Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.3 Update

I know it's quite of the topic

But as a one of the modders can you tell me is there any possible chance of doing something with soviet demo in winter balance patch? For example putting it behind upgrade or reducting number of dead models to 3. It's so ridiculous that soviets have a squad wipe ability for 90ammo and other doesn't.

If not just plz remove those f**king signs on a s mines field!

Because the balance team have said their intentions are to balance things relative to Wehr as the gold standard

and this is about Hard AT, not tanks.

AND OKW tanks cost more than others tanks.

Finally, the costs to get to Schwerer for OKW are pretty similar to costs of getting to Mechanized Co. as Sov. In fact if you go T2 as OKW instead of Battlegroup it costs 25 more fuel for OKW than it does for Soviets... Soviets start with 10 more fuel.

Can you proofs this words about gold standard ? So if ostheer are standard , okw need change too.
Hard AT that counter all from m3/carrier to tanks. Did PTRS counter somting like raketen ?
And its more about ligh vehicles and middle, OKW have tier 2 t counter infatry, light and middle vehicles, so tahy have and at gun and mobile unit. Cost morem, more ablity, more armor.
Before summer 2015 soviet start with 50 fuel, we know why price of tiers was change, so dont need this logic.
Compared to soviet, okw light vehicles come more early, that what we talk about, not about t4.

I know it's quite of the topic

But as a one of the modders can you tell me is there any possible chance of doing something with soviet demo in winter balance patch? For example putting it behind upgrade or reducting number of dead models to 3. It's so ridiculous that soviets have a squad wipe ability for 90ammo and other doesn't.

If not just plz remove those f**king signs on a s mines field!

Stark pls, lets make 5 factions like one standard, lets make mirror factions, if you have trouble vs demo from 2013 its really strange. If demo are so problem why in 1v1 ESL tourney we see it few times ? I only remeber Noggano demo vs Asten and Jesulin. If you whanna balance game why you dont write about dive bomb ? flayers from com panther doc, com panther vet, scope ? molotovs ? cons ? callins problem ? Stug E spam ?

To all the people saying that CoH2 is not vCoH and to stop living in the past, it might not be the same game but the fundamentals are the same, budwise and the other older players are not here to start a vCoH vs CoH2 war. We are here to help CoH2 be a better game and if vCoH got many things right and if we can use what we learned from playing and watching vCoH change to make CoH2 more fun to play then we will do that. It's not about living in the past, it's about using what we learned from the past. Every tier doesn't in fact need AT, otherwise you get an end result of shallow teching, if you dont need to worry where you are getting your AT from because every tier has it then what's the point. Every tier should have a pro and con, every tier should be worth getting in certain situation, you don't want a tier to be always worth getting regardless of the situation because it's so strong in itself. Now obviously this isn't a golden rule because there are factions that function differently. What many are overlooking here is that the factions are fundamentally flawed themselves, so balancing is difficult. I appreciate what the modders are doing here to try and help the game but I still think that they are doing so by applying bandages instead of fixing the real problems and in that process they are destroying a bit of what CoH was about, I know some of them come from other RTS and that may influence their way of balancing.

Fact is that you have a tier that is good all around, which is the soviet T1, it has a good frontline infantry, the sniper and the M3A1, obviously this tier has no AT but has a lot of good AI and that is the strength of it, the problem is that due to the axis faction design and even more about the fact that the M3A1 can have infantry inside it goes around one of the mechanics of the CoH franchise which is about flanking MG's, you can just pop a full 6 men squad behind the MG (I cant even imagine how broken it would be in vCoH if I could pop a rifle behind the MG with the jeep), it goes even further than that since penals could have flamethrowers, I think the M3A1 here is a problem and the ostheer T1 especially the grenadier is another.

