Eastern Front Armies Revamp

Not really. The point of the edit was more that the even winrates between BG-HQ and Mech-Reg likely indicates that both options have been chosen in about the same ratio by the better and the the worse players.



Well, Hans and KoreanArmy so far didn't play OKW

Players that picked BG-HQ first and won: Luvnest, Theodosios, Fredbrik, Lt.Baumy, Tobis, VonAsten, Zarok

Players that picked Mech-Reg first and won: Pappy O'Daniel, Barton, DevM, Jae for Jett, Jesulin, Talisman, Tobis, GB Hooligan

Great, thanks for the info. I haven't watched all GCS matches, only those casted by AE and Stormless. None of those have built BGroup so far (IIRC).

I think that while a lot of the changes are very admirable and successfully balance the game, they cut down on strategic diversity- something which COH2 already has precious little of. If T3 + Tiger strategies are too effective compared to T4, then should the price point of T4 or effectiveness of units within T4 not be buffed such that it becomes competitive, rather than gutting T3 + Tiger?

What goes on here is that techless strategies in the mod are disincentivized so heavily as to be the equivalent of teching strategies that currently exist in live. The 25% cost increase when it comes to heavy vehicles becomes so large that teching becomes de facto- there's no decision making at all, just as it is now where techless call ins are equally no-brainer choices!

This, all in all, results in blandness not in terms of unit to unit, but in terms of what tech you see every game. Elimination of viability of call-in units, which aid these interesting tech skip builds builds (stuge, puma) or create strategies revolving around them (T3 units + Tiger or Ace, KV1, stuge-tiger), unfortunately make the game less interesting.

We would have to nerf the manpower price of call-ins at the very least. This is because teching actually sucks so much manpower out of you (to give the opponent the opportunity to come back). Since teching costs so much fuel and manpower, you would have to produce 4-5 tanks to make up for loss of cost-efficiency you would get from call-ins.

I don't think you can ever have enough resources to produce that many tanks in the course of a single 1v1 game. Therefore, call-ins become a must.

What you're suggesting is that we nerf call-ins a bit, cost-efficiency wise, so that you don't have to produce as many tech-tied tanks to make up for the call-ins (generalist tanks should still be tied to tech, though).

If call-in price remains the same after you've teched, now you're paying for a cost-inefficient tank = you would never build it. In that case people would simply shift to off-map arty doctrines; offmap arty requires no tech, and it still costs the same after you've teched; it's there with you all the game.

Instead, if we improve call-in cost efficiency after teching, it gives an incentive to both have call-ins available (come-back mechanic) and gives you the incentive to tech.

That's exactly what we've done, though.

Bottomline; if 25% penalty is too big, we could consider slightly smaller penalties.

Keep in mind that you need AT LEAST 470 Fuel and 1320 MP for one single KT.
(All Buildings + 720MP / 270 Fuel per KT)

The IS2 can (theoretically) be called in for it's 560MP / 230 Fuel cost (I am not sure about those stats, but they are about right).

Sovs could theoretically play a Heavy T2 (I know, the maxim sucks, but still) with Cons Spam and AT guns and survive the game waiting for the IS-2. This will cost them about 250 Fuel in total (about half of the cost of one KT). Meanwhile OKW will have a way heavier time countering light and medium armor with Raketenwerfers and Panzerschreck Pioneers alone.

The IS-2 is currently fine in my opinion. If it receives a damage increase, it should get the same armor as the Tiger IMO.

Theoretically - yes, practically - no and no sense. You will be crushed before the IS-2 arrives, plus the IS-2 is not so powerful as a KT, it will not help you against the huge blob and tanks that the enemy has. It was more profitable to spend fuel on SU-85 and Katyusha.

Keep in mind that you need AT LEAST 470 Fuel and 1320 MP for one single KT.
(All Buildings + 720MP / 270 Fuel per KT)

The IS2 can (theoretically) be called in for it's 560MP / 230 Fuel cost (I am not sure about those stats, but they are about right).

Sovs could theoretically play a Heavy T2 (I know, the maxim sucks, but still) with Cons Spam and AT guns and survive the game waiting for the IS-2. This will cost them about 250 Fuel in total (about half of the cost of one KT). Meanwhile OKW will have a way heavier time countering light and medium armor with Raketenwerfers and Panzerschreck Pioneers alone.

