balance in the current patch state; the balance is just too 'spiky' and conflicting.

*Spiky in that certain units/builds are massively over/under-performing. Example being blobs performing far above for the amount of micro required.

Not to sound like a broken record, but I'll basically say what I've been saying for way too long: the current game balance goes directly against the core game design. CoH is, and always has been (at least in design), about positioning, movement and combined arms. That means flanking, positioning your support units well, and using the right specific tool for a given situation.

But look at the meta: It's blobbing and camping - this isn't what CoH is supposed to be about.



Basically we have two choices: we can 'patch' the game's current meta to try and temporarily fix the problem, or we can actually target the core problem and fix it permanently. And yes, fixing it permanently means massively changing how some people play.

What do I mean by this? Well firstly, it means removing blobbing from the game. Entirely. MG AoE suppression needs to go up, so that if you have more than 2-3 squads close together, they become pretty much useless. Yes, that means that giant blob of 6 rifles will be forced to retreat by a single MG42 - you're supposed to flank/smoke/mortar/use vehicles. Same goes for that volks blob, gren blob, con blobs, RE blobs, etc. All the blobs. If you've got more than 3 squads in the area of a small house, they're all going to get pinned pretty much instantly. While we're at it, we can also add in negative zeal from CoH1.

"But won't that promote camping? MGs in every building!"

No. Every faction actually has very good counters to MGs; just not enough people use them. A mortar will force an MG out, as will a Pack-howie, Lieg, Mortar HT, smoke cover, flanking, any medium vehicle, any heavy vehicle, any off-map arty, etc.

In fact, getting rid of an MG will be easier than ever. Currently, if you attack a building with an MG in it, you'll likely get attacked yourself by a giant blob. But that giant blob won't work anymore, because your well positioned MG (which you are using to support your infantry, because combined arms) will pin the entire blob.

"But now camping factions are super strong"

Yes, camping needs to go a well. Mortar pits and bofors need to be nerfed - heavily. The faction can't rely on static units in a dynamic game. The bofors should basically perform like the OKW flak turret (except neither should be decrewable, that's just bad). That means no massive HP pool, no brace, no self repair, no building repair stations. You place it somewhere to help DEFEND your stuff, not as an offensive building. The mortar pit on the other hand is a very easy fix: replace it with a normal mortar.

OKW's flak truck can also get changed dramatically. Increase suppression a little bit, but make it nearly useless vs. vehicles. Probably also nerf the range a bit. It should really only provide support in last-ditch defense efforts; it shouldn't be able to fight everything by itself.

"This sounds insane; what will be left?"

Well, let's see. Blobbing is gone, but so is camping. What can you still do? Well, you can keep your infantry around, they just need to be spread out and supported. You can keep your support weapons around, they just need to be defended (when needed) by well positioned infantry. You can keep your tanks around (no AT blobs), you'll just need to use your support weapons to take out AT weapons.

Wait, what's that? A proper "rock-paper-scissors" match up where each position is key? Tanks cover infantry, infantry covers support weapons, support weapons cover infantry/tanks. That sounds almost like combined arms use with positioning and mobility being important.

It sounds.... dynamic.



(Note, a fair amount if missing; I could go on for a lot longer. I might make a separate thread).

Wait, what's that? A proper "rock-paper-scissors" match up where each position is key? Tanks cover infantry, infantry covers support weapons, support weapons cover infantry/tanks. That sounds almost like combined arms use with positioning and mobility being important.

It sounds.... dynamic.



(Note, a fair amount if missing; I could go on for a lot longer. I might make a separate thread).

No it sounds like you ground the games pace down to a halt, where everyone sits behind layers of mgs and mortars.

snip

What you propose would make the factions that rely on relatively immobile units suffer significantly more than other factions. And suddenly upgraded Grens come to mind, who lose 1/4th of their firepower when moving, and who on top of that run around with bolt-action rifles and thus loose the last possibility for mobile gameplay.

How do you propose to change factions like the Brits and the Ostheer (and thanks to Oooorah! to a much lesser extent the Soviets) to deal with this accelerated gameplay?

As I stated earlier, I think it's received accuracy. Makes units care free out of cover..

If that was the case, why did the meta-game shift considerably since the release of the last commanders? According to your claim it should have stayed the same, since the commanders are to blame and no new commanders have been released for over four months...

