National Identity - And Lack Thereof

It is fair to say that over the six years we've had to play with CoH2, the game has seen a lot of changes. Huge numbers of patches, tweaks and changes that have overhauled the game in a multitude of ways.

The design philosophy of the armies, at least when they launched, offered five unique ways to play CoH2. At some point, every army has been genuinely unique. Not so much any more. This thread is mostly self indulgence, but I would like to offer my opinions on where the identity of armies has gone both right and wrong, and see where the forum agrees or disagrees. I’ve dipped in and out of playing regularly, ridden in beta tests, and watched Katitof accumulate tens of thousands of posts. Lets do this.

Eastern Front
Soviets
The Soviet unique features were always pretty clear and pretty well managed, though we have seen some poorer choices scaled back for the better, and I think what remains is fairly decent.

Six Man squads – the big one. Rivalled only by Ostruppen and, for some reason, PanzerFusilliers and Paratroopers? This applies to almost everything. Infantry, team weapons, stolen team weapons, elite infantry. You name it, the soviets bring the manpower. They may not have the quality or the long range firepower of other armies to play with on their foot soldiers, but they’re Stalin’s Anvil. Handy, then, that they also brought Stlain’s Hammer – thanks, ISU-152.

These are occasionally contentious, but with the Soviets being what they are, I’ve always thought they work well and help define Soviet play style. Easy to bleed, difficult to kill. Some issues were had and have been addressed – the sniper teams, maxims at their peak being a better conscript squad. But the current state of soviet durability supports their play style and identity.

Ostheer
Ost have some problems. A lot of them were originally fixed in the early days before WFA even launched, and the erosion of their status of unique has been mostly cemented since the launch of WFA. Most of their national identity only exists when compared to OKW, but they hang onto something.

The nebulous concept of combined arms – Or how I learned to stop spamming inf blobs and use team weapons.
Ost grenadiers are not an elite infantry. Back in the day they stomped conscripts. Hell, they still do, but Ost gets by with the idea of combining their affordable mainline infantry with team weapons. Their MG and AT gun remain affordable and some of the best available, with veterancy abilities that make the soviets cry. What they lack in generalist duties they make up for with best of class in TWP, AP rounds and... no, not counterbattery.

Honourable mentions for Ost in weapon upgrades unlocking free for a wide variety of their units, and the prolific nature of their pintle MGs.

Intermission
That covered, I think this is the point to speak about something that distinguishes the EFA and WFA/UKF, and in a way that has diminished over time. Originally, the Ost had a unique feature over the Soviets in that their roster was complete out of the gate. No matter what commander the Ost picked, they had a full army ready to go, with no glaring holes in their unit list. This worked fine when stacked against the Soviets, who picked elite infantry and even late game armour from their commanders. Where it could have worked with WFA, and didn’t, was in those armies lacking units but having viable alternatives. That has never quite been realized, IMO, but more on that later.

WFA
USF
A mix of good and bad. Still in a unique place, only Rivalling the soviets. Easily the better of the WFA offerings.

Vehicle Crews – Simple and clean. They get the vehicle crew mechanic. Its good!

Officers – They get officers as they tech. Contentious sometimes, though recently overhauled. These fed into the concept of USF being an army centred around versatile, and customizable, infantry cores. Pick your weapons and put them onto a very versatile Rifle squad! Something that filters into my next intermission.

Intermission – Missing units
USF had an incomplete roster at launch. This was originally compensated for with their rifle versatility. They had no mortars, but they could get smoke grenades on their rifle squads. This allowed their infantry to do the job of machine gun smoking, and clear their own approach on buildings or points.

And now they just have a mortar instead. Is this awful? No. But it does represent what, either by choice or necessity, has been happening with balance patches over time. Rather than allow the armies without a certain tool to compensate with what they do have, they have all been brought in line. Rather than let USF have a roster of units that can fill in the job of an on field mortar, they just moved smoke to RE and gave them a mortar.

And this is a good point to move onto the single worst offender in the game. The very unfortunate-

OKW
And we hit some cheese. Well, pardon my opening the gate with a little bias. This isn’t about the OKW being overpowered, its not that kind of cheese. This is all about the huge flaws in their implementation and design. Lets start simple.

