Teamgame dominant meta

Rocket tulips can no longer stun.
Yikes! End of the line for brits. This will have a larger impact than one might think. Me and my mates rely on the firefly stun since comets and arty cover have been nerfed. This is a huge buff to axis heavies.

Also, you guys need to move the walking stuka behind tier 3.

LeiG outperforms Pack Howi. However Pack howi costs more. I know that Pack's vet 2 rocks, but still. IMO it needs cost decrease.
And maybe decrease build time of USF doctrinal mines? Its just way too long

Feel free to recommend a fuel price for Howies/Pak43. Would 50-ish fuel be OK, or too low?

I don't think the price is the answer here. In many cases 600mp can be considered less than 400/50. The real problem is one click counters. So what if the artillery came with detachable crew (like usf vehicles) so that you could soft of hard retreat it from the offmap and then crew back the gun and repair it? I mean, I know it may be impossible from modding perspective but maybe it's worth trying.

If you're after balance in 4v4 you're out of luck dude. You don't balance a game like this from large games down, it goes from 1v1 to 2v2 and anything above 2v2 is usually a crap shoot.

And if you're in a 2v2 and hear a Stuka Dive Bomb sound effect its generally pretty obvious where its hitting and if its not on an immobile target and you still don't dodge it its 100% your fault or luck.

Sorry, but it's exact opposite of what you saying. Balance have to be done from 4vs4 to 1vs1.

Every software model work that way. The worst case scenario to the lesser case.
and it's done using an iterative process.

First you have to find yours data's domain. (the possible maximum of data case).

If you don't do that, every small glitchs in the smaller data set will be multiply in the larger data set... exactly whats happening in COH2....

It's harder but the only real way to do.

In COH2 all units are nearly used in 4vs4, but not all units get used as often in 1vs1. (ex: The biggest one)

I don't think the price is the answer here. In many cases 600mp can be considered less than 400/50. The real problem is one click counters. So what if the artillery came with detachable crew (like usf vehicles) so that you could soft of hard retreat it from the offmap and then crew back the gun and repair it? I mean, I know it may be impossible from modding perspective but maybe it's worth trying.

From my own experience with 4v4 maps, artillery pieces need to be kind-of counterable, otherwise they become unstoppable.

If you increase the cost disparity between single-click wipes and artillery pieces, that might be good enough. Like, if the map is so bad that you can't reach the enemy artillery, you could try counter-playing by capturing enough territory and hoarding munitions.

Requiring a team to spend 250MU to wipe a 400MP artillery piece would be what I would consider a fair trade.

An alternative would be to give arty pieces a short 5-second brace, at least to prevent single-click wipes, or make offmaps a bit less accurate, so that you don't have guaranteed wipes vs artillery (frustrating RNG though).

One click abilities are fine on static arty. Static arty is cancerous without countering them. That is why someone on our team must always have il-2 before we start the auto-match.

From my own experience with 4v4 maps, artillery pieces need to be kind-of counterable, otherwise they become unstoppable.

If you increase the cost disparity between single-click wipes and artillery pieces, that might be good enough. Like, if the map is so bad that you can't reach the enemy artillery, you could try counter-playing by capturing enough territory and hoarding munitions.

Requiring a team to spend 250MU to wipe a 400MP artillery piece would be what I would consider a fair trade.

An alternative would be to give arty pieces a short 5-second brace, at least to prevent single-click wipes, or make offmaps a bit less accurate, so that you don't have guaranteed wipes vs artillery (frustrating RNG though).

Yeah, I also thought about 5 second brace but I thought its too much of a copy paste and to easy to do for the owner of the gun. Still, anything that makes guns countered by 2 offmaps or offmap and follow up, instead of a single offmap is good and promotes team play.

I would also say that it would be better if guns, especially pak43 could be a little easier to destroy without using offmaps - so that it doesn't narrow doctrine choices that much.

Feel free to recommend a fuel price for Howies/Pak43. Would 50-ish fuel be OK, or too low?

Yeah, that's about where I'd peg it, especially with SDB nerfs and some of the other changes you've speculated on throughout the thread, it'd be a solid change.

Sorry, but it's exact opposite of what you saying. Balance have to be done from 4vs4 to 1vs1.

Every software model work that way. The worst case scenario to the lesser case.
and it's done using an iterative process.

First you have to find yours data's domain. (the possible maximum of data case).

If you don't do that, every small glitchs in the smaller data set will be multiply in the larger data set... exactly whats happening in COH2....

It's harder but the only real way to do.

