|
Please don't mind the grammar; I paid little heed to it. I will update this as I go along:
So, after having played, discussed, and watched the game for about 3 weeks, I feel comfortable making some analytical comments about the Ostheer and Soviet match-up. There are many things that I really like about it, but likewise there are areas where I think that some improvements are necessary. The general notion I get from playing the game is that Relic really focused on making the game fun for everyone. I think the team has succeeded in this regard, however what I see lacking is compelling and intriguing synergy in the design of the Soviet and Ostheer match-up. Coh1 had this in spades, especially in the wehr vs ami match-up. This is why said match-up has remained relevant and popular for all these years. The PE and Brit factions lack this and so is DOW2, which is why once the new and fun features had been exhausted, their appeal started to die off. Brits and PE aren’t played in tournaments, not because they are underpowered, but because the matchup is deficient of that ingenuity. Let me illustrate with some examples:
-The supply yard upgrade: It’s a very clever comeback mechanic, since it increases the rate at which infantry gains vet and reduces your upkeep cost. It allows the American player to both mitigate his/her reinforce costs, which are higher than the wehrs, due to larger squads, and to reduce the gap between you and the Wehrmacht player as, in the latter stages of the game, purchased vet starts rolling in.
-The interplay of bars and german veterancy 2 (elite armor): the American player could try to rush for bars, because if unlocked early, the bar rifles will vastly outclass the German forces. This would force the wehr player to either retreat early, loosing map control, but denying vet, or do the opposite. Loosing map control, would reduce his/her ability to tech, however it would allow him/her to tech to tier 2, get grens and for a rather low fuel cost get vet 2 (elite armor), this would put the pressure back onto the American player since now the vet-less bar rifles would be outclassed by the grens, making earning vet increasingly hard. It’s a great dynamic which made for very intense and intelligent play. (Coh2 doesn’t have anything of this sort.) In essence, it’s a comeback all in itself, however unlike the upkeep comeback mechanic of coh2 it doesn’t feel overly artificial- you still need to fight for it.
-Armor play: In coh, german tanks received a 50% accuracy penalty while on the move, whereas American tanks only suffered a 25% penalty. While this was rather subtle, it promoted a certain armor interplay between the two factions, wherein the germans were very powerful, but slow, and the americans were very agile and accurate while on the move. In other words, the german player was rewarded for clever tank placement, while the American player was rewarded for aggressive and well-timed hit and run tactics. Again, a very well designed feature.
-Veterancy being both aggressive and defensive for the Americans and only defensive for the Germans complemented their fundamental design very, very well in so many ways that I don’t even know where to start. I think the reasons why are kind of obvious to any experienced coh player.
With that in mind, I tried to think of some ways that coh2 could improve in terms of compelling design. Here are some of my suggestions that try to avoid adding new things to the game where possible while briefly my reasoning behind it:
-Russians should have an upgrade that allows them to reduce the effect that the cold has one them by 50% (only for winter maps). This upgrade is necessary, because it’ll make blizzards more intriguing. I think an interest usage of blizzards is to execute massive flanks. However with the current cold effect kicking in so quickly, it’s usually not possible to execute them properly, because infantry start to freeze halfway through, focusing you to interrupt the flank. This is especially true in the mid-game where fire pits start becoming scarcer. It create quite tense moments, where the Ostheer player would be huddling around a camp fire with infantry and mgs, while hearing the cries of soviet conscripts orahhing just outside their heavily impeded vision range. This ability should perhaps be the equivalent of bar tech in the early game of coh1. A teching choice that’ll allow you to be far more aggressive when that first blizzard hits in the early stages of the game. It would also complement the Ostheer player’s ability to place barbwire fields pretty well. Furthermore, I don't think that the Ostheer needs a similar upgrade since they are the more static and strategic faction. Nevertheless, it might become a problem in the latter stages of the game when both sides are scrambling for VPs and fire pits start becoming scarcer. My suggestion is to give German units cold resistance with vet. I.e. Vet 2 -25%, Vet 3 -50% (more on this later when I start discussing vet).
