Idea for rebalancing soviet and usf tiers + brits

Here is an idea for how to make different playstyles and tiers more viable for usf and soviets.

Sov
move ATG to t0 and lock it behind tech up, move m5 to t2 in place of zis, readjust its dps and cost so its not op, lock quad cannon upgrade behind t3 tech up but leave its transport and reinforce capabilties. This way soviets are not forced to go a specific tier or doctrine to counter vehicles so axis cant just freely rape you with luchs. At the same time it implements the same mechanics that ost has with reinforcing units on the field which might actually work well with cons fast reinforcement speed. Also m5 would work great with t2 allowing support weapons to reinforce on the field making overall good use of soviet reinforcemnt speed and cost.

USF
move ATG to t0 lock it behind tech up, move scot in place of atg to captain tier, nerf scot so its not op. This way usf could choose freely between lt and cpt and the choice would be based solely on how much fuel does a player have access to or how fast does he want to field medium tanks. Other than that sherman can be readjusted to be a more tanky meatshield and more infantry oriented while jackson is already AT only. Nevertheless it would allow usf players to rely less on cpt tier only and allow them to play more towards their style and more tactically, be less predictable. Also scot is a highly underused unit because its a light vehicle locked behind medium vehicle tier. The only logic explanation is its incredibly good stats. Nerfing stats to make it less capable and putting in cpt tier would present more playstyle oportunities.

Potential questions and critiscism:

SOV questions
- moving atg to t0 seems unfair to axis factions - actually okw has atg in t0 and its not even locked behind tech up, also atg would be locked behind tech up so early vehicles like kubels would still be able to cheese
- but zis gun has an AI barrage, thats op - barrage costs 60 munition (if Im not mistaken) which means its not spammable by any means so it wouldnt give unfair advantage
- access to atg would lower luchs or 222 shock value - probably yes, but it just wouldnt be that different from allied vehicles being countered early by axis atgs
- moving m5 to t2 would be redundant to sc in t1 - no it would not because there's a cost difference and purpose difference, one would be more towards scouting second towards reinforcing on field, one tier allows for better AI units the other for support weapons
- m5 dps would be too high - its dps should be balanced in comparison to ost ht
- m5 would come too soon - it would come probably around ost ht and it would serve the same purpose so no
- m5 would be too expensive - not if its cost was adjusted to ost ht
- m5 quad early upgrade would be too soon and m5 would have veterancy already - true, the unit would gain high shock value compared to how things are now, this should be readjusted so it doesnt make a monster due to shared veterancy (if such mechanics applies to m5)
- why would anynoe build t1/t2 if the other tier is so strong - I think that this change would actually make both tiers viable to play
- sov t3 would lack a unit - currently m5 in my experience is not only underused but practically never used so basically soviet t3 has only 2 units nowadays too but for a different reason, also quad upgrade would actually implement better shock value and tempo for quad ht making it actually useful if the upgrade was locked behind t3 tech up

USF questions
- atg in t0 is unfair for axis - same as in case of soviets
- scot is op, moving it to cpt tier would break the game - i agree, thats why scot would have to be nerfed to be readjusted to lower tier level since it would come out earlier
- but cpt tier already has pak howie with similar mechanics, why would I ever want to go scot - ofcourse the unit stats would differ but other than that its mobile so it cant be just wiped by infantry, that would allow for better aggresive pushes and defend better from flanks also since it costs fuel you might want to use fuel for stuart and a preserve the rest for t4 so you would go pak instead on smaller maps
- why would I ever go lt when cpt tier has so strong unit - lt is less fuel heavy, it allows to survive early and rush t4
- why would I ever go cpt tier since lt is so strong - cpt would have better AT and AI pressure early but is more fuel heavy, it would be better for snowballing games
- but moving scot to cpt tier would leave only 2 units in t4 - currently in my experience from playing or spectating high rank games scot is a very rare sight - its almost always better to build a sherman if you have fuel advantage or jackson if you are a bit behind or even, so this makes scot almost never used and not fitting t4


Reasoning behind this change is:
- all factions should have equal basic defensive capabilities
- soviets are forced to either go t2 or pick a specific commander only to have access to an atg, so having an atg is one of the most important factors when it comes to picking tiers and commanders
- both m5 and scot are underused vehicles because they come too late for a unit of their kind, m5 is more a t2 unit on par with ost ht and scot is an AI light vehicle not a medium one so it belongs more in t3

Bonus idea
Brits
give them vehicle snare. Every other faction has a vehicle snare. There is no reason to deny brits vehicle snare when all other factions have it with or without an upg. Not having vehicle snare is one of the main reasons why brits are forced to choose eithe aec or bofors upgrade early. Giving brits snare would allow them to play with atg only and bofors or aec would be a matter of choice of playstyle not a matter of do or die.

