Hello, I don't know if it has been already highlighted but HMG42/34/50/vickers (I don't know for the maxim/dhsk) are firing farther than their cone range.
This is really annoying because sometime you are really far from the edge of the cone but still get fire at and suppressed.
On the picture below you can see the cone far limit (3 dots on top of the riflesquad in the middle) but still rifles are suppressed without entering in it. Worst, to me they are quite far from it.
Then let's make Grens equal stronger than Rifles and RE equal stronger than Sturmpio and etc... You are calling for the wrong decision of homogenization of the game, not balance.
Top players want to win because they have outplayed their opponent in some fashion. Not because they were able to cram Rifles and an M20 down their Ost opponent's cutoff for 12 minutes until the Sherman comes to seal the deal.
In that case, ask Relic to create a league of top20 each faction only. Because right now, if I look into Top10, I see only people with +10 win streak and it is not difficult to deduct from it Top players aren't, almost never, playing together in auto-match. They are only playing vs random top200.
So question: How can they know better about balance if 90% of the time they are only winning because they naturally outclass their opponent. They know what unit is strong, what is not, they have a better understanding of game mechanisms, but have they better opportunities to test them in a balanced match than average players? not at all in my opinion.
In this department, average players have a better vision on balance simply because they have 90% more chance to match someone with a similar skill and knowledge level.
Balance isn't something on the top of what you want to achieve but in the middle. If you only balance by the top, you'll lose unskilled players, if you balance a new time even more by the top, you'll lose average players and the lower population of your actual TOP will become the average, do it again and you'll lose them leaving you a population of 100-200 top players. Enjoy your game now.
Balance is always something you do from the middle with visibility on how it will impact TOP and Bottom. If you balance well from the middle, TOP will not become suddenly unbalanced because it will mostly be a skill gap balance and unit easiness skill adjustment isn't something that unbalance TOP.
So a synthesis must be done every time we speak about balance between what average players say and Top players know, just saying to someone: The counter exist so it is balanced isn't the right behavior, you also need to think in skill level, is the counter easy to use at any level?
What is easier to use to counter light/medium vehicle play? A blob of shreck roaming on the map (supported by 1 or two shadow raken) or a Sherman/Jackson/Atgun/Capt supported by a stuart you need to bring close to your target to use its ability?
from a pure game stat, understanding, mechanisms, both methods exist and work perfectly but are they balanced in term of skill requirement?
You want to make volks shreck blob more difficult to use => increase the skill requirement and maybe lower the skill requirement to use 2 or 3 combined units Stuart+capt+ATgun/jackson/sherman. This will not impact high level players but balance average brackets.
So no, balance isn't something you do from TOP to Bottom, but from the Middle to TOP and Bottom.
TL, DR: Allies have early game advantage that puts the game in their initiative (a fact shown in their dominance in tournament games among high skilled players).
You could re-title your post by Aggressive Faction 1v1 Dominace top level. How can't you see that 2 top players at same skill level, top10, or even more top1 vs top2, whoever pick the aggressive faction has more chance to win the game.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that since at that level, skills + RNG are the only two components of a match. And you'll always have the edge on the skill department with an aggressive faction because you dictate the game at your path.
Resume:
Aggressive factions rely on pure skill => Favor high level players.
Defensive factions rely on heavy tools to counter, so always a step behind => Favor any players that isn't top and not facing top players.
This is why at same skill level (but not Top) Axis faction are better and why Allied ones are shining at Top.
At this point, there is only two possibilities to balance the game: mirror match and getting ride of asymmetrical concepts. Are you ready for USF vs USF matchup on a perfect symmetrical Langreska map?
Why is it, that the non dlc factions dont have any possibility to set up forward retreat points? It would make them much more fun to play an give the Soviets a little buff in 3v3 aand 4v4 games, which they surely need. Right now you have to retreat all the way back to the HQ after every engagment.
As for the Ostheer, I think adding a retreat point upgrade to the Command bunker would do the job. The Soviets dont have any kind of forward HQ at all except the Halftrack, which can reinforce and the Forward HQ upgrade, which is doctrinal. The Halftrack currently has only one upgrade, which removes the ability to reinforce. Why not give it another upgrade, that makes it a forward retreat point, but immobilizes it permanently and removes all weapons. Then Medics could be added through the Upgrade in the HQ which would influence now both the HQ and the Halftrack. So it would be like a smaller and more vulnerable version of the OKW Medic Truck.
Ostheer: sdfk 251/reinforcement bunker + med bunker.
Soviet: cons merge + half-track.
Both faction have ways to stay on the battlefield. you just need to learn to soft retreat. And I agree with Australian Magic, FRP promotes blobbing.
give ober the same 2x schreck as the panzergrenadier and move it to the medical truck. However, the LMG34 upgrade still require the flak truck. Naturally buying the schreck lock out the mp44 and lmg34.
volks get faust instead of schreck
O_o
Obers T1 + Sturm + Volks, it is a bit too much of AI power. This would requires to nerf even more Obers and nobody wants that.
Honestly, there is nothing easier than adding fuel/ammo cost to actual free/low cost existant upgrades. (But I agree it takes more time to do)
As stated before, the problem isn't the volks shreck blob, the problem is it absence of real cost =>
1- it cost nothing to build.
2- it cost nothing to replace
3- it doesn't delay other abilities / upgrades.
The OKW only really need the schreck for two reasons, Stuart and T70. The schreck on the volks are a life save if you went medical first and the other guy rush a stuart.
However, right now the schreck spam is becoming cancerous. Instead of using combine arms the okw are just spamming schreck until King tiger. The OKW already have the best armor line up in the game, with or without doctrine. They don't need access to the strongest inf anti-tank weapon on their base unit as well.
And this would break the balance, making OKW T1 not even use anymore because of Stuart/T70 rush. Like USF T1 because of OKW T2 rush.
So leave them their shreck but increase their hidden cost by adding more munition sink around like I listen in my last post.
Purely removing shreck from volks would break the balance for another 6 months... I'm not saying it is a bad idea, just that it will take too much time to balance.
I believe the solution is on:
1- Adding munition cost to every single OKW abilities and increasing the low cost existent one to other faction level. This will reduce OKW overall powerfulness and force the player into tactical decision making around munition usage.
2- Add a fuel cost (around 10-20 each) to unlock shreck and flamnade + add a fuel cost (5) to the Kubel
3- Add a fuel/munition cost to the OKW T3 canon in a form of an upgrade.
4- Add a fuel/munition cost to the forwarded retreat point upgrade (and reduce its manpower cost)
5- Reduce manpower cost of doctrinal call-in and add munition upgrades (falls,jaegers)
1- Coh2charts shows Top250 players vs ANY statistics, not Top250 vs Top250. It is like balancing Starcraft around elite league (don't know its name) playing potentially vs Bronze league. If Starcraft devs have created leagues in multi-players it is not only for the fun of it.
2- Stats analysis is always interpretation. You can argue around your interpretation of those statistics but not make it a true statement, not with that few information available.
Relic Entertainment
