Two most important balance issues that need to be addressed

Since lately there is so much talk about the Fall Balance Patch I would like to present one of the main reasons why focusing only on unit stats is the wrong way to go about balancing. Most people think that changing stats around unit dmg, armor, accuracy etc. is the only thing that can actually impact the game but I believe there are far more important issues that are not being addressed that influence balance more severely than stats. Those key factors are first of all how micro heavy each faction is meaning how much effort and focus does a player have to put in to utilise a factions units and abilites. Second factor is how much fuel does each faction need to obtain each type of unit which determines how accesible certain types of units are, the pace of the game and factions overall momentum.

To analyze these factors I prepared a simple analysis for each of them. First one called micro score is divided into types of units, abilites and faction elements. Each element is scored on a scale from 1 to 3, where 1 means 'low micro' and 3 'high micro'.


Micro score

For example:
Nades upg (upgrade) category: Every allied faction needs an upgrade to acquire the capability of using a grenade, on the other hand none of the axis factions require such upgrade. Although seemingly being a trival matter it impacts the game in a profound way. Lets say there is a three on three rifleman vs volks fight and during that fight OKW gains access to incediary nades which tips the balance of the fight on their side. The important thing here is that this upgrade is a part of OKWs normal path of teching which means that a player doesnt have to go out of his way to get nades. He isnt put into the situation where he has to make the "micro decision" of whether incediary grenades are worth their price during the set of circumstances he has been faced with. In short it makes his gameplay easier and more smoother with less decisions along the way. He will never be put in a situation where he forgot about the upgrade which would slow his momentum. This factor is especially important in early game oriented factions where you need to get the upper hand as fast as possible to either close out the game early or benefit from your early game gains during late game. OKW in that manner is both early and late game factions with a much smoother gameplay than usf for instance.

Scores are:
SOV: 2,15 (the most micro heavy)
USF: 1,91
OST: 1,73
UKF: 1,65
OKW: 1,46 (the least micro heavy)

Above scores tell us that Soviets are the most micro heavy faction while OKW requires the least effort and focus to play. Average micro score is 1,78, which means that both ukf and okw are too easy and usf and soviets are harder to play than average. This is by far one of the most omitted issue in the game. This score does not represent factions overall strength but how easy it is to use its potential consistently.



Second factor we are going to look at is how much fuel does each faction need to access each type of unit.


Fuel needed to rush a unit

Scores represent fuel needed by each faction indexed to average fuel needed by all the factions in each category. The more fuel a faction needs to progress makes that faction slower and on contrary the less fuel a faction needs makes that faction faster.

Scores:
OST: 1,13 (the slowest)
UKF: 1,11
USF: 1,05
OKW: 0,88
SOV: 0,83 (the fastest)

Scores above 1 represent factions that need more fuel on average when compared to other factions to rush a certain type of unit. Few reasons are the cause of such disparity. Either a certain unit is too expensive or too cheap, either a tier is too expensive to too cheap or a unit is placed in a wrong tier overall.

To visualise these findings Ive prepared a chart that will help to understand how some factions are way too unbalanced at this stage.


micro score to fuel needed to rush a unit chart

The higher a faction is the harder it is to play, the lower a faction is the easier it is to play. The more to the right a faction is the more fuel it needs to progress (slower), the more to the left a faction is the less fuel it needs to progress (faster).

In conclusion, one of the fastest and the easiest faction to play is OKW with no faction even coming in close.

Solutions:
First of all make factions a little bit closer in terms of how easy they are and how fast they progress during a game. Second make easy factions slower and harder factions faster.

I hope this will help to bring some important and long awaited changes to the game.

I have no idea where you can make the soviets most micro heavy on that first category as the point you were trying to make is grenades.

First of all the meta for soviets is penals lately and they don't need anything for satchels. 2nd point is call-in units which come with free grenade upgrades every single unit. There is only 1 unit that needs grenade upgrades and that is conscripts.

OKW can't even use fausts until they get their 1st building up which is with the incendiary grenades. Any way comparing micro to grenade upgrades......I would argue more of the effectiveness of said grenades for the munition used, satchels being the most overpowered in the whole game atm, they should bring the normal satchel cost back to that 90 munitions or whatever it was before.

I have no idea where you can make the soviets most micro heavy on that first category as the point you were trying to make is grenades.

Satchels are in 'heavy nades" category. Basic nade for soviets would be molotov.

First of all the meta for soviets is penals lately and they don't need anything for satchels. 2nd point is call-in units which come with free grenade upgrades every single unit. There is only 1 unit that needs grenade upgrades and that is conscripts.

Range and timer on satchel are so bad that using standard satchel is effective vs a very bad player or a building (you decide which one you are). Only useful satchel use is the anti tank one but this one again requires penals to be literally face to face with a vehicle.

OKW can't even use fausts until they get their 1st building up which is with the incendiary grenades. Any way comparing micro to grenade upgrades......I would argue more of the effectiveness of said grenades for the munition used, satchels being the most overpowered in the whole game atm, they should bring the normal satchel cost back to that 90 munitions or whatever it was before.

