"move m5 to t2 in place of zis, readjust its dps so its not op, lock quad cannon upgrade behind t3 tech up but leave its transport and reinforce capabilties."
So...
Penals can now apply even more pressure early game or am I missing a memo somewhere.
Penals are in t1 not t2 so you would have to build both tiers to do that. By the time you field 3 or 4 penals you would probably gather so enough fuel to go t3 anyway. The pressure would be slightly higher due to its reinforcement capabilities. But it wouldnt be much different to ostheer fielding reinforcement ht and gren blobs. Axis still have a lot of counterplay like mgs, mortars, infantry, snipers, atg etc. So it would more likely utilize an unused unit which currently comes to late to be really useful and is countered or cant be protected if you went t1 for instance so have no atg. |
Has an ATG gun that has less range, less pen and hits fence posts 50% of the time. Its the 2nd worst at gun it the game. Allied AT guns arnt as such
ATG that has great armor penetration, can go stealth, can retreat, go into a building, also is one of the cheapest, has 5 vets and almost never misses agiainst light-medium tanks (the kind of tanks that allies mainly have). Saying its the 2nd worst atg in the game is so subjective and open to interpretation that its meaningless.
I dont think that means much and shouldn't really have much bearing on changes. "more versatile and less predictable" is so subjective and open to interpretation its meaningless.
Its more a matter of testing rather than subjective. Subjective is something that cant be verified by objective data, this actually can tested. We would just have to compare how often is one tier chosen compared to another tier and do the same after the change and comapare the data. If the implementation of the idea would make both tiers closer to 50/50 than it currently is then it would make the gameplay a little bit less predictable. |
|
Basically what everyone before me said is true. OKW is the strongest faction atm, has the same playstyle as USF but the problem is that it has better variants of most units but not everyone.
Here are some USF strongpoints:
vanilla:
- infantry with bars (double bars preferably) give you a lot of pressure and wipe potenatial
- also m1919a6 lmg is solid for more narrow maps where you are forced to play more frontally
- grenades great for wipes if your opponent has bad micro
- movable FRP with major + ambulance combo
- jackson is a beast vs all vehicles
- m8a1 howitzer motor carriage - popularily called scott comes a bit late but has great wipe potential against axis infantry
commander baised:
- early wc51 - can be a really useful tool on some maps if done correctly you can counter kubel spam more less with them and help you secure early lead
- early m10 - but do it before FBP, after the patch it will probably be meh
- sherman bulldozer - great for oneshot wipes, really solid AI unit
- pathfinders with double bars are a cheesy strat but they have monster dps at long range
- paratroopers with lmg or thompson - lmg is more univeral, thompson paras are the strongest AI infantry in the game, unreal wipe capabilities, from what I remember they have like 97,32 dps (sturmpioneers have 65), their dps drops drastically after you lose 2 models
- rangers (85,78 dps) a solid unit but very one diemensional and good only on close quarters maps
- pershing - solid tank on par with panther but deals with infantry much better
- p-47 - I myself like them, they can sometimes get some nice hits but they are based hard on rng
- calliope - solid AI artillery, helps getting wipes on vetted infantry
Basically what you want I like to do with USF is play wide, gear up all my infantry with bars which helps me outdps my opponent and flank a lot. Standard open would be 3 rifles, mortar, cpt, stuart, ambulance, weapon racks (2 zooks on RE), atg, pak howie, mjr, jackson. Other variations might be going lt, m20, mg, weapon racks (2 zooks on RE), cpt, atg, mjr, jackson. Go sherman only if you have huge fuel advantage.
Everything depends on which game mode you are playing. In 1v1 you want good map control with infantry, mines in chokepoints etc. In 2v2s you want more indirect fire, lmgs or bars depends on how wide the map is, atgs. In 3v3/4v4s you want more heavy tanks, artillery, tank blobs, lmgs blobs. |
Basically you want to remove the cons of making a choice and going a different tiers while keeping all the benefits.
Although I do agree that the scott could use some mild nerfs.
OKW currently works this way, has access to atg no matter which tier it goes and it works really well for them because the choice you make depends on your playstyle, map and resources. You are not forced to go a certain tier every game no matter what. Or go the same commander to fill missing parts. I think Sov, USF and OST would benefit from these changes. Making their playstyles more versatile and less predictable.
P.S.
Is this the first time we agree on something or am I reading it wrong? |
Definitely good ideas, only the Brit snare should maybe be exclusively anti-luchs/222, since else, it might mess up a late-game balance
Also, wehrmachts Pak gun comin in their T1 would allow for more tactical creativity as well
tbh, yeah why not, that would allow ost to skip t2, making it an option, the cost of t2 isnt that significant anyway so it probably wouldnt allow them to rush incredibly fast to t3 tanks, good idea I will add it to the list |
|
Here is an idea for how to make different playstyles and tiers more viable for usf and soviets.
