Relic wants your vote about balance

Armor Company for USF isn't also meta. If you have enough fuel you will most likely tech. Armor company is there to save you a day if you were on a back foot. If you werent you gonna see Shermans followed by Pershing or Calliope.

If you have advantage as a OST you won't see Puma or Stug E. You will see Pz4 + Lighting War for Tiger and JU.

And on and on...

Call ins are not meta in sense that people only play with them.
People play with them if the screwed something in the early game and try to say in game, only when on a backfoot.

If not, 9/10 will tech instead of waiting for call ins.

You say that people only use call-ins when they are on the backfoot, well in the vast majority of games, somebody will be behind in the mid-game. Look at OKW; how often do you honestly see somebody losing and go for any doctrine besides Scavenge to get an Ostwind, or Special-Whatever to get the Command Panther?

How about for Ostheer? If they are losing to light vehicle rush 4/5 times they will go for mobile defense.
And again with USF; lose your first stuart, buy another stuart, and get an m10.


The call-in meta is incredibly predictable because of how easy and safe it is. When people only use it when they are losing, then you are still going to see it in every game because somebody will be losing. The only faction that this isn't a problem for is Brits because they have no call-in mediums or lights.

Also, saying that nobody uses M4C Shermans is also completely wrong. Penals/cons into LendLease DSHK and follow up with no tech double shermans is a completely meta strat.






Mr. Smith's analysis of the current balance issues is spot on. Obviously the US mortar needs to be fixed, but will that really change up the gameplay of the game? Not really. The light-vehicle and call-in meta is what has been plaguing the game for months. In a game about multiple options and strategies, there is a big problem when literally every faction rushes for a light vehicle, and losing that vehicle or losing to that vehicle means it's gg unless you go for call-ins to make up for your lost fuel.

You say that people only use call-ins when they are on the backfoot, well in the vast majority of games, somebody will be behind in the mid-game. Look at OKW; how often do you honestly see somebody losing and go for any doctrine besides Scavenge to get an Ostwind, or Special-Whatever to get the Command Panther?

How about for Ostheer? If they are losing to light vehicle rush 4/5 times they will go for mobile defense.
And again with USF; lose your first stuart, buy another stuart, and get an m10.


The call-in meta is incredibly predictable because of how easy and safe it is. When people only use it when they are losing, then you are still going to see it in every game because somebody will be losing. The only faction that this isn't a problem for is Brits because they have no call-in mediums or lights.



Saying that nobody uses M4C Shermans is also completely wrong. Penals/cons into LendLease DSHK and follow up with no tech double shermans is a completely meta strat.

And that's the thing.

Someone is always on backfoot (tho call ins like Puma means that the backfoot is huge).
So, I'd like see that even being on backfoot does not that that player will lose a game.
Take away call ins and plenty of games will end before 15min becasue player has, let's say, 100fuel but it's not enough to build anything and on the other hand he also can't call anything.

And that's the thing.

Someone is always on backfoot (tho call ins like Puma means that the backfoot is huge).
So, I'd like see that even being on backfoot does not that that player will lose a game.
Take away call ins and plenty of games will end before 15min becasue player has, let's say, 100fuel but it's not enough to build anything and on the other hand he also can't call anything.

That's why the light-vehicle meta needs to change at the same time, they allow an aggressive player to carve out a massive advantage very quickly.

With reduced LV potency and increased cost, the opponent should not be so far behind in the game that skipping teching to call-ins is required to make up for the disadvantage. The problem isn't that the call-ins allow comebacks, it is that they are basically required to stay in the game.

It makes the game too predictable and restricts wider strategies and commanders.

That's why the light-vehicle meta needs to change at the same time, they allow an aggressive player to carve out a massive advantage very quickly.

With reduced LV potency and increased cost, the opponent should not be so far behind in the game that skipping teching to call-ins is required to make up for the disadvantage. The problem isn't that the call-ins allow comebacks, it is that they are basically required to stay in the game.

It makes the game too predictable and restricts wider strategies and commanders.

There was a time when people almost did not make LV just rush for mediums and it was a bad, bad time.
Wanna go back there? I don't.

