CoH2 Early Game

Buildings

Since beta these structures have gave a massive cover bonus to the squads inside. While it does make them static defense, squads in them are nigh-unkillable by small arms fire. Even the sniper seems to miss most of the time when shooting at squads inside (50% chance of hit?). At the moment, any map with a semi-well placed building will mean that each player basically rushes the buildings since it essentially allows you to instantly lock down the area. Being unable to attack units in buildings, you have only 1 option: go around and lose your front lines (most games end up with a lot of squads back-capping as many points as they can until some form of anti-building comes out).

Buildings wouldnt have this dominance in the game if good counters existed. At the moment, soviet molotovs provide the best counter that essentially denies the building for ~10 seconds. The german counterpart: rifle grenades, have way too much RNG attached to it: sometimes the building instantly collapses, killing the squad, other times the squad takes massiave damage (loses 4 members or so) and other times does absolutely nothing. Due to this varaibility germans have a severe lack of reliable counters

*Flamers for both Soviets and Germans provide the most direct counter, but due to their high munitions cost and fragile platform that carries them (and the chance that the flamer blows up in your face to a well-aimed shot) makes it far too risky to try to go for early flamers to deny buildings. Early mortar teams are a death-sentence for your map control so they are generally a bad idea to get.

Building should not have such a dominant role in the game: they make an obstacle that the enemy can't effectively clear no matter how well the player plays. Either reduce the defensive bonus for buildings to make it at least conceivable you can have a fire-fight with buildings or improve the counters to buildings (molotovs, rifle grenades, flamers).
For example; in Dawn of War 2, buildings did exist in much the same manner but played a far less powerful role. They provided less cover than heavy cover and made them precariously susceptible to grenades (Whereas in CoH2, a grenade can do anything from nothing to instantly killing the squad), meaning garrisoning buildings generally did not warrant the risk of getting out-outmaneuvered.

Implementing these changes will make for a more fluid and more intuitive strategy for trying to hold lines or assaulting rather than playing a vicious game of cat-and-mouse between squads hopping in and out of buildings and chasing each others around the map as you try to avoid them. Changing buildings should come first since most of the game's pace revolves around who can control key-buildings (so a change here would mean wider-reaching changing elsewhere in the matchup).

I'd like to hear your thoughts on how the early game plays out and some other idea on how to improve it.

There is one instance where buildings provide a pretty fair defensive bounce: against assault grenadiers.

Good suggestions already. I think the major issue is the cover-bonus recieved when in buildings. Ofc, the random crits have to go as well.

Good suggestions already. I think the major issue is the cover-bonus recieved when in buildings. Ofc, the random crits have to go as well.

I do think some random chance is good: it takes skill to try to factor in all the variables and take the course of action most likely for success over the long run (make the odds work in your favor). However, some of the randomness, like random building crits, needs to go. The difference between unit easily taking fire one second then instantly dying the next needs to be reduced.

Things like molotov crits that can 1 shot any infantry and rifle 'nades 1-shotting building needs a review.

How about a reduction to building cover if the in-firing unit is within 10 of the models inside. Say, to about 20% cover.

The unit firing out hits them normally, depending on what cover they can find that close to the building.

There is some precedent for this, since apparently there is no cover modifer anywhere else either, if the attacker is within 10.

This would sort of indirectly also simulate "storming" the building.

maybe it should take longer to get in and out of buildings too? would make grenade more effective

maybe it should take longer to get in and out of buildings too? would make grenade more effective

Disagree, good reaction times should be rewarded.

How about a reduction to building cover if the in-firing unit is within 10 of the models inside. Say, to about 20% cover.

The unit firing out hits them normally, depending on what cover they can find that close to the building.

There is some precedent for this, since apparently there is no cover modifer anywhere else either, if the attacker is within 10.

This would sort of indirectly also simulate "storming" the building.

Not that bad of an idea. Quite frankly I wish there were a building storming mechanic in the game. A lot of the houses could've easily been broken down into two or three respective sections or 'rooms' that players could garrison and then shoot each other from. This would've simulated storming a building rather well too. (Technically two houses next to each other work this way, but its visually weird and moving in and out of buildings is already rather clunky.)

Historically, drawn out battles from within a single house between german and russian forces were common. What was the german joke? "We've taken the kitchen, but they still hold the bedroom?" (Eh, I was close, Google it to the rescue: Rattenkrieg.) But there is one thing about units in houses that should be taken into account: windows. Often times a fully garrisoned house will only have a couple windows for units to shoot out of. In that respect, attacking units are mitigated some of the dangers of assaulting a garrisoned house: only so many members of the inside squad can fire back out.

Good positioning can result in your entire squad effectively focus firing on only one or two enemy entities, which can actually add up to your favor rather nice. Well, maybe not now with how utterly powerful houses are, but it's an aspect of strategy to keep in mind.