The IS-2 is currently fine in my opinion. If it receives a damage increase, it should get the same armor as the Tiger IMO.

Lock IS-2 behind T4 and make it call-in like KT, but give normal abilities and stats, that you could rely on it like OKW relies on their KT. I agree that non-tech call-in may be bad, but tech call-in must be good (as T34-85 good in T4). IS-2 was the most tough heavy of Ally, but in game it worse than Pershing. When i call Pershing, KT or Churchill i know what i got, but IS-2...must pray for RNG gods.

I believe increasing call-ins costs without tiers built is a serious mistake. There are more reasonable yet interesting alternatives to fixing the problem. Treating all the call-ins the same way is madness.

First of all, call-ins should be divided to two categories:

• emergency/utility call-ins, such as halftracks, mechanised grenadier teams, pumas, and ultimately the M10 tank destroyer (the Armor doctrine was designed in such way).
  
• powerful units, comparable or plain more capable than stock ones. T-34/85s, Easy 8's, IS-2's, Tigers, M4C's, Pershings, Calliopes, Elefants, etc.
  

This is why there has to be a middle ground. If I was in charge, I would implement the following changes:

• all call-ins from the first category would stay as they are. No additional costs, as the units can't completely change the tide of a game.
  
• all call-ins from the second category should be tied to tech exactly like 85's and Easy 8's in current implementation. Additional flavor based on faction could be interesting, like Wehrmacht having only to tech to Battle Phase 3 and not to build Tier 4 (as the ingame text states).
  

I urge the balance team to look at any concept that is not flawed and that doesn't interfere with classic coh gameplay.

L-20
MRedirecting some manpower costs to fuel costs will help long-term sustainability for howitzers, especially for 1v1.

-Cost changed from 600MP to 400MP/50FU

B4
Redirecting some manpower costs to fuel costs will help long-term sustainability for howitzers, especially for 1v1.

We are experimenting with making B4 shots connect more reliably, while creating avenues for counterplay.

-Cost changed from 600MP to 400MP/50FU
-Popcap to 15

Since the ratio is 1:3:5 (Fu:MU:MP) you are actually increasing the price of this guns to 400+250=650. Fuel price should be 40. Same goes for LeFH and Pak43.

OST Supply drop

-Supply planes now fly over enemy base and are counter able

This change completely breaks the ability making useless.
Reason:
1) Flight path is fixed
2) Delivery comes in many planes over 80 secs giving plenty of time to move AA asset to counter.

Suggestion:
1) Increase cost of ability to 250 to follow standard conversion ratio.
2) Increase the cool-down to 2 minute
3) allow creates to be destroyed by indirect fire (mortars/arty)
4) Reverse all other changes.

Alternatives:
1) make supply drop able to be drop on any sector
2) allow player to chose between fuel drop for MU cost and Mu cost for fuel drop
3) haves planes follow random flight paths.

I believe increasing call-ins costs without tiers built is a serious mistake. There are more reasonable yet interesting alternatives to fixing the problem. Treating all the call-ins the same way is madness.

First of all, call-ins should be divided to two categories:

• emergency/utility call-ins, such as halftracks, mechanised grenadier teams, pumas, and ultimately the M10 tank destroyer (the Armor doctrine was designed in such way).
  
• powerful units, comparable or plain more capable than stock ones. T-34/85s, Easy 8's, IS-2's, Tigers, M4C's, Pershings, Calliopes, Elefants, etc.
  

This is why there has to be a middle ground. If I was in charge, I would implement the following changes:

• all call-ins from the first category would stay as they are. No additional costs, as the units can't completely change the tide of a game.
  
• all call-ins from the second category should be tied to tech exactly like 85's and Easy 8's in current implementation. Additional flavor based on faction could be interesting, like Wehrmacht having only to tech to Battle Phase 3 and not to build Tier 4 (as the ingame text states).
  

I urge the balance team to look at any concept that is not flawed and that doesn't interfere with classic coh gameplay.

Emergency units could stay as is, if we're talking about Soviets and/or Ostheer.

However, when we're talking about OKW and USF, we also have to take into account the non-negligible freebies they get.