Sov
move ATG to t0 and lock it behind tech up, move m5 to t2 in place of zis, readjust its dps and cost so its not op, lock quad cannon upgrade behind t3 tech up but leave its transport and reinforce capabilties. This way soviets are not forced to go a specific tier or doctrine to counter vehicles so axis cant just freely rape you with luchs. At the same time it implements the same mechanics that ost has with reinforcing units on the field which might actually work well with cons fast reinforcement speed. Also m5 would work great with t2 allowing support weapons to reinforce on the field making overall good use of soviet reinforcemnt speed and cost.
USF
move ATG to t0 lock it behind tech up, move scot in place of atg to captain tier, nerf scot so its not op. This way usf could choose freely between lt and cpt and the choice would be based solely on how much fuel does a player have access to or how fast does he want to field medium tanks. Other than that sherman can be readjusted to be a more tanky meatshield and more infantry oriented while jackson is already AT only. Nevertheless it would allow usf players to rely less on cpt tier only and allow them to play more towards their style and more tactically, be less predictable. Also scot is a highly underused unit because its a light vehicle locked behind medium vehicle tier. The only logic explanation is its incredibly good stats. Nerfing stats to make it less capable and putting in cpt tier would present more playstyle oportunities.
Potential questions and critiscism:
SOV questions
- moving atg to t0 seems unfair to axis factions - actually okw has atg in t0 and its not even locked behind tech up, also atg would be locked behind tech up so early vehicles like kubels would still be able to cheese
- but zis gun has an AI barrage, thats op - barrage costs 60 munition (if Im not mistaken) which means its not spammable by any means so it wouldnt give unfair advantage
- access to atg would lower luchs or 222 shock value - probably yes, but it just wouldnt be that different from allied vehicles being countered early by axis atgs
- moving m5 to t2 would be redundant to sc in t1 - no it would not because there's a cost difference and purpose difference, one would be more towards scouting second towards reinforcing on field, one tier allows for better AI units the other for support weapons
- m5 dps would be too high - its dps should be balanced in comparison to ost ht
- m5 would come too soon - it would come probably around ost ht and it would serve the same purpose so no
- m5 would be too expensive - not if its cost was adjusted to ost ht
- m5 quad early upgrade would be too soon and m5 would have veterancy already - true, the unit would gain high shock value compared to how things are now, this should be readjusted so it doesnt make a monster due to shared veterancy (if such mechanics applies to m5)
- why would anynoe build t1/t2 if the other tier is so strong - I think that this change would actually make both tiers viable to play
- sov t3 would lack a unit - currently m5 in my experience is not only underused but practically never used so basically soviet t3 has only 2 units nowadays too but for a different reason, also quad upgrade would actually implement better shock value and tempo for quad ht making it actually useful if the upgrade was locked behind t3 tech up
USF questions
- atg in t0 is unfair for axis - same as in case of soviets
- scot is op, moving it to cpt tier would break the game - i agree, thats why scot would have to be nerfed to be readjusted to lower tier level since it would come out earlier
- but cpt tier already has pak howie with similar mechanics, why would I ever want to go scot - ofcourse the unit stats would differ but other than that its mobile so it cant be just wiped by infantry, that would allow for better aggresive pushes and defend better from flanks also since it costs fuel you might want to use fuel for stuart and a preserve the rest for t4 so you would go pak instead on smaller maps
- why would I ever go lt when cpt tier has so strong unit - lt is less fuel heavy, it allows to survive early and rush t4
- why would I ever go cpt tier since lt is so strong - cpt would have better AT and AI pressure early but is more fuel heavy, it would be better for snowballing games
- but moving scot to cpt tier would leave only 2 units in t4 - currently in my experience from playing or spectating high rank games scot is a very rare sight - its almost always better to build a sherman if you have fuel advantage or jackson if you are a bit behind or even, so this makes scot almost never used and not fitting t4
Reasoning behind this change is:
- all factions should have equal basic defensive capabilities
- soviets are forced to either go t2 or pick a specific commander only to have access to an atg, so having an atg is one of the most important factors when it comes to picking tiers and commanders
- both m5 and scot are underused vehicles because they come too late for a unit of their kind, m5 is more a t2 unit on par with ost ht and scot is an AI light vehicle not a medium one so it belongs more in t3
Bonus idea
Brits
give them vehicle snare. Every other faction has a vehicle snare. There is no reason to deny brits vehicle snare when all other factions have it with or without an upg. Not having vehicle snare is one of the main reasons why brits are forced to choose eithe aec or bofors upgrade early. Giving brits snare would allow them to play with atg only and bofors or aec would be a matter of choice of playstyle not a matter of do or die.