Don’t Do this – the original OKW. For those who don’t know, the original concept was meant to represent a resource starved, last ditch effort to defend the western front with a mix of hardened veterans and garbage. They attempted this... by trying to shoehorn in a totally different game into multiplayer?? A nation that was expected to only hold a tiny amount of the map with elite forces, only getting proper resources from sectors linked to your base via a chain of trucks that worked as your production buildings.

Needless to say this was an awful plan for 1v1. It was also totally unworkable in team games. It promptly failed. It was replaced with another iteration of OKW!

No caches, massive resource penalty, but scavenging and cheap super good units and... yeah that went away too. Good riddance! Sadly, these overhauls have left the OKW in a bad way, if not an OP one. Just badly designed. Lets keep going.

Scavenging – Not totally unique. The Soviets could briefly do this, and now the Brits can do it with one commander. Its decent! Sadly not unique, just like 6 man squads, but decent. Moving on.

5 levels of Vet – Ugh, this one. This was a part of OKW’s reigning champion of bad design period. The biggest, worst and most grim manifestation of the baffling design direction that used to exist in the Ost/Sov bad times. The perplexing ‘If Germans reach late game its a free win’. And it was a thing. Go trawl the forums if you don’t believe me. Ally early game OP/Germans cannot lose late game attrition was something people championed. Beats me as to why. It has been overhauled, but it still, to me, represents a bad unique trait. Vehicle crews and 6 man squads have their individual strengths, but 5 levels of vet is a universal army buff in the late game. Its not a single asset, but everything. Game keeps going without constant wipes? OKW keeps vetting. Not a good approach.

Does it make them OP? No. Patches have helped a lot. But only by making the vet 5 differences smaller and also having to overcompensate elsewhere. And I honestly think locking it to OKW was a mistake. That said – intermission time again.

Intermission – Lost Chances
This one is less about identity and more just a personal look at where OKW did it wrong alongside everyone else. Veterancy, IMO, spikes way too hard. A difference between vet 1 and 2 unit can be enormous. This is partially why vet 5 OKW was originally so broken. Imagine a world where everyone had five, gently scaling levels of veterancy..?

More generally, I think it is a sad lost opportunity. We all know the Axis fixated on the biggest most over-expensive and operationally crippling tanks. And rather than introduce parallels to the real allied advantages – resources, production, throttling the Axis – we just get prolific tank destroyers. Ah well. Global late game upgrades just never made it into CoH2. Nor did allied air superiority or a lengthy list of things. Symptomatic of rough times at Relic, I suppose.

Last on the list.

UKF
Quite the ugly duckling for the last army to be released.

Days gone by
The UKF was supposed to try and reflect a certain style of war. A grand battleplan. To accomplish this they focused on two distinct features. A defensive and limited army, coupled with commander abilities that offered ways for Brits to go on the offensive with very powerful bonuses, offering multiple ‘parts’ to support that push.

The latter no longer exist. The former no longer exists, as the brit army now functions more or less okay on its own. The new commander is set to offer brits early CQC squads so really they’re just Ost these days. What’s left..?

Emplacements. But not MG bunkers. These are frustrating to play against. These are frustrating to play with. I don’t get it. Why? Why, Relic?

Optional Teching – Skipping side tech lets UKF rush out a medium tank at some very impressive speeds. They get global infantry upgrades that are frankly mandatory to compete but they do get to choose when to pay for them. Mutually exclusive late game unlocks which, at least, are decent on both sides.

IMO that’s it. UKF lost any identity they had once the abilities got nerfed. They are not UP, but an army without. No mobile mortar and nothing to compensate. As a Brit, perhaps I am Biased, but while they have some individually very strong units the whole army just seems to lack a purpose. Ah well.

My two (hundred) cents. I’d love to bear everyone else’s opinions!

I think the CoH2 experiment has made it abundantly clear that factional identity should not deprive a faction of the basic tools.

All factions should have access to the basic tools of the game - HMG, ATG, mortar, etc.

Factional identity can then be achieved by:

1. using unique units for these basic tools, so that they fill the same purpose but with a slightly different mechanic. For example: mortar vs ISG. Or one faction relying on a manpower Panzerschreck squad instead of ATG, or a mortar/AT Half Track rather than an infantry based unit.


2. using mid and end game units (and tech) to make factions unique. Soviets get a horde of cheap disposable tanks, the Germans get few quality-over-quantity tanks. Brits get a special "end game" tech that unlocks an exclusive high tier vehicle. OKW gets a stock heavy tank if they put down all tech. Et cetera.