-Panzerfaust and Riflenades: As it stands the former is slightly overpowered and the latter doesn’t really have a purpose. What I’d do is make Panzerfausts only available when tier 2 techs, and make it so that riflenades are pretty good vs stationary light vehicles. To complement this design choice, passengers with heavy weapons in soviet scout cars should only be able to fire their weapons while stationary. This would eliminate their silliness and overpowered-ness and would increase the micro intensiveness of using garrisoned scout cars vs grens in the early game, which is good for competitive play. Normal infantry should still be able to fire out of a moving scout cars, but at severely reduced accuracy. Panzerfausts shouldn’t cause engine crits (maybe only the stunned crew crti), since their range is already so good. Perhaps riflenades could? It would keep them relevant throughout the game.
-Veterancy: I realize it’s still in its infancy, so I’ll propose a rather extensive change: Germans should vet per kill, while soviets vet for doing damage (kill shots providing a bonus). The reason for this is that it would complement the design of the factions pretty well (germans have low squad sizes, soviets have large squad sizes), and it would reward the player that is outplaying his opponent with veterancy, while at the same time allowing its denial. Right now, unit preservation is all that is required for guaranteed vet, which quite frankly isn’t good.
-Some of the vet 1 abilities seem a bit out of place. I haven’t tried all of them yet, but why would t-34s need the same capping ability as a T-70? More importantly, why would would PGs need the marked target ability? It just doesn't complement their design; perhaps a smoke grenade unlock would be more suited towards their role?
-I am very disappointed in the recent balance patch. Why homogenize all the vehicles? I presume Relic is doing this so that they can collect comparative data on each match-up, allowing them to analyze more clearly what each faction is lacking and abundant in, which will, in turn, facilitate more systematic and precise balance adjustments. If not, I think it’s a huge downgrade from the previous balance patch. Right now: ISU152=Elephant, IS2=Tiger, StugIII=SU85, PVI=T-34 85 and etc. Where’s the fun in that? It makes tank battles very stale and it rids them of any tactical play (See my bit on coh1 amor interplay). I’m not a game designer, but to me it seems that balance from a mathematical POV is where DPS is equal across the factions, however this shouldn’t mean that each faction should be identical in how it deals damage. For example, I really like the balance decision to make paks deal half the damage of is6, but therefore fire at twice the firerate. The net effect is the same DPS, however because of the Russians have larger numbers than the germans this really complements that design very well. I believe this should be translated to tanks as well, with Soviet tanks having higher damage per shot, but a slower higher rate and Ostheer tanks being more precise at range (this could reflect the superior training of Ostheer tank crews). Furthermore, I think Soviet tanks shouldn’t suffer as big an accuracy penalty as Ostheer tanks whilst firing on the move and Ostheer tanks should have slower turret traverse speeds. This would also provide the panther with a tangible weakness, seeing as right now it really has none.
-This is a design feature I thought of that would be reflective of the great comeback mechanic of coh1: Germans should have an upgrade with two purchasable levels (perhaps 2, one for infantry and one for vehicles) that vet all levels that aren't already to level 1. The upgrade will also drastically increase the rate at which units gain vet, say +15% and +30%. The reason for this is that it isn't as artificial as coh1 Wehr vet, but it still allows the Ostheer player to increase his/her advantage by making his/her units slightly sturdier (vet2 increasing their armor). Thereby denying vet to his/her opponent. Soviets should have an ability that is pretty much identical to the supply yard upgrade. So slightly reduced upkeep (facilitates armor and infantry swarming; improving their late-game) and allowing them to increase the rate at which they gain vet.
-Upkeep should be reduced and more gradual. Perhaps even make it so that territories grant a marginal upkeep reduction (not mp increase), as it would augment the importance of good map control in the latter stages of the game when MP starts becoming the most important resource.
-To increase the duration/importance of the early game and to create a mid-game (since atm it is largely missing), I’d change at-nades to 125mp 30 fuel, HQ healing to 200mp 40 fuel, and then I’d make tier 3 of the soviets cost 200 MP 50 fuel with an upgrade for, say 100mp and 40 fuel, to unlock t-34s (similarly to how PE unit unlocks worked in coh1). This would allow the t-70 to hit the field earlier (kind of like an m8). I don’t think the Ostheer has as many issues, since it is more of a reactionary faction. I would only suggest a price (and perhaps armor/hp ) reduction for the Ostwind to about 400mp and 50 fuel to transform it into a potential shock unit that can be fast-teched to. It wouldn’t be spammable due to its high mp cost. The low fuel cost would just cause it to hit the field earlier and allow it to become a more game defining strategy.