Relic streched LV window and that was a fresh air for this game, becasue before that LV were useless.

There was a time when people almost did not make LV just rush for mediums and it was a bad, bad time.
Wanna go back there? I don't.

Relic streched LV window and that was a fresh air for this game, becasue before that LV were useless.

Why is it always one or the other? The key is balance, to make both strategies possible and worth using, to add more variety to the game.


Show Spoiler

Can someone make a better poll here? - same alternatives, more votes. Im too lazy to sign up at relics.

No-tech call-in spam + light-meta rush are heavily intertwined and are a race to the bottom, basically.

If you don't do both you will be at a severe disadvantage to somebody that abuses both.

If the opponent's full-meta playstyle is making teching prohibitive for you, of course you need to buy into a call-in commander. That's why we keep seeing the same 3 Ostheer doctrines day-in day-out.

I'd be happy if it would be three... I'm currently looking into the meta for the WPC and for both axis factions it's not really diverse in terms of which doctrines are used.

And I totally agree on call-in being connected to LVs to some extend.

That said, I personally would like to see not teching and waiting for call-ins being a viable strategy, depending on the circumstances. And I think for the Tiger itself and the IS-2 this is working out ok: If you don't tech to T3 you have to survive rather long on T2 units before calling in a single heavy, which is a serious drawback.

Problem that I see with Mechanized Assault (and to some extend Mobile Defense) is that both contain call-ins that can be used as make-shift replacements for T3 units. Ok, the StuG-E is a really poor-mans version of T3, but it is powerful enough so you can hang in there to get the Tiger.

Would Mobile Assault be as popular without the StuG? Or would we see the StuG again if it would be shifted e.g. into German Infantry?

If relic is this far out of touch with their game then i don't think there's much point giving an opinion anymore, or a fuck for that matter.

Make on the back-foot call-ins expensive (+50 or +100 Manpower +25 fuel?) so that a choice has to be made on grinding through to tech up or outplay opponent with costly call-in.

Replace OST Gren Vet 1 heal with option for Camo upgrade but 20 ammo instead of 30.

Fix American Mortar or replace with LT 1 howitzer. Stuart has abilities unlock with vet 1.

Russian Snares and Partisan Snares piercing through the Front of 185 mm armor Tiger2 to damage engine??? Never should happen from front.

OST Scout Car Less armor or health. Scouting areas, finding/revealing snipers and maybe shooting down a plane not having 2 or 3 spam rush you into a base killing everyone inside.

Snipers never ever miss a shot? They can miss someone on retreat but can't miss if in heavy cover firing at the sniper or the target moving while firing

Sniper firing at Target on the move regardless of finding cover or retreat

60 or 65%
Vet 1 75%
Vet 2 85%
Vet 3 95%

Sniper less manpower if accuracy change is made.

Penal Veterancy needs to be fixed.

I don't know why we can't have a weekly or bi-monthly update where stats are adjusted slightly instead of massive changes every 4-5 months.

I don't know why we can't have a weekly or bi-monthly update where stats are adjusted slightly instead of massive changes every 4-5 months.

I'm guessing your new here.

I'm guessing your new here.

Because that was my first post? Yes new to posts on the forums but I remember patches coming out once a month or couple months depending on the situation but now they only push an update for you to buy skins (I like some of the original skins but some of the new ones are just bad. Good that some of the money went to the Champ and runner up (and of course the people who made the skins) but the war paint finals honestly just not what I wanted to see (DevM vs. Noggano instead of Jesulin) and because of the problems with the balance.

All I want is an update from Relic saying we are working on it and this is the time frame where we think the update will be ready to be pushed out. Otherwise Just let GGMachine Mod fly and have the community take over with the mod and patches/updates.

Otherwise Just let GGMachine Mod fly and have the community take over with the mod and patches/updates.

The ideas implemented in that mod are not supported by the community, and it isn't a popular candidate for a live game balance patch. It is, however, an interesting experiment with lots of effort behind it.

By being new here, it means you haven't caught up with the new patching cycle from relic.

That's why the light-vehicle meta needs to change at the same time, they allow an aggressive player to carve out a massive advantage very quickly.