To all the people saying that CoH2 is not vCoH and to stop living in the past, it might not be the same game but the fundamentals are the same, budwise and the other older players are not here to start a vCoH vs CoH2 war. We are here to help CoH2 be a better game and if vCoH got many things right and if we can use what we learned from playing and watching vCoH change to make CoH2 more fun to play then we will do that. It's not about living in the past, it's about using what we learned from the past. Every tier doesn't in fact need AT, otherwise you get an end result of shallow teching, if you dont need to worry where you are getting your AT from because every tier has it then what's the point. Every tier should have a pro and con, every tier should be worth getting in certain situation, you don't want a tier to be always worth getting regardless of the situation because it's so strong in itself. Now obviously this isn't a golden rule because there are factions that function differently. What many are overlooking here is that the factions are fundamentally flawed themselves, so balancing is difficult. I appreciate what the modders are doing here to try and help the game but I still think that they are doing so by applying bandages instead of fixing the real problems and in that process they are destroying a bit of what CoH was about, I know some of them come from other RTS and that may influence their way of balancing.

Fact is that you have a tier that is good all around, which is the soviet T1, it has a good frontline infantry, the sniper and the M3A1, obviously this tier has no AT but has a lot of good AI and that is the strength of it, the problem is that due to the axis faction design and even more about the fact that the M3A1 can have infantry inside it goes around one of the mechanics of the CoH franchise which is about flanking MG's, you can just pop a full 6 men squad behind the MG (I cant even imagine how broken it would be in vCoH if I could pop a rifle behind the MG with the jeep), it goes even further than that since penals could have flamethrowers, I think the M3A1 here is a problem and the ostheer T1 especially the grenadier is another.

So good to see a top player saying this. The m3a1 really wrecks the early game. Ostheer can't depend on its MG (even in a garrison when flamers come) and Volks don't have a faust til t1. It forces muni drain and defensive clumping from Ostheer and an early AT unit and clumping from OKW when what they need is anti-inf to combat the strong infantry of the soviet T1.

The fact that it also stops you from harassing deep in enemy territory is also a serious problem. While soviets can send their cheap units anywhere on the map, the axis risk an early game squad wipe if they do and so must keep all their units together and lose map control.


Also - VCoH had so many nice features and mechanics that would benefit CoH2 and wouldn't be that difficult to incorporate into the game. It's not about nostalgia, it's about wishing those great features were included in this game.

"Every tier should have a pro and con, every tier should be worth getting in certain situation"
That was great in VCoH. You could try an unusual build but your opponent could react to it, so a player wasn't able to have a beat-all cookie-cutter strat. This created dozens of different possibilities and fun options. Those options do not exist in CoH2 because you know if you don't automatically build the counters to one of the two soviet strategies (Maximspam + Sniper to Guards) you're going to be fighting a horrendous uphill struggle.

...

How would you fix the core problems and not bandaging it?

I know 99% that there won't be a grand patch that fixes the core of the game at this stage but it would be nice to hear it or have it on record at least. ofc im not talking about general "universal fuel upgrade" what not.

How would you fix the core problems and not bandaging it?

I know 99% that there won't be a grand patch that fixes the core of the game at this stage but it would be nice to hear it or have it on record at least. ofc im not talking about general "universal fuel upgrade" what not.

Like backteching punishing all factions? I think only OKW isnt punished THAT bad for backteching, while all other factions are punished in the way that enemy will simply have fuel advantage over you and will field armor faster which would in general have greater impact then your backteching.

Like support weapons can let alone cap point while deployed, but can do it as the same rape as regular inf (say hi to maxim spam which exist because of this and it always make it more resonable if penals are not batshit OP).

Like in general timing of first tank and armor. Making oportunity window for half of the units like 1-2 mins.

Because of first reason, you simply want to skip all possible fuel upgrades in most of the cases, just because there is no reason to delay your tech up.

Like call-in tanks and units, which requares nothing but MP\Fuel to be deployed (say hi to DHSK+Penals, or DSHK+New penals+Sherman or stug E meta).

