Should all factions converge to same late-game strength?

I agree with the people that think the game should be balanced around 1v1. If done okay, the other game modes shouldn't be too unbalanced.

USF's late game would get better if it had the same ability like OKW, meaning that if you had all three officers that you could call in a Pershing. I don't think that would affect 1's because if someone has that much fuel in a 1v1 then they were probably going to win anyway. Other possible solutions would be to fix the commanders (P47's cost way too much, and are much less effective than the stuka loiter, airdropped combat group is a joke, mechanized is good only in 1's, etc). Russians would need a lot of work because they're overperforming in 1's and underperforming in everything else.

Lets just copy and paste the same units for all factions! Who needs diversity, or strengths and weaknesses. Make all factions one big blob of boring similarity!

No, because then the factions with an early or mid game advantage will be favoured since they will have an edge in more stages of the game than a faction which is only strong late.

If all factions were to have equal late game strength then none should have an advantage in other stages of the game, but ofc that would be boring and we don't want that.

It's a hard question because ideally if every faction has the same late game strength you are inadvertently buffing all early game factions because factions with a strong late game and weaker early will take longer to achieve late game, just to seek parity with somebody who is ahead, making it much more difficult to come back and therefore always behind.

I think Smith didn´t mean it as he said that.

He doesn´t want all factions to be equally strong lategame.
He wants to give all factions option to surive in lategame.

For example OST has no chance against british comets and crocodile in the lategame. This doesn´t mean that UKF has to be the same strenght as OST. Smith probably meant that UKF should be nerfed only up to a point. They still maintain lategame advantage (comet being still stronger than panther in AI department but loses broken smoke and a bit of AT to be counterable). Thats just an example.


Or USA vs OKW matchup. LAtegame USA, if lacking enaught tanks to make final push, they will slowly but surely lose to kingtiger, not saying kingtiger with command panther or sturmtiger. In order to fix this, OKW sturmtiger and command panther have to be nerfed (ST - no longer 1 shotting squadwipe machine, it´s bad for gameplay, command panther should lose selfspotting ridikulus vet and hmogenised mark with Sov one). Also panzerfussiliers vet have to be brought in line with rifles so pfuss beat rifles lategame but still if rifles closi in without tanking punishement, they can outfight them.

Kingtiger will have to lose some of it´s AI, to not wipe so much. Also jacson will need some cosmetical buff like faster acceleration, so he can back up against charging panther properly and OKW player will have to use tactic called "flanking".

Also USF will need cheaper m20, so they can get access to AT mines in lategame without paying 500 MP for them in first place (200 tech,300 M20).


By these changes OKW is still clearly better lategame than USF, but USF will have chance to hold against this behemoth.



Great example of balanced lategame is OST vs SOV (if tier4 for OST was more accessible).

OStheer have better tanks than soviets - panther, tiger, elefant, stugs, but soviets can counter them. Su85 can keep tiger at bay, t34s can flank and kill elefant or play on part where elefant presence is lacking and so on.

You can clearly see that ostheer has super lategame advantage against soviets, but soviets can still hold their ground. Clearly this is lacking in USF vs OKW matchup. Or then tell me how can USF counter sturmtiger + kingtiger + volks vet5

Faction should be equally strong in late game only if the interim stages are also balanced.

The thing is, they are getting nerfed so that apparent early advantage is disappearing in a slowly fashion.

they will still have an advantage early on, but some of their units wont be so oppressive anymore.

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.

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.

I agree with you there

USF's late game would get better if it had the same ability like OKW, meaning that if you had all three officers that you could call in a Pershing. I don't think that would affect 1's

Seeing that most people get all three officers in 1v1, i disagree and think that it would change 1v1s completely

No, because then the factions with an early or mid game advantage will be favoured since they will have an edge in more stages of the game than a faction which is only strong late.

That is only if the advantage in late-game is too small to balance the game overall

I think Smith didn´t mean it as he said that.

He doesn´t want all factions to be equally strong lategame.
He wants to give all factions option to surive in lategame.

i think he does mean it that way. his post which i partially quoted in the opening is quite clear. If he voiced your second point, i would have agreed with him

Or then tell me how can USF counter sturmtiger + kingtiger + volks vet5

only by having loads of jackson and outplaying the opponent severely. it's definetely quite hard, but they have a lot of advantages early and mid

I think Smith didn´t mean it as he said that.

He doesn´t want all factions to be equally strong lategame.
He wants to give all factions option to surive in lategame.

No, I definitely mean that all factions should converge to comparable strength.

Soviets already have all the tools they need to survive in the late-game vs Vet5 blobs (demos, katyushas, etc). However, it's one mistake and they're out. That's not cool.

