Should all factions converge to same late-game strength?

In another topic i had a discussion with Mr. Smith, the bugsmasher from WBP team (gj on that!), about late-game strength of factions.

Here is a shortened quote from him:

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

To be honest, i disagree both with that this is the intended design and more importantly that it should be!

So i want your opinions: Do you want that all factions should converge to the same late-game strength?

even if this would be the goal. how would you achieve this?

In different ways. For instance Sov has better lategame than Ost but this is based on doctrine, and Ost can compensate with veterancy abilities.

Really the only armies with out of wack late games are USF and OKW, with the former being weak and the later being strong.

I think clear definitions of 'lategame' and 'converge' are warranted. If we're talking balance, sure, lategame should be balanced.

But I do not have a problem with Axis factions having a powerful lategame but struggle to hold enough territory for 2+ VPs. I do not have a problem with Allied factions having superior map control, mobility, and resources as a result either.

Why? Those things called VPs.

I think Brits push the envelope as far as this design goes, and I know Brits and WFA introduced a degree of power creep to the game that original factions are feeling. I think on virtue of the Brits the impact on Soviets is diluted, but the effects are obvious.

Soviets have largely been "Guard Motor" faction since launch and Ostheer has lost all utility of their Panther except against Soviets that aren't using Guard Motor.

They absolutely should converge past a certain point.
In a perfect world, all factions should have the same 'strength' at all points of the game, only the source of this 'strength' should be different for every army.
In a perfect world, there would be a reasonable number of situations in which, for example, you want to build a Soviet scout car or an OKW puma at minute 50.
In a perfect world, every unit would scale well into the late game (through some combination of power, survivability and utility), and there would be no light vehicles with an expiration date.

But even in this real world, an indefinitely long game should be decided by skill. 'Army X is OP lategame but it sucks in the mid-game' is an example of two problems that don't cancel each other out.

I think the original source of this 'early-late' assumption is the per-unit superiority of Wehrmacht armor in vCoH (which, in turn, was doubtlessly inspired by someone's Krupp steel fetish). US were (or should've been) designed to counter it with numbers, coordination and veterancy. But since this balance tended to work past a certain skill level, if at all, the myth was born.

I think the original source of this 'early-late' assumption is the per-unit superiority of Wehrmacht armor in vCoH (which, in turn, was doubtlessly inspired by someone's Krupp steel fetish). US were (or should've been) designed to counter it with numbers, coordination and veterancy. But since this balance tended to work past a certain skill level, if at all, the myth was born.

Allied War Machine and Offmap Combat Group specifically.

Wehrmacht's purchased vet eventually made them overwhelmingly efficient, especially with zombie grens.

But that was the name of the game as allies: deny axis fuel.

Voted that they shouldn´t get the same lategame strenght. Soviets and especially USF have far superior early (Maxims, Riflemen, US mortar) and mid (Stuart, T-70) game. Not giving Brits and Ost the upper hand later would be simply unfair. In my opinion you can close the game as US or Soviet early on and have a huge advantage. Thus at least Brits and Ostheer players should be rewarded for holding out for the lategame.

Comebacks should be done through skillful plays, not just because you've survived for X minutes.

To give an example of how to address variability of strength at different phases in the game look at CoH2 USF vs OST. USF gets an incredible early-game boost in the form of a free squad (at a very critical phase in the game). To counteract this, OST could get a significant discount in their teching costs, thus allowing them to have a medium tank much earlier than americans (thus, forcing them to make use of their "free" officer advantage to prevent a -too- early tank.

This could be an example of strength phasing done right.

To get an example of strength phasing done completely wrong, look no further than the vCoH PE faction.

At the very end of their tech tree, the PE faction gets access to the best tank in the game, at a price that's considerably cheaper than weaker enemy tanks. This mechanic works quite well if we are myopic about making everything right for 1v1, and 1v1 only, where PE's 3-man squads have to survive a very gruesome early game in Company of Snipers 1. For anything above that 500MP 0FU PE Panthers are beyond broken.

If we transpose the PE Panther concept to CoH2, we're going to still have factions that run off with all the benefits, and no chance for EFA/USF to catch up with them. This leaves EFA/USF no option but to always pick a very specific, narrow set of commanders. Otherwise, the factions become completely outscaled by OKW/UKF.

There is absolutely no way we are ever going to bother balancing around 4v4, specifically (mostly because there is no way to set up "proper" matches using a balance patch). Making all factions converge to the same end-game strength is the only realistic way to allow balancing efforts to scale.

Otherwise, it boils down to:
- Either all factions scale to comparable strengths
- EFA/USF are forced to use specific commanders to be relevant in 2v2+ (e.g., Calliope for USF, Bombing runs for EFA), and everything continues to revolve around OKW/UKF

In different ways. For instance Sov has better lategame than Ost but this is based on doctrine, and Ost can compensate with veterancy abilities.

