Profile of Superhet

Yeah good topic. I think next step to get coh2 to a higher level is more competitive maps. Maps that are somewhat mirrored, have cutoffs and flanking possibilities.

Best map in 1v1 pool by far is Arnhem checkpoint imo (wich has all of these points). In teamgames there is not one map that has this as for as i know (maybe la gleize/ steppes?).

Let's talk about the worse maps too.

TL;DR: The worst 1v1 map in rotation right now is Semois.

Whoever has the better generalist infantry and indirect fire basically wins the map. This is because the middle is strategically broken and if you hold it you control most of the map's resources, two VPs, and the enemy's main base route. It favours player east because player west has to cross very narrow approaches that are far from his base to reach VP east and are easily defensible with the building and green cover around that VP. That in addition to the shelling of east's artillery on those approaches which can remain safely positioned and still protect both VPs, and the easy mine potential. Even if west's forces take VP east, he has zero sustainability from that position, he still has to attack through narrow, predictable approaches to get to the middle from there and when he retreats his units they might retreat through player east's middle forces which can wipe them out.

Player east by contrast basically has a bunch of open ground and multiple approaches he can take against the VP closest to player west, but he doesn't even need to attack it because he wins by just camping the middle. But it is something that player west has to think about, since one quick and/or cheap unit can decap that area while he is trying to attack the enemy in the middle and east. The middle requires generalist infantry with building clearing and indirect fire to take and can be held by those same units, with machine guns being a nice bonus if you have better indirect fire which you need in the first place anyway.

Introduce a FHQ for the player who has better units to win this map and it just turns into a joke. Every attempt to attack either VP will be rebuffed, especially if the defender is the map-favoured player east, and when it is rebuffed the defender's units will be back to fighting strength and ready to place more mines, wire, tank traps and what have you right away because they retreated to a FHQ. It also helps to have a unit which detects units in fog of war on this map, because there are only a few ways your opponent can attack and if you know where he's coming from you just reposition all your stuff to that chokepoint, which is again easier if you're player east. Slow, powerful tanks are favoured over tanks that are faster and cheaper but need a tactical advantage, since there is no room for maneuver on the areas of this map that matter.

The only change with the winter map is that you can now risk getting your units instawiped while they are crossing the ice. Wiping units out that way becomes much easier with a FoW detector unit. You can also place barbed wire on the "beach" against the ice, you will need a vehicle to clear it since engineers get sunk by indirect fire while removing it, and that vehicle will drive straight into the enemy's concentration of forces, get snared or just blown up immediately. And if the enemy player sees your vehicle driving there he can start shelling the ice that your infantry follows up on if he suspects (or knows, if he has a FoW detector) that they are coming. You are no longer blocked by water, but the same units still win in combat.

Let's see which factions do best on this map, without considering doctrines:

Soviets:
✓ Generalist infantry with building clearing
✓ Indirect fire

Ostheer:
✓ Indirect fire
✓ Powerful tanks

USF:
✓ Indirect fire
✓ (late) FHQ

UKF:
✓ (very late) Powerful tanks

OKW:
✓ Generalist infantry with building clearing
✓ Indirect fire
✓ FHQ
✓ Cheap, fast capping unit
✓ Fog of war detector unit
✓ Powerful tanks

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions of who should be vetoing it down from that...

This unit is a no-brainer to me, unless there is something specific I want to use from some other commander or I want to mix things up so it doesn't get boring spamming the same things game after game. They're like Volks with an anti-infantry lean instead of AT, cheap, good at everything, easy to vet.

From 1v1 to 4v4. Here's a reference list from CoH1 to help you.

Here's my list as far as I can think right now:

1# - Cutoffs exist and are placed in a way that is not where you optimally want to concentrate your forces and at a location that is not close to your base, so that being cut off both from your base, allies and resources is a constant, real danger.

2# - No one location contains most of the resources (including victory points). It is not a given where you want to send your troops and stay for the rest of the game. The entire map has to be fought over. The most easily defended, strategically valuable locations are not also the ones with the most resources.

3# - Resources are not placed in a way that makes it a given which side will control them.

4# - All positions can be attacked from the flanks and rear. Approaches are not linear.

5# - The enemy cannot be funneled into approaching the map at a predictable and easily defended spot, the holding of which coincides with what you want to hold for winning the game anyway. Looking at you Semois Summer.

6# - The map is not small enough for there to be no strategic depth.



What would you say are examples of good and bad maps?

Kv8 is fine at 9cp.
Ppsh would be ok at 2cp, too early at 1cp. Dshk should be 1cp.
pmd mines and tank traps should be 0cp like rifle defenses.
Hit the dirt is crap and should be 0cp. Script repair would be ok at 3cp, as would vehicle detection since neither have any game winning shock value.
The m5 guards calling could maybe be 4cp but lower then that wouldbe too much- the m5 isn't comparable to the 251 call in as it can reinforce and be upgraded allowing it to scale better


I agree with what you have to say for the most part as a concept, I just think it needs fine tuning.

Thanks for your reply. Yes, it's the concept which is important and the details will as ever be fine tuned in testing.

I have never made the 17-pdr, but I would make the Pak 43. Even if you can afford the 17-pdrs manpower cost, its pop cost is so huge that you can't make a proper tank force when the time to do so occurs. This will restrict your capability to win fights anywhere except where the 17-pdr is so imo, it's only really viable to make it at a point where it can guard 2 VPs. Otherwise your offensive ability becomes too restricted to contest the other VPs effectively. It doesn't help that constructing and repairing the 17-pdr is in itself something that detracts from it, because if the fighting is calm enough for them to build stuff, that's valuable time your sappers could've spent laying mines which have a far lesser opportunity cost to them.

I used to not make the Pak 43 either for the same reason - its pop cost was so ridiculously high that it was unfeasible to make it. Thus I think the 17-pdr's pop cost should be reduced, not the Pak 43's increased. Make more things more viable instead of making everything less viable.

Also, the 17-pdrs pop cost is symptomatic of the wider CoH2 phenomenon that sometimes you have to kill off your infantry to make room for late game units. That should be fixed by reducing the pop costs of infantry units and instead letting upkeep limit them. You should never think "I can't call in another tank unless I kill a squad" like it is now but instead "I can't call in another tank unless I kill my whole army" like in CoH1.