Idea for rebalancing soviet and usf tiers + brits

First you say you dont like LT early access to AT gun because of the shock value of LT but then you would exchange AAHT for a stuart giving LT even more shock value then before? Stuart in LT tier would make it a beast tier. Giving ATG on the other hand doesnt increase LT shock value, it stays the same. It just makes LT tier more viable in every situation opening more gameplay and playstyle options. Or maybe you just wanted to say no, no matter what?



Not entirely true, usf has good light vehicle called stuart. M20 is overpriced and because of that it comes quite late and its window of opportunity is short. AAHT is a micro nightmare and I wouldnt call it good. M8 is great but like I said its a light vehicle locked behind t4 which is just a despicable move. Also if you go LT tier vs OKW and you are not lucky enough to plant the AT mine in the right spot you will get drained by luchs because you have no hard counter against it. Luchs shock value is undeniable, it comes early and in most cases fights against an enemy that has no hard counter against it because soviet have to go penals, brits are denied vehicle snare and only usf can hard counter with cpt tier but its forced to do that every game. So everyone knows what usf player is gonna choose.

So my change is designed to make both tiers viable for soviets and usf, also making it more fair to deal with vehicles for brits without increasing shock value of any tier or units. Moreover the change I proposed would make the underused units like soviet m5 and usf m8 viable picks for the first time since this game came out.



So what I hear you saying is that no matter what only OKW is allowed to have hard counter to light vehicles from the very beggining of the game but soviets are not allowed to have a hard counter to luchs having one of the highest shock value in the game. Only soft counter is allowed from ptrs that you know or at least should know that lower penals AI capabilities exponentialy. Thats why most high ranked players never give penals ptrs. So its another despicable, mean move to make if you were aware of that. Unless you meant rifle guards, which means you want soviets to be forced to choose a specific commander every game just because they dont have access to a simple atg.



Volks enter scope only if there is a reasonable rationale for that. Penals need only long range dps lowered to be lower than volks so volks have a range that they can actually win at. Its far better than nerfing penals on the move accuracy and thats the only reason why penals seem so op. Because they win at long range against infantry with long range weapon profile. Also I think m5 in t2 would finally make use of soviet reinforcement speed and cost advantage on cons and support weapons.



They definitely dont need a snare because of what? Why? Piats are the least effective at weapon in the game already with terrible range. Having no vehicle snare basically increases shock value of axis light vehicles such as flamenwagen rush, 222s and luchs. You should know that or you do know that and thats the reason you dont want it to be implemented. Introducing snares for brits would also influence their playstyle making it less emplacements reliable or aec reliable. Nowadays brits are forced to default to aec for mobile AT. Also its highly unfair because all other factions already have vehicle snare.

Concerning ATG and mg situation lets have a nice overwiew of factions:
OKW - early t0 ATG no tier lock, mg t0 tier locked making both tiers viable thanks to having basic defensive capabilities both ai and at
OST - early mg, t2 atg - ost forced to go t2 every game because of that, they cant skip t2 ever, even if they wanted to
USF - mg t2, atg t3 - forced to go cpt tier every game just to be sure they dont get mp drained by axis light vehicles and axis light vehicles have high shock value, especially flamenwagen and luchs
Sov - forced to go t2 for atg or use rifle guards, either way you are forced to pick a specific tier or a specific commander
Brits - t2 atg but no vehicle snare, making them weak against early light vehicle rush, might lose the game off of that

So the game looks like this basically
Early game - Axis are winning early game thanks to superior opening units like mg42 + pios or sturmpios and volks spam or kubel spam securing access to vital resources and getting positional advantage; especially visible in teamgames, not so much in 1v1 becasue you get maps with double fuel/muni so you can avoid direct confrontation in early game stage
Mid - game - Axis rush light vehicles mp draining allies and slowing their tech up, securing their dominance because each allied faction is forced to go a specific, predictable route to survive mid game, also their support weapons get wiped by stuka (the fastest artillery in the game - 155 fuel needed, compared to 335 ost and 250 sov) crippling allied defensive capabilities
Late game - axis field elite infantry and heavy or monster tanks supported by their 5 vetted main line infantry and superior support weapons

Too much balance here revolves about 1v1 mentality. People here dont play team modes and worry only about 1v1s.

