Arguments against possible upcoming OKW/UKF nerfs

• The Idea that the Mortar Pit should be replaced with a regular one.

The only problem with this light arty pieces is how easily it can use ambient buildings to its advantage and there fore avoid all incoming fire. And the survivability bounus it attains once vet.

In order to fix that, we can increase the free space requirement around the emplacement while its being built. For example it should require a minimum of 6-9 meters of free area for construction, ie you can't just build it right near an ambient building. This way, recon and pak 40 can still threaten it.

TLDR1. Building The Mortar Pit should require a wider distance from ambient buildings, 2. Reduce the survivabilty bonus at higher levels of vet.

Mortar pits were actually even more unique prior to release than they are now. You could toggle them to fire longer ranged shells at cost of accuracy and damage, or heavy shells for opposite. They became implausible BS when it was removed and basically got both without the need for micro.

I don't think hiding behind ambient building make it any more OP or easy to use than any artillery unit in the game which can do the same thing, and it's larger size means it's actually more susceptible to being hit. Of course their immobility and durability makes up for it.

Here's a simple solution: nerf range but keep long distance barrage range? I believe other artillery units have that now.

Another idea that could be applied to emplacements in general: remove the Forward Assembly/ garrison requirement buff and put it in as a veterancy bonus. You still get the bonuses but you need to do more than simply build emplacement near a Forward Assembly. Mortar Pit being able to fire faster just because it's close to a building, as opposed to garrisoning a unit inside, mitigated the risk of tucking a unit into a pit behind a building. If anything emplacements became too specialized that only one made sense at the front (bofors), one behind buildings (mortars) and one behind bofors (17 pdr.).

A more novel idea is that mortar pits only use one mortar until certain conditions are met, like Forward Assembly built or unit is garrisoned, so that if you want to BS camp with mortar pit behind a building you have to spend even more time and resources for it. Other factions already live with this restriction, as Ostheer you only fire two mortars shells at a target, if you got two mortar units trained and sent out. Even now mortar pits still have an advantage due to being emplacement, plus they would need to build something they'd always build close to the pit in the first place. TLDR it's a straight up nerf that is removed after you build things next to it, not before.

A fourth idea: nerf emplacements's durability but restore it when close to Forward Assembly, and remove the FA buffs to emplacements and put them elsewhere, ie as vet1 unlocks.
The idea is that the Forward Assembly becomes the weakpoint to emplacements' durability, so if an opponent wants to somewhat neutralize or make easier to destroy an emplacement, they attempt the alternate target that is the Forward Assembly; destroy the FA your emplacements are in trouble. Opponents have no such options against emplacements, it's just slug it out until it's dead while you repair, or slug it out and hope the attacks also kill the engineers.

A simpler alternative to the fourth idea: emplacements REQUIRE a Forward Assembly to be build. So if you want to build that pit behind a building then you need to make sure that Forward Assembly's aura can reach it, and then first build Forward Assembly. Not as easy as it sounds though, you might have to buff FA's durability or reduce cost and build time for sake of balance: emplacements would be useless if it's always going to take too long to get to emplacements. Maybe also make Infantry Sections also build Forward Assembly?

Ask yourself what was the special feature that started Company of Heroes?

It wasn´t only a "rock, paper, scissors"-like balance. It was the first strategy game I know that introduced flanking.

Emplacements break this concept and in the end make Company of Heroes a worse game than it initially was. "Brace" just adds insult to injury.

For me this veterancy system as is was always stupid.

Most squads only get recieved acc. bonus on one side and other side get acc bonus, solving nothing except vet3 squads being superior to vet0.

In my opinion each veterancy level should add a bit bonus to unit on its specialisation and some ability (passive or active) or new weapon unlock.

I think it would be really interesting to have weapon upgrades tied to vet.

Imagine that your volks squad can chose to get 5 Mp-40´s (vcoh) at vet1, at vet 3 to get 2G43 (one sniper) and at level 5 to get double shrecks or lmg42 and double panzebusche (this is just an idea).

By having weapons tied to vet, player will be able to chose if he go rather weaker upgrade early on, changing early game power for lategame power or he will wait for his squads to vet in order to get great lategame bonuses.

Also even sooner upgrades will have to get edge over best ones in certain situation allowing player who lose vet squds to come back and also they should get ridikulus amound of veterancy fighting these vetted squads.

Or then giving squads abilities tied to tech will make things more interesting. Vetted squads will beat non-vetted, but not by such a margin like right now, allowing unvetted to beat them under some circumstances while giving vetted squads edge via abilities.

Imagine volks getting some nade at vet2, normal grenade at vet 4 (vet 3 is passive healing) and at vet5 free panzerfuast, promoting player for playing high risk-high reward strategy with them (risking vetted squads that is better than normal, having interesting abilities to tank fire while getting reward in form of munnition, because faust will be free)

For me this veterancy system as is was always stupid.