I explained nade example specifically. OKW doesnt have to go out of their way to get an upgrade to acquire a cost effective incediary nade that has fast and smooth throw animation making its use very consistent. Its about that micro decision which they dont have to make because they will get the nade either way just by teching up.

You obviously put a lot of work into this but your methodology is pretty subjective and therefore doesn't really mean much (never mind that most of balance is dictated by unit to unit interactions that goes beyond the 1000 ft view of the perceived amount of micro a faction takes).

For example for Infantry AT Upgrades you give UKF a 3 meaning it's a tough decision that requires much thought whereas USF, OKW, and OST is a 1 meaning it's not a hard choice. Why? This makes no sense to me - UKF is a simple small fuel investment to be able to slap PIATs on (usually) Sappers which hardly affects their role of Repair/Support and is virtually identical to USF. Meanwhile you have OST where PZGren shreks are a huge 120 Muni investment that severely cuts AI power on an elite unit or OKW where Strums are expensive and need to choose between AT on an overtasked unit or a Sweeper which is very important at times. I'd argue that OST and OKW require more mental micro than deciding if you want to unlock Weapon Racks for a small fuel fee. Apply this to every category and your Micro scores don't really mean much.

For example for Infantry AT Upgrades you give UKF a 3 meaning it's a tough decision that requires much thought whereas USF, OKW, and OST is a 1 meaning it's not a hard choice. Why? This makes no sense to me - UKF is a simple small fuel investment to be able to slap PIATs on (usually) Sappers which hardly affects their role of Repair/Support and is virtually identical to USF. Meanwhile you have OST where PZGren shreks are a huge 120 Muni investment that severely cuts AI power on an elite unit or OKW where Strums are expensive and need to choose between AT on an overtasked unit or a Sweeper which is very important at times. I'd argue that OST and OKW require more mental micro than deciding if you want to unlock Weapon Racks for a small fuel fee. Apply this to every category and your Micro scores don't really mean much.

My reasoning behind it was that in spite of usf where you also have to unlock weapon racks you dont get free AT snare of such sort just by leveling unit. Same goes for axis who gain access to AT fausts just by teching up (which they would do anyway). This makes forces you to designate specific unit as AT carrier also remembering to invest in the upgrade. Your example were pgrens. If we compare sappers + upgrade to pgrens we can see that it is beneficial in most cases to build pgrens nevermind the AT capabilities because of their high AI capabilities. You also dont need to prepare an upgrade in advance to give them shrecks, on top of that giving them shrecks is just a one click.

You obviously put a lot of work into this but your methodology is pretty subjective and therefore doesn't really mean much (never mind that most of balance is dictated by unit to unit interactions that goes beyond the 1000 ft view of the perceived amount of micro a faction takes).

I'm not denying the fact that micro score is based purely on my perspective. But saying that it because of that its subjective it has no value contradicts the sole purpose of creating any topic on this forum as well as replaying to any topic. Basically I can assume your opinion also has no value because its subjective just so everone would disregard it as invalid.

I presented my perspective on the matter on the forum so everyone can make their own mind on the subject. My main reason was not to enforce my own opinion on you but to make this aspect of the game a visible issue for everyone so we can finally start discussing it and addressing it in the next balance patches.

My reasoning is based on the rule of 1% from business. When applied to COH2 it means that if a player has to give 1% more effort and focus in 1000 small areas of the game they start to matter.

You don't seem to take into account that USF and Brits have a one click button to tier up.

OST and SU (worst offenders) need to micro a worker back to their base and micro it to a location to build a building. OKW also requires micro to build a truck and micro it to the ideal location (which is extremely important for okw trucks.

Also why is selecting HQ and getting grenade research more micro intensive than ost selecting HQ and upgrading their battle phase 3 times?

My point for the satchel wasn't infantry vs infantry, but that satchel is still in the category of grenades. Against static units satchel will force retreats and basicly destroy any bunker/fuel&ammo depots for 45 muni vs alot of investment. About the buildings, both axis factions struggle destroying buildings totally early/mid game. Which against soviets sometimes can be really painful to be forced to do (soviet building HQ commander). Anyway you don't even need satchels in 1 vs 1 infantry fights because penals should most of the time win every single early/mid game fight.

Axis get grenades through mandatory teching, but upgrading like pgrens shrecks is always really hard decisions and many times forced with strong light vehicle allied play.

You don't seem to take into account that USF and Brits have a one click button to tier up.

OST and SU (worst offenders) need to micro a worker back to their base and micro it to a location to build a building. OKW also requires micro to build a truck and micro it to the ideal location (which is extremely important for okw trucks.

Also why is selecting HQ and getting grenade research more micro intensive than ost selecting HQ and upgrading their battle phase 3 times?

I actually I did... look at micro score above basic nades use category there is teching category ^^.

My point for the satchel wasn't infantry vs infantry, but that satchel is still in the category of grenades. Against static units satchel will for retreats and basicly destroy any bunker/fuel&ammo depots for 45 muni vs alot of investment. About the buildings, both axis factions struggle destroying buildings totally early/mid game. Which against soviets sometimes can be really painful to be forced to do (soviet building HQ commander).