TLDR: there should've be a distinction between "basic tools" and "mid and end game units" and all factions should've gotten easy access to these basic tools. Diversity, identity and uniqueness should then be achieved with certain "mid and end game units" and tech only.

I think there's something to be said for basic tool availability, and where its gone wrong.

The UKF only having a mortar pit or base artilley is a bad example of a total lack of functionality. Its a tool they desperately need but just don't have unless they lock it down to an immobile hole in the ground.

USF not having a mortar would have been fine if they better thoight out the implications. Non doc smoke and rifle grenades on RE could have make them a viable and unique replacement with a shorter range, but it never quite came to fruition.


I also think allowing identity in the basic faction design isn't terrible. Vehicle crews and 6 man soviets are solid distinctions that offer unique strengths. But I agree that the mid to late game units and upgrades are where they could have done so much, but didn't.

I think the CoH2 experiment has made it abundantly clear that factional identity should not deprive a faction of the basic tools.

All factions should have access to the basic tools of the game - HMG, ATG, mortar, etc.

Factional identity can then be achieved by:

1. using unique units for these basic tools, so that they fill the same purpose but with a slightly different mechanic. For example: mortar vs ISG. Or one faction relying on a manpower Panzerschreck squad instead of ATG, or a mortar/AT Half Track rather than an infantry based unit.


2. using mid and end game units (and tech) to make factions unique. Soviets get a horde of cheap disposable tanks, the Germans get few quality-over-quantity tanks. Brits get a special "end game" tech that unlocks an exclusive high tier vehicle. OKW gets a stock heavy tank if they put down all tech. Et cetera.



TLDR: there should've be a distinction between "basic tools" and "mid and end game units" and all factions should've gotten easy access to these basic tools. Diversity, identity and uniqueness should then be achieved with certain "mid and end game units" and tech only.

Think you are confusing basic tools with basic units, and I don't really agree.

All faction should have tools that help deal with certain types of problem like garrison but they do not need to have the same basic units.

Even In COH 1 USF player rarely use hmg and mortars and they where fine.

Your points in faction flavor are quite valid, at least in my eyes.

On the UKF lacking basic tools: I would remove the mortar pit and add a 3' Mortar team (start with a G.W. 34, decrease fire rate, increase range). Next, to all of their weapon teams (or perhaps just the Vickers and the 3' Mortar), I would add a toggled Entrench ability that allows them to set themselves into a mini-emplacement.

This emplacement would have the hitbox and model of a USF Fighting Position. It would have the HP of a sandbag (easily de-entrenched by mortars or tank fire) but would make them much more resistant to small-arms fire.

OberKommando Cheese
Well, pardon my opening the gate with a little bias. This isn’t about the OKW being overpowered, its not that kind of cheese. This is all about the huge flaws in their implementation and design. Lets start simple.

Don’t Do this – the original OKW. For those who don’t know, the original concept was meant to represent a resource starved, last ditch effort to defend the western front with a mix of hardened veterans and garbage. They attempted this... by trying to shoehorn in a totally different game into multiplayer?? A nation that was expected to only hold a tiny amount of the map with elite forces, only getting proper resources from sectors linked to your base via a chain of trucks that worked as your production buildings.

God I remember the old OKW which could resource switch into fuel and get huge amounts of fuel. I also remember volks being 235 mp and complete and utter garbage at some point. The WFA + UKF releases had a ton of issues that have mostly been fixed.

Personally I think the two worst implementations of faction mechanics are the vet 5 system and the lower resources that OKW had at launch. Both affect core parts of the game (Taking zones for specific income and the vet system) and for a while were nightmares for gameplay. Atleast both have been removed/fixed now.

God I remember the old OKW which could resource switch into fuel and get huge amounts of fuel. I also remember volks being 235 mp and complete and utter garbage at some point. The WFA + UKF releases had a ton of issues that have mostly been fixed.

Personally I think the two worst implementations of faction mechanics are the vet 5 system and the lower resources that OKW had at launch. Both affect core parts of the game (Taking zones for specific income and the vet system) and for a while were nightmares for gameplay. Atleast both have been removed/fixed now.

There is a dual situation here - maybe they were broken, but it was interesting and fun, now the factions are almost mirror clones, and this is very boring.

Would be awesome if “combined arms“ is not a unique faction trait but mandatory for all. Lol

All faction should have tools that help deal with certain types of problem like garrison but they do not need to have the same basic units.