In COH2 all units are nearly used in 4vs4, but not all units get used as often in 1vs1. (ex: The biggest one)

I'm sorry but I have to stop you right there and then. I could write a long essay on why balance must be 1v1 oriented and not team games, but I leave you to look at Starcraft(the most successful RTS of all time)

That's why both units will be given either a cost decrease and/or some anti-infantry capabilities.

Sure, if you always play Brits (because, fuck Soviets/USF) and you always go Hammer (because, fuck Anvil), then, yes. Perhaps you have the right tools to play keep-up with Super-TDs (not 100% sure after Hammer nerfs, though).

So, I'm curious. When you play as Soviets or USF, and you encounter either the Elefant or the JT in 4v4, and somebody else in the team has fielded either a Brummbar or a King Tiger, how do you counter that?

If your only answer is "oh, I don't have to deal with that, because I pick doctrine X", then this proves my point.

If the only counter-pick to a strategy is forcing a particular commander choice, then you have a self-reinforcing dominant meta.

I have nothing against you, if you are OK with using Jaeger Armor Commander, day-in, day-out. However, what's not OK is to expect it's OK to limit other people's choices when they have to face Jaeger Armor.

I wish you would answer the other questions I posed before your own questions but whatever.

If I'm playing 4v4 ransoms I have to be ok with potentially being paired against an arrange team. A commander compliments a faction not defines it. If I pick Jaeger armor or fortified armor and choose my play style, the enemy can decide to pick a commander that directly counters mine, or pick a strategy that forces me to react to there commander. If the Allies can counter my commander units (ex. elephant or Croc) with stock units then it's good design. All commanders should be this way. So far I think we can agree on this.

The next question is whether or not the axis or allies have all the tools to counter both the stock units and doctrinal of the other. It goes without saying that more expensive units should require the same amount of opposition resource wise to counter it(ex. One SU85 can hard counter a p4 and two can counter a tiger). An SU85 is a tank destroyer so it excels at destroying tanks. Mediums are more generalists so they are cheap and decent at many things. Elephants are HEAVY TANK destroyers because heavy tanks have a hard to flanking them. This is not so with medium tanks which are far more mobile, cheaper and with the same HP.

Now to answer your question: "how would I counter the elephant supported by brummbarr with Soviets or USFs stock units?
Assuming I am countering with equal amount of resources and they have a brummbarr and elephant combo = 720mp 245fuel + 420 mp 150fuel I'll have a total of 1140mp and 395 fuel


I'd probably use t34s as soviets = 1200mp and I'd engage other places of the map and force them to react. They'd have the option to either ignore me and suffer map control, send the KT, or send both the KT and elephant. I'd look for a decent opportunity to rush the elephant and get around it with the t34s when the elephant starts moving I'd bring in the SU85 to beginning picking at the KT. I'd do my best to get behind the elephant without taking almuch dmg by using smoke or shot blockers. When a t34 gets low on health I'd use ram.

For the Americans it's much the same using 4 Shermans smoke to screen the elephant and isolate it. And take it down.

Allies need to capitalize on their own mobility and their oppositions lack of it.

I understand there are other factors going on in 4v4s as well but that's the approach I would take. If I could convince my Allies to join in the assault it would greatly increase the chances of winning that battle which would likely lead to winning the match as well. Axis have more expensive quality tanks and Allies have cheaper spammable tanks. Use them the way they were designed.

Also, why would you suggest giving Anti infantry capabilities to a TD?

I would suggest for demos the combat engineers have to be within a certain distance to detonate it, therefore more predictable.

Also i hope that calliope change comes with a cost reduction... because that's a hell of a nerf.

Good-to-have stuff

Show Spoiler

If howitzers are being looked at, maybe this might be a good time to take a look at the pak howitzwe as well. The unit has a whole host of issues:

• cap cost of 11 (mortars 6, isg 9)
  
• manpower cost 380
  
• high reinforce cost
  
• high barrage cooldown (1 minute)
  
• barrage with 3 shells
  
• slow to pack up, slow to move -> easily wiped
  
• indirect fire accuracy compared to any other fitting a similar role (the accuracy is okayish if there is a direct firing line, without one however, it's quite bad)
  
• role is unclear: it's not a isg/mortar nor is it a mobile howitzer with its severely limited barrage (3 shells) and high cooldown
  
• veterancy isn't very valuable due to not affecting the autofire and not improving the barrage other than he shells
  
• the white phosphorous ability has issues of its own due to the first shot creating a sight blocker
  

Almost everything else seems really good

I think this is not said enough: thank you and the entire balance team for the great work you guys have done so far and the effort you guys put into it.