OST
move pak to t0 and lock behind tech up, same reasoning as above, it would allow ost to skip t2 if needed (although imo its still very useful), the cost of making t2 is 200 mp and 20 fuel, that 20 fuel might not be that much but it might allow a player to rush t3 if needed. In that case I think that the cost of t1 (80/10) and t2 (200/20) might be redistributed more equally like in case of soviets (t1 160/10 and t2 160/20) to allow for more decision making. Redistributing the cost of t1 and t2 more equally would even allow ost to skip t1 if needed. This would also implement more strategic decision making for ost players. They could actually skip something. Also ost t2 is overpacked and atm and pak is the main reason why players choose that tier. It doesnt mean that t2 is bad without it because some maps require you to have pgrens, some playstyles or maps are better with reinforcment ht or flamer ht or some players like 222 (me in particular).

Please remember to vote! Thank you.
Also share your opinion on why you agree or disagree.

Definitely good ideas, only the Brit snare should maybe be exclusively anti-luchs/222, since else, it might mess up a late-game balance

Also, wehrmachts Pak gun comin in their T1 would allow for more tactical creativity as well

Definitely good ideas, only the Brit snare should maybe be exclusively anti-luchs/222, since else, it might mess up a late-game balance

Also, wehrmachts Pak gun comin in their T1 would allow for more tactical creativity as well

tbh, yeah why not, that would allow ost to skip t2, making it an option, the cost of t2 isnt that significant anyway so it probably wouldnt allow them to rush incredibly fast to t3 tanks, good idea I will add it to the list

Basically you want to remove the cons of making a choice and going a different tiers while keeping all the benefits.

Although I do agree that the scott could use some mild nerfs.

Basically you want to remove the cons of making a choice and going a different tiers while keeping all the benefits.

Although I do agree that the scott could use some mild nerfs.

OKW currently works this way, has access to atg no matter which tier it goes and it works really well for them because the choice you make depends on your playstyle, map and resources. You are not forced to go a certain tier every game no matter what. Or go the same commander to fill missing parts. I think Sov, USF and OST would benefit from these changes. Making their playstyles more versatile and less predictable.

P.S.
Is this the first time we agree on something or am I reading it wrong?

OKW currently works this way, has access to atg no matter which tier it goes and it works really well for them because the choice you make depends on your playstyle, map and resources. You are not forced to go a certain tier every game no matter what. Or go the same commander to fill missing parts. I think Sov, USF and OST would benefit from these changes. Making their playstyles more versatile and less predictable.

P.S.
Is this the first time we agree on something or am I reading it wrong?

Has an ATG gun that has less range, less pen and hits fence posts 50% of the time. Its the 2nd worst at gun it the game. Allied AT guns arnt as such

Making their playstyles more versatile and less predictable.

I dont think that means much and shouldn't really have much bearing on changes. "more versatile and less predictable" is so subjective and open to interpretation its meaningless.

Has an ATG gun that has less range, less pen and hits fence posts 50% of the time. Its the 2nd worst at gun it the game. Allied AT guns arnt as such

ATG that has great armor penetration, can go stealth, can retreat, go into a building, also is one of the cheapest, has 5 vets and almost never misses agiainst light-medium tanks (the kind of tanks that allies mainly have). Saying its the 2nd worst atg in the game is so subjective and open to interpretation that its meaningless.

I dont think that means much and shouldn't really have much bearing on changes. "more versatile and less predictable" is so subjective and open to interpretation its meaningless.

Its more a matter of testing rather than subjective. Subjective is something that cant be verified by objective data, this actually can tested. We would just have to compare how often is one tier chosen compared to another tier and do the same after the change and comapare the data. If the implementation of the idea would make both tiers closer to 50/50 than it currently is then it would make the gameplay a little bit less predictable.

"move m5 to t2 in place of zis, readjust its dps so its not op, lock quad cannon upgrade behind t3 tech up but leave its transport and reinforce capabilties."

So...

Penals can now apply even more pressure early game or am I missing a memo somewhere.

