Profile of SweetrollNearTheDoor

Considering this data hasn't been updated in almost a year and we've had at least 3 decently sized patches in between that time I wouldn't consider this reliable in determining what the balance is like in 2v2 atm. It would be better to compare what tools were most effective during that time and today.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned it was unfortunate that the site was not usable anymore since lack of update support

You're right, you either learn from the best, or simply delete the game like the rest. The game is not meant to balanced for people who don't want to learn the game.

One cannot simply just ignore what happened at high play with Axis because the results are not as bad as expected; they're in a good spot!

I don't remember that many top level players demanding that USF needed a normal mortar or a Heavy Tank but relic and I'd expect majority of the playerbase seemingly deemed otherwise. I think the original design based around Smoke and flank was the "git gud" option which many people utilized as well but was a bit harder than purchase cost effective indirect fire.

As for tournament games I have a few thoughts that make them feel a bit too much like "lab experiments" that might not reflect normal automatch conditions.

First off map selection: When you have a smaller pool of maps for the tournament and know your specific spawn you can better prepare a strat for that side of the map. Also you can make your commander loadout best for that specific tournament map which might not be ideal for normal automatch. For regular automatching I at least personally prefer a Jack-of-all-trades commander selection which enables me to get most out of at least one of them on any given map.

Secondly, there is often less element of surprise when teams are mostly well known and rivals can analyze each others playstyle. Many teams have some "trademark strats" and it will probably be easier to make a counterbuild in advance with your teammate than trying to make a good counterstrat on the fly with a random.

Also in automatch you can easily make costly miscalculations because you don't know your opponent and their style on a random map. For example lets say one expects a soviet player to go for an M3 against OKW on Vaux Farmlands because it performs very well there and get an early raketen to try and predict the most likely build around T1. Then you notice the opponent is actually a maxim spammer and you have a 270 manpower purchase that will take ages to start yielding some return on investment and will take away from your field presence and makes it harder to pull of flanks with less mainline infantry. I think such mispredictions happen more rarely because of the tournament element and of course because of the top players good knowledge of their rivals' styles and team synergy.

Personal experience on such miscalculations I can mention from 2v2s against certain unnamed Brit players. It was pretty surprising to do "normal" axis builds and suddenly get steamrolled by 6 comets and double artillery covers straight after simcity spam. (back in the days when arty cover and emplacements were in a really good spot) After you start to notice the same build and strat happens every single game in every single map every single day you end up making radical changes to your build and be able to counter the cheesy strat when you can prepare for it from the minute you see your opponents name.

Lastly I think team synergy is probably the biggest factor in tournament games. Good communication and teamwork can overcome many balance issues. I think its obvious that a team who has spent hundreds of hours playing together can do very well with both sides against people who have randomly teamed up to compete in a 2v2 tournament. For random automatch such things don't apply nearly as often unless you have a very intuitive teammate and both can adapt to each others playstyle on the fly and cover their weaknesses. On normal random automatch conditions the lack of team synergy makes raw unit stats matter much more than brilliantly coordinated flanks and diversions that can turn the tide in tournament matches. (as a bonus when you have a familiar teammate who you can count on its possible to focus much more on your own performance rather than checking your mate's build orders etc)

tl;dr high-level tournament conditions might not be ideal to interpret normal automatch balance between random teams

Well you want something to be changed but only looking at one coin's side. USF mortar HT counter a certain Ostheer strat the same way spamming Ostheer mortat HT was countering an UKF particular strat when UKF structures were super strong. Few were complaining about the Ostheer MHT at that time and it hasn't been nerfed for reason, right the opposite in fact since UKF structures were nerfed and then Ostheer stopped naturally using MHT in every single game vs UKF.
Modders created a gap in USF design by removing smoke from RMs in the last patch, even if they had good arguments to take that decision. As a result, to fight multiple HMGs and Mortar combo, the USF MHT is the best tool as per today but I'm pretty sure that if
1- Give back smoke to USF RMs
or
2- Nerf overall mortar to Soviet's one level
People would stop to feel the need to call more than one of them if using one of the 2 commanders having it.

Nice to see we're back on track with the more objective arguments . I can work with that.

Tbh I don't think the Ostheer HT was able to counter simcity that well at all in the last patch because of the repairs of Royal Engineers and Rep Stations from simcity doc. Never saw a game where that was able to counter it. And Ostheer mortar HTs were definitely in non-meta doctrines that were't often in loadouts (Elephant, Lightning War and Elite Troops was pretty much the meta combo, Spearhead didn't really contribute much compared to those except a theoretical way to deal with simcity) Usually the OKW leig spam was the way to go to slowly pick the emplacements apart.

I tried to get some more replay samples this morning but I have yet to get a good showcase match. Also I find it at least initially difficult to get used to the mortar HTs when I like the mobility of the normal USF mortar more and my standard build isn't too compatible with the Mortar HT strat. (lots of bugsplats and skill differences making games 2v3s etc, only good game I had would be better suited to a Jackson in a good spot right now discussion)

One of the reasons I'm not discussing the Ostheer support weapon meta is because its always been there and is not a new phenomenon. USF mortar HTs then again seem to be used much more nowadays even though USF has always struggled with weapon teams. So this is part of the reason I want to discuss this more recent meta. But as a side note I think that especially the brit mortar pits kept the Ostheer support teams on their toes and people didn't want to commit too much into them because of the fear of instagib counterbarrages and random hits wiping them. Now that wehr mortars are back on the top of the food chain they are used more liberally again. I find it equally frustrating when a 6 model con squad gets oneshotted, equally frustrating when a wehr support weapon gets instantly decrewed by a 120mm, equally annoying when your riflemen die to a single leig shell.

