|
I am by no means an expert at this game or balance, all of these conclusions are based off of observation, research/testing, and discussions with players. I do not find myself bias towards a single army or faction, but you should be the judge of that. This post is primarily to address my observations and conclusions about the OKW.
TL/DR: OKW’s Sturmpioneer is too good compared to other factions/units. As well as the addition of the Volksgrenadier having access to salvage. King Tiger is too strong for being non-doctrinal.
Solutions:
1.) Salvage Fix – No longer allow salvage to work on non-carcass type objects. If a Mortar/MG/AT are still capable of being crewed, they cannot be salvaged. Instead add carcasses to the Mortar and MG, like the AT has, this way, the OKW must choose from all the same options of removal, like everyone else. Problem solved!
2.) Minesweeper Fix – There are several options here to reign this problem in. Giving everyone the option of putting away their mine sweeper is an amazing start or remove the Sturmpioneer’s option of doing so, but I like the former option so go with that. Remove the increased repair speed bonus or add it to everyone’s minesweeper upgrade or increase the cost of the Sturmpioneer’s package because of that bonus or make it another purchasable upgrade outside of the minesweeper package.
3.) Sturmpioneer’s DPS / Effective Trading Value (no solution) – This is a tough one, and requires a deep understanding of the game’s mechanics to appropriately adjust. Something I have noticed during my time playing is, the more durable a unit is by being less prone to losing a model via received accuracy or armor, is always better regardless of the initial high investment cost. The amount of manpower bleed that people suffer from purchasing cheaper initial investment or lower reinforcement cost units is significantly higher than the guy that purchases nothing but Panzergrenadiers. So, if I am to guess why the Sturmpioneer is the way it is, I would assume Relic’s reasoning for making the Sturmpioneer’s damage and survivability so good, is that it is balanced off of a high initial and reinforcement cost. This logic is flawed when comparing trading value vs other units and resource gain from map control as a result of not having to retreat or lose models. Simply put, any negatives of manpower purchase cost are supplemented by the amount of resource consumption and denial that it cost’s your opponent. Here’s a suggestion, have a unit have either extremely high dps or lower received accuracy, but not both…
4.) King Tiger Fix – Make the KT a doctrinal tank, with the same costs and same use as now. Or provide everyone with a super late command-point or tech construction based call-in tank that would even the playing-field, making it more about skill and less about timing. This would balance out 2v2-4v4 and barely if at all effect 1v1.
_____________________________________
OKW Argument: (Table of Engineer manpower, reinforce, received accuracy, damage per second)
------------------MP------RF------RA------DPS F/N
Sturmpioneer:--300-----37.5----0.87----1.56 / 16.33
Pioneer:--------200-----25------1.00----0.57 / 7.24
Sov Engi:-------170-----21.25---1.00----0.88 / 3.42
Rear Ech:-------200-----25------1.00----1.11 / 5.78
Royal Engi:-----210-----26.26---0.80----0.36 / 7.73
Sturmpioneer – This unit is capable of effectively rushing and trading with any other engineer unit at a maximum loss of 2 models in exchange for a squad wipe. So, the effective trade in resources is 75MP for 170-210 MP. This unit is basically a slightly worse Shock Troop/Paratrooper/Commando/Panzer Gren, but the advantage is its capable of being fielded immediately, infact, you start with one.
Starting with a Sturmpioneer means that if it happens to meet a unit in combat in the first minute of the game, it will force that other initial unit to retreat and take whatever ground they were competing for. A nice thing I enjoy doing is right clicking my opponent’s cutoff in the first .05 seconds of the game.
Mine Sweeping – Upgrade costs 30M for everyone, yet the effective use of this upgrade is the same for everyone except the Sturmpioneer, the bonus of extra repair speed would be fine if everyone received it for an equal cost in munitions. While I understand the DBP is nerfing everyone’s repair speed, the issue is, it’s nerfing “everyone’s”, keeping the quicker repair capability of the Sturmpioneer noticeably amazing.