-release of the last commanders

-metashift

Doesn't this include mortar bug + mortar OP + Combined arms bug weeks?

Did something changed between june 21-26 and from June 26 to this day?

I mean, 5 days after the patch numbers remained the same. When the exploit and the mortar was commonly known, USF w/l sky rocket.

It's a shame we can't get just the number for top 100 and then 150/500 cause it doesn't really tell me anything if it's just top250 all together.

Just look at usf 6 and 7. both are smurfs that abused the bug. the charts are pretty much useless after huge exploitables like this.

No it sounds like you ground the games pace down to a halt, where everyone sits behind layers of mgs and mortars.

Are you taking the position supporting blobs? Most of his suggestions deal with my grievences, but a little harsher than I'd go on emplacements.

Historical accuracy >>>>> balance

Neat, it already works. 3 comments each totally disagreeing with another user. /s

Seriously though, it's pretty interesting that the first 3 comments basically say the exact opposite of each-other; too static, too dynamic, seems fine (mostly).

No it sounds like you ground the games pace down to a halt, where everyone sits behind layers of mgs and mortars.

I don't think this would happen on balanced maps. MG spam in the early game only really works when supported. If you simply went with a 3-4mg opening, you would have almost no map presence, capping power or 'cover'. The MGs would somehow need to support each-other, and they can only do that when static - a perfect target for a mortar or smoke.

An MG Mortar combo wouldn't work either. You're going to place your mortars behind your MGs, since you're using them for cover. However, that means that they need to fire a certain distance just to get up to the MGs position. That means an enemy mortar could hit your MG while being out of your mortars range.

On top of that, an MG mortar build would easily be countered by any fast vehicle, since there would be little to no snares or even AT power. While a valid complaint, I just don't see an MG/mortar meta coming out of my suggested changes at an average or high skill level.

Also, I can just point down to "Mirdarion's" post.

What you propose would make the factions that rely on relatively immobile units suffer significantly more than other factions. And suddenly upgraded Grens come to mind, who lose 1/4th of their firepower when moving, and who on top of that run around with bolt-action rifles and thus loose the last possibility for mobile gameplay.

How do you propose to change factions like the Brits and the Ostheer (and thanks to Oooorah! to a much lesser extent the Soviets) to deal with this accelerated gameplay?

I'd say that my preferred/most played faction is Ost, and I don't see it happening. Ost seems very static on paper, but it actually quite dynamic. In my suggested changes, an Ost player would support infantry with MGs and mortars as they move - upon becoming static, they would be prime targets for enemy mortars and artillery, which is what is supposed to happen to static players. However, by constantly moving (micro), your units are in new and unexpected positions, making flanking moves by the enemy player much harder. It also makes it harder to guess where your units are for enemy mortars.

I also don't see LMG-grens becoming weaker here - if anything, they would be stronger. It's true that LMG grens can't fire and move at the same time; but they can move from cover to cover and fire from there. The main issue for grens (IMO) right now is the giant USF blob, which with vet, easily outnumbers and out performs against grens. However, with the suppression changes, the blob simply couldn't exist. This would force fights to be much more preferable for grens, with smaller engagements of equal numbers of units.

I could also just point to "Omega_Warrior's" post.

Are you taking the position supporting blobs? Most of his suggestions deal with my grievences, but a little harsher than I'd go on emplacements.

The changes to emplacements may be a bit harsh, and if such changes were made, they would need to be discussed with the community first (or tested in a beta). However, I feel the 'campy' nature of emplacements conflicts with the core "mobility and positioning" theme of CoH. (IMO) Emplacements should be used to support your army; a Pak44 should be positioned further back in your forces to support your units via its range; not in the front-lines to be a main 'attack' unit. The same should be said of something like the bofors (or OKW flak); it performs very well against most units, but should only be used to secure flank or key point behind your front-lines (i.e. to prevent a cutoff). Right now, though, the bofors is being used as a front-line unit, often placed on VPs, forward fuel points or other important areas, and is being used to deal a dramatically large amount of damage. This is only possible due to its incredible resilience.

A change to the survivability (and not damage) would result in the desired change; the emplacements being used in a defensive position and used to supplement damage. I only suggest damage changes (such as to the OKW truck) due to some of them over-performing against all types of targets. An emplacement should be good against mainly one type of units, not all types: AT-gun emplacements are great vs. vehicles, mortars are great against static units and structures, but units like the OKW Flak Truck and Bofors are great against anything within range. By removing damage to vehicles, the damage 'triangle' would be much more balanced: AT vs. vehicles, mortars vs. structures and static units, flak vs. infantry.