Ost definetely has better lategame then sovs

But even in this real world, an indefinitely long game should be decided by skill. 'Army X is OP lategame but it sucks in the mid-game' is an example of two problems that don't cancel each other out.

why does this not cancel it out? if carefully done with balanced maps this provides the ebb and flow everyone wants

But since this balance tended to work past a certain skill level, if at all, the myth was born.

It definetely worked out and way better than in coh2

There is absolutely no way we are ever going to bother balancing around 4v4, specifically . Making all factions converge to the same end-game strength is the only realistic way to allow balancing efforts to scale.

is 4v4 so important to you, that you want to change 1v1 and 2v2 dramatically?

Because USF for example would need a strong buff to its tanks and a further nerf to its infantry to stay competetive in 4v4, okw a midgame buff and a lategame nerf. Quite honestly, you would have to change it all! And it would make the game boring in the lategame and change something which belongs to the core of coh. One more questions: do GGthemachine and miragefla have the same opinion? and are you sure that relic intended this? (because many people dont think relic intended this to be)
right now it rather seems to me like a "obsession" of you guys but not like a really good balance idea!

Voted that they shouldn´t get the same lategame strenght. Soviets and especially USF have far superior early (Maxims, Riflemen, US mortar) and mid (Stuart, T-70) game. Not giving Brits and Ost the upper hand later would be simply unfair. In my opinion you can close the game as US or Soviet early on and have a huge advantage. Thus at least Brits and Ostheer players should be rewarded for holding out for the lategame.

But this is the reason why T70, Stuart, AEC, Rifles, Mortar, Penals and so on, are getting nerfed!
By this standard, we shouldn't touch the Comet cause the "brit player should be rewarded".

Factions should have different powerspikes but on the absolute late late game, all factions should have equal power level which requires a similar amount of micro. This doesn't mean mirroring units, but having the tools to deal with different scenarios without requiring completely disproportionate amounts of efforts between one side or the other.

Because USF for example would need a strong buff to its tanks and a further nerf to its infantry to stay competetive in 4v4, okw a midgame buff and a lategame nerf. Quite honestly, you would have to change it all! And it would make the game boring in the lategame and change something which belongs to the core of coh. One more questions: do GGthemachine and miragefla have the same opinion? and are you sure that relic intended this? (because many people dont think relic intended this to be)
right now it rather seems to me like a "obsession" of you guys but not like a really good balance idea!

USF already has issues late-game even in 1v1, if you don't pick the call-in commanders (Armor, Pershing). USF just has an insane power curve (free officers + with the right commanders you get both of them), and then it starts to teeter off.

In order to fix 4v4 we don't have to fuck up 1v1. We only have to fix 1v1 and 4v4 will be reasonably OK.

To give an example of how to address variability of strength at different phases in the game look at CoH2 USF vs OST. USF gets an incredible early-game boost in the form of a free squad (at a very critical phase in the game). To counteract this, OST could get a significant discount in their teching costs, thus allowing them to have a medium tank much earlier than americans (thus, forcing them to make use of their "free" officer advantage to prevent a -too- early tank.

You know through this line of logic you're favoring Axis rushing a medium tank because USF has this advantage of teching where they get a free squad. You've completely ignored the problem of USF getting a free squad at a critical phase in the game.

Additionally, you've pigeonholed Ostheer players into rushing for mediums. Since Ostheer has linear teching with battle phases, discounts affect timing more than strategic options. Whereas USF's free squad comes regardless of how they tech to unlock units. With the idea of discounted Ostheer tech, the LT becomes even weaker because the M20 has less room to lay any mines. Both USF and OST become more predictable and more limited in viable choices. USF becomes forced to use their free squad (which is the origin of this problem) as much of a crutch as possible. Hurrah. The problem becomes the solution?

What could be done instead is that the LT and Captain unlock be made to NOT call in a squad. Imagine that. It could just unlock the option to get an LT or Captain, with their on-map weapon upgrades and special abilities. Addresses the problem directly. The manpower costs can be reduced for the unlock to 100. This allows for a quicker M20 or 50cal, which are rarely seen and also manpower expensive.

This could be an example of strength phasing done right.

There is absolutely no way we are ever going to bother balancing around 4v4, specifically (mostly because there is no way to set up "proper" matches using a balance patch). Making all factions converge to the same end-game strength is the only realistic way to allow balancing efforts to scale.

Declaring it the only realistic way doesn't really make it so... The "same" endgame strength is a very suspect term. I'd suggest the fact that teamgames typically suffer from issues of resource and CP timing. Addressing those would go much further than manufacturing this notion that factions must 'converge' to the 'same' endgame strength.