A secondary bonus that is the real issue with the Sturmpioneer, is the ability to put the minesweeper away. Already being the most effective engineer unit in the game, every other engineer unit reduces its DPS output by 25% upon having to get this vital upgrade. This sort of ability affirms the Sturmpioneer’s special forces status (think American campaign, put-away bazooka Rangers). The trading value after this upgrade extends to a maximum loss of 1 model of the Sturmpioneer vs other upgraded engineer units.
Salvage – Perhaps the most unnoticeable advantage the OKW has at its disposal. Available on both its special forces engineers and default mainline infantry (Volks Gren). Early-Mid game, all forms of support team-weapons (Mortar/MG/AT) are wiped/decrewed by infantry engagements. At the point of wiping an opponent’s team-weapon, a decision must be made:
1.) Crew the weapon – This decision causes a forced retreat of whatever unit crewed it, removing part of your combat capability until manpower is spent on reinforcements. Giving your opponent a window to recover ground. Choosing this path also reduces your future manpower income after taking a team-weapon that may not be ideal for defeating your opponent other than asset denial (you’re sometimes gimping yourself in the long-term by picking up their team-weapon).
2.) Destroy the weapon – Choosing this option causes asset mobilization or munitions expenditure and most importantly “TIME”. You must move your AT gun away from its position, guard the decrewed asset, setup, begin the removal. All the while, giving your opponent time to reassess their plan of attack and move their units elsewhere.
3.) Leave the weapon – Most common option, probably the worst option. The team-weapon remains in play if your opponent would like to expend the resources to recrew it, it’s up to them and most of the time, why wouldn’t they. They bought it because they thought it was an effective counter to your strategy (not theirs).
4.) SALAVAGE (OKW only) – Yet there is a 4th choice, a best choice, a choice that solves all problems instantly. The very unit that decrews the enemy team-weapon, can walk up to the ground they’ve just taken and in 5 seconds make the object disappear with 0MP splitting, no other units shifted to deal with the decrewed asset, and most importantly no extra cognitive thought invested in solving a potential future problem.
But wait everyone gets salvage, through doctrines. So, if it’s so good, just pick a commander with it. It’s true, you can get salvage on other commanders, but your making overtly expensive tactical choices that can lose you the game because you prioritized specifically for this ability.
A.) Commander – Congratulations, you’re now bound to whatever commander has the salvage ability. Needed a call-in artillery or tank? Tough luck, you want this option, you forfeit this choice. Not OKW though, no, they can choose whatever commander they please that has the most beneficial artillery or tank call-in to supplement their strategy.
B.) Cost – Any commander that may offer salvage will always make you pay for it as an upgrade and its strictly limited to your inferior engineers that have already lost 25% of their firepower via minesweeper upgrade (if you believe minesweeper upgrade is a ‘choice’, I recommend familiarizing yourself with the meta). OKW get this for free and most importantly also receive this ability on their Volks Grens that actually do the wiping on team-weapons.
C.) Situational – Every game is different, the amount of team-weapon wipes you get dictate the actual utility of this ability, hedging your bets on the idea that you’re going to wipe team-weapons this game and investing in the salvage commander will provide you the greatest utility is asinine. The edge OKW get is this ability is ALWAYS on the table from the first second of the game. Simply making it not a viable strategy to try and mimic this behavior with other factions.
In conclusion, the OKW’s Sturmpioneer coupled with minesweeper upgrade (increased repair speed, yes others get it through veterancy, but so do they, and the capability of vetting is much more achievable with a Sturmpioneer compared to any other gimped 25% dps engineers), salvage, highest effective trading dps (squad wiping capability), instant access, and on top of all of this, is able to build light vehicle stopping wire and eventually have access to a utility grenade; seems overly favorable to the OKW.
