How to fix: OKW

As for sturmpioneers, of course they need to give up some utility to get smoke grenades; duh. They don't even have enough space in their UI currently to add a new ability anyway.

Imo that is an easy fix.

Remove the stun grenade at vet 3 replace it with smoke one at vet0 locked behind 1 truck.

Greatly reduce repair speed and built speed, move combat stats from vet 0 to vet1-5. About repair move repair vet bonuses to minesweeper.

SP now have 2 paths,combat oriented with a weapon upgrade, repair/build speed with sweeper upgrade.

I like it!

If someone thinks it is too strong, then require these upgrades to be part of when the KT gets called in or something.

The power of maxim spam is how it controls the game for the first 3-5 units being built. It allows Soviet players to more or less force their opponent's hand into a strategy, (Which is what people typically hate about British emplacements). Sturmpioneer smoke or ISG smoke won't actually change that.

But I guess predictable counterplay is better than no counterplay. Maxim garrisons into T70s might even become even more favorable though since there'll be more draw for sturmpios and ISGs.

Technically the kubelwagen is OKW's actual best bet for handling maxim spam, but it's useless against garrisons. By the time ISGs are available there's already incendiary nades on volks. If sturmpio smoke was behind tech the same thing applies, although they could smoke to allow volks to close to throw their grenade.

The issue is with MG garrisons against OKW, not MG spam.

One thing I would personally like to see is more rewards for keeping units alive.

For example:

1) An extra man/weapons slot for each squad at vet3, maybe higher.
2) Move utility to vet2 while have vet1 give combat boost. This is especially critical for vehicles, which are very expensive.
3) Allow the Sturm Officer to gain veterancy, perhaps from nearby units.

And, more controversial, allow deployed trucks to gain veterancy from taking fire. It would mostly be more armor/health, faster healing/repair, faster building/reinforcing. The logic being that it would reward a more risky and agressive playstyle.

(On that note, allow the Schwerer Panzer HQ to manually target units.)

And for the completely bonkers: have deployed trucks come with a weapons emplacement addon (hmg or mortar for medic, light AT for light vehicles), or more addons in general.

Technically the kubelwagen is OKW's actual best bet for handling maxim spam, but it's useless against garrisons.

this is a little bit wrong....have u ever tried to drive around a maxim?

it will be destroy by the models which are not on the mg. (5) their guns are strong enough to kill the kubel in secounds

this is a little bit wrong....have u ever tried to drive around a maxim?

it will be destroy by the models which are not on the mg. (5) their guns are strong enough to kill the kubel in secounds

Yeah, it's not easy. But the kubel doesn't get suppressed, which is the point. It can force the maxims to have to spin around more than they would against infantry, which they just point at once.

It's most certainly not a great option, but it's actually their best bet at minute 0. Not saying it's a great situation.

a good maxim player can ignor the kubel...cause it will be killed by the other models.

The way I see it, if somebody goes maxim spam and manages to secure the critical garrison in all the decent gamemodes, the only options for OKW are:
- ISG spam (artillery)
- Stuka, to at least pull down the garrisons (artillery).

Thus, if the Soviet player goes Maxim spam, that only leaves the OKW player with only one single type of playing; artillery. That is way too predictable and lame.

If I wanted my playstyle to restrict my opponents and make their playing predictable, I wouldn't even bother with multiplayer. I would just stick with CPU stomp.

As for sturmpioneers, of course they need to give up some utility to get smoke grenades; duh. They don't even have enough space in their UI currently to add a new ability anyway.

I've already enumerated all (rather the only) option that OKW has vs MG spam. Would you be as kind to fill up the various types of playstyles (not units) available to the other factions to counter MG spam?

OST - ?
Soviets - ?
USF - ?
UKF - ?