Otherwise, it boils down to:
- Either all factions scale to comparable strengths
- EFA/USF are forced to use specific commanders to be relevant in 2v2+ (e.g., Calliope for USF, Bombing runs for EFA), and everything continues to revolve around OKW/UKF

- UKF/OKW can be adjusted so that EFA/USF aren't forced to use specific commanders.

You know, off the top of my head.

But this is the reason why T70, Stuart, AEC, Rifles, Mortar, Penals and so on, are getting nerfed!

it would rather that the reason for that is strategic diversity and complexity

USF already has issues late-game even in 1v1, if you don't pick the call-in commanders

so had vcoh usa. would you say that the 2.602 1v1 matchup between wehrmacht und us was bad? you can't honestly believe that!

again, pls answer:
Do GGthemachine and miragefla have the same opinion? and are you sure that relic intended this?

Additionally, you've pigeonholed Ostheer players into rushing for mediums. Since Ostheer has linear teching with battle phases, discounts affect timing more than strategic options. Whereas USF's free squad comes regardless of how they tech to unlock units. With the idea of discounted Ostheer tech, the LT becomes even weaker because the M20 has less room to lay any mines. Both USF and OST become more predictable and more limited in viable choices. USF becomes forced to use their free squad (which is the origin of this problem) as much of a crutch as possible. Hurrah. The problem becomes the solution?

Depends on the kind of a solution. Making USF pay for their "free" squad could also be a graceful solution to this problem. The solution you state is actually the obvious one.

I'm just throwing another idea out there that doesn't sound a lot like homogenising the factions.

- UKF/OKW can be adjusted so that EFA/USF aren't forced to use specific commanders.

You know, off the top of my head.

That's synonymous to the first option, which is "make all factions scale comparably". This thread is an offshoot to a pleading thread about NOT harmonizing OKW/UKF scaling to match other factions.

again, pls answer:
Do GGthemachine and miragefla have the same opinion? and are you sure that relic intended this?

All 3 of us are of the opinion that games should not end because X faction survived until minute Y. Also, all 3 of us realise the shortcomings of USF late-game, as well as the problem that the free officer creates in the beginning of the game.

That's part of the USF power curve issue. The reason why we don't make such a fuss about it is because UKF power curve is much more obvious/game-breaking.

We'd rather be allowed to solve 1 problem well in the next scope, than brush aside two issues in a half-assed way.

Quite frankly I don't get how OKW is dictating games for people. For me it's almost entirely Brits. OKW and USF alike suffer from faction designs originating with WFA. USF has gone sideways, OKW has been molded into an abomination of its former self.

For me, Brits completely break the fundamental design between Axis and Allied factions.

Axis have strong lategames but struggle to hold enough map territory for 2+ VPs until said lategame. They punish Allies that don't bleed VPs and cut off resources.

Allies have superior numbers, map control, and resources. Field presence is their strength. They punish Axis for overextending.

All 3 of us are of the opinion that games should not end because X faction survived until minute Y.

Neither am i. I just think that making it harder to win vs faction X after minute Y and introducing the option of winning due to outplaying your opponent adds a nice mechanic and increases strategic diversity.
Did Relic (and i dont mean Kyle by that) intend your "idea"?

USF lategame could use some buffs, but I'm not sure how they can be done without making those 2 lategame call-in commanders even stronger than before...
Even with the USF nerfs in the upcoming WBP.

it would rather that the reason for that is strategic diversity and complexity

That's been naive. If the alternatives of play aren't better/viable, people are just gonna still play with the path of least resistance/ease of play.

Also reminder that the quote i was answering was: USF/SU have the advantage early-mid game cause they have OP units (the ones i mentioned). The thing is, they are getting nerfed so that apparent early advantage is disappearing in a slowly fashion. If you nerf what makes them good early/mid on, why you shouldn't nerf what makes other factions good later on?

Neither am i. I just think that making it harder to win vs faction X after minute Y and introducing the option of winning due to outplaying your opponent adds a nice mechanic and increases strategic diversity.

I'll give some examples:
-been able to build a mortar pit + forward assembly for UKF during the midgame (small/choke/urban map)
-We complain about AoE instawipe tools, but how are u supposed to deal with double LMG/Bar 5man IS/Rifles, Vet4 Obers or high vet high number of 6man PF.
-Amassing crushwell/comets and using in combination party cover is "really a high skill" strat.
-Sitting down a JT on a linear map or in a tunnel section of a map requires huge amount of micro.

I'm not saying nerf things into oblivion but remove the scenarios on which: i got a certain unit composition therefore i'm "invincible" right now. Specially if that certain unit composition requires the least amount of effort to use.

"option of winning due to outplaying your opponent"

Outplaying shouldn't be:
-i choose X commander and i click IWIN offmap
-i built a unit and i sit it on certain position therefore now it takes you triple the amount of effort to deal with it while i look at the damage it does
-I got X amount of vet/weapon upgrades, now i can effortlessly roam around the map with a blob without taking care of positioning or whatever.