Most squads only get recieved acc. bonus on one side and other side get acc bonus, solving nothing except vet3 squads being superior to vet0.

In my opinion each veterancy level should add a bit bonus to unit on its specialisation and some ability (passive or active) or new weapon unlock.

I think it would be really interesting to have weapon upgrades tied to vet.

Imagine that your volks squad can chose to get 5 Mp-40´s (vcoh) at vet1, at vet 3 to get 2G43 (one sniper) and at level 5 to get double shrecks or lmg42 and double panzebusche (this is just an idea).

By having weapons tied to vet, player will be able to chose if he go rather weaker upgrade early on, changing early game power for lategame power or he will wait for his squads to vet in order to get great lategame bonuses.

Also even sooner upgrades will have to get edge over best ones in certain situation allowing player who lose vet squds to come back and also they should get ridikulus amound of veterancy fighting these vetted squads.

Or then giving squads abilities tied to tech will make things more interesting. Vetted squads will beat non-vetted, but not by such a margin like right now, allowing unvetted to beat them under some circumstances while giving vetted squads edge via abilities.

Imagine volks getting some nade at vet2, normal grenade at vet 4 (vet 3 is passive healing) and at vet5 free panzerfuast, promoting player for playing high risk-high reward strategy with them (risking vetted squads that is better than normal, having interesting abilities to tank fire while getting reward in form of munnition, because faust will be free)

gibe PE vet pls

Lol @people wanting to nerf OKW. I can't even hear you over the Sound of Crushwells, Comets and Commando Fission Bombs

If u want a some how balanced game, remove foward retreat points for USF UKF and OKW.

No matter how op vet 5 is, it still won't save you in 2v2 vs maxim spam, guard spam, usf blobs of doom and brit cancer.

In 1v1 however, vet 5 is cancer.

All armies are supposed to converge to similar and/or comparable late-late-game strength,

what exactly do you mean by that? do you want the "integral" to be the same, or do you want all factions to be at the same strength at minute 40?

what i mean by that: strengthtable:
10 20 30
usf x y z
okw a b c
do you want a+b+c=x+y+z or z=c?

and quite honestly, having both balanced 1v1 and 4v4 is impossible, some units and factions just scale better into teamgames

It is a fair trade-off if the army of the 1 guy that fields the JT has to shrink to accommodate this.

it already shrinks by more than 1/5 and JT already has the most pop of all tanks. in 4v4 the others might be able to field enough AI, but i fear in 2v2 allied infantry would always win then

I am of the opinion that 5 levels of vet is an interesting and unique system. I feel the game is better with it than without it.

If the bonuses on vet 4/5 units are overpowered then adjust the bonuses. Removing it all together is just a lazy solution.

I am of the opinion that 5 levels of vet is an interesting and unique system. I feel the game is better with it than without it.

If the bonuses on vet 4/5 units are overpowered then adjust the bonuses. Removing it all together is just a lazy solution.

This has already been done. At the moment a full vetted OKW unit has about 4 levels of effective vet since the bonuses are smaller. For most units having this many levels of vet is actually not as good as having regular vet levels since it takes way longer to level them up for just a little more bonuses. A Vet 3 maxim will have better vet 3 than an MG34.

!PLAYER INPUT > AUTOMATIC PASSIVE I WIN BUTTONS/UNITS.

This goes from the well known mortar pit, into aa performance on ISG, certain unit veterancy, certain offmaps and certain late game tanks.

My personal input (which i've said several times before)

Mortar pit: reduce AA range. Give back HE/Light shell mechanics. If not possible just reduce CD on barrage and improve it (note it retains it's range on barrage).

ISG: reduce AA range. Keep it on barrage. Reintroduce Hollow shells and give smoke.

Bofors: give it an arc which has to be move around. Now it can be "flanked". Give it AA mode which tracks 360° but doesn't shoot at land targets.
Artillery barrage disables for a small time attacking land targets after firing it's shell.

Vet5: it should be hard to obtain but not impossible to do so. Stupid completely broken OP but unobtainable is not good design. Too long to specify but Smiths know which they are (hello 150% bonus to damage, penetration and accuracy for ex.)

Party cover: why the hell i haven't seen it mentioned like this before (totally not gonna steal it). It's time to call the cops and end the function.

Crushwell: less crush, maybe a bit more expensive.

I promise you guys it's not a totally braindead upgrade to get tank commander upgrade: totally balanced.

Sturmtiger: sigh, just start by removing the stupid criticals and SLIGHT upping the cost.

