I think that a raw buff to the T34/76 might be a bad idea - if rushed, a T34 can be out on the field pretty quickly, and buffing it only encourages these sorts of rushes which can be quite hard for Ostheer to deal with in my experience (OKW fare much better thanks to Volk Shrecks). I think the main issue with T34s is that they become irrelevant once most Axis armour takes the field. To that end, I would be more supportive of something like the ability to upgrade T34/76s to T34/85s at a certain point in the game. This would give better scaling, and also reduce the Soviet dependency on call-ins by giving the base faction a tank that can actually perform against other tanks. Better Vet bonuses could also be looked into, for a similar reason. |
Personally, I think the issue with Soviets goes beyond the performance of individual units. I don't see how Soviets can ever work properly with a tech structure that actively discourages you from diversifying your forces. It's absurd that its not viable to even access all of your units, because the tech costs are too crippling. None of the other armies suffer from this - Ostheer has linear tech; OKW and US branch but only at one point, and the costs make it viable to unlock all tech buildings over the course of a single game.
Basically, I think something needs to be done to make breadth and combined arms (rather than spam) a more viable option, especially in the late-game, which is where the biggest problem lies due to the 120 fuel price tag on tech buildings. My suggestion would be to add a one-time, significant fuel investment that unlocks both tech buildings for a lower cost. This would allow you to build both whilst preventing super-early T34/T70 rushes. Basically, the American Supply Depot from vCoH (US had the same tech structure then as Soviets do now, but without the problems). |
I don't think AWM would be appropriate for USF in CoH2. In vCoH, Armour was a commander that forced you to play for the late game, and your early game usually suffered as a result. vCoH Rifles were only good up to a point and you didn't have Paras or Rangers to support them, or off-map artillery. As a result, by the time the Armour Commander kicked in your infantry were usually firmly outclassed due to Gren LMG upgrades and the Wehrmacht veterancy system. In short, you were then completely dependant on tanks to win you the game. AWM had an important purpose in this playstyle: it stopped you losing the game in a single engagement if you fucked up with a couple of vehicles (provided you had the munis).
The Americans in CoH2 play a bit differently. Riflemen are probably stronger overall, and certainly more flexible due to smoke grenades. Vehicles such as the M20 and AA HT are available much earlier. As a result, the US can apply a lot of pressure in the early-mid game, without necessarily suffering from a lack of doctrinal abilities. As a result, I think AWM would lead to an abusive playstyle where players conserve munis in the early game (not hard to do if you avoid BARs), and can then feed Shermans into the meat grinder forever by simply replacing them.
Another, more specific problem with AWM in CoH2 would be that it would make 'suiciding' Jacksons a bit too viable. At the moment, Jacksons are too expensive to use in this way, but with AWM you would be able to throw them away to kill Axis tanks without any fuel loss. |
Assault Grenadiers are strong only in so far as they have high DPS early game. They die like flies, and unless they pull off some crazy flank it should be possible to focus them down with rifles before they get into close range. Keeping your rifle squads close together helps with this a lot, as does upgrading BARs/M1919s early. Ass Grens are also fairly expensive at 280 MP, so your opponent should have a moderately slow build order early game.
If you see Ass Grens then you absolutely have to go Captain first, otherwise Stugs will crush you. Build an AT gun in advance to held with this - the doctrinal Stugs die very fast to dedicated AT. For the Tiger, counter as usual with Jacksons/AT guns.
Overall, I don't think the Mech Assault doctrine is really all that great. If you want to see how bad Ass Grens really are, just go Armour and build Assault Engineers. They can usually beat Ass Grens 1v1 even before upgrading the flamethrower.
EDIT: just realised I have been assuming you are a US player. If you are Soviet I don't know what to say, a T2 opening should have not trouble dealing with Ass Grens/Stugs. |
I think Kubel vs. Ass Eng is a slightly different case. Assault Engineers were a fairly clear-cut example of a doctrinal unit that was dramatically over-performing, and they were able to do this via hotfix because nerfing Assault Engineers didn't really affect the viability and playstyle of US as a whole.
Kubel is in a different spot. The Kubelwagen is a core unit that the OKW need to counter certain strategies. When the Kubel was useless in past patches, OKW were extremely vulnerable to being swarmed by infantry in the early game and were usually forced into MG34 doctrines as a result. Whilst the Kubel is currently over-performing, nerfing it could have more serious and wide-reaching consequences. Hopefully, Relic are either taking their time to find a suitable, non-rushed solution, or seeing how the Kubel stands once the meta has settled down in this patch (or both). |
I have been informed that the Stormtrooper DPS profile with STGs is identical to that of PGrens. Personally, I dislike this upgrade quite a bit simply due to the cost. I often find myself quite munitions starved in the mid-game as Ostheer due to the cost of things like upgrading LMGs on my Grens. In light of that, paying 100 munis for the upgrade isn't worth it when I could simply build a PGren squad that has no munitions cost attached. |
I don't think BARs are too weak. In fact, I think they are about right as is: a reasonable boost to DPS at all ranges. What is worth bearing in mind is that unlike most of these other upgrades, BARs don't change how you have to use the squad. For example, Ober STGs force you to get close to take advantage of the DPS. Similarly, the Gren LMG can't be fired on the move. BARs have no such limitation.
