COH3 Request: Bring back infantry armor types

Since it looks like we might be getting a COH3 with Relic looking for feedback I think this would be one of the best things to bring back as far as mechanics go. Having a sort of asymmetrical balance between infantry defensive qualities was really interesting. For those of you that didn't play heres a quick oversimplified summary:

Soldier armour: very strong vs rifle fire. Weak vs flamers, SMGs, MG suppression.
Elite armor: (Rangers/Vet2 Grenadiers): Similar to soldier armour, 100% snipe on retreat
Airborne armour: chance to dodge sniper fire, less resilient to MP44 and FG42.
Sniper armour: more vulnerable to mines, can dodge rifle fire but vulnerable to automatic weapons
Infantry: Standard
Heroic: Very tanky, also hard to suppress (Knights Cross Holders)

WTF no. Armor like this is not a thing and doesn't make any sense.

I thought the received accuracy modifier was smart, but horribly executed in certain instances.

Nah, tbh I never really got behind what which armor did in vCoH.
If I read through your list I also remember why because they make absolutely no sense.

Why are elite armor units 100% sniped on retreat? Where is the difference between infantry and soldier armour? Why are airbornes more likely to dodge snipers?

It probably makes all sense somehow but for non pro players which make about 95-99% of the player base in the 'best time' of the game it is just irritating as hell.

I actually forgot about these armor types, but the way Coh2 is handled I don't know if they would fit in.

CoH 3 needs to borrow more from CoH than CoH 2 in order for it to work.

Probably have them rename the armour modifier to something like tactile awareness, that way less people would be offended by it. Also on the topic bring back tier 4 infantry and infantry upgrades dependent on fuel rather then on munitions.

While they are doing that could they also do the following:

• Remove Annoying RNG. Replace RNG triggered events with player input or make it so that RNG has less of an affect. i.e abandon occur only when vehicle crews health equal zero, or make it so fuel is required to recover abandon vehicles.
  
• Improve cover mechanics, emphasis flanking
  
• Toggle squad formations
  
• Implement side armour on tanks
  
• Improve tank controls, better reverse command
  
• Allow user to control tank's turret facing
  
• Implement a tree based doctrine system
  
• bring back global upgrades
  
• increase the scale slightly, if you want to have tanks like king tigers and elephants then you really should increase the number of units (Infantry and medium tanks) players have access to.
  

Target-size, cover bonuses, and just modifying a unit's suppression threshold would be enough. No need to make certain weapons a go-to or a no-go against a certain factions.

The linearity works also from a visual perspective. One expects those more expensive and lower count elite troops to generally be hardier against small-arms and possibly be less vulnerable to suppression, but still remain human, even if it's a game. Troops shouldn't suddenly be taking high damage from flamers for no reason or becoming bullet-proof against standard infantry firearms.

Target-tables do exist which generally plays into armour types, but they shouldn't be the go-to or you have a ton of things that need to be memorized regarding how unit X performs against unit Y. It also could lead into the actual unit not being fixed to perform its function, but band-aided solely against that one unit.

I never felt in any RTS game that unit X should perform better solely due to unit Y. Generally the signs are there unit X needs an overall adjustments against a list of other issues o a broader spectrum.

If we want to add diversity amongst troops, we could start by having some infantry units possibly move faster. In CoH games, everyone walks at the same speed, whereas it'd be interesting to see recon or light infantry move faster to allow them to skirmish. That adds an unique layer to a unit's survivability which can be adjusted/compensated through either the unit's firepower, squad-size, and/or target size.

remove lmgs from fronline infantry all together and bring back larger global upgrades (like bars from coh1)

I agree about Armor types should return to the series. Could possibly create more controllable RNG results.
But I don't want thing exactly same as VCOH as well. Veterancy shouldn't change armor type of a unit but could be changeable via another tech building or unit upgrade. Also, changed armor type should be visible in-game and at units portrait or icon.

I didn't put too much effort but basically what I would imagine:
Light: Less received accuracy. More Faster.
Heavy: Max HP increased. Less splash damage. Fire deals more damage.
Elite: Less received accuracy. Less damage from mines, nades. Snipers miss on retreat.
Camo Invisible at cover. Move slows during cover. Snipers never miss.

Yeah Knight Cross Holder models needing two sniper hits to die. No thanks lol

Armor on infantry in general - no. We had this on earlier builds and since it works regardless of distance, it just made cover and tactics redundant. The guy with the higher infantry armor and DPS will just win most of the time by shurgging off bullets.

That being said, I can see a limited re-application of infantry armor to enchance the robustussness/survivability of certain squads, or perhaps veteran squads of all factions in general. A special squad leader entity could exist (like LT, or the assault grens Squad leader) with a small amount of infantry armor, say, 1,1, basically an equivalaent a 10% saving throw (regardless of range and cover) for this single model.

The use of this would mostly to ensure that this entity is more likely (but not neccesarily, if he is unlucky) to survive, and has more chance to be the last to retreat without the squad being wiped.