Command PV: give it same mark vehicle dmg modifier as SU (35%). Make it easier to obtain vet 5 but remove/nerf some aspects (like affecting infantry).
It could also be cheaper but not function as a normal Panther (change it to be simil to command PIV).

it already shrinks by more than 1/5 and JT already has the most pop of all tanks. in 4v4 the others might be able to field enough AI, but i fear in 2v2 allied infantry would always win then

JT: one of the reasons you want Artillery cover. This kinda of age of empires wonders are mostly never field on 1v1 but are commonly seen on 2v2+, specially depending the map.
Plausible changes: not all, a combination or just a single one.
-Remove engine upgrade.
-Reduce range to 70 (same as Ele and ISU). Adjust cost. Give it a mode on which it further reduces speed/rotation to almost none but gains back 85 range.
-Target tables. Super heavies are more vulnerable to howitzer like type of ONMAP artillery. Suxton, Anvil (?), Priest, LeFH, 152.

If u want a some how balanced game, remove foward retreat points for USF UKF and OKW.

It could be a timed ability. For next 60/120/180s units retreat to FRP. Disabled for the same time.

This has already been done. At the moment a full vetted OKW unit has about 4 levels of effective vet since the bonuses are smaller. For most units having this many levels of vet is actually not as good as having regular vet levels since it takes way longer to level them up for just a little more bonuses. A Vet 3 maxim will have better vet 3 than an MG34.

Unlocks the 'Sprint' ability
+20% suppression, +30% weapon rotation speed
+30% accuracy, +20% burst duration, +10% weapon rotation speed

Unlocks the ' Incendiary Armor Piercing Rounds' ability
+20% suppression, +30% weapon rotation speed
+30% accuracy, +20% burst rate of fire, +10% weapon rotation speed

That logic applies somehow to Volks (which are not impossible to get to vet5) and that's it.
KT, ISG, ST have plain crap vet not appropiate for the unit.
The only unit which has really equal to vet 3 but separated on 5 levels of vet is the last unit to be implemented, the Lefh.
JLI/Falls get passive cloak/healing.

What would you change about it? are the questions and options too directed? Are the listed options limited?

We can still ask a mod to make adjustments if your criticism is valid.

Each poll should have an abstain option. You ask "Will you still play as OKW " What if you dont play as them? How do you answer the other questions if you have to put data in this one?

Also some questions are poorly thought out, you ask "Emplacement a unique and fascinating feature or a flawed implementation of asymmetrical balance?" A) that doesn't make grammatical sense, and B) Is aweful since it presents the possible responses as a false dilemma, what if someone thinks that emplacements are central to UKF play, but thinks brace and cost needs a nerf?

Ask yourself what was the special feature that started Company of Heroes?

It wasn´t only a "rock, paper, scissors"-like balance. It was the first strategy game I know that introduced flanking.

Emplacements break this concept and in the end make Company of Heroes a worse game than it initially was. "Brace" just adds insult to injury.

Cover and suppression are the two unique aspects of the franchise that I have always valued. Those two mechanics are really what facilitated the importance of positioning and flanking.

Front and rear armor of vehicles too.

...who in blue blazes is complaining about Volksgrenadier veterancy?! WHO?!

Volksgrenadiers DO NOT DO DAMAGE.

They are effectively an Ostheer Pioneer squad with more health.
No damage at max range. No damage at mid range. No damage at close range.
Volksgrenadiers are not a unit in the game Company of Heroes 2. They're a terrain decoration.

And yet someone has the gall to ask for a nerf...?

Edit: Veterancy levels don't matter. Balance is decided by what the unit is like at 0 veterancy. You cannot and should not, ever, balance or design anything around veterancy levels. So asking for three veterancy levels for Volksgrenadiers isn't a nerf request as portrayed in the OP. It's just irrelevant. Give Volksgrenadiers the ability to actually wipe units with direct fire like other infantry squads, and you can take away all veterancy levels for all I care.

Jesus you do like to cry don't you

i don´t know why penals are so strong ...(comparded to axis infantery)

they cost only 300mp..by a 6model squad....it means 50mp/model..
volks cost 250mp...by a 5 model squad....it means 50mp/model..

u know what a expansive squad is? falls...they cost 440mp...for a 4model squad....but anyway....they will get scred by penals.

I'm not sure if there is a need to modify so much the emplacement system. I wonder what would do, for instance, if we simply forbid repairing them while braced.

The bofors could also use a reduced vision (by half) so it need spotter to work properly. No more brain dead VP/cutoff/fuel point guard on so many maps.

If the comet remains that strong, why not simply limit them to 1 per player. UKF players already have access to the FFs, Cromwells and Churchill variants with doctrines.

ukf deserves a nerf overall, cromwell, comet, arty cover are too strong atm

okw is far from being such an offender, vet 5 on an infantry squad means nothing in times of calliope, land mattress, double m1919, some minor readjustments may be needed (12 cp for command panther,...) but touching vet 5 in general is absurd

===
Brits being a clone of Wehrmacht Ostheer being nerfed would mean a strong nerf of wehrmacht.

Someone mentionned cheaper PZ4 and more costly Cromwells...

As that won't completely totally upset the entire balance of the game?