However, I will agree that they are too expensive. I'm fine with the research cost, but 120 munis for 2 per squad becomes a ridiculous munitions sink, especially given that the USF already have a lot of things to spend munis on (grenades, expensive artillery, Sherman MGs). I think both Zooks and BARs would really benefit from only costing 45 or 50 munis a pop (M1919s should stay at 60). |
I've found it very depressing as Ostheer, running into the same boring Maxim spam game after game in automatch. Hopefully its addressed soon, as its really killing my love of the game at the moment (or of playing Axis at least).
Anyway, for me the main issue is the 6 man squads. The appropriate counter to Maxims should be stuff like Mortars, Snipers and flanking with grenades but many of these methods fail because they are very slow at killing a 6 man team. A 4 man team like the MG42 is very threatened by mortar fire, and if it keeps firing in the same spot is placing itself at risk of squadwipe from 1 lucky shell. In my opinion, this is appropriate. However, a Maxim team knows that it can take 1-2 mortar shots and keep fighting, and so isn't threatened in the same way. Similarly with snipers: a Maxim team can simply ignore a sniper for as long as it takes to win a single engagement (spotting for the sniper usually requires you to send a unit into the Maxim's range).
I recognise that this would be a big nerf to Maxims and Soviets, so in compensation I would suggest buffing the gun itself - improving the firing arc and possibly adding some more AOE suppression. This would make it a more viable unit if not spammed. At the moment, at least part of the issue is that 1-2 Maxims are hideously underwhelming. |
Well, the best aggressive commander for me would probably be the Mechanized Assault commander, which gives you Assault Grenadiers and the Stug III variant, both of which can fit into a very aggressive play style. AssGrens aren't in a great spot balance-wise, but can still be scary on certain maps.
If by aggresive you just mean "fast teching to tanks," you could look at the Luftwaffe Supply commander, which allows you to air-drop fuel to accelerate your tech.
IMO the Panther (and T4 in general) still isn't worth it for Ostheer. Too much fuel tied up in tech/buildings, especially since the Panther is kind of overspecialised and has some curious weaknesses (low rate of fire for example). Tigers or all-in T3 are still the way to go. |
From the perspective of a top 200 1v1 US player who thinks the faction is extremely strong, let me go through these one by one:
1) REs are NOT combat troops, they exist to cap, minesweep and occasionally repair. Volley Fire is basically a last resort that can allow REs to beat weaker squads such as pioneers, or to suppress something like Volks if your opponent is careless. Remember, Volley Fire is more effective if you are closer, and is not cancelled by movement. It also scales with high rate of fire weapons - an RE squad with double BARs or M1919s is completely capable of keeping 2 squads suppressed, if that's what you want to invest muni into.
2) The nerf to the Stuart in the recent patch was completely justified, the stun ability was stupidly good. That said, I believe the Stuart should receive a durability buff so it doesn't die to 2 Pak shots. So I sort of agree with you on this one.
3) Blobs are very manageable for US using Rifles and the tools you mention. Additionally, most US doctrines include some form of artillery. The 50. Cal HMG is also something I think more US players should use, its very good against blobs.
4) I could not disagree more. For 70 fuel, I think the M10 is a great, mobile, long-range, budget counter to medium armour. It can't kill heavy armour up front, but it isn't meant to. With its veterancy bonuses it scales very well, and becomes a deadly flanking unit.
5) You seem to have had some bad luck, but nonetheless the Jackson is a very solid late-game TD. It is built for flanking, you should usually be able to position it so it is atleast shooting at the side of enemy tanks (giving roughly 50/50 chance for rear armour shots). It does require a lot of care and micro "babysitting," but this pays off very well. No other TD is even close to as mobile with a gun that good - unlike units such as the SU85, you don't have to fight up front with it.
And the next set:
1) I don't see why this is needed, though I can see the case for a Priest buff maybe. If you mean to counter blobs, see my above comment.
2) A Pershing is certainly not "needed," though it might be cool and will probably be added at some future point. Frankly though, I would prefer not since I like the fact that factions have diverse playstyles, and that the US has to be more creative than just "spam call-in heavy tank."
3) What could possibly be more flexible than riflemen? OKW has lots of call-in infantry because most of them are quite specialized, whereas the whole point of US is that you have a core of 3-4 Rifle squads that scale well and can adapt to almost anything. What do you want this new unit to do that Riflemen don't currently do?
4) Like with the Pershing, I feel you need to adjust your expectations. US is about combined arms and having lots of units working in coordination to work wonders. Adding "super units" just removes the faction's unique playstyle and makes them function like OKW. When I play US, the satisfaction isn't from one tank firing one shot that wipes 2 squads (OK, maybe sometimes with the Dozer Sherman). Its from a massive attack with multiple flanks from infantry and tanks covered by artillery/smoke that overwhelms my opponent with priority targets and shoves them off the map. I find it interesting to play, and wouldn't want to see it changed or dumbed down in any way. I think you may be looking at this the wrong way - don't expect the faction to change to suit the playstyle you want. Rather, find the faction(s) with the playstyle(s) that suit you. |