All what okw needs right now is nerfs to light vehicles, reliable building counter and nerfs to OP allied medium tanks and buff to obers early while getting nerf lategame.
And nerfs to rocket indirect fire -brought in line with katty.
Still very stale and all about super aggressive early into light>t4 or call ins
USF has similar issue, OP early and mid but T4 is useless when you have m10/caliope |
|
Big list of OKW changes:
DESIGN
Make OKW bases mobile, make the infantry design more intelligent, and make light vehicles obligatory.
BASES
Allow OKW bases to pack up during the battle and rebuild elsewhere, at a fuel discount for already researched bases. This comes at slight HP nerf to bases. In addition have bass researchs provide auras to nearby units, such as ability cool down for example. Lastly: Flak HQ must be able to be controlled manually by the player.
INFANTRY
Swap Volks and Sturms halfway: Volks become a cheap 4 man MP44 assault unit that scales well and upgrades to smoke and sprint. Sturms become cheap 5 man utility squad that puts out respectable DPS and repairs very well. Obers become super Grens, gaining Faust and ability to upgrade to single Shrek alongside MG34. Obers moved to BHQ. (Infantry support P4 or Sturm officer takes their place in T4.)
VEHICLE
Kubel price increased and capping removed, ability to suppress returns. 250 Halftrack added to T0 replacing MG34 and Puppchen, but latter is muni upgrade option for it alongside a mortar upgrade. Flaktrack buffed somehow and LeiG made a doctrinal unit. |
Why don't we just make it that any event that would destroy a unit reduces it to 1 HP, makes it invincible, and force retreats it to base?
Then finally we will no longer complain about squad wipes.
only the usf mortar should be able to wipe squads, it needs that as a buff imo. |
Recevied ccuracy bonus should be taken away IMO.
It's like matrix ability when infantry running in open field can dodge bullets lel.
I can understand that infantry with experience can shoot more accurately, reload faster, use cover better, throw nade further etc but received accuracy is pudding.
Removinf rec.acc. and in exchange giving bonus to cover would make game better - no more unlimited blobs running in open field but searching for cover - that's how it should be.
this would automatically make the game way better imo. would kind of be a nerf to close ranged squads though. |
|
rifle smoke should be an upgrade unique to the squad and not a global research upgrade, the ability to churn out vet0 rifles in the mid to late game that can basically become invincible and invalidate support weapons for 15 muni is retarded.
even with a 4 rifle build 25 fuel to get smoke on all of the rifles is way too cheap, but cost nerfing the global upgrade is kind of dumb because it is punishing. 10 fuel to unlock grenades on a given rifle or LT squad, AT rifle nade unlocked upon teching up and not vet 1. there you go, USF grenade woes are gone.
Then it would work similar to the battle equipment upgrade on Guardians in DoW2. |
|
the entire point of the US faction is using rifles and REs to quickly take the map and then out tech the opponent while inflicting heavy MP bleed. the US mortar is very nice and rounds the faction out but it disregards all previous balance changes to the game.
T0 M3 halftrack with current stats and tie mortar to a 70 muni fighting position upgrade. |
Grenadiers with 90 HP would take 12 Riflemen shots to die, while Grenadiers drop a Riflemen model in 5 shots, I don't think that's the solution as this is just one example as how it would mess with Infantry balance as a whole.
they would take more rifle shots though on account of RA (up until vet 3) so really the change would make them more resistant to explosions.
insane Ost MP accumulation in the lategame is also a balance issue, even though Ost is on the backfoot in the early to midgame stages. A nerf to the lategame cost efficiency of LMG grens while making Grens in the early game more viable outside of a faust and capping/light anti infantry unit seems to be good. (Maybe a fuel based upgrade that boosts current Grens in T1 but delays vehicles?)
I also think the Command Bunker could be used to buff Ost infantry early to mid game; on map reinforcment and garrison is kind of already covered by the Skdz 251, so giving the command bunker some kind of light defensive or offensive aura could work as well. |
And what do you expect exactly when people are crying for Armies not being similar to each other and being balanced at the same time? Asymmetrical gameplay balance DOES NOT WORK, I have said it before and I will keep repeating it until Relic get it through their thick skulls.
CoH was balanced symetrically, meaning all Armies had the same tools available to them in different forms.
In terms of support weapons for example, the US had the M1917, the Wehr had the MG42, the Brits had a mobile variant in the form of the MMG upgrade for the Bren carrier and the MG nest plus the mobile Vickers team from the Glider HQ from the Commando doctrine, the PE had a sort of mobile MG platform in the form of the 250 HF that could also carry troops and served as the PE's mobile respawn point and early game support vehicle.
In terms of Mortars the US had the M2 60mm one, the Wehr had the GrW 43 which had better range and damage because it was in a higher tier, the Brits had the mortar pit as well as mobile counterpart from the Commandos, and the PE had their mortar half-track to keep up with their mobile and mechanized playstyle.
In terms of Snipers the US and Wehr both had one, the PE had that light AT half-track with the 37 mm that could snipe infantry with the help of an ability and the Brits had a sniper ability with the Recon section.
And besides the Brits, everyone else had a mobile respawn point vehicle (those being the respective Army's half-tracks), AT weapons on not so busy squads like Rangers, Sappers, Grenadiers and Panzergrenadiers, everybody had AT snares in one form or another, everybody had access to some sort of smoke and some sort of building clearing ability or weapon.
All in all, CoH just had superior balance because it was sort of similarly balanced, all Armies played differently but all Armies had access to a some form of a specific ability or weapon.
That game didnt have capping circles, popcap was tied to strategic points which didnt give fuel or muni, and it also had way more base building and research upgrades to improve units.
Back to CoH2: if the main focus of depth from the game is going to be purely micro, every faction needs way more possible tools and ways to accomplish the mission. DOW2 had relatively asymmetric balance but every army had multiple options in multiple tiers to counter different strats and engage the enemy. In COH2 every faction has pretty much one to two MP based counters to enemy builds, excluding AT guns. (Which humorously enough disqualifies the Raktenwerfer.)
|
The examples that you mentioned (Stuart vs OST or T70 rush vs Axis) are great examples of other problematic play-counterplay issues in the game.
As long as one player (the "attacker") can choose a particular strategy that shoehorns the other player (the "defender") to follow one particular playstyle to counter this, doesn't increase the game's strategic depth; it diminishes it. Particularly so if the only avenue available to the defender is not barely even viable.
Using these attack patterns to shoehorn the defender to play in the same predictable way is not "outplaying" your opponent. It is using knowledge of the current meta to completely deprive your enemy of choice about how they want to develop their army composition.
Every choice made by the attacker should afford the defender at least 2 viable ways to counter the threat. That way the defender is also given the choice to make their trade-offs than follow the exact same script game-in, game-out.
It is great that some factions have certain playstyles more developed than other playstyles; it adds flavouring to the game. What's not fine is that some factions have barely one playstyle available to them that makes them even conceivably playable.
This. Army design in this game is so flat and uninspired, and the commander system exacerbates the problem. |
|
too many things are standardized, and tieing all infantry survivability to RA leads to stale play and an uncontrollable meta. grens should have higher HP per model (say 90) with a RA curve similar to Riflemen.
|
Advanced Squad Leader
havoc
momo4sho
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