Simply-put. The game shouldn't turn into a constant uphill battle for faction X, just because Y made it to the late-game. However, for every advantage that X had in an earlier point in the game, Y should have an advantage at a later point in the game to balance it out. Nevertheless, no faction advantage should dominate over other factions' advantage as the game drags on.

This isn't about balancing for 2v2+. This is about not throwing things in that deliberately sabotage balance for 2v2+, especially when those things add little/nothing to 1v1:

The CoH2 lategame has been a mirror of the CoH1 early game (Riflemen vs MGs):

Heavy tanks with high damage output and limited firing arc vs highly mobile but weak mediums which are to flank the heavies.

It's great design, unique and provided me some of the best gaming moments of my life (not exaggerating here!)





Only the brits fucked it up

Simply-put. The game shouldn't turn into a constant uphill battle for faction X, just because Y made it to the late-game.

why not? this adds an interesting mechanic, a mental pressure,spices things up by introducing the need to outplay the opponent

This isn't about balancing for 2v2+. This is about not throwing things in that deliberately sabotage balance for 2v2+, especially when those things add little/nothing to 1v1:

first of all:
it adds a lot to 1v1 and 2v2
second:
you wont throw things in because it is like that now (and was designed that way), but take them out. wehrmacht for example is stronger than sovs in lategame when on even playing ground.
To change that and balance it out you would have to fuck up balance completely

why not? this adds an interesting mechanic, a mental pressure,spices things up by introducing the need to outplay the opponent
first of all:
it adds a lot to 1v1 and 2v2

This thing worked "reasonably" well before Brits. Now with Brits outscaling certain other factions you have first-class factions and second-class factions.

Secondly, the reason I put "reasonably" in quotation marks is because resource inflation meant that the time-limited allied powerspike would become insignificantly narrow. At the same time, an infinitely-long power spike for the Axis meant that for almost the entirety of the game Axis had the advantage in their favour.

Allies either to have everything preplanned and follow a particular script. Any deviation from that script meant the allied team was out of contest.

This all boils down to whether we want every 4v4 match ever to look like a faithful copy-paste of the one before that, and that match either ending in an allied victory in 20-ish minutes, or an allied /surrender in 20-ish minutes.

Operating under stringent time restraints means that you don't really have much room to improvise. The only way to meet those retraints is if you memorise the script, rehearse it and repeat it time-after-time.

you wont throw things in because it is like that now (and was designed that way), but take them out. wehrmacht for example is stronger than sovs in lategame when on even playing ground.
To change that and balance it out you would have to fuck up balance completely

The issue is that this wasn't designed that way (we are now at the 3rd OKW revamp era?). The whole, scaling out-of-control was left-in after OKW's resource penalties were lifted and, somehow, some of their Veterancy5 bonuses and munitions-costing abilities were overlooked.

This looks more like an accident than anything else.

This all boils down to whether we want every 4v4 match ever to look like a faithful copy-paste of the one before that, and that match either ending in an allied victory in 20-ish minutes, or an allied /surrender in 20-ish minutes.

yep, we want that, because it makes 1v1 and 2v2 more interesting

This looks more like an accident than anything else.

OKW was always very strong in lategame and not by accident. they were always meant to dominate lategame

honestly 4v4 always was a shitmode, and will stay like that, too many players to be competetive. but if you really want to make it a better mode, then change ressouce income and also cache income in 3v3 and 4v4 and leave 1v1 alone

yep, we want that, because it makes 1v1 and 2v2 more interesting
OKW was always very strong in lategame and not by accident. they were always meant to dominate lategame

OKW was designed around an overpowering late-game, when they had a super-shitty early game. This deal has been off for a while. Now, I honestly don't know what the design of OKW is supposed to be like. Except for trucks, of course.

The accident refers to the fact that when the first part of the deal was corrected, there was limited/no-effort to address the second part of the deal. I am guessing this was all in good faith that this won't show up a lot.

honestly 4v4 always was a shitmode, and will stay like that, too many players to be competetive. but if you really want to make it a better mode, then change ressouce income and also cache income in 3v3 and 4v4 and leave 1v1 alone

As long as we keep throwing stuff that scales badly (e..g., too much, or too little) into the game, of course 4v4 will be a shitmode. This is not because 4v4 is meant to be bad by design. This is because particular design choices which have zero, or close-to-negligible impact in 1v1 (certain vet5, FRP, ) are allowed to completely dominate the flow of 4v4. It wasn't 4v4 that made those mechanics look shitty. It was shitty mechanics that made 4v4 look shittier.

However, this isn't only mode-specific. This is also map-specific. How do you think the over-scaling factions will behave on the newly-released pool of maps, when suppression/etc can make matches drag out longer?

Do we really want matches to continue to revolve around a very narrow set of maps for a very narrow set of modes?

Changing resource income for 3v3/4v4 is a major interference in teamgame mechanics, and that might alienate a very large portion of the audience, which Relic might have every interest in retaining.

