Profile of ZombiFrancis

If I could play CoH1 without threat of Opposing Fronts or Tales of Valor I would.

But I cannot. If I could play CoH2 without WFA or Brits I would.

I still maintain that the CoH1 American vs Wehrmacht matchup for 1v1 and 2v2 is the best RTS gaming experience bar none.

But that game doesn't really exist anymore than a competitively balanced CoH2 multiplayer.

What is the reason that we see balance focus on a two tier priority level (1v1 followed by other modes). I have played lots of RTS games over several decades and never seen an approach to balance like that.

I am genuinely curious why this game is treated different? Before anyone says it, asymmetry is not a good excuse. Think games like Generals which are even more asymmetrical than this one.

I'll hazard an explanation.

This is actually a game between Allies and Axis. There are five factions, but it is always Allies versus Axis. This was less of an issue at launch, when there were only two factions. But after WFA and then with Brits, the variety of teams has compounded the issue.

What this means is that outside 1v1s, everything is a team match. There is no FFA. You effectively have multiple varieties of two teams that are fundamentally different depending on combination. UKF strategic options in a 1v1 is entirely different than UKF with SU and USF. A team of two ostheer is entirely different than a team of OKW and Ostheer, and both play entirely different from ostheer in a 1v1.

(This is why winrates are absolutely meaningless outside of 1v1s as well. A 4v4 features up to 2 axis factions covering 4 player slots versus up to 3 allied factions covering 4 player slots. You can't discern the performance from a single faction in that environment.)

Also, unlike many RTS, maps almost entirely govern gameplay. I'm painting a very broad stroke, but things like resources tied to map control, sight/shot blockers necessitating unit positioning, directional cover, front/rear armor on vehicles, all have huge impacts on how units and factions interact. Map balance is such a crucial component of the CoH franchise. Though it is often overlooked and even ignored, the way maps play probably are more important than how factions are designed in teamgames. If anything it's a foundational component to faction design.

Also, it is not asymmetry for the sake of asymmetry, it's asymmetric balance. You know: a ton of bricks weighs the same as a ton of feathers. The problem with faction asymmetry is that the factions aren't exactly homologous, and especially since Brits, almost from different games.

Zero months of community interaction creating patch changes, followed by half a year of selective feedback and outright dismissal of suggestions.

I mean ffs the feedback that was listened to was from replays where the players were explicitly not playing competitively and fixing the data: banning use of maxims and using the replays from those games as valid analysis of how changes will affect the whole game for everyone.

There is a whole lot of room and opportunities to fix and improve this game...

Because it's an assault rifle... not an smg. And it still has crap damage at long range.

The squad does a whopping total of 1 extra dps than a rear echelon squad at max range.

The STGs on Panzergrenadiers are intended to be a medium range weapon. This is intended to offset the 4 man squads, who will die pretty fast at close range. They still shred everything close, but it's not as efficient when you factor in the enemy dps. Sturmpios are basically the same but with worse mid range dps.

Always have to remember that "max range" is the absolute edge of units sight. The vast majority of what people think is long range is actually mid to close range. Very little combat takes place with infantry shooting across an entire screen length.

Hell on many maps it is hard to even get units in sight of each other without being close range.

You all want better team game balance? Make maps bigger and more balanced. That's a good start, what you cant fix with unit balance can be fixed through map layout. Everyone seems to forget that map layouts make a huge impact on how factions and units play out.

+1

I mean seriously, every analysis of every tournament shows how important maps are to a balanced matchup.

Every aftermath of every tournament comes with a laundry list of nerfs and buffs without respect to faction design, let alone map design.

It's never 'Hey, maybe this shotblocker needs to be moved' or 'change this yellow cover wood fence to a green cover stone fence' or 'adjust the territory sector/point so it can be cutoff or contested more/less easily.'

I mean, the Map Contest that occurred last summer should've been a reality check. (By which I mean the kinds of maps that were submitted, not just the maps that won.)