Arguments against possible upcoming OKW/UKF nerfs

They're also not exactly the same. RoF =! Burst duration. Although MG34 benefits more from RoF and Maxim benefits more from Burst duration, the effect is more pronounced with the maxim.

This has to do with the fact that they do not have the same base stats at all.

The maxim's base accuracy is way higher than the MG34. Also maxim (and mg42) bullets deal 4 damage, MG34 deals 2. Those bonuses to accuracy are way more significant for the maxim as a result.

Especially combined with all the other features which makes OKW so OP late game such as having the best tank in the game non doctrinally and forward bases.

what is wrong with okw being op in the lategame? it clearly has weaknesses, especially in the middle game...

In the end we all report about our personal experiences with the game and Brits are too strong right now. That´s what I experienced first hand. You wanted to point on ranks and you got an opinion you don´t like. Stop acting all arrogant.

I think you will find you are arrogant one, mentioning your own ranks. I know its fun to blow your own trumpet and all but take it else where.

Also, at 1000+ ranks balance is far from the only thing deciding the games outcome. Sure Brits are strong, but there are many things in the game that need fixing on both sides and the majority of games are won or loss based on player decisions and now balance.

Still doesn't detract from the fact that Aronin was at least attempting to make an effort in his posts, rather than ullumulu who just calls op on everything Brits have (though I see why you would jump to his aid, protect your own and all that).

Edit: Also nice dodge on using the same argument you tried to use

Every pak in range? I always build lots to feed mortar pit veterancy. If microing one unit (the Cromwell) requires furiousness how could we describes microing 2-3 of the following a pak/stug/p4/infantry to counter it?

The cromwell is extremely effective at countering these counters - it can flank paks/move out the arc and flank tanks with warspeed and crush any infantry whilst pushing to prevent firing. Not all at once to be fair but it can always run off. Lets hope it hits the mine or the Cromwell stumbles into the area the map where the axis player happens to have grouped their AT assets. Then a short while later hope they do it again with the next one at 110 fuel (I normally find they come in pairs anyhow)

The Cromwell doesn't 'counter' Paks. Yes, it can be micro'd to avoid them. But if your Pak positioning is good, it shouldn't be able to. Especially if it hits a mine or takes a faust.
The Cromwell is a tank. It isn't meant to die the moment it gets zero'd by an AT weapon. It is meant to put the tank player in the position of move it or lose it. Sometimes you may still lose it.

The Cromwell's speed and fire rate is a trade off for armour and penetration. In a head on battle, a P4 will win.
If you push a P4 into allied lines, they are scrambling AT just like you would. Yes, they probably won't have to deal with it rushing around the AT (depends on the situation), but it has better armour and can stay in there for longer, doing damage.

It all evens out in the end. It's impossible to make a game like this where each side has exactly the same number of clicks to attack and defend with every unit composition, unless you make every faction identical. Which is boring AF.

Issue with OKW will elaborate:

Other than rak, luchs, volk, and p4, there are no appealing units to build. faction is basically volks or call-in heavy with raktwen into vehicle rushes due to cheap teching and early map control from kubel. its flat as hell and boring design because there is zero army comp variety. the faction needs economy nerfs to the core infantry, puppchen camo removal, and more viable midgame units.

The Cromwell's speed and fire rate is a trade off for armour and penetration. In a head on battle, a P4 will win.

that is just not true. i tested it with cheatcommandsmod and the cromwell wins more often than not

...

Ad hominem after ad hominem. I guess we have nothing to discuss.

On topic: Brits need a nerf. The only thing that needs to be looked at is that the balacne designers don´t go down the road of every patch of nerfing one unit and buffing its counterpart leading to a relative overnerf.

Post containing offensive content reported - and invised.

Back to topic.

The Cromwell doesn't 'counter' Paks. Yes, it can be micro'd to avoid them. But if your Pak positioning is good, it shouldn't be able to. Especially if it hits a mine or takes a faust.
The Cromwell is a tank. It isn't meant to die the moment it gets zero'd by an AT weapon. It is meant to put the tank player in the position of move it or lose it. Sometimes you may still lose it.

The Cromwell's speed and fire rate is a trade off for armour and penetration. In a head on battle, a P4 will win.
If you push a P4 into allied lines, they are scrambling AT just like you would. Yes, they probably won't have to deal with it rushing around the AT (depends on the situation), but it has better armour and can stay in there for longer, doing damage.

It all evens out in the end. It's impossible to make a game like this where each side has exactly the same number of clicks to attack and defend with every unit composition, unless you make every faction identical. Which is boring AF.

