Profile of Hannibal

This issue was addressed long time ago with Relic acknowledging Axis factions were in essence easier to play but Allied having an higher celling resulting in having ELO matches quite balanced but high level tournament favoring Allied. I remember there was a post from Relic dedicated to this matter and a couple of patches aimed to correct it.

That was long time ago because then the modding team took the decision to change that to where we are today. Now we have what the OP describes where Grenadiers have late game equal survivability than 5men squads while being less exposed to damage and having superior support tools and tanks around them.

I am not quite sure which time frame you are talking about. I played CoH2 only against bots for quite a while and did not care much about unit balance, so I probably missed it.

But you are raising two in my opinion different issues. There is no connection between Relic acknowledging an issue and the balance team having their vision.
Acknowledging an issue is not fixing it. Judging by my memory and Relic's general behaviour in balance patches, I highly doubt they ever fixed the issue of different micromanaging levels. Especially since this Soviets=cheap an numerous, Ostheer=expensive and outnumbered was Relics own design. Axis having high value/high population units compared to Soviets was also never fixed under Relic's patches.

The Grenadier issue you bring up is exaggerated in my opinion, but is also a singular issue. No doubt late game Grenadiers are less micro intensive than Riflemen, but at the time the damage reduction was introduced there was also no doubt that Grenadiers were very weak in the late game and needed a buff in that direction. Anyway, I don't think this would be a larger issue if Axis tanks required more micro, but they don't. And that is what my suggestion was aiming at: If your infantry is already "low maintenance", your tanks should require more input.

I think one problem here is that it is hard to tell apart faction imbalance (in this case I think OP also aims at the need for micro to use the units properly) and player skill. Technically, they form one big overall strength level and you'll notice the majority of effects only on both ends of the ladder. Second, map design and game mode also plays a huge role.

Currently in Coh2, I'd say Axis are easier in low/mid team games because
1. both factions have all basic tools regardless of their tech path (less need to compensate for holes in your faction and knowing soft counters)
2. Easier access to artillery
3. Infantry is generally better on long range (-> less micro)
4. their units are usually higher value on a per-unit basis (-> less micro due to less units)

In these low/mid games, micro is a serious restraint, and having to give less orders makes every order way more efficient and easier to coordinate. So let's focus on the points above (except for 2. which is more of a faction issue)


Needing different micro levels for units is actually quite important to game flow and game balance, it can create a lot of interesting back and forth without having "OP" units. But, where Coh2 failed a bit in that department, is that Relic made a whole faction follow one design only. As previously mentioned by someone else, it also allows you to "get better" with factions and strategy.

Soviets were always numerous but weak individually. This is cool as an idea, somehow fits the general narrative/stereotypical picture that most people have. But ALL their units followed that idea.
As an example, look at Conscripts: Short range infantry, so every engagement you need decide whether to push or not while the Axis player can stay intially passive and just A-move.
Then T34: Basically the same thing here. Your units are worth less both in price as in capability. If you spend the same amount of resources, you'll rather end up with an additional tank to micro (e.g. Panther + P4 takes up 30 pop, which is equivalent to 3 T34s).
On paper, all these units are balanced. But if you're a low/mid level player and therefore only capable of dealing with 2 tanks efficiently, your third T34 will always only be an afterthought and not perform as well as it should.

Before the screeching starts: Obviously there are downsides to Axis, too. But it certainly is not the micromanagement which will be one major constraint if you max out your army in the late game.


So, what could be done to solve this?
As I noted above, one faction should not have micro intensive infantry AND tanks. Shift the micro between different unit types. Micro intensive mainline, but easy support and normal tanks. Faction two needs a lot of focus on the support units, but has forgiving tanks. Faction three has an easy mainline etc etc.
This will need some specific balancing for certain time frames where e.g. only infantry is present, but it should alleviate the problem with overloading one faction with micromanagement.

I said Raketen + KT. Because as I said the KT is a force multiplier that put the cheap and resilient raketen into orbit of Opness when associated together. The reste I questioned the need for the raketen to have those stats since OKW isn't a faction laking of AT.

Your previous post listed also other units, my initial response was mostly referring to those.
OKW does lack early AT though. That was the whole reason why the Schreck got more accessible. The Puma needs to be optional due to OKW's tech system. A usable ATG is also a must for any faction, you can see what issues a lack of penetration causes for USF already. If an ATG cannot deal with even mediums reliably, there is barely any reason to buy it in the first place.