Like hand-AT weaponary having homing misales thats why schreck\zook blobs are still exist in some point (aswell as we might see now tripe double piats squads).

Broken commanders, which are utter shit compare to meta commanders.

Unfair veterancy and in general veterancy. Like we rarely see vet 3 panthers but vet 3 comet is regular basis.

Some units are decent with veterancy, some are meh, some are god like.

Faction wipe potentials, like Allies having the biggest wipe potential in the game via demo-charges, mortars, small size of axis squads and so-on while Axis dont have such tools and can rely mostly on retreat wipes.

List can go on.

just came to say that i appreciate the work you modders are doing and even if you don't get it right the first time; it's still great to have someone changing up things with this game

DevM post look like he whanna be in balance team but he are not ?
I just ask, how long window have m3a vs ostheer in game ? And how we must use m3a in middle and late game.
Why DevM dont play with so strong AI tier in ESL ? Just flank mg with 6 man squad, what can be easy ? Maybe only spam maxims.
With part all this balance posts soviet will be back to 2013. Like say Lenin, you go in right road comrades.

DevM post look like he whanna be in balance team but he are not ?

He is already working with the developers.

Meanwhile, a group of 10-20 top players, modders, and veterans combined could balance this game the best it could get in a month I'd guess.

Since relic chose the team from senior .org strategists/casters, I wonder who is to blame for that?

How would you fix the core problems and not bandaging it?

I know 99% that there won't be a grand patch that fixes the core of the game at this stage but it would be nice to hear it or have it on record at least. ofc im not talking about general "universal fuel upgrade" what not.

Well a start would be in changing the original factions. Like I said before I think that some things should always be there for a faction, scouting units being one of them, CoH2 has a little focus in this.

For ostheer which would be the most standard faction:
T1: addition of a cheap scout unit, could be the kubel of OKW. grenadiers changed to overall be weaker than their allied counterparts but be more of a meatshield, this would mean changes to the squad size possibly 5, better long range, mid range on par with the other allied infantry and close range worse. This would play more into the mini games of ostheer wanting to keep the enemies at long range. However give grenadiers access to some close range upgrade that could come in to replace the LMG so that ostheer has a chance on more urban maps.

T2: change so that you can only have access to either the 222 or halftrack, each of them having a different role depending on what you want to do, 222 being an harass unit with relative less hp than the HF, halftrack being a more tanky unit with frontline reinforcing (this would mean changes in the overall tankyness of these units), so you could think of the 222 of a unit that is good on its own, it doesnt need an army to back it up and could offer something else than the HF while the HF needs an army backing it up to be really strong and with the HF buffs you could see it being a good option, also the 222 wouldnt have AT capabilities, it would be all AI.Furthermore addition to an elite long range unit in this tier ( I said before something like ostruppen to T1 and move grens to T2. This would give a natural progression over the T1 infantry unit and removes that hard as hell to balance grenadier that we have at the moment.

T3: Pgrens moved to here, they would be the only good close range unit (non doctrinal), Stug-E added to this tier, with the stug E being buildable and non doctrinal its easier to balance this unit regarding cost/effectiveness, Stug remains as a mobile AT choice.

T4: Ostwind and P4 moved to T4, brummbar removed and possibly make it doctrinal and buff it(its useless atm), give buffs to ostwind and P4 so that they do their roles better, T4 has now access to a good AI tank, a balanced tank that both does well against AI and tanks and finally the panther that is only good against tanks.

This would make T3 and T4 more worth to tech to, since T3 is the only tier that gives you good elite close range infantry (Pgrens would be buffed) and decent tanks, T4 would be a more reliable tier with access to tanks that do their own job very well opposed to the worthless brummbar that we have at the moment.