For the democharge, make it an upgrade in the HQ, like the USA has in vcoh. 100mp 50 fuel. This way, you can either go for a fast t70 or try your luck with the demos. Lets your opponent adapt aswell.

Other idea, let demos be planted only next to buildings and walls, again, from vcoh.

Or combine the both. Right now, playing against soviets is frustrating, losing squads to a 90 muni ability.

its clear what few things around here needs to be nerfed.

demo
insta-pin dshk
brace/sim city in general
calliope

my 4v4 team used to be number 1 for a long time, even having a 125 win streak or something like that off the wall. i will be the first to tell you, 99% of games where complete noobs who played random that was lost. a half of percent was randoms who know what they were doing. the other half was a arranged team who knew what they were doing. that being said, i know where most 4v4 players on the fourms are from....

I'm sorry but I have to stop you right there and then. I could write a long essay on why balance must be 1v1 oriented and not team games, but I leave you to look at Starcraft(the most successful RTS of all time)

Starcraft is a simple general public game. Coh is a complex hardcore game.

You won't change computer science with that exemple either.

Firefly

Fireflies are mostly OK for 1v1. However:
- They have too good accuracy and moving accuracy making vehicle-play impossible against them
- This is, unless, OST/OKW use heavy-TDs (which will be getting nerfed, btw)

Solution:
- Reduce accuracy/moving accuracy to SU-85 levels
- Remove movement-stun from Tulips
- Remove damage bonus from Vet3 (too good vs mediums; might require cost decrease though)

I find this stun nerf to be concerning. Are you intending to give a bonus when both rockets hit as opposed to 1 rocket hitting like it is now. Currently if only 1 rocket connects you lose vision (and maybe the ability to shoot?). If you just take the stun away it'll make tulips underwhelming and probably not worth the munitions investment.

• You could make double rocket connect cause turret lock (if the tank CAN shoot while vision is blocked, preventing ground attacks).
  
• You could also do temporary engine slow, similar to the AEC treadshot with only 1 shell penetrating.*
• You could even possibly leave the stun in, just make the tank effected by tulips not affected by tulip rockets for say 20 seconds after to prevent chain stuns.
  
• I think you're more concerned about the rockets having a large stun against diving mediums, since heavies arn't making the big dives. If that's the case then you can lower the effects of the rockets against both but make the nerf more severe towards heavies.
  

* I'm concerned about fully removing the stun because axis tanks, should they be hit with double rockets and no stun is applied can just blitz away from danger and then regain vision/repair etc. Maybe you could have 30% slow + blitz disable for duration of vision disable + 3 seconds.

If you do demos in the future, just have one dude survive if only one squad is in its radius. If two or more squads are in the radius, they will all die.

This will help single squads survive capping, but will have the same effect on blobs.

* I'm concerned about fully removing the stun because axis tanks, should they be hit with double rockets and no stun is applied can just blitz away from danger and then regain vision/repair etc. Maybe you could have 30% slow + blitz disable for duration of vision disable + 3 seconds.

OST Blitzkrieg won't be enough to get the tanks out of the danger-zone easily.

We are scheduling to tone down OKW Blitz (which is blitzkrieg on sterroids).

OST Blitzkrieg won't be enough to get the tanks out of the danger-zone easily.

We are scheduling to tone down OKW Blitz (which is blitzkrieg on sterroids).

But what about stuff like the kt, elefant, or jt? Unless you have like ten fireflies, they'll just waltz away after being hit by the rockets and there's nothing the brits can do about it, unless they are extremely severely ridiculously overextended without support and some guy happens to have an aec to maybe stun it if it doesn't get blown to shit by at or miss. If all that gets is disabled is vision and weapons, it's literally just the stuart stun shot with longer range, some (pretty good) damage, and two times the cost on a vehicle three times as expensive (and the cost to upgrade the rocket racks). It practically won't be worth using on heavies except to finish them off. If brits had a traditional snare, this would be fine. But they don't.

LeiG outperforms Pack Howi. However Pack howi costs more. I know that Pack's vet 2 rocks, but still. IMO it needs cost decrease.
And maybe decrease build time of USF doctrinal mines? Its just way too long

+1

Pack homie vet2 rocks every 40ish(something?) seconds and for three shells lol. It also needs a normal crew size and less reinforce cost because counterfire can hit like 2 guys at a time (since they clump) and it still decrews at 3 and takes as much as riflemen (28) to reinforce.

Usf mines do take an hour to build for some reason. Volks take the normal amount of time to set up the doctrinal minefields IIRC.