Overall Gameplay Balance vs Unit Balance

Overall Gameplay Balance vs Unit Balance

Hey guys,

I've been wanting to make a thread like this for a while, but haven't been able to figure out exactly how to pose the question to the community or how it would respond. On top of that I'm sure buried deep in coh2.org's threads someone has done this before. Nevertheless, I have found other people in the community who share similar opinions, and will attempt to explain my thought process on balance issues for COH2, and how I believe balancing it can be approached in a different way.
Disclaimer: This thread is not demoting the importance of how people have addressed balance issues in the past, and I believe that there is importance to balancing individual units as well.

Rather than addressing balance issues with individual units, I'd like to have a thread which promotes a different method to balance issues. To be more specific, I want to know what people believe to be the biggest flaws of COH2 - with special regards to what makes COH2 less competetive of an RTS. But, rather than addressing specific factions, units or doctrines I want it to be more general.

Flaws that CAN occur in any match, or on any map should be first on the list. I believe that by addressing the larger scale problems, the balance for individual units may become more apparent.

Furthermore, if your answer is RNG, I want you to explain in detail what you mean is exactly wrong with the RNG. Try to make your answer not involve a particular unit unless you absolutely must to explain your opinion.

Be as detailed as sanely possible.

I'll start by addressing one that I believe to be one of the biggest flaws of COH2, one that makes it less competetive of an RTS for me. I believe that abandon vehicles should be removed from the game because the significance of them can dramatically change the outcome of a competitive match. In addition, this flaw is present in ANY match that has vehicles, and is an overall problem in my opinion.


Thanks.

Squad spacing, artillery in general, by that I mean mortars, etc, random squad wipes and garrison in general, I think it's one of the reasons why game is kind of stale imho. Don't watch my playercard, haven't played competitively in a while. Kappa

Call-ins are a problem every match.

Call-ins have major advantages over teching. The most significant are probably larger infantry army's/field presence early on, and providing a comeback/winning mechanic.

Essentially, someone who techs extensively for a midgame advantage can get fucked later on for their decisions. For example, an ostheer player could be "winning" in terms of map and resource control, get a PIV, and then get punished down the road by an IS2 call in, when they would've been better off investing the tech/tank resources into infantry and holding out for a tiger. It's not hard to hold 1 vp and a few resource points for 9CPs to call in a KV8 or Ostwind.

This fundamentally breaks the game in that something that could be a "comeback mechanic" becomes a winning mechanic. This is exacerbated by the fact that if you get one call-in out, usually, it will last long enough so that if you lose it, you can get out a second, so there's effectively very little punishment.

This leads to things like less diversity; few games include soviet and ost t4, and USF/OKW t4 is also becoming more rare as of late. There's also less variety in commanders and abilities; it's very rare that people use doctrines with ostheer infantry stealth or conscript support tactics, etc.

Major examples: OST puma and stug-e doctrines, USF m10 and calliopes doctrines, Soviet lend-lease and shock rifle doctrines, OKW ostwind doctrine, Brits land mattress and vanguard doctrines.

Each of those have at least 2 call in units for some critical role in the game, and often, they allow factions to tech a single tier and play from there (soviet t2, ost t2, okw t1, etc)

This problem also ties into a lot of other problems, such as how soviets often just stop at T3 and spam vehicles from there because they are sufficient in combination with t2 or guards to hold the field against all threats until the call in.

Potential fixes:

1. Tie call-ins to tech. So puma = tied to Ost t2, command PIV to T3, tiger to T4. This would kind of eliminate the resource penalty a teching player faces vs a call in player, because the call in player would have to invest manpower and resources in tech as well.

2. Limit call ins. I liked the tiger ace cap at 1 call in; maybe this would make sense for all call in vehicles? Then it would be a genuine comeback mechanic, and players would need to tech in order to survive afterward/mitigate risk.

General Improvements:

- I think the linearity of COH2 commander choices was a poor decision on relics part compared to COH1, where you had to make a choice as to which "tree" you wanted to pursue for any given commander. This creates less diversity/meaningful choices, and would've been a good mechanic to keep in game.