"move m5 to t2 in place of zis, readjust its dps so its not op, lock quad cannon upgrade behind t3 tech up but leave its transport and reinforce capabilties."

So...

Penals can now apply even more pressure early game or am I missing a memo somewhere.

Penals are in t1 not t2 so you would have to build both tiers to do that. By the time you field 3 or 4 penals you would probably gather so enough fuel to go t3 anyway. The pressure would be slightly higher due to its reinforcement capabilities. But it wouldnt be much different to ostheer fielding reinforcement ht and gren blobs. Axis still have a lot of counterplay like mgs, mortars, infantry, snipers, atg etc. So it would more likely utilize an unused unit which currently comes to late to be really useful and is countered or cant be protected if you went t1 for instance so have no atg.

Penals are in t1 not t2 so you would have to build both tiers to do that. By the time you field 3 or 4 penals you would probably gather so enough fuel to go t3 anyway. The pressure would be slightly higher due to its reinforcement capabilities. But it wouldnt be much different to ostheer fielding reinforcement ht and gren blobs. Axis still have a lot of counterplay like mgs, mortars, infantry, snipers, atg etc. So it would more likely utilize an unused unit which currently comes to late to be really useful and is countered or cant be protected if you went t1 for instance so have no atg.

What about in game modes like 2v2, yes, it is hard to co-ordinate with randoms but I can see some premade going T2 and T1 with an early game penal ball reinforcing on the go.

While T1 + T2 as sov right now can still be dealt with, I really dont see how it can be "balanced" if the halftrack brings all team weapons and penal squad back to full strength.

Just purely conjecture, I am not top player but this is just observation.

What about in game modes like 2v2, yes, it is hard to co-ordinate with randoms but I can see some premade going T2 and T1 with an early game penal ball reinforcing on the go.

While T1 + T2 as sov right now can still be dealt with, I really dont see how it can be "balanced" if the halftrack brings all team weapons and penal squad back to full strength.

Just purely conjecture, I am not top player but this is just observation.

Axis can do the same at the moment, ost can provide ht and use gren blobs or support volks blobs. Does it happen? Not really. You still need fuel to build m5 so it would take time before they can field it. Currently penal spam supported by m5 can be executed too but nobody does it because you penals reinforcement speed is comparable to that of ost grens. So its kinda slow. Im not saying it wouldnt happen but it wouldnt be that effective. Cons supported with m5 might work because they reinforce faster and their reinforcement is cheaper, support weapons supported by m5 would be more probable too. It would actually make use of soviet clear advanatage which is cheap and fast reinforcement of shitty units. Because the good units reinforce slow and are expensive to do so.

Axis can do the same at the moment, ost can provide ht and use gren blobs or support volks blobs. Does it happen? Not really. You still need fuel to build m5 so it would take time before they can field it. Currently penal spam supported by m5 can be executed too but nobody does it because you penals reinforcement speed is comparable to that of ost grens. So its kinda slow. Im not saying it wouldnt happen but it wouldnt be that effective. Cons supported with m5 might work because they reinforce faster and their reinforcement is cheaper, support weapons supported by m5 would be more probable too. It would actually make use of soviet clear advanatage which is cheap and fast reinforcement of shitty units. Because the good units reinforce slow and are expensive to do so.

I dont think it is "balanced" in the sense of how soon the halftrack can hit the field.

Ost halftrack

- Battle phase 1 for 100 mp, 40 fuel
- T2 building for 200 mp, 20 fuel
- Half track for 250 mp, 30 fuel

Sov track under your suggestion

- T2 building 160 mp, 20 fuel
- Halftrack 270 mp, 30 fuel

I don't think a halftrack this early is going to be too balanced, even without meat chopper device.

Considering the speed of UKF teching, I don´t see their need of a snare other than the sniper snare.

Considering the speed of UKF teching, I don´t see their need of a snare other than the sniper snare.

They certainly dont outtech the luchs, which arrives way before they can get an AEC, and getting the sniper to vet 1 in that time is purely impossible, assuming that you make at least 1 RE squad and 3 T1 units before calling him in... and then, it can run circles around the AT gun. A snare that works exclusively against light vehicles would solve this just fine

They certainly dont outtech the luchs, which arrives way before they can get an AEC, and getting the sniper to vet 1 in that time is purely impossible, assuming that you make at least 1 RE squad and 3 T1 units before calling him in... and then, it can run circles around the AT gun. A snare that works exclusively against light vehicles would solve this just fine

Yes that is correct. But they do outtech Ostheer by a large margin.