We are addressing this in the next patch. Counters such as flame throwers and mortars will be improved. Building integrity, or chance to collapse, will also be less random.

Meaning pretty much that Sov Molotov will have an even harder advantage in early garrison engagements.

(Not that the RNade collapsing buildings wasnt bullshit, but its so crucial in early game to be able to deal with garrison units which Sov can simply do with the slow low burn of Molotov, whereas RNade is just as likely to nothing at all. A Molotov WILL force you out. An RNAde, wont. Especially when the RNG building collapse is "less random.)

Thats how I see it anyways. Nothing infuriates me more than Sov laughing in buildings, cos Grens simply have no means of forcing them out, especially in buildings overlooking your native fuel point.

That's what flamer pios are for.

That's what flamer pios are for.

Sure, as are CE Flamers.

Lolotovs just are oh so much more convenient though, arent they, when generally there are 3-4 Cons running around.

Also, German mortars fire relatively quickly, and they're being improved against garrisoned units. The barrage on the 81mm mortar is actually a fast barrage compared to the seemingly moderate fire rate increase of other mortars.

Also, flamethrowers, if the leaked notes are to be believed, will be a lot less prone to spontaneously combusting, which is what was making flamethrowers really difficult and too dangerous to use in the mid to late game.

Molotovs still cost munitions for 1 throw as well. They also don't quite have the same effect since the damage mostly goes to the spot in the building it hit. Flamethrowers deal more damage, more regularly, and in the next patch should be doing even more.

Also, German mortars fire relatively quickly, and they're being improved against garrisoned units. The barrage on the 81mm mortar is actually a fast barrage compared to the seemingly moderate fire rate increase of other mortars.

Presumably, so are Sov mortars, since the Dev comment was generalised to "mortars".
So no difference there really, and the issue was Molotov/Rnade efficacy vs garrison, not asymmetric mortars.

Also, flamethrowers, if the leaked notes are to be believed, will be a lot less prone to spontaneously combusting, which is what was making flamethrowers really difficult and too dangerous to use in the mid to late game.

Both factions have flamer access. This is not a matter of dispute.
Lolotovs relative efficacy vs garrison, is.

Molotovs still cost munitions for 1 throw as well. They also don't quite have the same effect since the damage mostly goes to the spot in the building it hit.

So do RNades. Yet their dmg to garrisoned units is almost entirely unpredictable and often negligible whereas nobody remains in a burning building set alight by a Lolotov.

Once people catch wind of the apparent change that buildings wont spontaneously collapse on some RNade hit, guess whats going to happen?

We are addressing this in the next patch. Counters such as flame throwers and mortars will be improved. Building integrity, or chance to collapse, will also be less random.

That is very good to hear!

Semoski might become enjoyable after all...

Yes, there is a difference in mortars. If you don't see it, you haven't been playing. The 81mm German mortar fires a lot faster than the Soviet 82mm mortar and with more accuracy. This is going to make it much more effective at dislodging garrisoned units.

Both mortars and grenades will "be improved" against garrisoned units, which means your rifle grenades will be improved without the need for BS random building collapses. Collapses happened to both sides, so you should be happy for its removal.

Soviets only get normal infantry grenades via commander units, not everyone uses those commanders, nor should they have to.

Lastly, Germans have the flame half-track, which can come out pretty early and is along their normal tech path.

You really can't sit there and just talk about one comparison, when there's even more counters in each army.

You guys really shouldn't lose your heads over what may or may not be the state of the game after next patch. Especially the molotov/flamer thing is complete speculation on your part. They mentioned flame throwers but no word was lost about molotovs.
Even in the leaked beta notes there is only mention of flame throwers and explosions.

There is really no reason to assume molotovs will receive the same treatment as flame throwers. Even if they do, mortars and grenades will certainly be better compared to (a change that arguably benefits Germans more) and more powerful (+ more stable) flamers benefits both sides.
So either way, complaining about it now when we have hugely incomplete information doesn't serve any purpose.

I didnt assume that Molotovs recieve any treatment.
Nor has there been any indication there would be any treatment, either in the alleged notes, or in Dev statements.

I am assuming they remain as they are.

THAT is the whole point.

We are addressing this in the next patch. Counters such as flame throwers and mortars will be improved. Building integrity, or chance to collapse, will also be less random.

Does that mean that buildings will keep their defensive bonuses? If so, buildings will still play too much of a role early game.

In CoH1 you at least had the chance to fight units in buildings by going to the side with less windows (less windows = less people shooting out of the building = less dmg for your squad) and putting your troops in cover. This is not even an option in CoH2, sadly.

why not just make ostheer sniper also better at emptying buildings, 60 to 75 percent effective versus 40 percent. That would probably make them a more appealing build in the early game.