Ideas for CoH 3: Caliber Specific Damage Model

Recently in a forum about G43s, I got into a discussion about the lack of intuitiveness that the current damage system used for small arms in CoH 2. This post is to provide a place for discussion on this point specifically and to allow myself to clarify what I am proposing and why. Caliber Specific Damge: During WWII, most nations fielded very similar cartridges for their small arms. In real life we can argue the merits of 7.62 Tokarev vs 9mm Parabellum vs .45 ACP, but in the context of a game that has weapons ranging from revolvers to howitzers, it really isn't worth splitting hairs between the damage of different weapons in the same general category. Proposed is to separate small arms into four different categories and to make each of these categories do the same amount of damage per shot. Pistol Caliber Weapons: This includes all handguns and Sub-Machineguns in the game like PPSh's, Thompsons and Luger's. Rifle Caliber Weapons: Full powered rifles, Light Machineguns and Heavy Machineguns fall into this category. M1 Garands, Kar98s, Lee-Enfields, Mosin-Nagants, BARs, MG-42s all fit this classification. Intermediate Caliber Weapons: During WWII very few weapons were made in what is now the most common type of infantry weapon. This category is for the StG44, firing its 7.92x33 round also known as 8mm Kurz. The M1 Carbine also falls into this category. Both fire a round that is significantly more powerful than a pistol round, but also significantly weaker than a full sized rifle round, hence the nomenclature as intermediate. Heavy Caliber Weapons: Heavy weapons are those weapons in the .50 Caliber range, such as the M2HB .50 BMG Heavy Machine Gun, the Soviet DShK HMG and the Boys Anti-Tank Rifle. It should be noted that not all HMGs are considered Heavy Caliber Weapons, as most fired Rifle Caliber rounds.

The intent of normalizing the damage of the rounds is to fix the extremely complex damage system that CoH 2 has in CoH 3. For example, Grenadiers do 16 damage per hit from the same rifle, a K98k, that Volksgrenadiers do only 12 damage with. M1 Garands fire a round (30-06 M2 ball) that is ballistically the same as the Kar98k's 8mm Mauser round, yet in game it only does 8 damage per shot compared to the 16 or 12 above, and that's only two of the numerous types of K98s found in the game.

This also leads to the problem of not understanding why units perform differently, despite being armed with the same weapon. Obersoldaten are elite infantry that excel with their bolt action rifles even without an upgrade, but Ostruppen are the worst infantry in the game, armed with the exact same weapon!

By locking the damage of weapons to caliber, players can easily expect how much each shot will do, and how much damage they are dealing based on rate of fire and accuracy. This means that you can still have units perform differently from each other even when armed with the same weapon by adjusting their accuracy and rate of fire between shots. For example, in CoH 3 Landseer armed with bolt action rifles might start out very similar to an Infantry Section and perform close to each other at vet 0, but Landseer could gain accuracy with veterancy making them better at long range, while Infantry Sections gain a better rate of fire, making them better at close range.

Semi-automatic rifles of the era are the easy way to distinguish better equipped units from less well equipped troops. Military grade bolt action and semi-automatic rifles of the WWII era were basically equal in terms of mechanical accuracy making the potentially higher rate of fire of the semi-automatic rifles a clear advantage, while accuracy was primarily determined by the skill of the shooter. Very low rates of fire are possible with both types if it needed to be done to balance units like Riflemen who start with semi-automatic rifles.

This also allows for interesting scaling potential where US Riflemen could start out very bad, being inexperienced Americans in the North African Theatre, but veteran Riflemen out class all other basic troops with their superior rifles once they gain combat experience. Elite German units in CoH3 could also have G43s to show their higher damage potential compared to more regular troops with K98s, but their "Elite" status would also mean that they have a better vet 0 stats. Adding a Light Machinegun to a squad adds firepower in an obvious and predictable way and could be done to any rifle equipped squad, bolt action or semi-automatic. With careful adjustment of accuracy, cool down and rate of fire attributes, future CoH games could incorporate this type of system, which I believe would be better for all players, but be especially helpful to new players.

I always assume the difference in values between the ober rifle stats and the volks rifle wss suppose to represent the the soldier's "skill". A ober being a Veteran well train soldier i would imagine his capability much greater then say a volks, while true they where mixed in with veterans NCOs and officer, they are raw conscripts. But perhaps in coh3 we can see a standardization of weapons but still keep the "X" value stats system.

The big question for me is IF there is the possibility of a coh 3 and more importanly what era does it take place?

No.

Gameplay > realism in this regard.

This also leads to the problem of not understanding why units perform differently, despite being armed with the same weapon. Obersoldaten […], but Ostruppen […]

I'd argue that one being 200 manpower and the other being 340 manpower and in a final tier structure would be pretty self explanatory. I doubt anyone not familiar with the game files even knows rifles have different damage and it's likely most players think it's just the accuracy of the unit that makes the difference in damage output.