OST
move pak to t0 and lock behind tech up, same reasoning as above, it would allow ost to skip t2 if needed (although imo its still very useful), the cost of making t2 is 200 mp and 20 fuel, that 20 fuel might not be that much but it might allow a player to rush t3 if needed. In that case I think that the cost of t1 (80/10) and t2 (200/20) might be redistributed more equally like in case of soviets (t1 160/10 and t2 160/20) to allow for more decision making. Redistributing the cost of t1 and t2 more equally would even allow ost to skip t1 if needed. This would also implement more strategic decision making for ost players. They could actually skip something. Also ost t2 is overpacked and atm and pak is the main reason why players choose that tier. It doesnt mean that t2 is bad without it because some maps require you to have pgrens, some playstyles or maps are better with reinforcment ht or flamer ht or some players like 222 (me in particular).
Please remember to vote! Thank you.
Also share your opinion on why you agree or disagree. |
And you have just shown that you don't play Ostheer lol.
I think in big shortcuts so yeah you rely on t1 and t2 to stabilise the game but since they give you so versatile defensive capabilities I just never consider it in this manner. Its just normal for me to go t1 and t2 always. Maybe because the enemy doesnt have a fast stuka that would start wiping all my support weapons after 10 minutes or so. |
Have you even played Ostheer?
Ofcourse I do play ostheer and it has more then enough to counters to anything thats coming your way. Also every mp spent as ost is better spent than any other faction in the game. Only problem ost has is 4 man gren squads. Other than that ost has so much good units to choose from that sometimes I feel like a kid in a candy store. Anything I buy with my mp will be delicious.
You have no side techs, you dont rely on any tiers or commanders, all your units are high quality, you have versatile tiers, no hard counters, basically you're living the dream. Ofcourse you have to micro your units well but at least its worth it. With soviets you have to micro your worthless units and its not really worth the effort. ^^ |
|
I admire your reasoning but you fail to notice one thing, these are not new problems, they last for years now and nothing ever changes about that.
Soviet infantry and t1/t2
I agree with most of your observations. Biggest soviet problem is their units are worthless with few exceptions (penals, sniper, sc). Cons were bad before and now they became dogshit after volks stg upgrade. They are overpriced and get outscaled easily. And it wouldnt be such a problem if you had some kind of reliable way of killing infantry in t2. But you dont. If you had a mortar on par with ost mortar you could go double mortar, cons and probably do good. But there is no balance either in micro (unit vs unit) or macro scale.
Besides vickers maybe all other allied mgs struggle because of low arc of fire, sight radius and range but mostly no suppresion. Allied mgs dont suppress axis infantry at all. On top of that you cant deal with rifle nade spammers and incediary nades range (Did you see how fast and how far can incediary nades go?). Dshka imo is performing well only because of its sick suppresion but allied mg has to have sick suppresion to prevent it from being rifle naded from outside of its range sometimes.
Sov mortar is only good when used to counter mortar or mg. Nothing else. Its autofire is pathetic. Slow rate of fire, no accuracy. People use Zis or su76 to barrage instead because its more reliable xD what a joke.
Basically if you go t2 you lack infantry and support weapons that are good at anything. But you pay the same as your opponent. Its a joke.
Sov t3
T3 is has ok units. T70 comes late compared to its counterpart luchs. I mean you need 165 fuel if you want to rush it while luchs requires 125 fuel. While at the same time okw gets nades, fausts and stgs a packet worth of 40 fuel for free. So even if you paid that much your infantry would still lose and your t70 wouldnt be able to change a thing. Su 76 is a great unit but requiring a lot of micro. The quad comes so late that nobody even bothers to build it. Imo the transport vehicle should be moved to t2 or t1 for better early pushes with cons, which could be upgraded later on after you reach t3 to a quad and provide nice AI shock unit if it survived early. The biggest problem with soviet t3 or all allied light vehicles is the ammount of AT that axis get. Not only their infantry gets AT for free just by teching (no side techs) okw has raketen from the very start of the game negating any shock impact a light AI might have. I mean seriously axis dont even have to think strategically in this game because they get all the important stuff anyways. They dont have to weigh how important is it for them to rush a unit in comparison to having early at. They just get the at for free and rush the unit anyway. They dont have to choose whether they need a weapon more or a nade in thise set of circumastances. They get both for free. No tactical decsions to be made. And everything they get is better for the same price or the cheaper while being the same.
sov t4
Here you get a solid arty which in most games is the only thing that soviets can field which actually can wipe vetter infantry. TD that only upside is it can destroy okw trucks out of their range. And a really really really bad imitation of a medium tank which is cheap so its fine.
There are few things that I try to emphasize that are always neglected in balance discussions: Side techs, micro, cost effeciency, tier lacking.