I'm not disputing that AT guns aren't good against tanks if positioned well but in most cases an unsupported tank meeting an AT gun + AT infantry results in either a loss or a very fast reverse. With the Cromwell there is a fair chance the outcome is the loss of your 340mp 120 muni AT squad followed by the gun crew. I also do not recognise the concept of breaking enemy lines with a P4. The P4 operates as a support tank - pushing it forward alone is almost always a terrible error - it only has to meet a single (decent) AT infantry squad before it has to keep distance and tentatively poke from range unless supported. If it meets AT gun plus inf it's instantly neutralised and needs to flee. This might not be so bad if the Cromwell wasn't so stupidly cheap though I do feel the squad wipe potential of crushing is a distinctly unfun aspect and that alone is the main problem.

what is wrong with okw being op in the lategame? it clearly has weaknesses, especially in the middle game...

No faction should be allowed to be OP in the late-game. This makes it impossible to allow balance to trickle down graceful from 1v1's all the way down. That is, unless we want to ensure that certain factions remain OP, and remain the focal points of attention in those gamemodes.

vCoH was different:
- USF had their lategame strengths (e.g., earned veterancy, doctrines) they could use to stand a chance in the late-game
- There are literally only 2 4v4 maps in the map-pool
- Scheldt was the most-played map (and no amount of balancing could help that)
- inertia

CoH2 doesn't have to be the same way. All factions respect roughly the same scaling mechanics, and there's no fundamental reason why we should break teamgames by design.

The design of CoH2 so far is:
- Different factions should have different strength at different phases in the game (to promote aggressive play)
- All factions should have the tools to survive to make it to the late-game
- Ideally, all factions should converge to the same late-game strength

Given that Soviets have been the most polished faction by now (i.e., not 100% perfect, but still far better than the other factions), you can tell we will be using them as the benchmark for what late-game strength should mean.

In short: there's no reason to throw certain gamemodes under the bus by making them revolve around OKW/UKF. This is, especially if minor modifications that won't negatively impact 1v1 diversity and balance will achieve this.

I'm not disputing that AT guns aren't good against tanks if positioned well but in most cases an unsupported tank meeting an AT gun + AT infantry results in either a loss or a very fast reverse. With the Cromwell there is a fair chance the outcome is the loss of your 340mp 120 muni AT squad followed by the gun crew. I also do not recognise the concept of breaking enemy lines with a P4. The P4 operates as a support tank - pushing it forward alone is almost always a terrible error - it only has to meet a single (decent) AT infantry squad before it has to keep distance and tentatively poke from range unless supported. If it meets AT gun plus inf it's instantly neutralised and needs to flee. This might not be so bad if the Cromwell wasn't so stupidly cheap though I do feel the squad wipe potential of crushing is a distinctly unfun aspect and that alone is the main problem.

On the point of the crush I agree, that can get a bit ridiculous at times. Other than that though, the speed and manoeuvrability simply caters to a different play style than the slightly better armour and penetration of the P4.

that is just not true. i tested it with cheatcommandsmod and the cromwell wins more often than not

If that is true then I stand corrected.

Upcoming OKW nerf? What?

I thought that people agreed that OKW is UP in 1on1 which is why top-players rarely use OKW in tournaments? Now there are plans to nerf it? So 100% OH in the future? Not sure what this is about.

From my personal experiences I wouldn´t say that OKW is UP but there must be a reason for why it is rarely used in tournaments right? If it was OP as this thread suggests then surely top-players would play OKW in competitive games?

I am all for balancing some aspects of OKW (like Command Panther Vet bonuses and Vet requirements) but a general nerf surely can´t be a good idea?

The design of CoH2 so far is:
- Ideally, all factions should converge to the same late-game strength

This relic-made graphic contradicts your statement
Picture

honestly, i disagree completely with your thought, especially because changing that WILL change the 1v1 dynamic completely. its just the nature of 4v4, that some units scale better into teamgames and some scale worse, therefore one has to choose for what to balance

would you be fine with me opening a poll in another thread and quoting your post there? cause i feel that most players would disagree with you aswell

On the point of the crush I agree, that can get a bit ridiculous at times. Other than that though, the speed and manoeuvrability simply caters to a different play style than the slightly better armour and penetration of the P4.

I like the difference too - the Cromwell's rl strengths were it's speed and low profile (though emergency warspeed might be too much). However as discussed above while being faster it can also often out-duke the more expensive P4 straight on and kill infantry far more effectively than it or indeed any other (non-British or specialist AI (brumbar)) tank. The conclusion therefore is that this aspect of Brits is OP to some degree. Then of course there is the Comet...