Defense and Debunk of Salvage Argument: Salvage = Cache – The OKW do not receive the option of building a cache, therefore salvage is all they have. These abilities are not comparable. Let’s look at this problem from different levels of play (1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4). In 1v1, dropping a cache is a risky behavior, only achievable safely when already ahead (already winning). It’s a manpower investment that if used early will cost you the fielding of a unit, hence why you can’t do it from behind. It’s simply used to help sure-up an already positive situation, yet at the time of placement, you effectively give your opponent time to recover and a window to field an equal amount of units and counter/remove your cache (your gamble). In 2v2-4v4, you have allies, if your entire team went OKW, then yes, you’re at a disadvantage, caches tend to be far more useful in larger games, but other than 2v2, if you are rolling 3 or 4 OKW, you should already know going in, that if you don’t stomp the other team in the early game, they will gain a cache advantage.
_______________________________________
King Tiger – The KT’s non-doctrinal status provides the OKW the versatility to get whatever call-in it desires without sacrificing this late-game armor advantage. Based on the replies I have received as to why the OKW deserves this tank, I will disclose other’s perspectives and my analysis of their logic.
Fuel Costs: Estimated table of tech progression for first Light Vehicle (LV) and first Heavy Vehicle (HV) being a tank.
Fig #1----------LV------HV------HV w/upgrades
British:--------105-----375-----405 (w/opt upgrades)
USF:------------130-----360-----410 (w/opt upgrades)
Soviet:---------190-----285 (w/o AG) / 360 (w/ AG)
Wehrmacht:----100-----265-295 (w/o light vehicle) / 295-325 (w/ light vehicle)
OKW:------------125-----395
1.) Flanking Terrain – A common argument for the KT is that it is capable of being flanked, because it is slow and has a slow turret rotational speed. The reasoning behind why flanking is more viable for the allies is because their armor has great mobility. Assuming the reason the Germans are incapable of flanking is because all their armor is slower, so therefore their tanks receive higher frontal armor and larger health pools. So, the foundation of the interaction between Axis and Allied armor is allies flank and axis slow steady push. In 1v1 this dichotomy functions well, due to map size and having only 1 opponent on the board. Beyond 1v1 the viability of flanking is reduced as more players are introduced (this specifically reflects late-game, where both sides have dug-in, early game there is no armor). The more players on the field, the less flanking is possible because of an increased saturation of the map with emplacements, anti-tank guns, OKW buildings, ect… The maps are not exactly 1-to-1 bigger comparative to the scale of a 1vs1 map.
2.) Flanking Concept – Enforcing the idea of flanking being a primary strategy of the Allied powers is promoting riskier behavior with no substantial way to recoup losses from over-extension. On the other side of the fence, thicker frontal armor and higher health pools promote a turtle-like push mentality into the unknown. No need to scout, anything we encounter we can absorb the damage at minimal to no manpower cost and inch back for repairs. While the Allied powers would be foolish to not even attempt a recon before diving a giant ‘U’ or ‘L’ formation around the enemy’s frontline. Simply saying that flanking is only an asset to the Allied powers is silly, as Axis are very much so capable of the same behavior (or please remove blitzkrieg), and relying on this disadvantageous/risky behavior as a strength of the Allies, to justify a non-doctrinal KT is asinine.
3.) Real Cost of KT is Insane – This argument is based on having to build all the tech buildings to gain access to this tank. 900MP 240F to field all 3 tech buildings for the OKW. Claiming building tech buildings is a burden and the only reason to build them is so you can gain access to a KT is a massive stretch. Not to mention, in the current iteration of the game, the OKW need not actually use an engineer to build anything, the truck moves and assembles itself. They can be placed just about anywhere, and all have amazing utility without any doctrinal investment. For example, the Battlegroup HQ turns into a FRP with medics (the British do not gain medics), the Mechanized Reg HQ upgrades to a repair station (only doctrinally do the British gain this), and finally the Panzer HQ has an infantry suppressing and eliminating turret.