These are just a few thoughts and obviously this isn't categorically true, but I do think it is significant.

Countering units. In theory you should be able to beat your opponent's units cost for cost if you build their counters
ex: mortar counters mg, mg counters infantry, infantry counters mortars

The Problem: Often counter units are either not effective, require a doctrine, or are not timed well

Where this doesn't work: The Jagtigers counter should be artillery, but that means Americans must go infantry doctrine and get priests. Unfortunatley the priest isn't even great vs Jagtigers.In this example medium tanks are Ok vs jagtigers so you spam them.

The old koineskubelwagen, ya you could build an m20 but that comes minutes after a kubel. The wc51 lost to the kubel half the time. Since the real counter doesn't work you have to spam something that is sort of good against the unit.

Instead of combined arms games and meta can evolve around building units who just don't have a good counter b/c the other unit is under powered, comes late, doctrine specific, doesn't exist ect.

How does this affect the general game:Looking at the meta over time you see there's units your opponent cant counter such as the koineskubelwagen, conscript spam(mgs were weaker), or 5 minute t70s so you will be forced into building them so as to not get wrecked by the units you can't deal with.

Factions can have weaknesses and strengths but when they have blatent holes in their game plan the game suffers. Hadn't played for a while, but some progress seems to have been made, ex okw has mgs in base, usf has a mortar so that's cool.


TLDR; UP units and ones locked in doctrines lead to spam and the numerous metas coh2 has seen.

Call-ins are just too stronk.

My biggest gripe is the way some units have abilities to counter their counters; Bofors barrage, Rifleman smoke grenades and Grenadier rifle grenades being the first things that jump to mind.

I also shake my head when people make the argument 'X costs 10% more than Y, therefore it must perform exactly 10% better' and try to use that to justify buffs to their favourite unit/faction, while ignoring all the other cases where it doesn't apply.

Call-ins are a big problem for sure since they are always more economically viable to go for, making the "normal" tech route weaker in comparison (because in competitive matches, every unit/resource counts).

The biggest problem, for me, is the light-vech meta. The meta demands you rush out a light vech or get crushed. Why? Well, light vechs do quite a few roles:

1.) They control the battlefield - with the mobility of light vechs, they can easily zip across the battlefield and control any harassing/solo capping unit. Because this can often end up in a wiped squad for the receiving player, it's generally better to concentrate 100% of your forces to 1 area just at the threat of a light vech and to play more effeciently since that 1 capping squad will no longer be viable.

2.) They deal a lot of anti-infantry damage - this mostly pertains to the T70 and the Stuart - the luchs and AEC deal some AI damage, but are not as big as offenders as the former. Because of this, it can often be useful to keep these units on the back line and plink away with a rapid fire rate at infantry lines and deal significant damage before return fire can even be attempted by AT guns. So light vechs also act as a mobile gun platform meant to mow down infantry.

3.) Utility vs vehicles - Most light vechs have some penetrations vs other tanks - making dedicated tank destroyers like the puma even weaker vs it's intended unit to counter. As such, not only do T70, Stuart, and AEC have pretty good infantry-killing abilities, but can also go toe-to-toe with other vehicles (even medium tanks).

IMO, smart light-vech design should have their roles limited to harassing units or a fragile mobile gun (like the flak halftrack for OKW is now). They should not fill all 3 of these categories at their cost.
What does this mean?
Well, it means T70, if it wants to keep its movement, repair, and ability to help penetrate tanks, should not be dealing significant damage to infantry (something more like the AEC). It should be a unit that can eventually force off a squad, but not force an instant retreat from the other play and punish him very hard if there's not AT nearby (why solo units suck vs Allies).

Light-vechs, as they are now, are a no-brainer, anti-everything unit making them an easy choice to put into any strategy.

Additionally, they promote lazy, non-competitive gameplay as their rapid rate of fire means they can easily A-move around the field and score a lot of kills with the click of the button. This is in contrast to infantry micro, which requires smart positioning and unit pairings (i.e. Gren at long range vs conscripts) to play effectively. Light vechs like the T70 and Stuart generally dominate the field at first sight.