No mid level armor unit to stop the light vehicle rush. Only 4 models result in more wipes. Giving Mortars to all allies faction destroyed the game because now Axis are bleeding heavily to hold early on resulting in delay of tech and late game units. Earlier game used to be like- you win as allies in 30 mins and you win as axis after 30 mins. Now it is like- lol....surrender is still 3 mins away from 5 min mark.

How can a USF blob outnumber grens? Grens cost less than rifles ...

Also if you make MGs strong enough people will just spam them and then rush AT units. See earlier game builds with mg42 and maxim wars, or the maxim spam that was popular for years.

You should checkout Helping Hans's how to stop blobs tutorial video. It shows several effective ways to counter blobs.

https://www.coh2.org/guides/52749/hans-tip-of-the-week-12-countering-blobs

How can a USF blob outnumber grens? Grens cost less than rifles ...

Im Not a scientist But thats probably befasse rifles Arena build in t0 and Grens do Come from t1

Im Not a scientist But thats probably befasse rifles Arena build in t0 and Grens do Come from t1

Ostheer has more innitial manpower to account for the cost of T1.

The changes to emplacements may be a bit harsh, and if such changes were made, they would need to be discussed with the community first (or tested in a beta). However, I feel the 'campy' nature of emplacements conflicts with the core "mobility and positioning" theme of CoH. (IMO) Emplacements should be used to support your army; a Pak44 should be positioned further back in your forces to support your units via its range; not in the front-lines to be a main 'attack' unit. The same should be said of something like the bofors (or OKW flak); it performs very well against most units, but should only be used to secure flank or key point behind your front-lines (i.e. to prevent a cutoff). Right now, though, the bofors is being used as a front-line unit, often placed on VPs, forward fuel points or other important areas, and is being used to deal a dramatically large amount of damage. This is only possible due to its incredible resilience.

A change to the survivability (and not damage) would result in the desired change; the emplacements being used in a defensive position and used to supplement damage. I only suggest damage changes (such as to the OKW truck) due to some of them over-performing against all types of targets. An emplacement should be good against mainly one type of units, not all types: AT-gun emplacements are great vs. vehicles, mortars are great against static units and structures, but units like the OKW Flak Truck and Bofors are great against anything within range. By removing damage to vehicles, the damage 'triangle' would be much more balanced: AT vs. vehicles, mortars vs. structures and static units, flak vs. infantry.

Emplacements just need to be standardized. Decrewing for some factions and not others is ridiculous. Schwer attack ground might be nice.

After the patch I'm ok with the british emplacements powerlevel. Paying for brace made a bigger difference than I suspected. I think that addressing the super cheap tanks would pretty much fix the simcity > tank spam issue.

I don't like emplacements but with out them the british need redesigning.

Emplacements just need to be standardized. Decrewing for some factions and not others is ridiculous. Schwer attack ground might be nice.

After the patch I'm ok with the british emplacements powerlevel. Paying for brace made a bigger difference than I suspected. I think that addressing the super cheap tanks would pretty much fix the simcity > tank spam issue.

I don't like emplacements but with out them the british need redesigning.

I agree that they need to be standardized, but the main problem (imo) with emplacements is that they've become a valid play-style all by themselves. In 2v2, its completely reasonable to see a USF/UKF combo where the USF player creates a giant blob and the UKF player simply focuses on emplacements. On some maps this can end up with 2 mortars, a bofors and multiple repair forward bases covering 2 of the 3 VPs. That type of play just doesn't support the whole "mobility and positioning" aspect of CoH2 that I'd like to see at the core of the gameplay.

By reducing the survivability and possibly combat power, emplacements would still be valid units; it's just that they would be in a 'support' role (covering flanks, important points behind the front-lines) rather than the current "front line DPS/Tank" unit.

The brits might need a redesign due to this, but I don't think it would require that much work. Some unit stats would just need to be tweaked to encourage a more mobile play style.

You should make a mod so we can playtest these changes. I'd be curious to see them in action.