4.) OKW Risks their Tech – Argument being that the OKW must (I say ‘OPTIONALLY’) place their tech structures in dangerous forward positions to be competitive and without doing so, they have surely lost. I’ll let you be the judge on the validity of this one.
5.) Allied Tanks are Cheaper – Therefore Allied factions shall always field a vehicle first and that window of opportunity should win them the game. Please refer to “Figure #1” table and witness the fuel differences between each faction fielding light vehicles as well as their first heavy vehicle (these costs were based on how the current meta fields vehicles, the Soviets and Wehrmacht have an interesting position due to their weak light vehicle selections). The Wehrmacht are actually able to field the first tank given the pak-40 and no light vehicle meta and it being a Stugg-G which in its current form is a cheap SU-85 tank sniper with an upgradable anti-infantry machinegun.
6.) Allied Tanks are more Versatile – Allied tanks have abilities that allow them to fulfill multiple roles: Sherman smoke, HE ammo, Soviet ram, Soviet cap ability, USF tank destroyer range. My reply to this one: Sherman smoke, must be deployed causing the tank to stop, ensuring it can’t be used as an escape mechanic such as the doctrinal panzer smoke. (Which to be fair is doctrinal based, so it’s good to go). The HE ammo would be far more useful if not given the downtime to switch ammunition types, causing the tank to basically have a destroyed main turret temporarily. Soviet tank rams are for the moment their inferior tanks are about to die, and it often does more negative effects to the soviet tank than the opponent... Stugg compares incredibly well to a USF jackson, even has an lmg upgrade. End-all argument is the Axis tanks have LESS to do, and fulfill their role as a tank incredibly, as all of its extra usefulness is in the form of passive advantages (armor, mobility).
7.) Snowball Effect – This one is something I like to call the “asymmetric timing balance” of COH2. The argument is that Allied factions are better early game, so since the Allied factions can get tanks out earlier, they can push their advantage and win the game before it hits late-game. While I find this argument to be the most polarized and convoluted one of the bunch I cannot prove or falsify this other than my own observations. I have seen enough pro-games to see a constant ‘even’ tug-o-war between 1v1 Axis vs Allied players.
a. Allied Infantry > Axis Infantry – A subcategory of the snowball effect. Allied infantry win hands down vs Axis infantry. I would very-much-so like to prove this to be true, I cannot find a shred of evidence in defense of its validity through testing. While infantry combat is incredibly dynamic and never is an engagement began by both units starting behind heavy directional cover and beginning firing at the same time, I have however tested via cheatmod every infantry match up at least 30 times in series of 5 matches going on at once. Really crazy results that blew my mind was the Grenadier beating the British infantry section 2/5 times in straight up default combat and the victories that the British infantry won, were by a single model (maybe 2). From my observations the Axis infantry are not only cheaper (240MP Grenadier / 250MP Volks Gren), but perform evenly in early game combat and scale wonderfully late-game. Need proof of the superiority of Allied Infantry.
8.) Axis Tanks Suck vs Infantry – Heard this argument before, need proof.
Tank Comparison: Manpower (MP), Fuel (F), Health Points (HP), Armor (Arm), Damage (Dmg)
Fig #2----------MP------F-------HP------Arm-----Dmg
King Tiger:-----720-----280-----1280----375-----240
Pershing:-------600-----230-----800-----300-----120
Difference------120-----50------480-----75------120
Figure #2 – This comparison points out the slight investment difference between these two vehicles and the performance difference. Note that the Pershing is also a DOCTRINAL tank and upon selecting this path, you forfeit your ability to use artillery call-ins (off map smoke does not count). Who wouldn’t pay 120MP and 50F extra for a 1/4th more HP and double the damage, coupled with no commander investment? (Esspecially late-game when 120MP is negligible)
|
leliolefou1
Spades68
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
Heartless Jäger 