Smaller OST squads could benefit from those as a vertical upgrade when researching Battle Phase 3, a bit like in COH1 where veterancy. However it would only apply to the squad leader and would be beneficial to ensure retreats of smaller squads without wipes and preserving veterancy.

Yeah Knight Cross Holder models needing two sniper hits to die. No thanks lol

KCH were not the least bit overpowered. If you're complaining just because you think it was silly and unrealistic, on further examination you will realize literally everything in COH is silly and unrealistic.

Armor on infantry in general - no. We had this on earlier builds and since it works regardless of distance, it just made cover and tactics redundant. The guy with the higher infantry armor and DPS will just win most of the time by shurgging off bullets.

That being said, I can see a limited re-application of infantry armor to enchance the robustussness/survivability of certain squads, or perhaps veteran squads of all factions in general. A special squad leader entity could exist (like LT, or the assault grens Squad leader) with a small amount of infantry armor, say, 1,1, basically an equivalaent a 10% saving throw (regardless of range and cover) for this single model.

The use of this would mostly to ensure that this entity is more likely (but not neccesarily, if he is unlucky) to survive, and has more chance to be the last to retreat without the squad being wiped.

Smaller OST squads could benefit from those as a vertical upgrade when researching Battle Phase 3, a bit like in COH1 where veterancy. However it would only apply to the squad leader and would be beneficial to ensure retreats of smaller squads without wipes and preserving veterancy.

The way COH2 armor worked and COH1 armor was much different. COH2 armor was just a flat bonus to survivability to everything except explosives. COH1 had complex target tables for every weapon. To make some guns worse and some actually perform better. For example in US vs PE matchup the Infantry doctrine generally underperformed, but the SMGs Rangers carried dealt extra damage vs PGrens to make it a little bit more viable. Also engineers benefitted from this too, making them a viable unit in close range vs Panzer Grens even though they sucked vs Wehrmacht infantry.

Everyone was saying bring back target tables when the game was young, what do we have a bunch of new timers that can't even speak from experience now? You're basically arguing against more fine tuned infantry balance.

Target-size, cover bonuses, and just modifying a unit's suppression threshold would be enough. No need to make certain weapons a go-to or a no-go against a certain factions.

The linearity works also from a visual perspective. One expects those more expensive and lower count elite troops to generally be hardier against small-arms and possibly be less vulnerable to suppression, but still remain human, even if it's a game. Troops shouldn't suddenly be taking high damage from flamers for no reason or becoming bullet-proof against standard infantry firearms.

Target-tables do exist which generally plays into armour types, but they shouldn't be the go-to or you have a ton of things that need to be memorized regarding how unit X performs against unit Y. It also could lead into the actual unit not being fixed to perform its function, but band-aided solely against that one unit.

I never felt in any RTS game that unit X should perform better solely due to unit Y. Generally the signs are there unit X needs an overall adjustments against a list of other issues o a broader spectrum.

If we want to add diversity amongst troops, we could start by having some infantry units possibly move faster. In CoH games, everyone walks at the same speed, whereas it'd be interesting to see recon or light infantry move faster to allow them to skirmish. That adds an unique layer to a unit's survivability which can be adjusted/compensated through either the unit's firepower, squad-size, and/or target size.

+1

Target-tables do exist which generally plays into armour types, but they shouldn't be the go-to or you have a ton of things that need to be memorized regarding how unit X performs against unit Y. It also could lead into the actual unit not being fixed to perform its function, but band-aided solely against that one unit.

Agree, the less memorization the better - even at high skill levels, there are enough tactical and strategic factors that decide a victory without needing to waste your life remembering 20 different stats for 200 different units.

If we want to add diversity amongst troops, we could start by having some infantry units possibly move faster. In CoH games, everyone walks at the same speed, whereas it'd be interesting to see recon or light infantry move faster to allow them to skirmish. That adds an unique layer to a unit's survivability which can be adjusted/compensated through either the unit's firepower, squad-size, and/or target size.

This is a great idea, and as others have said 2~3 simple infantry classes would be cool, e.g. something like:

• standard
  
• light (fast, low HP)
  
• heavy (slow, high HP)
  
• elite (high HP, accurate)
  

where each benefit is not ridiculous (e.g. max 20% speed difference, 30% HP difference).

As for weapons, I'm all for global upgrades in general but I really like the weapon racks system, where squads can be outfitted with weapons of your choosing. This adds another layer of tactical decision making, and is way better than 50 BARs magically appearing on all of your infantry units in the middle of a firefight. If anything it could be expanded so infantry can pick up any combination of MP40 / MP44 / MG42 (or Thompson / BAR / 30cal), riflenade / flamethrower, etc. and it's up to the player to decide their infantry types, squad tactics, and cost / benefit ratio which together give a whole bunch of interesting options.