Side techs
They implement the strategic decision making. Side techs should always apply to the things that have most tactical impact. Infantry is the core in every game and every faction here. So side techs concerning infantry is a good idea. But why only for one side?? Playing axis should also force you to make a decision "whether I need this weapon or abiility or not"?
Micro
Each side strive to be equally micro heavy. If one side plays itself seamlessly while in the other each unit requires pampering and attention the micro heavy side will eventually lose track and lose a unit. Again the main perpetrator is OKW. Most of their units require little to no micro due to tankiness or heavy firepower. Luchs is tanky, mobile and comes so early that most allied units cant do anything. Most axis infantry has good long range dps which allows them to just blob 3 or more units in teamgames and A move through the map. Since they basically never get pinned by allied mg because most of the time there are no allied mgs or their suppresion is so bad that it doesnt really matter they just blob and mow down anything that comes their way. They dont have to prepare an attack by wide spreading their units before the advance. Just blob and A move and kill anything in their way. Its especially visible in games vs soviets.
Cost effeciency
I dont mind a unit being dogshit but in that case its cost should reflect its performance. If cons are dogshit at everything I dont mind, but just make them cheap and expandable. Not at the same price level as volks. Also if volks perform better at every range make them cost more. Basically try to balance the cost to units performance for all sides. If a unit is performing great make it expensive. How cons cost 240 mp while volks with free ups, potentially 5 vets and stg cost 250 mp is beyond me. does 5 less mp per reinforcement reflect the difference? I dont know but doesnt really feel like it. My solutions would be this make initial mp investment reflect units vanilla performance and reinforcement cost should reflect units scaling capabilities. So volks might still cost 250 to 240 cons but reinforcement would be more like 25 to 12.
Tier composition
This is one of the main reasons some factions struggle af while others just stroll down each game. I get that it wasnt easy to make every faction different without making its tiers different but what has been done in coh2 is an abomination. Lets first sum it up:
- ost has t0, t1, t2, double t4
- brits get t0 equal to t1 1, tier 2 with side t3 unit, tier 4 with two side tier units
- sov get t0, double t1 to choose from, t3 and t4
- usf gets t0 equal to t1, double t2 to choose from (one of them with t3 unit stuart), t4
- okw gets t0 equal to t1, double t2, t3 and t4 with the ability to skip t2 or t3
Tier composition is very important because if its done correctly you have a tactical decision to make where you can skip one of the tiers, if on the other hand its done badly you forced to go a specific tier. So in most cases usf is forced to go cpt tier, soviets are forced to go t2 if they want reliable at, same goes for brits who have to tech to aec or bofors for reliable at. Otherwise they risk getting trolled to death by single luchs that comes really early and has high shock value due to its timing.
Every faction should have easy access to mg, at gun and vehicle snare for basic defense capabilities. Axis are designed this way. You always have access to a counter. Allies are forced to go a specific path making them more predictable in their gameplay. Its really no brainer which tier is usf gonna go in a teamgame. Now soviets currently are in such a fucked up situation that they are forced to go t1 to have at least good core infantry. Which is unreal. This faction is in such a bad state that it has to take the risk of playing with no reliable at to have a chance to win. Factions shouldnt rely on specific tiers to survive, tiers should provide something beyond basic defensive capabilities, some strategic depth. |
lel u USF players want ur tanks to roam around freely forever with no counters on the field xD
Actually nope. Usf just doesnt have access to everything at once like okw has. You either get access to mg or to an at gun. xD If you go lt you dont have access to an at gun but you are a little bit better vs AI. Cpt tier is more AT. It would be fine if LT was actually heavy AI and gave you something like luchs that is actually worth rushing for but what you do get is a miserable m20 that is hardly usefu;, a poor replica of an mg with very bad stats and AA ht that can only attack when turned backwards (which is a micro hell). Only thing actually good from LT tier is the LT because he has a bar and thompson gun which makes him great vs infantry. Besides him the units are not even mediocre. They are just bad at their main purpose. But its just fun to do something else for a change instead of defualting to cpt because you know lt tier is basically useless.
Now OKW on the other hand has a lot of tactical differences and advantages of each tier. Med truck gives you FRP, healing (on top of volks self healing and sturmpios med packages), autofire isg requiring no micro at all with great range, excellent AA ht with instapin and high dps and a cheating see through fog of war unit. Mech truck gives you the best and the fastest arty in game, best light AT vehicle in the game, best light AI vehicle in the game. Not to mention that either of them unlocks both fausts, nades and stg44 for your main infantry. Now thats what I call a great upgrade packet, usf has to pay 300 mp and 40 fuel to get the same. And each of these tiers gives you access to fantastic units and different playstyles. I mean what else could you even dream of in this game? Am I right? And all of this while also having always access to an at gun? WOW its so much fun! So yeah usf in return would humbly like to have access to both at gun and a tank without being forced to go a specific tier all the time, nothing special, just normal. |
Fury
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