I agree that they need to be standardized, but the main problem (imo) with emplacements is that they've become a valid play-style all by themselves. In 2v2, its completely reasonable to see a USF/UKF combo where the USF player creates a giant blob and the UKF player simply focuses on emplacements. On some maps this can end up with 2 mortars, a bofors and multiple repair forward bases covering 2 of the 3 VPs. That type of play just doesn't support the whole "mobility and positioning" aspect of CoH2 that I'd like to see at the core of the gameplay.

By reducing the survivability and possibly combat power, emplacements would still be valid units; it's just that they would be in a 'support' role (covering flanks, important points behind the front-lines) rather than the current "front line DPS/Tank" unit.

The brits might need a redesign due to this, but I don't think it would require that much work. Some unit stats would just need to be tweaked to encourage a more mobile play style.

+1, I was just saying that with out a snare the brits are forced to hide behind the AEC or bofors early game.

I agree that the bofors/emplacements should strenghten the "line" not be the "line"

Neat, it already works. 3 comments each totally disagreeing with another user. /s

Seriously though, it's pretty interesting that the first 3 comments basically say the exact opposite of each-other; too static, too dynamic, seems fine (mostly).



I don't think this would happen on balanced maps. MG spam in the early game only really works when supported. If you simply went with a 3-4mg opening, you would have almost no map presence, capping power or 'cover'. The MGs would somehow need to support each-other, and they can only do that when static - a perfect target for a mortar or smoke.

An MG Mortar combo wouldn't work either. You're going to place your mortars behind your MGs, since you're using them for cover. However, that means that they need to fire a certain distance just to get up to the MGs position. That means an enemy mortar could hit your MG while being out of your mortars range.

On top of that, an MG mortar build would easily be countered by any fast vehicle, since there would be little to no snares or even AT power. While a valid complaint, I just don't see an MG/mortar meta coming out of my suggested changes at an average or high skill level.

Also, I can just point down to "Mirdarion's" post.



I'd say that my preferred/most played faction is Ost, and I don't see it happening. Ost seems very static on paper, but it actually quite dynamic. In my suggested changes, an Ost player would support infantry with MGs and mortars as they move - upon becoming static, they would be prime targets for enemy mortars and artillery, which is what is supposed to happen to static players. However, by constantly moving (micro), your units are in new and unexpected positions, making flanking moves by the enemy player much harder. It also makes it harder to guess where your units are for enemy mortars.

I also don't see LMG-grens becoming weaker here - if anything, they would be stronger. It's true that LMG grens can't fire and move at the same time; but they can move from cover to cover and fire from there. The main issue for grens (IMO) right now is the giant USF blob, which with vet, easily outnumbers and out performs against grens. However, with the suppression changes, the blob simply couldn't exist. This would force fights to be much more preferable for grens, with smaller engagements of equal numbers of units.

I could also just point to "Omega_Warrior's" post.



The changes to emplacements may be a bit harsh, and if such changes were made, they would need to be discussed with the community first (or tested in a beta). However, I feel the 'campy' nature of emplacements conflicts with the core "mobility and positioning" theme of CoH. (IMO) Emplacements should be used to support your army; a Pak44 should be positioned further back in your forces to support your units via its range; not in the front-lines to be a main 'attack' unit. The same should be said of something like the bofors (or OKW flak); it performs very well against most units, but should only be used to secure flank or key point behind your front-lines (i.e. to prevent a cutoff). Right now, though, the bofors is being used as a front-line unit, often placed on VPs, forward fuel points or other important areas, and is being used to deal a dramatically large amount of damage. This is only possible due to its incredible resilience.

A change to the survivability (and not damage) would result in the desired change; the emplacements being used in a defensive position and used to supplement damage. I only suggest damage changes (such as to the OKW truck) due to some of them over-performing against all types of targets. An emplacement should be good against mainly one type of units, not all types: AT-gun emplacements are great vs. vehicles, mortars are great against static units and structures, but units like the OKW Flak Truck and Bofors are great against anything within range. By removing damage to vehicles, the damage 'triangle' would be much more balanced: AT vs. vehicles, mortars vs. structures and static units, flak vs. infantry.

Some tweaks for volks stg and grens survivability and should be ok.Don't agree about huge mg aoe supression..with 2 squad,one going to flant from the right and other from the left should make at least the mg retreat.I don't want huge aoe supression because i can see people manually targeting every squad that flank and that would be bad.Ieig 18 should have better damage vs mg,infantry in buildings..