USF gets two tiers with a free squad each and, then, when it's time to foot the bill with the Major, people tend to go the other way and just go for M10.

That's also because USF usually has little trouble fending off against infantry with their own infantry (until vet5 BS, of course). Then, M10 fills that niche of anti-tank, and you have a free-squad-fueled good army composition.

For OKW, you have healing and repairs. While I know that the repair upgrade feels more like a cherry-on-top currently. However, if OKW was playing fair with EFA wrt repair speeds, the repair upgrade would be more than worth it.

Call-ins still maintain the benefit of instant-build time over tech-tied counterparts, though. Thus, you still have the concept of emergency vehicles; you just have to "research" them first, or be prepared to pay a bit extra.

Apart from the Puma and the M10, are there any other vehicles you would consider "emergency" vehicles? I can't think of any, currently.

This change completely breaks the ability making useless.
Reason:
1) Flight path is fixed
2) Delivery comes in many planes over 80 secs giving plenty of time to move AA asset to counter.

Suggestion:
1) Increase cost of ability to 250 to follow standard conversion ratio.
2) Increase the cool-down to 2 minute
3) allow creates to be destroyed by indirect fire (mortars/arty)
4) Reverse all other changes.

Alternatives:
1) make supply drop able to be drop on any sector
2) allow player to chose between fuel drop for MU cost and Mu cost for fuel drop
3) haves planes follow random flight paths.

Planes always take the longest path. If you use it on a sector that's further away from your base than it is from theirs, planes will fly over your own territory.

Lock IS-2 behind T4 and make it call-in like KT, but give normal abilities and stats, that you could rely on it like OKW relies on their KT. I agree that non-tech call-in may be bad, but tech call-in must be good (as T34-85 good in T4). IS-2 was the most tough heavy of Ally, but in game it worse than Pershing. When i call Pershing, KT or Churchill i know what i got, but IS-2...must pray for RNG gods.

This. Great idea. Why not lock Pershing behind complete tech structure aswell? Would benefit balance if these two vehicles would be avaiable to everyone no matter which doctrine was picked. Currently Axis are pretty much obviously OP in team games and this would give allies more options for late-game. IS-2 must be buffed by the way. It is way too bad and considering how many nerfs Soviets got already it would only be fair if IS-2 got a major buff (cost increase too, that´s NP).

Muni/Fuel caches
Each additional teammate increases the cost of fuel/munition caches by +100MP
I.e., cache cost remains 200MP for 1v1, 300MP for 2v2, 400MP for 3v3 and 500MP for 4v4

Live:
Fuel cashes cost 200 provide 3 extra fuel. Pay of of the investment in 13:20 minute. Some pay off in 3:20 minutes in a 4v4s.
Show Spoiler

MU cashes cost 200 provide 5 extra munition. Pay of of the investment in 24 minute. 3:20 minutes in a 4v4s.
Show Spoiler

Suggestion:
1) MU cashes should be become less expansive than Fuel cashes in large modes since their return is lower
2) Instead of simply increasing cost of cashes its probably better that one lower the return of fuel cashes to 2 in 3vs3 and 4vs4.
3) Cashes in 1vs1 could go down to 150

Planes always take the longest path. If you use it on a sector that's further away from your base than it is from theirs, planes will fly over your own territory.

Supply drop zone (SDP) can only target fuel or munition sector so a player does not not have much of an option. With the current changes in the mod the ability becomes extremely easily counter-able.

Did AA get buffed? (I dont actually recall) because last time i checked any plane flying directly over AA is only SLIGHTLY more likely to die (except p47s as they seem to be using the kamikaze pilot template which involves too much soki to fire missles at even stationary super heavy tanks as well as stay in the air) i dont think the ~5 planes of the supply drop would be any garder to counter than the soviet supply drop, and if anything RNG is in its favour since at least 1 SHOULD get through, giving you SOMETHING (vs all or nothing+ chance of killing units at base off the soviet supply drop)

Did AA get buffed? (I dont actually recall) because last time i checked any plane flying directly over AA is only SLIGHTLY more likely to die (except p47s as they seem to be using the kamikaze pilot template which involves too much soki to fire missles at even stationary super heavy tanks as well as stay in the air) i dont think the ~5 planes of the supply drop would be any garder to counter than the soviet supply drop, and if anything RNG is in its favour since at least 1 SHOULD get through, giving you SOMETHING (vs all or nothing+ chance of killing units at base off the soviet supply drop)

Yes they did. A quad will probably kill even a loitering planes in the first pass.