Also I fail to see how easy access to atgs for everyone will ruin balance? It just evens out the playground. Atgs have no AI capabilities (besides zis which costs 60 muni) so they wouldnt increase shock value of any tier directly. They would make every tier viable no matter what, just like OKW has atm. Besides that m5 and m8 are a constant reminder of how sad the state of the game is. Two units that see literally no gameplay becuase balancing team just doesnt care enough or is biased.

Sorry to tell you this, but games are best when not balanced towards the casual audience, and thats kind of what 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 players are relative to 1v1 players. More than that, the issue is that attaining 1v1 balance usually means hurting 4v4 balance, and vice versa.

Anyway, a single player not having access to an AT gun in a team game is less of an issue than an entire team of 1 not having access to an AT gun. You say that too much of the balance here revolves around a 1v1 mentality, which is ironic because a specific tech choice not having an AT gun is mainly a 1v1 problem, not a team mode problem. In team modes, one player can go lt while the other goes captain for example. If you're commenting on a 1v1 issue (some of the allied builds not having access to an at gun), then youre going to get people responding with a 1v1 mentality.

I agree that putting stuart in lt would make it too strong and is a bad idea. LT would have the shock value of m20s, lt squad with bar and thompson, and .50s all while having a light tank to shut down enemy vehicles that try to counter everything else. Still, I'd say that the AA HT has far more shock value than the stuart.

I agree that the m20 is overpriced, it costs far too much manpower, and the fact that you have to sink in another 70 munitions just to make sure it doesnt get shredded by small arms fire is absurd. It's a good unit and many players make it work, but it just shouldnt cost that much resources. I disagree with your sentiments on the AA HT, I would call it good. Maybe clunky and somewhat conditional, but definitely very good. I'd say the m8 is fine at t4. Comparing it to other light vehicles is completely ignoring its role, so I'd say calling it a light vehicle is characterizing it (incorrectly) in order to disqualify it from the major tier based on a technicality. And yeah, going lt against a luchs is really risky. I get that some people want LT to be viable against okw and luchs rushes (which im not against), but its not a necessity. Some builds are riskier than other builds, and some builds are bad/weak/vulnerable to other builds. The lt is weak against against okw so you either acknowledge the risk when you go lt, or you dont go lt. The issue is that its not as simple as giving the lt a counter to the luchs and calling it a day. The okw vs usf matchup is kind of balanced around the assumption that the usf player doesnt get to go lt without taking a risk and making themselves vulnerable; its a greedier build that the matchup usually isnt balanced around. Players like DevM have a significant leg up because theyre good enough to make lt work even against okw and luchs rushes. Anyway, allowing lt access to an at gun is fine (possibly even good), but it also means that the okw vs usf matchup/balance would need to be re-evaluated.

The soviets have a soft counter to the high shock value luchs that should ideally allow them to hold off until they can get out the t70 which is about equal or superior to the luchs in every way. Yes, believe it or not, some people don't want the soviets to have super strong penal squads, a hard counter to the luchs, and a vehicle thats better than or equal to the luchs in almost every way just a few minutes later. Which high level players never go ptrs? The only high ranked soviet player i recall going against with any consistency is vonivan (rank 1 soviet, since you care about ranks so much) and he always goes ptrs against me. Also, why are you throwing around words like "despicable," and "mean?" Theres no malice here, the balance team isnt out to get soviet/allied players, theres no hate against allies and no conspiracy to destroy all allied factions and make axis factions the best.

The next short section i dont have much to comment on.

Mr smith just acknowledged that piats need better range. Also, why are you implying that he wants flamer HT, and luchs to destroy brits? Stop it with the "everyone is out to get allies" conspiracies. Yeah, the ukf is aec reliant. Like I said in a previous post, its best not to go with the "this faction has X, so this faction should also have X," or "its unfair because this faction has X, and this other faction doesnt have X" mentality when balancing things. Anyway, is it even really "highly unfair" that they don't get a snare when they get a vehicle that hard counters light vehicles (one that comes out before the vehicles it needs to counters).

About your next passage about what the early, mid, and late game looks like, yeah, that also seems to me what most 3v3 and 4v4 (maybe even 2v2?) look like. Still, t0 at guns (or lack therof) are, again, mainly a 1v1 issue though.

Adding t0 at guns to every faction wouldnt really be evening out the playground when the game is currently balanced around the fact that allies wont have it and okw will. Again, would giving okw medics at t0 also be perfectly balanced since it would be "evening out the playground" and every other faction has it? The m5 and m8 are niche units. Sure, they could use some rebalancing to make sure they perform better in their role, but a niche unit being a niche unit is hardly "a constant reminder of how sad the game state is." And finally, stop with the conspiracies about other people being biased. It's less relevant, but you come across as the most biased person in the balance threads, ironically enough. Even less relevant than that, your playercard makes you look like the most biased person in the balance threads as well, just keep that in mind whenever you make claims of bias or others intentionally wanting to keep a faction weak.