Now for the second reason I mentioned briefly earlier. I know this thread might seem biased and one sided. I would have no issue with someone making a quality thread about the entire concept of indirect fire, its questionable RNG elements and skill involved with using it with ideas for possible reworks etc. I would very much like to read and contribute to such a topic. But the issue is that it would require a lot of time and effort to make it a quality thread without it degrading into a whinepost with zero substance and being a competition about who can spam the most and yell the loudest. I think it might be harmful to discuss such a topic unless there are enough facts, replay evidence, viewpoints, consideration of snowball effects etc. If its done lazily there is a risk wrong conclusions might be made and balance changed in a negative way. (example: Katysha is underperforming --> better make it oneshot an OKW HQ to make it more useful) Personally I just don't have the time and motivation to start such a wide topic and provide all the necessary facts, evidence and deductions to make the thread a meaningful one.

As a final thing I find it a bit discouraging there has been total radio silence from Relic and the balance team. No confirmation of new patches, no feedback surveys about current gameplay, nothing. This is nothing new, just business as usual for Relic but still I never liked the lack of transparency on things where there was no need for it at all. For example let's say that someone wrote a brilliant novel length thread about how to make the soviet pea shooter AT gun viable in the meta. A lot of time and effort would have been invested into it. I think it would be pretty frustrating to hear that The Scope (tm) decided that the peashooter was forever to be fine as is and there would be no chance of it ever getting a rework. This is part of the reason I don't want to over-invest into a huge thread without knowing if it is going to be of any use. If the community would get hints into what things to focus their attention and what units performance should be discussed in the wake of coming changes I think the balance discussions might be a lot more fruitful.

If I had to make a personal partial rework of the light artillery pieces I might want to see autofire scatter increased a lot so that actual micro was needed in directing barrages. That way most mobile infantry would stay relatively safe by shifting cover and not getting bombarded to bits if they wouldn't be on the move at all times. Then again the barrages would get more accurate every shot so players who wouldn't react would get punished the most while the players who relocated weren't punished as severely (lower change of instagibs in general would be the result I would like to have)

Individual differences to factions could be done with different starting accuracy on the barrages, faster RoF on consecutive shells etc. The concept probably wouldn't work on large artillery pieces since counterbattery would always get to pinpoint accuracy at some point and kill the howi of the opposing side. That would start an endless cycle of one howi instagibbing another and having a new one build to instagib the previous one etc.

This direction would be my initial suggestion if I personally could dictate the direction artillery rework should take but CoH or any other game should never be changed on the basis of an opinion/ viewpoint of a single person and without it having the support of the majority of the playerbase.

snip

The comparison was meant to show how USF is not such a munition starved faction compared to Ostheer. Nothing more, nothing less. (Also I'd argue 10 fuel is pretty easy to obtain without delaying your tech by several minutes, the manpower might be the bigger issue if you get a lot of bleed in early engagements.)

Now for the Mortars part. I doubt there are a lot of people who'd disagree that the Ost mortar is in a peculiar spot right now. The strength of wehr is in theory in its strong support weapons so they have always been used in abundance though. (Not counting the gren spam meta when 100+ winstreaks in 1v1 were posssible)

Now for the support weapon counters. I'm not 100% sure is it possible to rush an M15 before 2 CPs but that is my preferred counter to support weapon play and crowd control. That nullifies light vehicles and can force a lot of retreats. Good kiting enables it to make a dent to a P2 even. Up until that point the mortar smoke will usually be enough (smoke barrage has good range so I prefer that over normal shells often with MGs) USF is also one of those factions that has serious issues dealing with certain strats, like sniper spam or mg spam especially on open maps so I get that fighting multiple MGs etc. can be frustrating as well. Personal experience included.

Now if you have .50 cals, an M15 and a bazooka squad you should be well covered for light vehicle rushes. 222s will fall quickly if an M15 starts focusing them and a few AT grenades are usually available and should be covering for the HTs anyway. Lets say in theory you would trade 3x 222 for 3x mortar HTs. That trade would be unfavorable and the odds are high a good player has the mortar HTs covered with an M15 or bazookas. Also you should be prepared to counter an all in push when using this strat since that is the best way to try and deal with it. If you can manage the push it should be clear sailing from that point on. I know there are a lot of players who also hesitate to do an all in push or try to back out of it resulting in huge losses with little gain. Many would rather try to try and keep the HTs away with paks and whatnot without possibly gambling the match in a single push.

There are as I said counters to this strat. It definitely requires good micro and familiarity with the build. (the replay shows how it can be pretty easy to counter it if the user is untrained or relies on cheap wins against most players, I just linked it as reference material) My intention on this thread is to try and see whether people think such meta is good or harmful for the overall gameplay experience.

The amount of indirect and its effect on gameplay would require a much larger thread with much more arguments, comparisons and reference material and I don't think I have the motivation for that so I prefer to keep the topic a bit more limited while still not forgetting other arty exists. (all I'm gonna say is that RNG has perhaps too big of an impact in artillery hits and RNG wipes can be very unforgiving and frustrating to deal with especially when/if they are caused with minimal player input and don't have that much to do with skill in some cases)