Profile of easierwithaturret

Stun Grenade (Axis)

The stun time is pretty short, without the damage they would either need to be dirt cheap or have longer stun duration. I think all that needs to be fixed is the bug which makes the stun effect permanent.

Bundle Grenades (Axis)

Agree, grenades in general do too much damage to buildings while Tanks and field guns do too little.

Flame Grenade (OKW):

These things can feel a bit OP but volks are struggling as it is. I'd rather see their cost increased slightly so they can't just be spammed in every engagement, while the mp44 upgrade reworked into something with more of an impact.

Light Gammon Bomb (UKF):

Agreed, thrown from camo with the current fuze time is a bit over the top.

AT Grenades (faust,AT grenades etc) (ALL):

Homing is weird but I don't see it changing. There are a few annoying bugs and clunky mechanics (such as fausts firing to no effect and AT rifle nades taking forever to fire) that need to be fixed.

Molotovs: I think they perform fine as a dirt-cheap building-denial tool, plus it's risky buffing a core unit that is already heavily used. The problem is spending a precious 15 fuel in the early game is often just too much, especially if you need that fuel to rush a t70. To that I think they should either cost less fuel to unlock with a slightly higher munition cost since sovs float munitions with most doctrines, or be rolled into the AT nade upgrade as others have suggested before.

The 222 is a strange beast, it feels weird that the best way to counter a dangerous unit is to spam a cheaper version of that unit. Others have already pointed out the challenge, in that while the unit does deliver excellent performance for its price, it's justified because of the problems OH otherwise has with light vehicles. I would like to see this unit work more as a anti-infantry/sniper hunter/recon unit and less as a makeshift light-vehicle counter, but that would require changes to be made elsewhere.

That basically comes down to either nerfing allied lights, delaying their timing, or buffing other OH units. I think we need to be careful with the first two options. Light vehicles are already in a tenuous position, they wouldn't need to be much less attractive before we go back to the same boring stalling/mid-game skipping meta. AEC I think is fine (not huge threat unless you rush a HT), T70 is also fine (low HP, arrives later), stuart could do with a look-in (as you mentioned, shell-shock and repair critical are a bit too good).

If we go the other way and look into buffing some less-used options, we could look at: 1. Give PGs the option to purchase one panzershrek at a time. 2: Slight decrease in load time for AP rounds on the MG42. 3: slight cost decrease ~10-20mp on the Pak, I think it's reasonable given how clumsy and hard to keep it is to keep alive with all the indirect and infantry blobs these days.

Whatever we do it doesn't need to be much, light vehicles are still a gamble and if they hit a teller soon after purchase that can often decide the game right there.

Coh2 is only the way it is because the lack of other RtS games alike.. nothing more nothing less..

Basically this, RTS games are a risky proposition these days so releases that combine innovative and polished gameplay with the production values of a AAA title are few and far between. If you get sick of CoH2 you don't really have anywhere else to go. You have Pseudo-realistic B-grade series like Men of War and Wargame, old-school RTS like SC2, DoW2, or various indie games. Not saying those games are better or worse, but they don't offer what CoH does.

Not trying to be overly cynical here but really, there's not much business incentive for Relic to put more resources into this game. Casual players (i.e. the majority of day 1 sales) don't notice or care about minor balance issues, while us die-hards will buy Coh3 regardless.

The argument of being doctrinal is a cost is a bit of a stretch. If that were true, than all doctrinal units should be AS cost efficient as the T35/85 and then everyone would be using doctrinal units rather than core units, which was a huge problem in the game a year or 2 ago.

This doesn't make sense, the reason the 85 is more popular than other doctrinal units is because it is a generalist unit that fills a key role and is useful in all situations, rather than a niche unit limited to specific situations. The over-reliance on doctrinal units was largely fixed by making stock options better or more accessible, not by nerfing doctrinal units back to irrelevance.

There are a lot of things that need attention. When I play soviets, I almost always choose a doctrine w/ the 34/85. It's also worth noting that the most widely used soviet Doctrine in the last ESL tournament has a t34/85 in it. I believe it had a large margin of the second most used doctrine.

Wasn't the last ESL tournament prior to the patch, i.e. when the t34/76 was useless? It's hardly surprising that the majority of players will choose a doctrine with a decent medium in it, given that that is a critical capability the faction otherwise just doesn't have. Even after the MG buff that still applies - people pick the t34/85 doctrines because it provides a versatile workhorse medium, something which every other faction has without needing to choose a doctrine.

Anyway I don't see this discussion going anywhere new. After the MG buff it seems reasonable for a very slight cost increase as per the OP's suggestion, but anything more than that would be overkill. Comparisons with the p4 have some use but aren't suitable for drawing strong conclusions because there are just too many differences between the two. If you think the p4 is underperforming then that is a matter for another thread, although on second thoughts perhaps not because that discussion has already been done to death.

The CoH series, like most Relic titles, is more about atmosphere and innovation than Esports competition. RNG is central to the game and it couldn't work without it.

The way RNG is hidden and not clearly explained is a source of grief to those who want to get good at competitive play, but sad truth is those players are a minority. Most players want immersive and unpredictable campaign/comp-stomp, and RNG helps with that. Take vehicle abandons for example. They are a horrendous feature to have in competitive matches because they don't require any decision from the player, rather they are just a freebie that comes from nowhere to decide the game. However they make for a fun way of keeping things fresh for the comp stomp player who has hundreds of AI battles under his belt.

There are times when the winner may not have necessarily demonstrated more skill but that happens in all kinds of games. There certainly are times when RNG decides matches but skill matters far more.

I think a big source of frustration around RNG comes down to human nature. When the RNG goes our way, either we don't notice it as it was what we 'expect', we convince ourselves we would have won regardless, or we congratulate ourselves for the bold 'calculated' risk. On the other hand we always notice when things don't go our way. I don't think we should expect Relic to do anything about that.