No faction should be allowed to be OP in the late-game. This makes it impossible to allow balance to trickle down graceful from 1v1's all the way down. That is, unless we want to ensure that certain factions remain OP, and remain the focal points of attention in those gamemodes.

Teamgames have teamwork. I think that's the important component missing from this equation. Teamwork can shut down players from the start of the match, let alone the end of it. Also, the endgame is dictated by the midgame which is defined by the early game. The endgame has much more flexibility and room to have strong units and mechanics as a result of this.

vCoH was different:
- USF had their lategame strengths (e.g., earned veterancy, doctrines) they could use to stand a chance in the late-game
- There are literally only 2 4v4 maps in the map-pool
- Scheldt was the most-played map (and no amount of balancing could help that)
- inertia

Interesting list. "inertia" ?

You know there was this idea where Americans were denying Wehrmacht Fuel and maintaining a VP tick. You had Wehrmacht trying to cling to fuel and slow the VP drain as much as possible. The goals of the factions were slightly different.

Teamgames, like most of CoH1, were crippled by Opposing Fronts. The same pattern exists with CoH2 and WFA/Brits. In CoH1 teamgames you could just snipe and steal the base flak emplacements of PE, and Brits just ramped up resource income from allies and could never be cutoff if there was 1 American player on the team. The same issues of CPs and resources not scaling properly in CoH1 continue in CoH2. And no faction can really be designed around being double or triple teamed.

The design of CoH2 so far is:
- Different factions should have different strength at different phases in the game (to promote aggressive play)
- All factions should have the tools to survive to make it to the late-game
- Ideally, all factions should converge to the same late-game strength

It's called Victory Points. That's how you have factions that are weaker at the endgame win games. Ever had a KT wreck face at sub 10 VPs but not be able to stop the drain? That's the franchise working as intended. I really think you're forgetting how important VPs are to the concept of faction design.

Given that Soviets have been the most polished faction by now (i.e., not 100% perfect, but still far better than the other factions), you can tell we will be using them as the benchmark for what late-game strength should mean.

Wat? Soviets most polished faction? How? They've had fundamental design issues since launch. Probably even moreso if Penals do end up getting PTRS.

This relic-made graphic contradicts your statement
Picture

The design you linked actually completely supports my point. Notice that no faction has the advantage in the extreme-late game.

together with the heading i would rather say it does. but anyway, i will make a poll

together with the heading i would rather say it does. but anyway, i will make a poll

First of all, describing a faction's lategame strength in absolute terms is nonsense. This is determined also as a function of the opponent. OST vs USF? Sure, OST cannot be described as having the advantage in any point of the game apart from the lategame. OST vs UKF? Completely different story.

Second of all, the heading describes what each faction's strengths are. There's no point denying that USF's main strength is infantry.

However, even if we take this particular infographic as the gospell, there's no faction that's supposed to dominate over other factions in the late-game (10-o-clock to 12-o-clock). In between, factions are supposed to have different spikes in strength (e.g., USF officers) that create tussles.

However to bias a particular faction to overperform in the late-game (10-12-o-clock) is horseradish. This part of the "design" has been thrown out of the window with the introduction of the Brits.
- Should you just /quit just because you didn't manage to drain the VPs by minute 30? (in other modes, with resource inflation, by minute 15?).
- What does this lack of comeback potential mean for player engagement?
- What is this over-focus on ending games early, or prolonging games mean with respect to viable strats within factions?

Now all factions are supposed to be able to compete in the late-game. This is because the game can take arbitrarily long to finish, and greatly depends on map, composition and other things.

Wat? Soviets most polished faction? How? They've had fundamental design issues since launch. Probably even moreso if Penals do end up getting PTRS.

Best polished means that (with the coming of WBP) all 4 Soviet tiers are viable. Nearly all stock Soviet units are viable almost into the late-game (everybody knows which Soviet units are still OP/UP and how they will get rebalanced). Stock unit strength is relatively well balanced with respect to each other. This means that people can enjoy diverse Soviet builds, and evaluate the performance of every single possible Soviet stock unit.

We can't say the same for OSTheer (the other contender), given that OST T4 is neither viable nor useful. There's a big gaping hole in OST roster at the moment.

In short, Soviets have a reasonable transition from early-mid-late-game, and people can already grasp at what the late-game strength of the Soviets is going to look like once the remaining units become ironed out.

together with the heading i would rather say it does. but anyway, i will make a poll

Please ensure that your poll is objective and not designed to bring hate stuff down on any particular person, otherwise it will be invised.