Putting a bar on how far certain things can scale is a no-effort interference with 1v1. This is because 5-star vet is already considered a statistical outlier (i.e., only ever happens when things go "wrong").

As long as we keep throwing stuff that scales badly

Who is "we" when you're saying this? You've made Penal PTRS the hallmark of WBP and IMO that's a perfect example of this.

Don't confuse OKW being broken with the problem that is the Brit faction. Both are problems, both are different problems. You can't exactly argue about one faction and explain things about the other interchangeably.

Now with Brits outscaling certain other factions you have first-class factions and second-class factions.

No, you have Brits and other factions. Conceptually Brits can be okay if it is only Brits. 1v1 through 4v4.

However, this isn't only mode-specific. This is also map-specific. How do you think the over-scaling factions will behave on the newly-released pool of maps, when suppression/etc can make matches drag out longer?

Do we really want matches to continue to revolve around a very narrow set of maps for a very narrow set of modes?

What mode are you talking about? Maps come before faction design. Factions should never be designed around maps
.

Don't confuse OKW being broken with the problem that is the Brit faction. Both are problems, both are different problems. You can't exactly argue about one faction and explain things about the other interchangeably.

As far as the thread is concerned, both Brits and OKW share a similar fate in the following aspect:
- Both greatly outscale EFA factions, if they make it to the end-game

EFA may have momentary advantages in the earlier game to make up for that (which have, incidentally, been somewhat flattened out in the process of WBP). On the other hand, the nature of advantages that UKF/OKW get (overefficient tanks/abilities/veterancy/popcap-overefficiency/etc) carries with them until the game ends.

The main question here is:
- Do we want powerspikes for factions (Yes/No)

The followup question is; if we go for powerspikes:
- Are we OK with the current design where certain factions are given temporary powerspikes (e.g., 1 free squad once), whereas other factions benefit from power-enhancing stuff that carries with them to the end of the game

Or:
- Should we rethink the nature of powerspikes, so that no faction gets to end the game in an OP state, if the game drags out too long.

Note: We don't have to eliminate powerspikes to make factions converge to comparable end-game strengths. However, it does make things easier to balance; however that comes at the cost of making things too "samey".

The following bonuses have a limited scope for however long they may be considered valuable:
- A free truck
- A free officer squad etc

The following types of bonuses carry with the respective factions until the end of the game:
- Brit commander abilities
- Forward retreat points (they shave off retreat time for every retreat)
- Too much veterancy
- Overefficient popcap for vehicles (which allow you to potentially amass a big army; not an issue in 1v1, even if fixed).

The CoH2 lategame has been a mirror of the CoH1 early game (Riflemen vs MGs):

Heavy tanks with high damage output and limited firing arc vs highly mobile but weak mediums which are to flank the heavies.

It's great design, unique and provided me some of the best gaming moments of my life (not exaggerating here!)

Very slowly putting your M10 train into position to attack with the best hopes you could manage to produce vs the Panthers and Tiger. Ah good memories.

OKW was designed around an overpowering late-game, when they had a super-shitty early game. This deal has been off for a while. Now, I honestly don't know what the design of OKW is supposed to be like. Except for trucks, of course.

Prokw is strong early and strong late, not a good compromise in my opinion, as they are like US but downright better outside of the now nerfed Rifles hit vet3 with double upgrades and light vehicle dominance with the nerfed Stuart.

As far as the thread is concerned, both Brits and OKW share a similar fate in the following aspect:
- Both greatly outscale EFA factions, if they make it to the end-game

I highly disagree. "Making it to the endgame" is extremely relative. Making it to the endgame with what? Vetted units? Having 300+ VPs? 50 VPs? With a full force of infantry, support weapons, and tanks? It's not like getting to a certain point in the game undoes the previous stages of the game. OKW is also easily outscaled by Brits.

What I find about OKW is that their t0 has all the tools that OKW feasibly needs to make it to the endgame. Sure raketens aren't the best and right now sturm schrecks are a joke, but technically they have the backbone in their t0. That's one of the issues at work here. When volks had schrecks OKW didn't even need the sturms or raketens.

So for me, painting the issue as a problem with OKW's lategame is being incomplete at best.

EFA may have momentary advantages in the earlier game to make up for that (which have, incidentally, been somewhat flattened out in the process of WBP). On the other hand, the nature of advantages that UKF/OKW get (overefficient tanks/abilities/veterancy/popcap-overefficiency/etc) carries with them until the game ends.