The difference in damage is needed for (underlying) balance and gameplay tweaking.

No.

Gameplay > realism in this regard.



I'd argue that one being 200 manpower and the other being 340 manpower and in a final tier structure would be pretty self explanatory. I doubt anyone not familiar with the game files even knows rifles have different damage and it's likely most players think it's just the accuracy of the unit that makes the difference in damage output.

The difference in damage is needed for (underlying) balance and gameplay tweaking.

The same differences could be done by varying other attributes.

Yes, gameplay is more important than realism. What I am saying is that realism can also benefit gameplay by giving players a better understanding of how units perform based on what they know about the real world and what they are observing on screen.

This dynamic was pretty straight forward in CoH 1, where Riflemen and Volksgrenadiers had the same accuracy and damage as each other at vet 0, but Riflemen fired slower at long range and faster at short range while Volksgrenadiers fires at about the same rate regardless of range. This was easily understood by the player and was also a more realistic way to balance the interaction between the two units.

The same differences could be done by varying other attributes.

No they can not. Firstly, because different damage has different effects. For example one of the reason Bolstered Infantry Sections are so effective is because they can potentially deal 80 alpha damage (5x16), which could alpha/burst kill a model in one volley. That is why all other 5-6 men rifle squads do not deal 16 damage per rifle. Alpha damage is also generally more important in (heavy) cover fights than accuracy, which is why a small long range squad like Grenadiers needs to have high (16) damage.

This dynamic was pretty straight forward in CoH 1, where Riflemen and Volksgrenadiers had the same accuracy and damage as each other at vet 0, but Riflemen fired slower at long range and faster at short range while Volksgrenadiers fires at about the same rate regardless of range. This was easily understood by the player and was also a more realistic way to balance the interaction between the two units.

And Grenadiers had higher damage with the same Kar 98K rifles as Volksgrenadiers, because they needed to feel like a significant upgrade, while having only 4 models, without having over-the-top visual stats (laser accuracy or insane ROF).

So secondly, accuracy and ROF are way less adjustable (without making units feel artifical) than an invisible increase in damage per shot. In CoH2 most infantry rifles already have 65-80% accuracy, increasing to 80-90% with veterancy (Obers Kar 98Ks even go above 100%), so there is no wiggle room there. That only leaves ROF, but that would need to be unrealistically high to facilitate a large increase in DPS. And as I mentioned above alpha damage itself is an important factor in balancing units anyway. There's also the difference in the amount of rifles/models in the squad to account for (from 4 up to 6). So in summary, again, varying damage per rifle is very important for gameplay and balance and it can't simply be standardized.

Also I'd personally say that the price of a unit is self explanatory for their performance, even if they share the same weapon with other cheaper squads, and the average player probably won't have a clue whether it's accuracy or damage that is different anyway, so there is no need to change it (and essentially make tuning balance and gameplay harder).

Damage per bullet is rather irrelevant and normalizing damage per caliber will simply make balancing more difficult since one would lose a tool to better adjust DPS.

Relic did start an effort to standardize weapon performance according to category with the introduction "weapon profiles". The system was part of part of bigger approach which was "relative positioning."

The system included categories of weapon that effect the range weapon would be effective and the way damage would be delivered (in constant damage or in volleys of damage).

You can find info about this approach in the patch notes.

For reasons unknown many later changes did not follow the system.

I think some folks are misunderstanding my intentions with this one, based on their counter points.

Simply stating anything about the current damage system or health per model or unit cost is totally irrelevant to the original point because this is a proposed concept for CoH 3, which could radically change the current system. For example, the 5 man Tommy squads with 16 damage per shot being able to one volley kill an 80 health model argument is a perfect example of this. Everything about this argument is true in the context of CoH 2, but none of it is relevant to an argument about CoH 3.

CoH 3 tommies could be a 6 man squad, or 4 man squad. They could all have 100 health instead of 80, or even 1000!

The point is that CoH 3 can have a totally new way of balancing infantry damage and unit interactions.

I know it doesn’t work for CoH 2, that’s not the point.

This discussion is about CoH 3.

It's still pointless because you don't really see the effects of different small arm infantry weapon damage.
For engagements with infantry, the only factor that matters outside of fringe cases is DPS. Damage is only another variable.
Making all weapons of same caliber do the same damage won't make understanding DPS any better than now.

Can you see how much HP dmg a single model from a squad received or take decisions based on the different damage each small arm fire weapon does?
There's a reason small arm fire dmg weapon goes all over the place while say anti tank tools are modeled around the magic number 160.