When you start start filling up the number of options for these factions, perhaps you are going to realise why OKW feels like such a chore to play against a decent MG spammer.

oh well, maxim is the only one "offensive" mg so I don´t see the point in filling up what you ask me....anyway,

if SU player dind´t go maxim spam, but he rush a t70, then, how many options OKW has??? I don´t think OKW player has 3 o 4 types of playstyles, yet I suppose you don´t get bored then, so it is fine....


if USF player goes rush stuart, how many options has OTS players??? don´t know, you are loooking for problems where there aren´t......you have the tools to counter maxim spam, but it is so boring for you that, hey, gonna give more options so Mr. Smith don´t have to go play compstomp....

the problem is: allies can spam 1-2 units and can deal with this vs a player with the same skill lvl.

axis need combined armys with much micro....and need much more skill to win against a allie player.

oh well, maxim is the only one "offensive" mg so I don´t see the point in filling up what you ask me....anyway,

if SU player dind´t go maxim spam, but he rush a t70, then, how many options OKW has??? I don´t think OKW player has 3 o 4 types of playstyles, yet I suppose you don´t get bored then, so it is fine....


if USF player goes rush stuart, how many options has OTS players??? don´t know, you are loooking for problems where there aren´t......you have the tools to counter maxim spam, but it is so boring for you that, hey, gonna give more options so Mr. Smith don´t have to go play compstomp....

The examples that you mentioned (Stuart vs OST or T70 rush vs Axis) are great examples of other problematic play-counterplay issues in the game.

As long as one player (the "attacker") can choose a particular strategy that shoehorns the other player (the "defender") to follow one particular playstyle to counter this, doesn't increase the game's strategic depth; it diminishes it. Particularly so if the only avenue available to the defender is not barely even viable.

Using these attack patterns to shoehorn the defender to play in the same predictable way is not "outplaying" your opponent. It is using knowledge of the current meta to completely deprive your enemy of choice about how they want to develop their army composition.

Every choice made by the attacker should afford the defender at least 2 viable ways to counter the threat. That way the defender is also given the choice to make their trade-offs than follow the exact same script game-in, game-out.

It is great that some factions have certain playstyles more developed than other playstyles; it adds flavouring to the game. What's not fine is that some factions have barely one playstyle available to them that makes them even conceivably playable.

The examples that you mentioned (Stuart vs OST or T70 rush vs Axis) are great examples of other problematic play-counterplay issues in the game.

As long as one player (the "attacker") can choose a particular strategy that shoehorns the other player (the "defender") to follow one particular playstyle to counter this, doesn't increase the game's strategic depth; it diminishes it. Particularly so if the only avenue available to the defender is not barely even viable.

Using these attack patterns to shoehorn the defender to play in the same predictable way is not "outplaying" your opponent. It is using knowledge of the current meta to completely deprive your enemy of choice about how they want to develop their army composition.

Every choice made by the attacker should afford the defender at least 2 viable ways to counter the threat. That way the defender is also given the choice to make their trade-offs than follow the exact same script game-in, game-out.

It is great that some factions have certain playstyles more developed than other playstyles; it adds flavouring to the game. What's not fine is that some factions have barely one playstyle available to them that makes them even conceivably playable.

This. Army design in this game is so flat and uninspired, and the commander system exacerbates the problem.

This. Army design in this game is so flat and uninspired, and the commander system exacerbates the problem.

And what do you expect exactly when people are crying for Armies not being similar to each other and being balanced at the same time? Asymmetrical gameplay balance DOES NOT WORK, I have said it before and I will keep repeating it until Relic get it through their thick skulls.

CoH was balanced symetrically, meaning all Armies had the same tools available to them in different forms.

In terms of support weapons for example, the US had the M1917, the Wehr had the MG42, the Brits had a mobile variant in the form of the MMG upgrade for the Bren carrier and the MG nest plus the mobile Vickers team from the Glider HQ from the Commando doctrine, the PE had a sort of mobile MG platform in the form of the 250 HF that could also carry troops and served as the PE's mobile respawn point and early game support vehicle.

In terms of Mortars the US had the M2 60mm one, the Wehr had the GrW 43 which had better range and damage because it was in a higher tier, the Brits had the mortar pit as well as mobile counterpart from the Commandos, and the PE had their mortar half-track to keep up with their mobile and mechanized playstyle.