USF:
It's probably a bad idea to give Lieutenant tier access to an AT gun like that. That's because you have the LT unit shock value & the M20 & the potential to go Major faster.

I'd, personally, favour swapping Stuart with the AAHT, because it's more straightforward. That way, both tiers have AT. You just have to choose between a tier with a lot of shock value, but you have to pay fuel for it (LT), or a more conservative tier that's manpower-oriented (Cpt).

Both USF and OKW have access to good light vehicles. Therefore, they should be incentivised in every way to build light vehicles.

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.

Bear in mind that whenever Volks enter scope, their scaling will be nerfed. However, they will still have to face Penals at the get-go (no; OKW will never get an MG from the get-go; OKW is not Ostheer). Moreover, if Conscripts and T2 weaponry ever enter scope, OKW will also have to face additional potential openings. This further increases the difficulty than facing one single viable opening each time.

Brits:
They definitely don't need snares.

They just need PIATs to have a decent range and Tommies to stop sucking when using PIATs. Tommies also need to let go of their late-game scaling (e.g., double brens) and allow side-grades to better help the faction in the early-game (e.g., make Bren guns actually cost-efficient)

USF:
It's probably a bad idea to give Lieutenant tier access to an AT gun like that. That's because you have the LT unit shock value & the M20 & the potential to go Major faster.

I'd, personally, favour swapping Stuart with the AAHT, because it's more straightforward. That way, both tiers have AT. You just have to choose between a tier with a lot of shock value, but you have to pay fuel for it (LT), or a more conservative tier that's manpower-oriented (Cpt).

Both USF and OKW have access to good light vehicles. Therefore, they should be incentivised in every way to build light vehicles.

if you swapp stuart with AAHT:

1. usf player will be able to rush a stuart faster than now (bye bye 222)
2. you will be putting more pressure in the enemy that you get now with the lt tier (oster player forced to get pak faster to counter stuart)
3. you would get more AT capabilities with the stuart that with the AAHT so your solution seems to go againts your argumentation about why putting AT gun in T0 so LT tier can enjoy some AT .

not sure if you just rushed this answer or if I am missing something....

adding pak t0 is not a good idea. one of the recent ost start is just spam grens and skip.tier2 and go fast pz4 or go for tier4. if you move pak to t0 then ost will just make pak and prevent the vehicles while they can also prevent vehicles without paks.

USF:
It's probably a bad idea to give Lieutenant tier access to an AT gun like that. That's because you have the LT unit shock value & the M20 & the potential to go Major faster.

I'd, personally, favour swapping Stuart with the AAHT, because it's more straightforward. That way, both tiers have AT. You just have to choose between a tier with a lot of shock value, but you have to pay fuel for it (LT), or a more conservative tier that's manpower-oriented (Cpt).

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?

Both USF and OKW have access to good light vehicles. Therefore, they should be incentivised in every way to build light vehicles.

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.

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.

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.

Bear in mind that whenever Volks enter scope, their scaling will be nerfed. However, they will still have to face Penals at the get-go (no; OKW will never get an MG from the get-go; OKW is not Ostheer). Moreover, if Conscripts and T2 weaponry ever enter scope, OKW will also have to face additional potential openings. This further increases the difficulty than facing one single viable opening each time.

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.

Brits:
They definitely don't need snares.

They just need PIATs to have a decent range and Tommies to stop sucking when using PIATs. Tommies also need to let go of their late-game scaling (e.g., double brens) and allow side-grades to better help the faction in the early-game (e.g., make Bren guns actually cost-efficient)

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.

OKW currently works this way, has access to atg no matter which tier it goes and it works really well for them because the choice you make depends on your playstyle, map and resources. You are not forced to go a certain tier every game no matter what. Or go the same commander to fill missing parts. I think Sov, USF and OST would benefit from these changes. Making their playstyles more versatile and less predictable.

P.S.
Is this the first time we agree on something or am I reading it wrong?

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."

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.

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.

I don't think UKF NEEDS a snare, but at the same time, I can really see how adding a snare could be beneficial. Adding a snare would reduce reliance on the AEC for anti tank and reduce reliance on the special weapons commnader (at sections with snares). If ukf gets a snare though, I'd imagine the aec would need a nerf.

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.