With reduced LV potency and increased cost, the opponent should not be so far behind in the game that skipping teching to call-ins is required to make up for the disadvantage. The problem isn't that the call-ins allow comebacks, it is that they are basically required to stay in the game.

It makes the game too predictable and restricts wider strategies and commanders.

Aggressive play need to be rewarded, and at the same time the game need more balance at the LV stage.

But there is a huge design issue that comes against any form of balance mid game. Or you'll have LV too strong as today, or too weak or without purpose to be fielded.

You have to consider why you build a LV first. To increase the pressure or to decrease it as a counter to other LV or mass infantry.
If it is to increase the pressure, what for? We know that in Coh2, there is no correlation between map control and army size or MP income.
So the only two reasons to build a LV today is to cutoff the fuel and mp bleed you opponent. If we decide to nerf the LV to balance them, making them less deadly, the bleeding reason goes away. Remain the cutoff reason which is the most hypothetic, complicated and risky one. You can't camp your opponent cutoff or fuel point or it is because you have already won the game.

If you nerf LV to make them balance today, it is pretty much going to make people stop using them and thus reinforcing calling meta and medium rush. LV's value in term of impact will be too low to make any difference in game.

Now there are other paths that can be explored, we could nerf the damage effectiveness of LVs and increase their abilities, something significant so having them in your army composition gives you actually a bonus.
Auras, special shot, vision etc...

And that's the thing.

Take away call ins and plenty of games will end before 15min becasue player has, let's say, 100fuel but it's not enough to build anything and on the other hand he also can't call anything.

I would prefer it, taking away Icomeback button because I have a doctrine that counter everything you fielded, just have to wait for is stupid. Stug-E, Ostwind, M10 etc...
Here we are facing a design vision that goes against competitive activities. But that's not a surprise when you heard lead designer saying "we want each game to tell a story" =/= competitive spirit.

I would prefer it, taking away Icomeback button because I have a doctrine that counter everything you fielded, just have to wait for is stupid. Stug-E, Ostwind, M10 etc...
Here we are facing a design vision that goes against competitive activities. But that's not a surprise when you heard lead designer saying "we want each game to tell a story" =/= competitive spirit.

Like I mentioned before, I'd love to play and watch exciting games, with comebacks, with some abilities which can turn completly tide of battle, with some RNGs instead of 100% competitive game with nothing else than pure math involved.

Light vehicles (such as the Stuart & T70) over performing
USF Mortar over performing
Lack of viable commanders for Soviet & Wehrmacht
Wehrmacht infantry not scaling in late game
Wehrmacht's lack of counters to light vehicles
Soviet Penals over performing
Soviet Guards Rifle over performing
Other

Hmm, so the real question is which six problems do we want to have ignored?

Best bet is to get the one thing changed that has the most impact.

Light vehicles over performing seems to suggest more attention to allied LVs. I don't know if this means to include the 222 or not. Changes to T70s, Stuarts, AEC, 222s, and Luchs would all have to be different. The issues with each aren't universal.

USF mortar is probably the biggest glaring issue that shouldn't exist in the first place. What it is, I don't even.

Wehrmachts lack of counters to light vehicles is pretty much the same as light vehicles overperforming.

Wehrmachts infantry not scaling to late game relates heavily towards their lack of counters to light vehicles, as well as the USF mortar wiping them, as well as Soviet infantry having early game synergy.

Soviet Penals over performing has to do with synergy with Soviet Guards synergizing (Strong AT, pocket AT). Without the other they don't really overperform.

"Lack of viable commanders for Soviet and Wehrmacht" is a very confusing. Either they're hoping it means the players want them to build more DLC, or to fix the multitude of obviously terrible commanders. Hopefully it means the latter, but commanders relate to an issue with COH2's whole design, not balance.

Light vehicles play, the USF mortar, and soviet infantry have large impacts on Wehrmacht's infantry play, and therefore their ability to last to the late game.

I feel like given the options, that "Wehrmacht infantry not scaling into the lategame" could potentially have the biggest impact on all the related issues. Or rather, all of these seem to contribute to Wehrmacht's (infantry) failing to get to (and surviving) the late game.