1.Formations, some squads clump-up too much

2.Lots of maps are either entirely long range units friendly or close range units friendly, instead of containing both areas

3.Holding certain positions on the map matters more than simply holding more territory than the opponent. Probably a fault of fuel and ammo points

1.Formations, some squads clump-up too much

2.Lots of maps are either entirely long range units friendly or close range units friendly, instead of containing both areas

3.Holding certain positions on the map matters more than simply holding more territory than the opponent. Probably a fault of fuel and ammo points

1. Is a trade-off, in the old days it was a real pain to actually get a squad into cover and staying there, so often 1 model would dive out from behind that comfy piece of green cover and get the whole squad suppressed. The really annoying thing is when units keep this spacing once they leave cover, if they could fan out more quickly when moving that would help. No way this mechanic is going to get changed though.

2. I agree, some maps get it right but many don't. Of course you can never get it perfect but now it's a long way off.

3. Really don't get why you see this as a negative. Cutoffs and fuel/mun points are a critical part of the game, if you took them away maps would just turn into a scramble to capture whichever points the opponent isn't defending. It would also make map/faction balance even harder since some factions (e.g. ostheer and brits) are worse at splitting their forces and conducting mobile fighting than others.

It all depends what's your goal.

If you want 100% math game where every P4 dies after 4 shots and Tiger after 7 shots, no bouncing, no abandoning, no misses etc etc then your goal is 100% competitive game.

But in my opinion it completly kills gameplay. Just think about best casts you have seen. Were they regular battles with no RNG involved? Not a chance.

Best casts are casts with huge RNG, great comebacks, luck or unluc etc etc this is what makes this game so great - you canno't predict it 100% of the time. Sure, you can predict that Panther will kill Sherman but sometimes your Panther can miss few shots and Sherman can penetrate (happens to me - Panthers missed 3 times, Sherman penetrated Panter's front 2 times). Did I raged that my Panther cannot kill Sherman? No becasue it was the beatuy of it.

As for call ins, people don't rely on them. Let me explain. If you feel you are doing good, no one sane will call Puma or Ostwind. They will go for tech and for P4 of JPIV (whatever). Call ins are there to help you when you are losing and this create another great depth becasue without call ins 9/10 games would be done but with call ins you can have big chance to hold and finally win a battle? Isn't that great for gameplay? Your opponent also cannot blame losing to call ins because if he is winning, he must think that your only chance are call ins so he can prepare for it.

It all depends what's your goal.

If you want 100% math game where every P4 dies after 4 shots and Tiger after 7 shots, no bouncing, no abandoning, no misses etc etc then your goal is 100% competitive game.

But in my opinion it completly kills gameplay. Just think about best casts you have seen. Were they regular battles with no RNG involved? Not a chance.

Best casts are casts with huge RNG, great comebacks, luck or unluc etc etc this is what makes this game so great - you canno't predict it 100% of the time. Sure, you can predict that Panther will kill Sherman but sometimes your Panther can miss few shots and Sherman can penetrate (happens to me - Panthers missed 3 times, Sherman penetrated Panter's front 2 times). Did I raged that my Panther cannot kill Sherman? No becasue it was the beatuy of it.

As for call ins, people don't rely on them. Let me explain. If you feel you are doing good, no one sane will call Puma or Ostwind. They will go for tech and for P4 of JPIV (whatever). Call ins are there to help you when you are losing and this create another great depth becasue without call ins 9/10 games would be done but with call ins you can big chance to hold and finally win a battle? Isn't that great for gameplay? Your opponent also cannot blame losing to call ins because if he is winning, he must think that your only chance are call ins so he can prepare for it.