Doctrinal units are doctrinal, KT isn't then I don't really understand your argumentation about cost opportunity and the KT and how it impacts the topic. Why would you get something else that a KT that can fight tanks and infantry and force your opponent to invest more resources in TDs. I mean unless your opponent already has 2 or more TDs (and even in that case a KT can still be a good choice). I mean every single late game that last enough sees a KT pop out because it simply the best late game unit, it requires much less micro than any equivalence in cost to be used efficiently.
I mean I come back to the TD scenario, do you think building a panther or 2 P4j to fight of TDs is going to be better than a KT associated with a pair of raketen? To me it's map dependant and also dependant on what else the opponent still has on the field but the KT is still rather the superior solution.

If a unit is doctrinal or not does not matter. Your argumentation was that OKW as a faction has to work without the KT, meaning that building the KT on top will make the build OP. That works for basically all units that are not in the standard build order, including doctrinal ones.

The cost opportunity point is very simple, you can basically boil it down to this: The KT has weaknesses, that you would not have if you'd build something else with your resources instead. Your KT is slow, can be flanked/overrun, not respond to a shifting front line, you cannot rush with it etc. It needs heavy support by the rest of your army, focusing you in one single spot.
Other tanks for example are able to operate more on their own, can be dived to kill artillery etc. That's your cost opportunity, and sometimes the best counter to heavies is not even TDs, but artillery to bleed out all infantry and keep the tanks barely supported. That's the cost opportunity you have. Not even mentioning that I have seen many opponents throw their game because they stalled too long for their heavy.

Obviously all of this is heavily map dependent. On some maps you'll get more benefits, on some others rather the weaknesses.

6/7% is huge and clearly noticiable otherwise why would they nerf them this amount? Cosmetic?

I said it is noticable, so what is the point?
I assume the reason for the nerf was, that previously TDs were penning 300 armor heavies like the Tiger with close to 100% chance. Basically, a vet3 TD evaporated all meaning of Axis armor. I assume the KT was not really taken into consideration, or deemed to be okay.

These squad are very much comparable since they have the exact same role. An alternative mainline infatry that can upgrade with AT.

But I did not compare these units so I am not sure why you are acting as if I did.

I have simply pointed out that a Penal squad and PF have similar moving DPS.


Only that was not my point, I did not compare the G43 with SVT because that is simply misleading since only 3 entities carry the G43.

I did however compared the PF squad and Penal squad DPS on the move and they are about the same so the theory that a PF squad has abnormally high moving DPS does not really hold much water.

Again, unless I have missed a patch for PF G43s or Penal SVTs: they do not have the same moving DPS. PF are better by 25-50% depending on range.
The G43 design point and how this affects PF is one that I made in addition, nothing is misleading there, but it is misleading to compare those units in the first place without context. However, I'd suggest to open a new thread if you want to keep comparing Penals and PF to keep this thread focused on OKW.

KT + Raketen. I've always wondered why the faction having the strongest tanks (P4j/Panther/Tiger/KT) and superior light tank hunter (Puma) is also the faction having the cheapest and most resilient atgun in the game. If anything the raketen should be by far the shittiest atgun available like having no more than the M-42 AT capacity and only able to poke medium tanks in general.

The modding team managed to gives OKW so much AT power at every stage of the game without any regards for balance. Shrek on Sturm, Raketen that get 5 men and retreat button, Puma, P4J being buffed to heaven so its simply superior to all other stock tanks, Panther, KT, jagpanther and then the late Tiger because why not.

OKW has been the special snowflake of the game for team game since the modding team took over, I wonder why.

All of these units are pretty in line with their cost. It's not like you'd get the P4J for the price of the Ostheer P4 or a Sherman. It also costs more population, so you can fit less units. That's balancing done right, I guess.
The faction definitely has some problems, such as MP inefficiencies unless you manage to transition to Obers, which in turn removes your snares, as well as their split tech system which at least for the first 20 minutes if not the whole game leaves you without proper healing or sub-par repair abilities.

I am simply responding to specific post that you might want to read again.

I read it, nothing is related to Penals. Please stay on topic.