In live and patch the player can chose the flight path of the allied supply drop (ASD) plane making the ability virtually uncounterable in a number of maps. SDZ fly the exact same path every time.

Regardless of flight path the reaction time to SDP is around 80 secs the reaction time to ASD is far less.

On call-ins: I'm with strummingbird here, I would still like to non-tech call-in to be viable at least under certain circumstances (it shouldn't be as powerful as it currently seems to be, but still...). Also, I'm totally fine with OH T4 being an option rather than a must-have.

That said, I like the approach with call-ins being available if more expensive without tech. However, I would like to see a more differentiated approach. Also, you are changing a lot of things at once which makes it very hard to find out what will happen...

Let's go through some examples:

IS-2: Not sure if tying it to T4 is needed. Let's face it, IS-2s are rare as it is. And they weren't overly prominent in ESL or WPC either. GSC so far saw 1 (but SOV lost). Also, with Armored Assault you'll likely see T4 anyways but even with Shock Rifle I figure surviving just on T3 will be harder with the nerfs to the SU-76s. So, if nerfs are necessary (which I'm not convinced they are) maybe increase CPs (also, see Tiger below).

KV-8: I'd argue this is actually more of a T3 unit in terms of at what time it has the most impact. It is quite strong but also has serious drawbacks but I don't see a KV-8 meta. Also, if we look at the doctrines that it comes with: Ok, we have Industry which requires T4 anyways; Shock Rifle, well, not sure how that works out; all other doctrines with the KV-8 would actually be more in need of a buff... If the KV-8 becomes an issue (and I doubt it would) what about making it slower?

Tiger: I'd like to see T3 plus Tiger still be viable. It will be harder to pull off now with the nerfed Stug-III and PaK-40 (which probably is not fully compensated by the P4 buff). In that context I'm not sure about the increase in damage as it becomes more of a jack-of-all-trades/less reliant on other units. Again, similar to the IS-2 maybe increase CPs instead?

Puma: Well, seems like the reliance on Mobile Defense was pretty much eliminated by decreasing the lethality of the light vehicles, so I guess this one is currently in a good spot.

Command P4: Apart from Mobile Defense (see above) has serious drawbacks already, gets nerfed in the mod an otherwise appears only in rather obscure doctrines. A further nerf might not be warranted and might make the lesser uses doctrines even more obscure.

and so on...

So, yes, in general I like the idea, but I'm not sure if it is the best for all vehicles. Other options to make call-ins less attractive include (no idea if all of those are moddable):

• Make them buildable from T0 once you reach a certain CP level (and then adjusting build-times)
  
• Make it so that you can call in the first like you do now, but you need the tech building to call-in a second on, once the first is destroyed.
  
• Add resource penalty similar to the Tiger Ace (but weaker, depending on the power of the unit); this could be an alternative for the M4C, if the penalty stacks.
  

On call-ins: I'm with strummingbird here, I would still like to non-tech call-in to be viable at least under certain circumstances (it shouldn't be as powerful as it currently seems to be, but still...). Also, I'm totally fine with OH T4 being an option rather than a must-have.

That said, I like the approach with call-ins being available if more expensive without tech. However, I would like to see a more differentiated approach. Also, you are changing a lot of things at once which makes it very hard to find out what will happen...

Let's go through some examples:
IS-2: Not sure if tying it to T4 is needed. Let's face it, IS-2s are rare as it is. And they weren't overly prominent in ESL or WPC either. GSC so far saw 1 (but SOV lost). Also, with Armored Assault you'll likely see T4 anyways but even with Shock Rifle I figure surviving just on T3 will be harder with the nerfs to the SU-76s. So, if nerfs are necessary (which I'm not convinced they are) maybe increase CPs (also, see Tiger below).

The primary reason you don't see IS-2 as often in GCS is because everybody beelines for the cheese (OKW vs DSHK & Penals).

I'm not convinced that a no-tech IS-2 can be countered at all with Stug nerfs. This is especially after the bruising you will get from SU-76 if you over-rely on T3 tanks.