If you want to make infantry stats more approachable, they could start by listing the DPS a squad does in sets of close/mid/long range in the useless space we have now in the middle of the screen.
Ideally it should be dynamic, taking into account upgrades, vet and abilities.

Can you see how much HP dmg a single model from a squad received or take decisions based on the different damage each small arm fire weapon does?
There's a reason small arm fire dmg weapon goes all over the place while say anti tank tools are modeled around the magic number 160.


If you want to make infantry stats more approachable, they could start by listing the DPS a squad does in sets of close/mid/long range in the useless space we have now in the middle of the screen.
Ideally it should be dynamic, taking into account upgrades, vet and abilities.

I think your point about AT weapons already being modeled around caliber specific damage actually helps my case. The interaction of damage, accuracy, rate of fire and range is already there, using caliber specific damage and it works!

You can see the squads heal bar dropping with each shot and by which you can estimate how many more hits it will take to drop a model when you factor in how many models are left in the squad. In this case tanks and infantry work much the same way where you look at the unit icon, compare it to what’s shooting at you and thus determine how many hits the squad or vehicle can take. Simply, I would say that yes, you can see how much health a model has left and make decisions based on that.

And, once again, this is about CoH 3. In CoH 3 you might actually be able to see how much HP an individual model has left in it. Is that something you’d like to see?

In CoH 3 you might have a large health bar for the squad and smaller ones for each model. Or you might have different unit skins that show wounds or limping or bandages that indicate that a model is in good, fair or poor health. That could then translate to an oh crap moment when you look and see that your squad has two members at low heath and know that it will take only two Rifle shots each to kill them in the next fight, rather than look and just see a single heath bar at about 3/4 full.

I’m just saying that this system has advantages that exist outside of what CoH 2 has. Think outside the box. Don’t immediately think why a new idea must be bad or why it can’t work, but try to think of why new ideas can work. Innovate.

I think your point about AT weapons already being modeled around caliber specific damage actually helps my case. The interaction of damage, accuracy, rate of fire and range is already there, using caliber specific damage and it works!

You can see the squads heal bar dropping with each shot and by which you can estimate how many more hits it will take to drop a model when you factor in how many models are left in the squad. In this case tanks and infantry work much the same way where you look at the unit icon, compare it to what’s shooting at you and thus determine how many hits the squad or vehicle can take. Simply, I would say that yes, you can see how much health a model has left and make decisions based on that.

And, once again, this is about CoH 3. In CoH 3 you might actually be able to see how much HP an individual model has left in it. Is that something you’d like to see?

In CoH 3 you might have a large health bar for the squad and smaller ones for each model. Or you might have different unit skins that show wounds or limping or bandages that indicate that a model is in good, fair or poor health. That could then translate to an oh crap moment when you look and see that your squad has two members at low heath and know that it will take only two Rifle shots each to kill them in the next fight, rather than look and just see a single heath bar at about 3/4 full.

I’m just saying that this system has advantages that exist outside of what CoH 2 has. Think outside the box. Don’t immediately think why a new idea must be bad or why it can’t work, but try to think of why new ideas can work. Innovate.

The whole point to compare it with vehicles is to show how the interaction between infantry and tanks differ.

Vehicles are single entities and besides snipers, infantry units are squad based entities. You exactly know how many shots a tank of your can survive if they all penetrate.
The slower rate of fire and single entity wise damage makes it so you can take timed decisions.

For infantry squads, you could care less if a model deals 8dmg per second or 16dmg per 2s. The amount of "rolls" you make with them is high, that it makes RNG less "swingy". Infantry combat is way more deterministic than tank battles.


Your whole issue is that the game doesn't explain the performance of units. This is why i said information on performance should be provided to the player, mostly using the useless space which describes the units.

Separating the small arm fire weapons into hard coded categories doesn't improve the understanding of the performance of a unit, which on top limits how you can balance unit and breaks other features you are currently unaware off.

Take for example: MGs and suppression.

I think your point about AT weapons already being modeled around caliber specific damage actually helps my case. The interaction of damage, accuracy, rate of fire and range is already there, using caliber specific damage and it works!

??? the damage values for tank cannons in the game are not standardized at all. The IS-2's 122mm gun does the same 160 damage as a 50mm on a vetted Puma. There's even guns that have several different versions all doing different damage, like the 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71 that deals 320dmg as the Pak 43, 300 damage on the Elefant, and 240 damage on the Tiger II. While the 8.8cm KwK 36 on the Tiger deals only 160 damage.

Tank gun damage values are actually the very definition of gameplay over realism.

It doesn’t frickin matter the dps would be the same. There are way better things to fix

It doesn’t frickin matter the dps would be the same. There are way better things to fix

Not trying to “fix” anything. This discussion was supposed to be about CoH 3 and how that game could be done. It’s almost as though no one read the title....