In terms of Snipers the US and Wehr both had one, the PE had that light AT half-track with the 37 mm that could snipe infantry with the help of an ability and the Brits had a sniper ability with the Recon section.

And besides the Brits, everyone else had a mobile respawn point vehicle (those being the respective Army's half-tracks), AT weapons on not so busy squads like Rangers, Sappers, Grenadiers and Panzergrenadiers, everybody had AT snares in one form or another, everybody had access to some sort of smoke and some sort of building clearing ability or weapon.

All in all, CoH just had superior balance because it was sort of similarly balanced, all Armies played differently but all Armies had access to a some form of a specific ability or weapon.

You're not incorrect, but...

Let's ignore Opposing Fronts for a second because those factions are the proto-CoH2 factions.

The asymmetry of CoH1 revolved around resources, VPs, and vet. None of that asymmetry really exists in CoH2.

Americans needed to hold VPs and deny Wehrmacht fuel. They needed to keep their units alive and gain vet.
Wehrmacht needed to hold fuel and deny American VP advantage. They needed to use their units hold their fuel to get vet.

Asymmetrical balance can work just fine. That is not the current issue.
Imo current issues are:

1) Veterancy/abilities this section of the game has seen very little changes since the beginning of the game even though unit have changed roles. Example: Penals if one doubles the far accuracy adds a vet ability for extra accuracy and R.O.F. and leaves the 1.69 total accuracy bonus untouched he is asking for trouble. (Penal accuracy exceeds 100% even at mid ranges)

2) Bring faction closer by only buffing the faction weakness and not nerfing their strength...Examples:
1)USF get a great boost in support weapon but their infantry remain as strong as ever.
2)Soviet have their stock units buffed but their call in remain available to most commanders, come at early CP and allot of them are very cost efficient...

Asymmetrical balance can work just fine. That is not the current issue.
Imo current issues are:

1) Veterancy/abilities this section of the game has seen very little changes since the beginning of the game even though unit have changed roles. Example: Penals if one doubles the far accuracy adds a vet ability for extra accuracy and R.O.F. and leaves the 1.69 total accuracy bonus untouched he is asking for trouble.

2) Bring faction closer by only buffing the faction weakness and not nerfing their strength...Example:
1)USF get a great boost in support weapon but their infantry remain as strong as ever.
2)Soviet have their stock units buffed but their call in remain available to most commanders, come at early CP and allot of them are very cost efficient...

US support weapon squad members still drop like flies, you are better off stealing an MG from the Germand and using handheld AT most of the time, at least in my experience.
Also the Riflemen vs Volks combat often comes to RNG and the use of cover so I don't see how it is strong as ever.

US support weapon squad members still drop like flies, you are better off stealing an MG from the Germand and using handheld AT most of the time, at least in my experience.
Also the Riflemen vs Volks combat often comes to RNG and the use of cover so I don't see how it is strong as ever.

1) The most important change to USF support weapons was the introduction of the mortar that allows riflemen to stay in cover and have indirect support. Other than that:
57mm ATG
Penetration from 140/125/115 to 150/140/130
Accuracy changed from 0.05/0.0425/0.03 to 0.055/0.05/0.04
M2HB HMG Team
M2HB .50cal HMG penetration from 3/2/1 to 7/6/5.
New Ability: Armored Piercing Rounds - Timed ability that loads AP rounds for 25% increased damage and +10 penetration.

2) Riflemen received no nerf, the introduction of the ST44 for Volks is another mistake and I have explain why in a earlier post(see page 2 point 2). So USF support weapon and direct fire support (USF's Achilles tendon) got massively buffed (captain arty,M8 )yet their strong point riflemen received no nerfs.

And what do you expect exactly when people are crying for Armies not being similar to each other and being balanced at the same time? Asymmetrical gameplay balance DOES NOT WORK, I have said it before and I will keep repeating it until Relic get it through their thick skulls.