For soviets:
Main idea: make Conscripts be the backbone of the soviets, T1 and T2 will then both be options that you can go from instead of what you have at the moment in which conscripts are an option on their own. This might seem bad to read at first and it might seem like it would take depth out but in reality it gives grounds for better and more relevant choices. Lets be honest right now you are not going conscripts AND t1, they overlap(if you did go it would be for the sniper). So by making the start more simple in which you use the conscripts as the backbone you can give more identity to the T1.I always thought of soviets as a super flexible faction and thats what I aim here. After I talk about the changes ill go over this again because it will be easier to express myself.

T0: Engineers are now a unit of 3. Conscripts are now a unit of 4, they are cheaper, they capture points faster and are overall bad at combat (still better than the engineer), to summarize they are bad at long range, bit better at medium range (still worse than the ostheer T1 unit at this range) and better at close range but still overall should lose to the ostheer T1 unit because of their squad size. This would mean conscripts would fit the role of a more capping and utility oriented unit, meaning that you would use them to throw AT nades, clear buildings with molotovs and cap around the map more than to fight but because of their cheaper cost(would have to balanced well) you could still swarm the enemy (keeping it in theme with soviets), besides the normal upgrades one more would be added called increased squad size (yes like the UKF one) in which conscripts could have +1 on their squad and you could upgrade this again for +1 totalling 6(costs of these upgrades would be cheap). How would the new conscripts compare to the old ones? Well they it would dependent if you invest on the squad size plus this new squad idea of conscripts is hard to compare to the old ones because their idea is not to be a full fighting unit but to give strength to the faction in other ways. The main idea is that the unit would be more cost effective due to their utility and depending on the squad size it can change to a more fighting oriented unit but with their own added costs. Tiers are now unlocked in the HQ. Each tier upgrade makes the conscripts stronger in some way, meaning that the conscripts scale more via upgrades than any unit before. M3A1 is now unlocked in the HQ after one of the tiers has been unlocked. units cant get inside the M3A1.

T1: penals are the only elite long range unit soviets have, their squad size goes down to 5 and its a unit that doesnt need teching investement to be more effective unlike the conscripts. Sniper down to a unit of 1 and buffed. So what is the incentive of going T1 now? What are the pros and cons? Well you would still tech T1 to get the sniper on its own since its a really strong unit, other than that the penals would be good on their own because it would mean less investment in various upgrades which could mean getting to some later tier faster and since they fill the long range role it means that you can take a "long range approach". T1 could possibly have upgrades to make penals specialise in other ways(havent tought of it yet).

T2: maxim down to 4, mortar down to 4, Zis down to 4 (the supports units should never have so many men on their squads) Keep in mind costs would go according to many of these changes we are talking about design here. T2 gives you the support weapons, which means this tier wont go obsolete for later stages of the game, neither will T1 be.

The rest of the tiers are "alright", I would probably change the T70 to be more of an annoying unit than a squad finishing monster.

So to go back to what I said before now that I went through the "big"changes, well I think this would give more depth to how you teched in soviets, you have would have MANY options, conscripts would never be useless due to their utility and could even be really good fighting units if you invest all the upgrades in them, this means that the conscript would be the backbone of the army, so by making you start with the conscripts you can add more variety on the faction for options made later on. Opposed to right now where you have pretty much 3 options (where one of them is a cheesy one, that being maxim spam that is only strong because of the squad size of the maxim and overall set up times), which are conscript spam into T2, or T1 start. With the changed conscripts you can go the whole early to mid game upgrading cons, you can go T1 for a more reliable frontline early that needs near to no investment to be good, or you can use the conscripts with the support weapons which is a choice that is currently still here, not only that but because of the nature of the amount of upgrades you can get on going on the conscripts it means that there are many variants of these openings. This is a rough "sketch" of something that could be fun to play with.

He is already working with the developers.

Since relic chose the team from senior .org strategists/casters, I wonder who is to blame for that?

Im not currently working with the developers.

Im not currently working with the developers.