I don't think EFA does have 'momentary advantages'. Soviets and Ostheer have team weapons to speak of in the early game. They aren't always running a mass of infantry around the map. In my opinion, Soviets have nothing but constant advantages against OKW. At most OKW gets an edge with a KT, but KT's are hardly overefficient. It does one job well: Sitting stationary on a crucial cutoff or VP while being backed up by an entire OKW army. Otherwise it's just bait for Comets/Fireflies, Jacksons, or SU-85s. (I'll admit OKW's KT has the most impact against Soviets, but it's entirely manageable IMO.)

The main question here is:
- Do we want powerspikes for factions (Yes/No)
- Are we OK with the current design where certain factions are given temporary powerspikes (e.g., 1 free squad once), whereas other factions benefit from power-enhancing stuff that carries with them to the end of the game

"Powerspikes"? What do you really mean by "powerspikes" though? I mean, free squads are an issue with USF teching, which is neither OKW or Brits... What are the OKW powerspikes?

Or:
- Should we rethink the nature of powerspikes, so that no faction gets to end the game in an OP state, if the game drags out too long.

There are no global upgrades that amount to a stronger faction at the endgame other than army size. There's no purchased vet, no faster vet, no reduced upkeep, no medics/bergetigers to produce freebie units.

OKW does get the KT unlock. Doctrinal call-ins often outscale/outpace stock units.

I think looking at the pricing and availability of the OKW KT would be warranted. But beyond that I'm leery. I would call it 'The OKW KT' rather than generalizing an array of issues as 'powerspikes'.

The following bonuses have a limited scope for however long they may be considered valuable:
- A free truck

???

The following types of bonuses carry with the respective factions until the end of the game:
- Brit commander abilities
- Forward retreat points (they shave off retreat time for every retreat)
- Too much veterancy
- Overefficient popcap for vehicles (which allow you to potentially amass a big army; not an issue in 1v1, even if fixed).

Well, veterancy isn't guaranteed and is still all earned. Losing a vet 4 or 5 unit is a huge loss. But TBH getting vet on OKW units is a challenge, and really doesn't impart exceptional abilities or survivability onto any of its infantry. The KT and Command Panther are probably the two units that really seem to snowball with their vet.

Vet 5 is kind of a silly thing. It could've been done better, or could be done away with entirely.

Forward retreat points are sort of a bonus that continue through the end of the game. Except if its destroyed for OKW, a new 100mp 15f truck has to be called in and 200mp and 35 fuel must be spent. I think the major just costs manpower to replace. He also doesn't have to set up, or invest 300 manpower to get that FRP in the first place. Just saying, OKW really loses the hardest in the FRP equation. At least they don't have to purchase those upgrades a second time.

The only glaring, blatant overefficiency I know of for pop cap is that USF can easily go above 100 because of vehicle crews. But the pop cap inconsistencies across the factions is definitely a worthwhile thing to look into.

OKW was designed around an overpowering late-game, when they had a super-shitty early game.

OKW never had a shitty early game, supressing kubel was arguably stronger than current kubel

As long as we keep throwing stuff that scales badly (e..g., too much, or too little) into the game, of course 4v4 will be a shitmode.

ITs the very nature of coh that some units scale better or worse into lategame and that risk vs reward opens up the strategic diversity. having all untis scale the same would be boring

Do we really want matches to continue to revolve around a very narrow set of maps for a very narrow set of modes?

we need to. some units will always scale better into 4v4 (artillery, caches, long range AT) and you cannot change that, so you have to decide for which mode you balance. i know that you are a 4v4 warrior and that it might hurt you, but 4v4 will never be balanced as long as 1v1 is balanced

Changing resource income for 3v3/4v4 is a major interference in teamgame mechanics, and that might alienate a very large portion of the audience, which Relic might have every interest in retaining.

true, but it would drastically better the balance in the mode. and to be honest 90% of all 4v4 players would not even notice

Putting a bar on how far certain things can scale is a no-effort interference with 1v1. This is because 5-star vet is already considered a statistical outlier (i.e., only ever happens when things go "wrong").

that would of course offset the 1v1 balance. vet 5 volks for example are often seen in 1v1s and reward the player for keeping that squad alive due to good micro

Prokw is strong early and strong late, not a good compromise in my opinion, as they are like US but downright better outside of the now nerfed Rifles hit vet3 with double upgrades and light vehicle dominance with the nerfed Stuart.

OKW is strong early and late, USF is trong early and mid. quite fair to be honest

that would of course offset the 1v1 balance. vet 5 volks for example are often seen in 1v1s and reward the player for keeping that squad alive due to good micro

Volks Vet5 has never been an issue in a long time. In fact, 5-star vet for Volks is mostly cosmetic. You could collapse it into 3 vet levels and nobody would even notice a thing. This is an example of an OKW unit that follows the scaling of other factions.

That is, except for the fact that splitting veterancy bonuses on a 5-star basis, as opposed to a 3-star basis simply makes 5-star Volks award more veterancy to the enemy when they are attacked than, say, 3-star other infantry.