KV-8: I'd argue this is actually more of a T3 unit in terms of at what time it has the most impact. It is quite strong but also has serious drawbacks but I don't see a KV-8 meta. Also, if we look at the doctrines that it comes with: Ok, we have Industry which requires T4 anyways; Shock Rifle, well, not sure how that works out; all other doctrines with the KV-8 would actually be more in need of a buff... If the KV-8 becomes an issue (and I doubt it would) what about making it slower?

KV-8 is priced as a Brummbar, and should perform at a similar level. We're already examining some ways to make KV-8 more solid as a unit.

Tiger: I'd like to see T3 plus Tiger still be viable. It will be harder to pull off now with the nerfed Stug-III and PaK-40 (which probably is not fully compensated by the P4 buff). In that context I'm not sure about the increase in damage as it becomes more of a jack-of-all-trades/less reliant on other units. Again, similar to the IS-2 maybe increase CPs instead?

In V3 of the EFA mod, you can still go for T3 & BP3 to get a tiger. BP3 only costs 60MP/10FU in the mod. I'm sure that if you went T3 you can also afford 60MP/10FU. Then, T4 is also around the corner.

Puma: Well, seems like the reliance on Mobile Defense was pretty much eliminated by decreasing the lethality of the light vehicles, so I guess this one is currently in a good spot.

Perhaps Puma could be released from teching clutches now that Light Vehicles are no longer bonkers.

Command P4: Apart from Mobile Defense (see above) has serious drawbacks already, gets nerfed in the mod an otherwise appears only in rather obscure doctrines. A further nerf might not be warranted and might make the lesser uses doctrines even more obscure.

Command P4's performance hasn't changed one bit in the mod in 1v1. Call-ins are an 1v1-issue only.

Elsewhere, you had better teched up to T3 (or T4) or be dead, because the CP's come too late to have a panic-P4 anyway.

So, yes, in general I like the idea, but I'm not sure if it is the best for all vehicles. Other options to make call-ins less attractive include (no idea if all of those are moddable):

• Make them buildable from T0 once you reach a certain CP level (and then adjusting build-times)
  
• Make it so that you can call in the first like you do now, but you need the tech building to call-in a second on, once the first is destroyed.
  
• Add resource penalty similar to the Tiger Ace (but weaker, depending on the power of the unit); this could be an alternative for the M4C, if the penalty stacks.
  

- Adding delays of any time to call-ins is not sufficient at all. We've already tried this with M4C Sherman somewhat, and that didn't lead anywhere.

We would have to increase CP's to make that work. However, on the other hand, increased CP's means you will never see call-in units utilised on anything above 1v1's, and only on call-in strats. We also have no way of predicting what CP level should be sufficient.
E.g.., in Caen, where players often engage in resource-denial warfare CP's stack up much faster than resources would allow you to tech.

- Limiting call-in vehicles to 1 without tech will not work for the heavies (a no-tech IS-2 will probably crush OST in the mod, if OST was foolish enough not to also pick call-ins).

It could, however, work for some of the non-heavies (e.g., Stug-E and maybe the M10). To make this work for KV8 and the KV1 it means that we will have to leave KV8 kinda inefficient, as is, and revert KV1 buffs. Again, this means you will never see either unit in anything above 1v1, since the new Panther will chew them apart.

- Resource penalties will hurt the long-term viability of these vehicles. Essentially, this means you will never see call-ins on anything above 1v1's; and you might only sometimes see call-ins in 1v1, when somebody explicitly wants to try a call-in strat.

The primary reason you don't see IS-2 as often in GCS is because everybody beelines for the cheese (OKW vs DSHK & Penals).

I'm not convinced that a no-tech IS-2 can be countered at all with Stug nerfs. This is especially after the bruising you will get from SU-76 if you over-rely on T3 tanks.

Well, IS-2 was already not very common in the tourneys before that. During ESL Armored Assault saw some use, but then again there you would build T4 eventually anyways. Point taken on the StuG nerfs.

Re KV-8: Ok, it can be T4 with a buff; kind of scared of a buffed KV-8, though

Command P4's performance hasn't changed one bit in the mod in 1v1.