That is literally what I said.

That is literally what I said.

Seems like i missed the part quoting and disagreeing with you, sorry!

God I remember the old OKW which could resource switch into fuel and get huge amounts of fuel. I also remember volks being 235 mp and complete and utter garbage at some point. The WFA + UKF releases had a ton of issues that have mostly been fixed.

Personally I think the two worst implementations of faction mechanics are the vet 5 system and the lower resources that OKW had at launch. Both affect core parts of the game (Taking zones for specific income and the vet system) and for a while were nightmares for gameplay. Atleast both have been removed/fixed now.

I continue to have flashbacks about it even now. The kubels... my cutoff...

I do appreciate how much good work has gone into balancing the armies aince then. I just wish vet 5 had either been ditched or offered to everybody, you know? As it stands its a unique army trait that makes balancing the army behind it so much harder than it otherwise needs to be.

I continue to have flashbacks about it even now. The kubels... my cutoff...

I do appreciate how much good work has gone into balancing the armies aince then. I just wish vet 5 had either been ditched or offered to everybody, you know? As it stands its a unique army trait that makes balancing the army behind it so much harder than it otherwise needs to be.

Essnetially what has happened is all "real" vet combat bonuses have gone to 1-3 while 4-5 are things like out of combat healing or other non combat vet. Essentially making them a vet 3 system.

Its just unnecessary. If they wanted OKW to be reliant on vet then they could have made their vet bonuses a strong or something. As it was it was either too OP or pretty bad.


Lets also not forget OKW did not have a generalist medium tank at release also. Thats another questionable design decision

Rocket arty bullshit one faction have another dont wtf? All arty of this kind should be doctinal usf is great example

Personally I think the two worst implementations of faction mechanics are the vet 5 system

I think veterancy is one of the things that can be used to give factions identity as long as its implementation is done right - as was proven by vCoH's Panzer Elite veterancy (choose between offensive or defensive vet and tune your units to your own preference) which was quite decent and balanced but gave a unique feeling.

The vet 5 system is another idea what could've been good in theory but was implemented in a wrong way. It should've used the same basic (and fair) principle for all OKW units: vet 1-3 as combat bonusses similar to all other factions, with vet 4 and 5 (or just 4 and no 5) being a utility ability upgrade - like Suppression ability on Luchs or Obers.

I think veterancy is one of the things that can be used to give factions identity as long as its implementation is done right - as was proven by vCoH's Panzer Elite veterancy (choose between offensive or defensive vet and tune your units to your own preference) which was quite decent and balanced but gave a unique feeling.

The vet 5 system is another idea what could've been good in theory but was implemented in a wrong way. It should've used the same basic (and fair) principle for all OKW units: vet 1-3 as combat bonusses similar to all other factions, with vet 4 and 5 (or just 4 and no 5) being a utility ability upgrade - like Suppression ability on Luchs or Obers.

I'm not inclined to entirely agree.

Offering vet 5 to all the OKW in a meaningful way still lets them hit a higher ceiling in a multitude of ways in terms of unit cost efficiency.

I would rather everyone got 5 levels of slowly improving vet, but rather than up the ceiling, allow late game OKW to raise the floor. Let them upgrade to start with up to vet 2 on their infantry and tanks (out of a universal 5 levels) as they scrape together the remains of their veteran units on the western front. Somehing to that effect. That way there's no big differences between, say, a volks and cons squad that have both survived from minute 1 to 60, just because one arny has more vet levels.

Rocket arty bullshit one faction have another dont wtf? All arty of this kind should be doctinal usf is great example

Agreed in part. Something as powerful as rocket artillery needs to be available stock to all factions OR pushed into doctrines. However, I think they should be stock to mitigate blobbing in team games.

I think veterancy is one of the things that can be used to give factions identity as long as its implementation is done right - as was proven by vCoH's Panzer Elite veterancy (choose between offensive or defensive vet and tune your units to your own preference) which was quite decent and balanced but gave a unique feeling.

The vet 5 system is another idea what could've been good in theory but was implemented in a wrong way. It should've used the same basic (and fair) principle for all OKW units: vet 1-3 as combat bonusses similar to all other factions, with vet 4 and 5 (or just 4 and no 5) being a utility ability upgrade - like Suppression ability on Luchs or Obers.