You say that okw has access to at guns no matter what and imply that because of this, other factions should also have at guns no matter what they tech. Does that mean okw should also have access to medics no matter what they tech, all of the other factions do. Teching trade offs work against all factions that have multiple tech options (soviets, okw, and USF). Thats why I don't like this comparison and justification for giving others t0 AT. I do agree with the change, just not on the basis that "okw has it so every other faction should," since each faction has different availability and access to different things, and I'd rather not start the snowball of changes that is "this faction has X, so this faction should also have X."

Well you got me all wrong, let me reiterate. I might have miscomunicated my reasons behind the change. My main goal is to make both sides as fair and fun to play as possible. I play all factions and while playing okw I noticed that the faction feels more flexible and adaptable. I then asked myself what is the reason for it, is it because of unit fuel cost and potential rush, units strenths, tier composition, side techs, micro requirement and so on. Finally it boiled down to what I call basic defensive capabilities. OKW is such a responsive faction because you get effective mp only based counters in t0 making your tech path more situation and playstyle based. Thats the basis for my change proposal.

About putting the m5 at t2, I think it would come out much earlier than the ost halftrack and would probably make t2 a super strong early opener (though with other factions having at guns to deal with it, it probably wouldnt be game breaking). I'm sure they can find a way to make the m5 work and be balanced at t2 for soviets, but I just think the changes would have to be pretty drastic (any combination of massive hp nerfs, massive armor nerfs, massive cost increases, removal of reinforcement). Still, I think moving the m5 to t2 could go a long way for cons, since a t2 opener would make the sov player rely on cons, and the on field reinforcement could really emphasize their field presence and replaceability. The change seems like it would take a lot of work, but if they could make it balanced, I think the t0 AT gun and increased t2 viablity (you know, increased viablity for t2 that doesnt involve making maxims the main meta) could definitely be worth it.

Im happy you are open minded about this. During my analysis of factions I found that in usf and sov there are two underused units. Namely m5 and m8. M5 comes really late compared to ost ht and to what axis can field at that time. Making it hard countered and not a viable unit. So I started to question how to find a better fitting spot for this unit. It seems to perfectly compliment russian reinforcement cost and speed. The only problem is the the price. Someone else here already stated the notion that the ht would come too early compared to ost counterpart. I agree and I dont want this to be unfair for ost in any way. So cost and stats readjustment would cerainly be needed. Since m5 is not a unit anyone would want to spam I think if it costed around 50 fuel instead of 30 it would be still worth to field, had a nice window of opportunity and allow soviets to use one of their stronpoints, cheap and fast reinforcement.

I'm hesitant to see the scott removed from major tech. You're completely right that the scott is hardly built when one has major up, but the change just hits me the wrong way with how rarely major is currently used as it is, and removing another option just makes major seem even less worth it. However, with the upcoming nerfs to callins (heavy cav and armor company), this may change. I guess I'd rather wait for the callin nerfs to hit before backing the scott switch from major to captain.

My take on the matter is that scott comes in so late and offers so little defense against enemy armor that most people wont even consider building it at all. Since the unit is mobile it could provide more opportunities for aggresive pushing during earlier stage of the game. Since it would reload and shoot while moving and would countered less at that stage.

Besides that, I agree with all of the changes and reasoning behind them. I don't think factions not having t0 AT guns or having to choose between AT guns or not AT guns based on their tech is wrong, but I can see t0 at guns being a positive change. Personally, I think adding t0 AT guns would affect light vehicle balance a lot and require a lot of rebalancing afterwards. This is more work than coh2 is likely to receive (i think its too big of an undertaking given how patches have been so far), but I can't oppose these changes. I'd just hope that if they're implented, that theyre done right, followed through with, and that everything that needs to be rebalanced as a result of these changes is rebalanced.

I believe everything is possible, its just a matter of work. I enjoy playing all factions, just some factions seem easier to play in some modes. If everyone chips in and shows their support to a good change I think we can achieve anything. I mean work takes time but work is also what miracles are made of.

Sorry to tell you this, but games are best when not balanced towards the casual audience, and thats kind of what 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 players are relative to 1v1 players.