I kinda misnterpretted these comments;Show Spoiler



Anyways, good luck and kudos for your contributions

I'm a strong believer that CoH2's balance is hindered by design choices and that true change at this point is too difficult to achieve.

Therefore I think the modders/balancers should focus on performing elegant simple changes that improve the game we have rather than try to re-write the playbook in the game's late age.

At the moment CoH2 is on the left and the modders are attempting to be too ambitious within too small a scope and ending up with something similar to the right:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19349921

No disrespect intended of course.

Keep things simple, make small considered changes that won't cause massive butterfly effects.

Penals for example: remove flamethrower and excessive veterancy, make tweaks to satchel to make it more relevant.

Other than that please keep up the good work, I'm sure we'll end up with something awesome given time. Pleasantly surprised by the level of constructive feedback I see.

I'm a strong believer that CoH2's balance is hindered by design choices and that true change at this point is too difficult to achieve.

Therefore I think the modders/balancers should focus on performing elegant simple changes that improve the game we have rather than try to re-write the playbook in the game's late age.

At the moment CoH2 is on the left and the modders are attempting to be too ambitious within too small a scope and ending up with something similar to the right:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19349921

No disrespect intended of course.

Keep things simple, make small considered changes that won't cause massive butterfly effects.

Penals for example: remove flamethrower and excessive veterancy, make tweaks to satchel to make it more relevant.

Other than that please keep up the good work, I'm sure we'll end up with something awesome given time. Pleasantly surprised by the level of constructive feedback I see.

Yes it is, and unfortunately their scope doesn't allow them for big changes like this, so the only thing they can do is bandage fixes, I still think PTRS in penals is not the best choice to go with.

Lol it is as I feared. These modders now think all of their wettest dreams are soon to be realized.

The main problem I see with these guys is their hyperdefensive attitude in regards to their changes/methods and close-mindedness to Ideas proposed by the community.

This hostile atmosphere is further intensified by rude comments from some members who attack individuals involved in the WBP Mod. Instead of coming up with their own mods and logical explanations.

The main problem I see with these guys is their hyperdefensive attitude in regards to their changes/methods and close-mindedness to Ideas proposed by the community.

This hostile atmosphere is further intensified by rude comments from some members who attack individuals involved in the WBP Mod. Instead of coming up with their own mods and logical explanations.

And those of us making mods to suggest changes are just muddying the waters and being systematically ignored by both the mod team and the community that want to have their voice heard through official channels.

Also it seems the quantity of replay submissions seems to be the metric of authority.

Which is a little problematic since recording replays can render the game unplayable for many.

Every tier doesn't in fact need AT, otherwise you get an end result of shallow teching, if you dont need to worry where you are getting your AT from because every tier has it then what's the point.

Everything from AT nades to fausts to rak's and schreks, eh? You must be talking about those AT?

The conscript changes are interesting, it'd remove tactical diversity from the faction - you'd always know that the soviet player is going con spam, for example. It's all they'd have, after all.

Everything from AT nades to fausts to rak's and schreks, eh? You must be talking about those AT?

I dont really consider fausts AT by themselves, you dont see players relying on fausts for AT, they are more a help to the other AT options. What I mean when I say every tier doesn't need AT its reliable AT, something that alone can counter vehicles, AT nades and Fausts by themselves don't do anything. rak's and shrecks on the other hand is reliable AT.

I dont really consider fausts AT by themselves, you dont see players relying on fausts for AT, they are more a help to the other AT options. What I mean when I say every tier doesn't need AT its reliable AT, something that alone can counter vehicles, AT nades and Fausts by themselves don't do anything. rak's and shrecks on the other hand is reliable AT.

Then those things we mentioned aren't working well enough as AT, because they're supposed to be used for AT. Some of them simply cant be used on inf, for example - the AT nade and faust.

Surely that's a problem that you've identified here? That people can't rely on the AT tools they have at their disposal?