My issue with the 4-5 vet system is that unlike the panzer elite vet its not very unique in its own right since its just the same vet system with 2 more tiers. COH had multiple vetting ways that all worked pretty well. US had the current vet through combat system. Wehr couple buy vet for specific units, and PE had vet that could be altered for defense and offense.

I just feel like the 5 Vet system was poorly thought out and isn't worth the issues it produced after essentially becoming a vet 3 system with 4-5 vet being mostly minor things.

It is fair to say that over the six years we've had to play with CoH2, the game has seen a lot of changes. Huge numbers of patches, tweaks and changes that have overhauled the game in a multitude of ways.

Show Spoiler

Good job. Most of what was said is true. Some factions do need some tweaks here and there. Some factions are well defined such as SU. They need some improvements however like the Maxim a bit and Conscipt moltov and at package should be cheaper and a become a "all in one purchase". Overall the rest of the units of SU are good and consistent overall. They are quite the versatile faction there is.

Osteehr. Very difficult to say. There are issues regarding both Pzgrens and Ostwind. Fix those, they will be improved to the way they should be. Those two units are not that good overall, underperforms, cost not adjusted properly to how they perform overall. They are expensive for something they do too well at. Pzgrens I discussed on the "Thoughts on Panzergrenadiers" forum. Currently is a faction difficult to play since Pzgrens and Ostwind are definitely not viable options since they experience some problems. They lack choices early and mid game, thus heavily relying them upon team weapons. Otherwise Pzgrens would be purchased early and even Ostwind later on but they are not. They need fixing!

OKW, has definitely been screwed up. Some ways still is. Veterancy is definitely an issue now experienced upon some units. Certain elements and units needs some changes. Improvements and tweaks. Here and there. Overall where it stands. It is in some ways in a better spot than Osteehr is although there are some weaknesses. It is ok. Kubel and Luchs needs some improvements. Change the versatility of Volks to make it not the choice for engagements. Posted a forum "Volksgreandiers terms of versatility". Some changes required. Walking Stuka comes early, maybe switch it with Obers instead would set out some fixes, maybe.

USF is now a good faction. All if not most of the units function the way they should in comparison to other factions. Howizter is the best in game. One is currently enough to decimate the enemy , 2 is always better.
Having crew inside vehicles that can repair instead of using another unit. Another upside.
Do lack a vehicle late game with armour. I think a "Sherman Jumbo" would be a nice implementation though I doubt they would implement any more new units in game.
They do have the most powerful mortars in game although sometimes AT can be bad. Jackson is definitely a great AT vehicle which I do in some way prefer over the Firefly.

UKF is a good faction. Definitely annoying to play against and as. The emplacements which I think makes them stand out a lot. Bofors is definitely not impossible to counter unless they have the "Advanced Emplacement Regiment". They do have units that lack snares but definitely have great AI capabilities. It is like Osteehr but a way improved better faction overall. Most units functions the way they should according to prices. Bofors AA issue still stands. Firefly should do 160 damage and shoot more frequently to fix the issue since it is currently quite slow. Cromwell is pretty decent and feels more focused better against AI, has some difficulties against Panther. Churchill has the most health which is quite ironic.


All in all, some factions needs certain changes and improvements to define them better the way they should be.

I would rather everyone got 5 levels of slowly improving vet, but rather than up the ceiling, allow late game OKW to raise the floor. Let them upgrade to start with up to vet 2 on their infantry and tanks (out of a universal 5 levels) as they scrape together the remains of their veteran units on the western front. Somehing to that effect.

Well an upgrade like that would then give problems similar to vCoH's Wehrmacht's bought veterancy - giving a big advantage late game where wiped squads can be replaced with instantly vetted new squads while the enemy can only replace theirs with fresh ones.

Anyways my point was not to discuss how vet 5 should've been implemented, but that different veterancy systems can help give factions a unique identity as long as they are properly implemented. IMO Panzer Elite's veterancy is the best example of how it can be interesting and balanced, while OKW's initial vet 5 system was an example of how it should not be done.

The vet system is not really an issue as long as it is implemented correctly.
I was badly designed for VG because the shreck allowed to vet very fast and it was badly designed with ST44 before it made them VG too strong.
If give the MP-40s to VG or no weapon upgrade it would be fine.

It is the same exact problem with Penal veterancy or M4C which where fine when base stat where low but is problematic when base stat (or weapon upgrades in the case of VG) are available.