However, based on reality, the USF mortar, which shouldn't have existed in the first place, and especially not in the ridiculous form it is in, is probably the biggest glaring issue. But coming up with a method for Wehrmacht infantry to scale better into the lategame might have the most beneficial impact.

So, if there's actually going to be changes that are tested and balanced, I'd say wehrmacht lategame. If it's more 'what couple of numerical values do you want one person to change once randomly without testing in the next couple of months and never revisit?" then I'd go with USF mortar.

Who gives a shit. Relic loves to sh*t on the community with unannounced changes they don't revert back.

Combo'ed with the sh*t unit response times, continuing bugs like ghosted sandbags and wire, a moron lead game designer who puts in broken gameplay like bofors and Advanced cancer, and a code base that is so god-awful they had to revert a pathfinding "fix," and broken starting positions that can increase travel time by 15 seconds depending on where your homebase is situated (it's random for some dumbf*ck reason); and no ... this game is pure sh*t and always will be.

Why is it always one or the other? The key is balance, to make both strategies possible and worth using, to add more variety to the game.


Show Spoiler

Light vehicles are a problem precisely because Relic likes timing windows. If there were reasons to build light vehicles over a medium tank, light vehicles wouldn't rely as much on shock value as they currently do. Unit phases are one of the biggest design problems with CoH2 (along with remnants of the "every plane crash tells a story" era).

Make on the back-foot call-ins expensive (+50 or +100 Manpower +25 fuel?) so that a choice has to be made on grinding through to tech up or outplay opponent with costly call-in.

Replace OST Gren Vet 1 heal with option for Camo upgrade but 20 ammo instead of 30.

Fix American Mortar or replace with LT 1 howitzer. Stuart has abilities unlock with vet 1.

Russian Snares and Partisan Snares piercing through the Front of 185 mm armor Tiger2 to damage engine??? Never should happen from front.

OST Scout Car Less armor or health. Scouting areas, finding/revealing snipers and maybe shooting down a plane not having 2 or 3 spam rush you into a base killing everyone inside.

Snipers never ever miss a shot? They can miss someone on retreat but can't miss if in heavy cover firing at the sniper or the target moving while firing

Sniper firing at Target on the move regardless of finding cover or retreat

60 or 65%
Vet 1 75%
Vet 2 85%
Vet 3 95%

Sniper less manpower if accuracy change is made.

Penal Veterancy needs to be fixed.

I don't know why we can't have a weekly or bi-monthly update where stats are adjusted slightly instead of massive changes every 4-5 months.

I agree with some of your suggestions but most seem a bit inexperienced. Russian snares, for instance, function exactly the same way as German, American and British snares (with some differences in cost and penetration).

As to why we don't have weekly patches, it's most likely down to internal politics. Your average modder could adjust a few things over a lunch break using the official modding tools. In addition, the USF mortar is a problem because Relic tossed out the weak one tested and approved in their balance preview mod and implemented a pre-nerf version of the current monster.

I'd suggest downloading the modding tools, if you haven't already, and having a look through the game files if you stay in the balance forum. You could also check unit stats and DPS values at the respective links. It looks better when we argue incoherently over hard stats instead of anecdotes.

Hmm, so the real question is which six problems do we want to have ignored?

So, if there's actually going to be changes that are tested and balanced, I'd say wehrmacht lategame. If it's more 'what couple of numerical values do you want one person to change once randomly without testing in the next couple of months and never revisit?" then I'd go with USF mortar.

The problem I can see is that Wehrmacht infantry scaling is a fairly nuanced issue that has as much to do with core design and over-performing options in the other factions as the Wehrmacht itself. Relic will most likely just give Grenadiers and Panzergrenadiers a fifth man and call it a day, which we'll have to deal with for the next six months.

I think the biggest problem is that the Ostheer four man squads (especially grenadiers) get squad wiped almost every time I play with them. It can either be a single grenade or a mortar shell, and I think the problem lies in the squad formation how they are placed behind cover. Of course the USF mortar is OP, but dealing with only the mortar solves only a part of the problem.

A single vote.

most viable option would be "removing brits as a whole"

unfortunately it isnt there