Allies usually if they want building go down it's one click away.

Yeah well I considered satchel to be a heavy grenade because it basically acts like one.

Pgrens bundle nades destroy buildings quite effectively, their range is very long, timer short and effectivness vs infantry undeniable.

Also you pretty much pull you numbers out of nowhere, so they are practically meaningless.

Also your fuel rushing scores make little sense why does rushing royal engis contribute 5 when no one rushes royal engines?

I think you are counting Luchs as a light AT vehicle, which also makes no sense.

Also you pretty much pull you numbers out of nowhere, so they are practically meaningless

Well as I stated earlier to the same type of allegation, I dont deny the fact that this is my opinion but it doesnt make the issue less viable or true. My sole intent was to make these two aspects of the game more visible to others so each and everone can make their own opinions. Stating that something isnt true because its based on someones opinion is basically contradicting the sole purpose of a forum.

I just want to ask everyone who read this to think about all of this by themselves and make your own ratings. Decide for yourself if having to make 10 or 20 or 30 more micro decisions impairs your gameplay or not?

P.S.
Not once did you address the other issue concering how much fuel a faction needs to rush a unit where clearly OKW is comes way ahead of the other factions. This makes me to believe that your opinion might be biased ^^

Well as I stated earlier to the same type of allegation, I dont deny the fact that this is my opinion but it doesnt make the issue less viable or true. My sole intent was to make these two aspects of the game more visible to others so each and everone can make their own opinions. Stating that something isnt true because its based on someones opinion is basically contradicting the sole purpose of a forum.

No but saying your conclusions is baseless is the point of this form. Anyone is able to define their own methodology to support their conclusions, yours is no different.

I just want to ask everyone who read this to think about all of this by themselves and make your own ratings. Decide for yourself if having to make 10 or 20 or 30 more micro decisions impairs your gameplay or not?

Except your numbers don't reflect the amount of "micro decisions" or time (which is probably a more valid measure) and thus your conclusion is baseless.

And this doesn't even include where you numbers are actually wrong, and dont reflect teaching costs for example.

Also your fuel rushing scores make little sense why does rushing royal engis contribute 5 when no one rushes royal engines?

I didnt include or exlude any unit, thats why. I was even generous for ostheer because I assumed that they would go t1 and t2 every game so all ost scores are a little bit worse than in reality, around 30 fuel.

I think you are counting Luchs as a light AT vehicle, which also makes no sense.

You played 4k games with OKW and you still didnt notice puma is light AT vehicle?

And this doesn't even include where you numbers are actually wrong, and dont reflect teaching costs for example.

My fuel calculations include teching costs ofcourse ^^.

You played 4k games with OKW and you still didnt notice puma is light AT vehicle?

Then why is the cost to rush it 100 fuel?

Then why is the cost to rush it 100 fuel?

You're right 70 for puma, 50 for mech regiment makes 120 minus starting 10 is 110. So it should be 110 which doesnt impact overall score but you are right thats a mistake.

You're right 70 for puma, 50 for mech regiment makes 120 minus starting 10 is 110. So it should be 110 which doesnt impact overall score but you are right thats a mistake.

And again you are still wrong

15 for truck + 50 for mech regiment + 70 for puma - 10 starting = 125

For luchs

15 for truck + 50 for mech regiment + 60 for luchs - 10 starting = 115

Did you neglect to take into account truck cost for all your numbers?

Also i think your numbers for AEC is wrong too, you list 110 fuel to rush it.

15 for t1 + 30 for AEC tech + 60 for AEC - 20 starting = 85

So I suggest you go over you numbers again before making conclusions, because they seem a tad inaccurate.

I have no idea how you got those numbers (because I myself wouldn't be able to make it into conclusion even after days of thinking. 1st the scale is too small (1-3) 2nd not all things are equally worth. For example strong nades less important than strong tanks) but I think that the fact you've played 500+ games with soviets and USF while almost none with OKW (at least playercard shows that) will give you the feeling that Soviet are harder to play thank OKW like. After all you know everything that needs to be done with Soviet in order to win while you don't see that much of a stuff behind theOKW because you play them less and only see their strengths when you're playing against them.


I can't say if you're right or not with your data because I myself think it's impossible to create such data objectively. There are so many factors to put together and give the right value + everyone is more or less a fanboi and loves some side/faction more, even by 0.001% it's a fact. Humans aren't objective

Tldr there's no way how to make each faction balanced by creting concrete numbers.

PS: your idea about micro and timing is mostly right but I still don't now how you create such concrete numbers, sorry

The problem with balance are with check mate scenarios. Every faction should have basic tools to deal with different strategies. Some factions are forced into a commander to have a chance at beating a strategy. Every faction should have basic tools to function and counter a wide range of scenarios. Perhaps the 3rd coh will get this correct.

The reason why there isn't discussion about how much fuel it takes to get a vehicle is because those costs have been adjusted in balance patches over the last 4 years and now seem to be close to correct, or at least a much lesser issue than what is being addressed.