Profile of Horasu

Check out this thread:

http://www.coh2.org/topic/42941/stuka-dive-bomb-aoe...-has-it-been-buffed-indirectly

Is it too arrogant to assume that it was something done on accident? Can it be reverted?

Before:
- Give Soviet possibility to build all of their tier buildings! Having only half of your stock unit options is boring!
- Give OKW anti-garrison tool in early game!

After:
- The game becoming too homogenized!

Next step:
- Rifleman is the only unit available to USF in early game! This is boring! Give USF mortar and jeep in T0!

Hello, my post is more about individual unit balance than overall faction balance. I feel like overall, every faction should have tools needed for any situation, in varying effectiveness. Thanks.

You are right ofc, homogenisation is something that happens to the game from very beginning (3 into 4 men ost team weapons, killing all soviets and ost vet bonuses and so on) due to unsatisfied community members being more vocal than satisfied ones. And relic always listens to the crowd...

Sure, I'm very aware that homogenization is happening. I want to make people more aware that their calls for buffs/nerfs perpetuate that. Like I said before, it's probably because buffing/nerfing the direct role of the unit is the easiest way to "balance" out a unit, so it does become the most popular idea. But it might not be the smartest.

Ah I see, asymmetrical balance is only good if it's the way you like it, right? You have no argument, you can't argue against the T-34 being different and complain that Armies are becoming too similar, that's hypocritical. The T-34 is asymmetrical because it's very cheap, you can amass them. In regards to the Red Army, Stalin once said "Quantity has a quality all its own." and that's what makes the T-34 unique to the Sherman or Churchill.

Re: the t34-76, I feel like it's in a bad place NOT because it is cheap and easy to produce. In fact, I think it's a very, very good thing. The problem is, I feel like Relic did not go all the way in their philosophy. A half-cooked idea is worse than an idea that's not cooked at all. They should have gone ALL THE WAY with the productability of the unit. Reduce its manpower to 240. Reduce pop cap to 8. Problem solved.

EDIT: Oh, and fix its scatter vs. infantry because it's nonexistant until vet 2. Remove or reduce vet 2 scatter bonus if needed. There is "playing to weaknesses" but there should also be SOME strength. This also helps with the tank's spammable nature because then it will allow 2 vet 0 tanks to be useful, instead of waiting and intensely micromanaging the tanks until vet 2.

EDIT 2: You're also talking to your quoted post like he was the one that made the thread, but it was me.

I have a question for you guys. Is the game becoming too homogenized? Are all of the factions being blended to become the same?

"Asymmetrical balance" has been toted around as the pinnacle of this game's design since for as long as I've played this game. And it is a pretty cool concept. If factions all have unique strengths and weaknesses, then people can more easily find a faction they can find fun and engaging to play, as well as providing a varied gameplay experience for others who want to switch it up.

But it's strange to me that, although people clamor for asymmetrical balance, they, in the same breath, demand it.

For example, I'll pull up 2 current topics that are on the forums right now: Churchill and Flak HT. Churchill is tanky, so people want to nerf its armor. Flak HT is immobile, so people want to reduce its setup time. But where is the asymmetry in that? What's the point of eliminating or reducing what makes the unit unique? If Churchill loses its tankiness, it's a slow Cromwell. If Flak HT loses its setup time, it's a German AA HT.

I have ideas, and I was wondering if they were good or not. Tell me what you guys think, okay? Instead of eliminating what makes individual units unique, why not expand on their weaknesses while keeping their strengths?

I'll use Churchills as an example again. If the Churchill's gimmick is "tanky but slow," but it's still too strong, how about making it even slower? It'll allow it to be caught out of position much more easily, so it can be destroyed. That way it's an indirect nerf to its "durability" but still keeping its unique flavor.

Same for Flak HT. If it's immobile, then let it stand its ground. Increase sight and range by 5-7 but keep its long setup time. In that sense, it would have a distinct role in area denial that is different from the AA HT that it keeps being compared to.

On a sidenote, I thought ISG and pack howitzer's thing was that they were drastically powerful light artillery pieces, but not really fire-and-forget units like mortars which can fire over buildings. By having their min angle of fire be 40 percent, then they are basically heavy mortars that suppress now. Why not keep the angle of fire at 10 so they are less effective behind a lot of buildings, and disable their auto-rotate while keeping their heavy shells? Then they would truly be light artillery, since you'd have to manage them similarly to ML-20 or that other german thing.

I think it would be really cool if we thought about balancing in that light instead of direct nerfs to the uniqueness of each unit. But I don't see anyone else thinking along the lines I do. Is it an effort in futility to want the game to ideally be this way? Or maybe just direct nerfs to core strengths is just the easiest way to think about balance, so people take it?

EDIT: As a disclaimer, since I know there are some hotheaded people out there, I want to stick with the discussion of "homogenization" and balancing in a way that keeps unit strengths. I don't want this to devolve into a Churchill or Flak HT discussion just because I used them as examples. AKA Keep your "grenade ability needs nerfs" posts in their proper topic pls