-Side armor would be very nice, since getting to the rear of a tank can be very frustrating vs a good player (I don't care so much about historical accuracy). If it’s too hard/late to implement side armor, I suggest that the first 1/5 of the side armor counts are front armor and the remain 4/5 counts as rear armor (I think atm the transition happens at the halfway mark). Reason for this change is so that tanks that are in front of the tank will always hit the front armor, whereas tanks to the side will always hit the rear armor.
-Flavor: separate doctrine abilities into 3 types: airborne, infantry, and armor. Each doctrine consists of a combination of two (customizability?). Such as airborne and infantry, where one of the two is for call-ins, while the other is for abilities.
-T-34 ram ability shouldn't be homing. One should have to select a location that then determines the trajectory of the t-34. If the t-34 gets dodged, it remains immobile for about 2-4 seconds due to temporary engine damage (damage disapears afterwards). Also, frontal hits should net shocked crewmen and destroyed gun (and engine damage if the tank is below 50% health), while rear rams should result in shocked crewmen and destroyed engine. I think that'd make the ability more interesting and it makes way for an interesting combo where guards pin a tank and the T-34 rams it.
-Doctrine specfic units should be buildable in the HQ, so that unlocking a tiger tank, for example, doesn't force you to build tier 4 (this isn't OP, since it still requires 5CPs). I really liked the call-in ability of coh1, as it allowed for strategy diversification. For example, one could completely skip tier 2 wehr by getting Stormtroopers from the blitzkrieg doctrine. Coh2 should expand on this by making it so that unlocked vehicles and units appear in the HQ and still have an associated build-time and fuel cost in the case of vehicles. Lastly, I don't see why some units such as Guards, should replace other units. It seems a bit clumsy (can be circumvented), because it requires a player that wants both Guard and Penal squads to build tier 1, construct a few Penal squads, and then choose the Guards doctrine.
-ATG barrages should require lvl 1 vet, since a player should be punished for incorrectly awaiting an early armor rush. Right now, getting an early ATG in anticipation of early tanks is never a bad idea, because the ATG can still immediately function as anti-infantry support.
-I don't understand why Tanks and ATGs lose accuracy but not penetration as range increases. It makes far more sense from a gameplay perceptive to have it the opposite way around, simply because even if a ATG has a 50% chance of hitting a target at range, that average is meaningless in an engagement where 3 shots are all it takes to destroy the target. The result is engagements that are very hard to gauge due to the fact that there's a 50% chance of doing zero damage and a 50% chance of doing 100% damage with every shot. Penetration values decreasing as range increases would make tank battles more consistent. My suggestion is to make accuracy far better, while adjusting DPS via penetration changes over different ranges. I.e. atg 90% accuracy vs tanks and 60% penetration at long range, 80% at medium, and 100% at short. It would net roughly the same average damage vs tanks as when only accuracy modifiers are used, but it'd be more predictable.
-Right now Hit the Dirt is a no-brainer in almost every engagement. Possible fix: Reduce line of sight when hit the dirt is used, blocking their sight with every piece of cover, even the smallest one.
-When a tank with a moveable turret chases another tank, while an enemy infantry unit is nearby, and the enemy tank breaks LoS, the pursuing tank will automatically turn its slow moving turret at the squad. If your tank is moving, there is no way to avoid this and can be very frustrating. Possible fix: give tanks a button that disables/enables turret movement or give tanks the ability to hold fire. (whilst holding fire, the turret doesn't move). This would not only fix said problem, but also prevent wounded tanks from firing at unwanted times.
Nuts and Bolts:
Consistancy: Chance of abandoning a vehicle should scale with the remaining health prior to the finishing shot taking it out. Very low health, plus high damage shot should have very low probability (if the engine allows it). Crits should be consistent both in terms of weapon used and part of the tank hit.
-Artillery pieces need more defined roles. Range, suppression, damage, accuracy. Right now all I'm noticing is that some are strictly better than others.
-TDs and support tanks need have a bit better defined roles, in terms of range, armor, accuracy, and penetration.
Thoughts?
Edit #3: added content and grammar improved |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