+1

But in my opinion it completly kills gameplay. Just think about best casts you have seen. Were they regular battles?

actually yes. for example the game last weekend where a player made a comeback with stuart spam+pershing iirc. or that one game some months ago where barton made an insane tank rush. orhans pak wall completely wrecking the enemies tank army, or or or

yes, a game without RNG would be more stale, but the amount of RNG is too high atm aswell, at least in my opinion

btt:
-side armor. nothing to say there except lelic entertainment

actually yes. for example the game last weekend where a player made a comeback with stuart spam+pershing iirc. or that one game some months ago where barton made an insane tank rush. orhans pak wall completely wrecking the enemies tank army, or or or

yes, a game without RNG would be more stale, but the amount of RNG is too high atm aswell, at least in my opinion

btt:
-side armor. nothing to say there except lelic entertainment

RNG already was reduced to minimum when compare to what we had 2 years ago.

-Maps: too many and too bad
-Unit spacing: favors too many wipes
-Indirect fire: too many wipes
-Abandoned vehicles
-Demo charges
-Snipers: need a clear counter for all factions

RNG already was reduced to minimum when compare to what we had 2 years ago.

yes, it was reduced, but not to the amount coh 1 had. abandoning, lack of side armor, bad squad spacing, very unreliable grenades, etc are still in the game

Squad spacing, artillery in general, by that I mean mortars, etc, random squad wipes

this is a non-issue, either l2p or give up.

and garrison in general

what do you mean by that? the wooden houses that die with 2 grenades? yeah, that is kinda of stupid

1. Is a trade-off, in the old days it was a real pain to actually get a squad into cover and staying there, so often 1 model would dive out from behind that comfy piece of green cover and get the whole squad suppressed. The really annoying thing is when units keep this spacing once they leave cover, if they could fan out more quickly when moving that would help. No way this mechanic is going to get changed though.

I never understood why relic never made BIGGER cover assets, this clearly benefit axis so much, since they have smaller squads.


Another big problem are the teleporting-ninja-elite infantry squads that pop out houses and don't need any preparation time to murder everything.

this is a non-issue, either l2p or give up.



what do you mean by that? the wooden houses that die with 2 grenades? yeah, that is kinda of stupid

Random wipe and squad spacing is no issue lol where do you love live in the Soviet Union where all squad are six me if you don't want to play axis try Brits without 5th man upgrade then come back ,random wipe happen when you are in cover or just moved out of it and squad spacing is directly connected to it

Random wipe and squad spacing is no issue lol where do you love live in the Soviet Union where all squad are six me if you don't want to play axis try Brits without 5th man upgrade then come back ,random wipe happen when you are in cover or just moved out of it and squad spacing is directly connected to it

I'm playing Ost 90% of the times for the last 2 weeks and this has been literally a non issue, if you actually move your squads and don't be a retarded slowpoke you can keep your squads alive.

Worst case scenario a mortar hit your squad and you have to retreat to heal.

but yeah, mortars are super annoying early game, one lucky hit and you have a low health squad. what relic should do is make them like in vcoh, less damage but have a supression hit.

It all depends what's your goal.

If you want 100% math game where every P4 dies after 4 shots and Tiger after 7 shots, no bouncing, no abandoning, no misses etc etc then your goal is 100% competitive game.

But in my opinion it completly kills gameplay. Just think about best casts you have seen. Were they regular battles with no RNG involved? Not a chance.

Best casts are casts with huge RNG, great comebacks, luck or unluc etc etc this is what makes this game so great - you canno't predict it 100% of the time. Sure, you can predict that Panther will kill Sherman but sometimes your Panther can miss few shots and Sherman can penetrate (happens to me - Panthers missed 3 times, Sherman penetrated Panter's front 2 times). Did I raged that my Panther cannot kill Sherman? No becasue it was the beatuy of it.

+1

i disagree on the call-in part... it's not uncommon for an OST player who is behind to pick mechanized assault, stop at tier 2, and just wait behind pak wall for tigers. had to kill 3 the other day in one match (i let it go on way too long, but i digress). it'd be great to see call-ins tied to tech... that way it's more a "finisher" and less of an instant card to get back in a game you have no right to be in. especially because the timing of some is awkward and so immediately results in a game imbalance (i.e. stug-e call-ins can happen during a generally infantry-only fight... and it's not uncommon for players to pump out two immediately, which is very hard to counter with USF or UKF mid-game).