Thats a opinion which you are entitled to.

The soviets have a soft counter to the high shock value luchs that should ideally allow them to hold off until they can get out the t70 which is about equal or superior to the luchs in every way.

Ptrs were presented because balance team was trying fix their fuck up with flamers to fill in the void and make t1 more viable because it had no at at all. Soft counter is a nice way of calling it. Even if t70 is better in every way than luchs its not like there's gonna be a mexican standoff where luchs and t70 sort things out on the side. Luchs is surrounded by volks with snares (without upg) and stealth raketen. So t70 doesnt really have comparable shock value compared to luchs. Penals snare is so short that the only chance of hitting luchs would be if the player fell asleep on the keyboard. And soviets dont have access to atg and viable infantry.

Also, why are you implying that he wants flamer HT, and luchs to destroy brits?

Any good ost player will rush flamer ht against brits and just troll around atg if there was one or burn all emplacements early.

About your next passage about what the early, mid, and late game looks like, yeah, that also seems to me what most 3v3 and 4v4 (maybe even 2v2?) look like. Still, t0 at guns (or lack therof) are, again, mainly a 1v1 issue though.

Gameplay is totally different in 1v1 vs teamgames. I noticed that. Its far easier for allies to play 1v1. And far easier to play teamgames as axis. It so happens that over 75% of playerbase (someone provided stats on playerbase) plays teamgames. Coh has no real shot at esports ever so maybe it would be better to provide more fair and fun experience for everyone and not only 1v1 players.

Adding t0 at guns to every faction wouldnt really be evening out the playground when the game is currently balanced around the fact that allies wont have it and okw will. Again, would giving okw medics at t0 also be perfectly balanced since it would be "evening out the playground" and every other faction has it? The m5 and m8 are niche units. Sure, they could use some rebalancing to make sure they perform better in their role, but a niche unit being a niche unit is hardly "a constant reminder of how sad the game state is."

Easy access to atg is one of the main reasons why OKW can go either tier freely. Now imagine a scenario where okw atg is in med truck. What then? You would never go mech truck without fuel. Or if there was a chance your fuel can get cut off easily. Becasue you wouldnt know that if you lost your luchs or puma the game would be over. Well, welcome sov, usf and ost world.

M8s and m5s are not niche units, not when there is no good time to field them unless you have a gigantic surpluss of fuel and you are really bored. Thats not called niche, thats called useless for some reason. I believe I found that reason.

Im not sure whats wrong with you but in earlier post you agreed that the ideas seem good to you but now all of a sudden you changed your mind. Pick one at least. Btw its easier to critisise others ideas but harder to present your own.

Also I remember those fantastic meta changes, gren blobs, penal flamers and every other genius changes that balance team provided us with. We ended up here with soviets gutted into oblivion, okw being the king od the hill, usf still forced to default to cpt, brits still with cancer emplacements. I call them as I see them. Thats why Im trying to help laying my own ideas out there. At least try staying open-minded about them and test few of them, give us a chance to test them, maybe some of them will be useful.

USF:



Soviets:
Soviets don't need AT gun at T0, either. They just need a PTRS aim time fix, and a luchs an accuracy fix, so that it doesn't hit light vehicles 200% of the time. We've already done these for the revamp mod, and you can harass luchs just fine with the PTRS clown car.

Aye, a buff to PTRS aim time would fix *so* many frustrating things about playing Soviets. Zooks, shrecks, etc. can fire as soon as the unit stops moving or as soon as a vehicle is in range, so you get a really quick warning volley that deals good damage and forces a light vehicle/tank to retreat. PTRS' take so ridiculously long to aim and fire that using Guards/PTRS Penals feels so underwhelming. A well-microed Luchs/FlamerHT can force a PTRS squad to retreat without taking any meaningful damage.

Also Luchs accuracy is definitely a huge part of the problem. You feel disincentivized to build m20/scout car/AAHT/etc. because at some point a Luchs will zoom out of nowhere and nail your light vehicle in two seconds while still running at maximum speed, it's kind of stupid how laser accurate the Luchs is against LV while on the move.

lelic is nazi fanboy just make allies light tanks move slower and give all nazi factiions volks and grens faust and leave allies faction broken to death becoz they can
and give okw magically invisible reketens ,remove mines from us , remove arty from us and brits unless u choose a commander and no snare for brits unless u choose a commander , there u go fk u allies
we dont like u
and upcoming patch we r going to fk brits even more wait for us