CoH was balanced symetrically, meaning all Armies had the same tools available to them in different forms.

In terms of support weapons for example, the US had the M1917, the Wehr had the MG42, the Brits had a mobile variant in the form of the MMG upgrade for the Bren carrier and the MG nest plus the mobile Vickers team from the Glider HQ from the Commando doctrine, the PE had a sort of mobile MG platform in the form of the 250 HF that could also carry troops and served as the PE's mobile respawn point and early game support vehicle.

In terms of Mortars the US had the M2 60mm one, the Wehr had the GrW 43 which had better range and damage because it was in a higher tier, the Brits had the mortar pit as well as mobile counterpart from the Commandos, and the PE had their mortar half-track to keep up with their mobile and mechanized playstyle.

In terms of Snipers the US and Wehr both had one, the PE had that light AT half-track with the 37 mm that could snipe infantry with the help of an ability and the Brits had a sniper ability with the Recon section.

And besides the Brits, everyone else had a mobile respawn point vehicle (those being the respective Army's half-tracks), AT weapons on not so busy squads like Rangers, Sappers, Grenadiers and Panzergrenadiers, everybody had AT snares in one form or another, everybody had access to some sort of smoke and some sort of building clearing ability or weapon.

All in all, CoH just had superior balance because it was sort of similarly balanced, all Armies played differently but all Armies had access to a some form of a specific ability or weapon.

That game didnt have capping circles, popcap was tied to strategic points which didnt give fuel or muni, and it also had way more base building and research upgrades to improve units.

Back to CoH2: if the main focus of depth from the game is going to be purely micro, every faction needs way more possible tools and ways to accomplish the mission. DOW2 had relatively asymmetric balance but every army had multiple options in multiple tiers to counter different strats and engage the enemy. In COH2 every faction has pretty much one to two MP based counters to enemy builds, excluding AT guns. (Which humorously enough disqualifies the Raktenwerfer.)

The examples that you mentioned (Stuart vs OST or T70 rush vs Axis) are great examples of other problematic play-counterplay issues in the game.

As long as one player (the "attacker") can choose a particular strategy that shoehorns the other player (the "defender") to follow one particular playstyle to counter this, doesn't increase the game's strategic depth; it diminishes it. Particularly so if the only avenue available to the defender is not barely even viable.

Using these attack patterns to shoehorn the defender to play in the same predictable way is not "outplaying" your opponent. It is using knowledge of the current meta to completely deprive your enemy of choice about how they want to develop their army composition.

Every choice made by the attacker should afford the defender at least 2 viable ways to counter the threat. That way the defender is also given the choice to make their trade-offs than follow the exact same script game-in, game-out.

It is great that some factions have certain playstyles more developed than other playstyles; it adds flavouring to the game. What's not fine is that some factions have barely one playstyle available to them that makes them even conceivably playable.

yeah, that´s the point....it took you two great wall of texts arrive to the point where my post started....

if all factions suffer the same problem, why you propose fixing the case that is boring for you????? it shouldn´t be a matter of boring/exciting but a matter of balance what we chooose to fix/update/change...

yeah, that´s the point....it took you two great wall of texts arrive to the point where my post started....

if all factions suffer the same problem, why you propose fixing the case that is boring for you????? it shouldn´t be a matter of boring/exciting but a matter of balance what we chooose to fix/update/change...

My point is that:
1) None of the other factions suffer from MG spam as much as OKW does.
2) This topic is about OKW explicitly, and I hinted at their issue against MGs.
3) If I have an opinion regarding OKW, in an OKW-only thread, it doesn't make sense to mention other, irrelevant matchups even by name (e.g., USF vs OST). What purpose would that even serve?

The "Let's keep X broken, because Y broken too"-mentality is the only guaranteed way to make sure that no issue will ever gets addressed. What's so wrong about fixing both X and Y? What is so wrong about only fixing X, and then, maybe also fixing Y later on?

OKW suffers against maxim spam, not MG spam, let's at least be clear with that.