The most important thing is that as each weapon should have a standard profile (even if e.g. overall accuracy could be higher on elite units or whatever). As long as we don't start tuning every single DPS curve and having 10 different versions of each weapon tuned to each unit, and as long as the weapon icon system is made a little clearer, then people will have a chance to observe and adapt to their opponents tactics.

KCH were not the least bit overpowered. If you're complaining just because you think it was silly and unrealistic, on further examination you will realize literally everything in COH is silly and unrealistic.

I don't deny that VCoH had a lot of good tings going for it. But don't mistake these good things for the the only things the game did. The game did many things wrong, including overpowered nonsense. Knight Cross Holders at vet 3 were ridiculous and over the top.

You bring the argument to silly and unrealistic, yet you agree that Knight Cross Holders were extremely silly. Why on earth bring something that silly and unrealistic back when we can have the lesser of evils and keep it at 'silly and unrealistic' instead of 'extremely silly and unrealistic'?

The entirety of VCoH made the infantry battles better. This includes faction design, map design, unit design and the aspect you speak about. Bringing just these armor types back will not change anything positively unless the entirety of the CoH design comes back to support it. Considering there is a CoH2 with very different dynamics, it could end in a mess if Relic decides to make a CoH3 by creating a VCoH and CoH2 hybrid.

I don't deny that VCoH had a lot of good tings going for it. But don't mistake these good things for the the only things the game did. The game did many things wrong, including overpowered nonsense. Knight Cross Holders at vet 3 were ridiculous and over the top.

You bring the argument to silly and unrealistic, yet you agree that Knight Cross Holders were extremely silly. Why on earth bring something that silly and unrealistic back when we can have the lesser of evils and keep it at 'silly and unrealistic' instead of 'extremely silly and unrealistic'?

The entirety of VCoH made the infantry battles better. This includes faction design, map design, unit design and the aspect you speak about. Bringing just these armor types back will not change anything positively unless the entirety of the CoH design comes back to support it. Considering there is a CoH2 with very different dynamics, it could end in a mess if Relic decides to make a CoH3 by creating a VCoH and CoH2 hybrid.

KCH vet 3 is not invincible. In CoH1, there is always interesting thing that you don't know. In this case, Rifleman BAR + Brit Medic station healing aura will beat KCH vet3. It's just coincidence that I found during team match, but that's what make CoH1 extremely interesting.

Armor type in CoH1 is very innovative, and it's very easy to remember compare to current CoH2. For infantry in CoH1, there are 6 armors just as OP said. You just simply remember which unit has which armor and then bring your counter out.
For example, sniper is not effective against heroic type but very effective against elite type. Don't try to snipe KCH, but do try against vet 2/3 grenadier.
Or PE against Armerica Pershing, you think Panther is the counter, but nope! Marder III is your answer with 25% increase effectiveness against Pershing armor. (In EF mod, IS-2 use Pershing armor as well, you know which weapon to use against it now!)

In CoH2, you have to remember target size, which is different for each unit. And the whole unit counter is never happen: Everything is put on a single scale, higher cost and tier, better unit beat back weaker unit, no surprising moment.

Target tables were my least favorite aspect of CoH1 because they create an arbitrary rock paper scissors system that often nullifies the results of micro and positioning.

KCH vet 3 is not invincible. In CoH1, there is always interesting thing that you don't know. In this case, Rifleman BAR + Brit Medic station healing aura will beat KCH vet3.

And how will you enforce this in a 1v1? How is it even a legit thing to need such a synergy to defeat a non doctrinal unit that can be upgraded to god tier status every game?

COH3?

Need maps, make by guys that have good eyes.

Because coh2 maps are 90% ugly, boring, and unbalanced.

And how will you enforce this in a 1v1? How is it even a legit thing to need such a synergy to defeat a non doctrinal unit that can be upgraded to god tier status every game?

KCH vet3 is not feasible in 1v1. The cost and tier KCH come out, most likely the game is over. Any axis player will prefer zombie gren over it, simply because Elite armor is better than Heroic armor.

KCH struggled vs more than 1 rifle squad, struggled vs Vet 3 rifle squads and allied cqb elite infantry, were hard countered by vehicles, and lost a good chunk of HP to mines. They also spoonfed vet to rifle squads if you could outnumber him in a fight. They were not OP, period.

But even if they were OP, that would be an issue with that particular unit and not the entire system.

Target-tables do exist which generally plays into armour types, but they shouldn't be the go-to or you have a ton of things that need to be memorized regarding how unit X performs against unit Y. It also could lead into the actual unit not being fixed to perform its function, but band-aided solely against that one unit.

You're overstating the complexity. There were 4 units with soldier armor, 2 with elite armor, 3 units with their own special armor, and the rest with standard. Only a handful of things are important to know such as use flamethrowers vs elite/soldier, snipers vs elite, SMGs vs soldier/airborne, and elite/soldier very effective vs BAR upgrade. A lot of variances were for fine tuning the balance and weren't pertinent to remember.