True, but for teamgames it was nerfed; I was mostly refering to the CP4&Ele doctrine which might or might not become relevant depending on how the other changes play out. CP4 isn't particularly common in 1v1, plus it has a limit of 1 already, so not sure why it needs a "nerf" in terms of accessibility. If you say that you need to tech up anyways, fine, than the restriction isn't needed, right?

- Adding delays of any time to call-ins is not sufficient at all. We've already tried this with M4C Sherman somewhat, and that didn't lead anywhere.

No, actually. You increased the cooldown. So you can get in the tank first, but then potentially have to wait to get in the second. With the suggestion you would get in the first one later already, increasing the opportunity cost as you first have to wait to get the resources and then have to wait for it to be built.

That said, I don't think this would work for the M4C, but for some of the heavies it has a nice side effect: In late game when people are floating tons of resources, killing a Heavy or Super Heavy is mostly a veterancy reset as the other player just calls in another one (the cooldown of course is long gone). With this, you would have maybe one or two minutes where the opposing player would need to rebuilt his precious tank.

We also have no way of predicting what CP level should be sufficient.
E.g.., in Caen, where players often engage in resource-denial warfare CP's stack up much faster than resources would allow you to tech.

Hm, I personally have no problem with certain strategies being better on some maps than on others...

- Resource penalties will hurt the long-term viability of these vehicles. Essentially, this means you will never see call-ins on anything above 1v1's; and you might only sometimes see call-ins in 1v1, when somebody explicitly wants to try a call-in strat.

Well, this suggestion was more experimental, but obviously they shouldn't be as massive as they are for the Tiger Ace now. Not sure if possible, but maybe you could alternatively have very small penalties for the first unit, and then increasing penalties the more units you spam? Also, hurting the long-term viability was the point: You can call it in early for a shock value (well or how much of that is left after 15 minutes), but spamming them for the rest of the game shouldn't work out.

Edit: Anyways, I was mostly arguing against a "one size fits all" solution with regards to call-ins.

Another factor one has to consider when talking about call in is the their role.

Specialized vehicles/units that are call in seem to create less issue than all purpose units.

Maybe it should be mostly the unit that can act as core units that need to have penalties and not all units.

In addition instead of trying to restrict call in via penalties one could introduces bonuses to teching. These bonuses could include more resources income or/and lower pop for unit/call-in units and/or lower reinforcement cost.

Why bother making CoH3 when CoH2 is a completely different game every few months?

Kappa

Did AA get buffed? (I dont actually recall) because last time i checked any plane flying directly over AA is only SLIGHTLY more likely to die (except p47s as they seem to be using the kamikaze pilot template which involves too much soki to fire missles at even stationary super heavy tanks as well as stay in the air) i dont think the ~5 planes of the supply drop would be any garder to counter than the soviet supply drop, and if anything RNG is in its favour since at least 1 SHOULD get through, giving you SOMETHING (vs all or nothing+ chance of killing units at base off the soviet supply drop)

the soviet supply drop plus all other allies planes have to worry about so much anti air from axis its not fair. all the mgs on tanks, flakHQ, flaks in base, ostwinds, even ostwinds while moving will shoot down a plane really fast while dodging incoming fire.

He's two questions for the balance team that have been bugging me for a while:

What are the benefits and drawbacks of the '25% penalty to call-ins without tech' relative to just locking call-ins behind tech? I'm just curious why we're going down this route.

I would have thought it would be much easier to balance call-ins if it's just tied to tech, as all you have to do then is balance them relative to the units in their respective tiers. We see this with the decision you make when picking between a T34/76 or a T-34/85, as there is definitely benefits to both.

The second question is: Have the balance team ever considered removing the KT from standard OKW tech?

I feel that the KT limits strategic diversity. Its such a no-brainer, if you have the resources you would always go KT, there's few situations where it doesn't do well. This might be partially due to the fact that its very strong, but its also because its good against all targets. I think if you were to remove it you'd see more diverse end games from OKW as people would have to use a combination of units to fill the gap currently occupied by the 'beats everything' KT. And its not like OKW need the KT either. Their late game would still be stronger than OST without it.

I've no idea where you'd put it though. Elite armour would be the obvious one, but what to do with the Sturmtiger. It probably work really well in Overwatch, as the flares would give it loads of sight. That's just my opinion.