Profile of Con!

Cool!

you said earlier you might be doing a brit pass in a future verison of the mod, if so I would suggest allowing the mortars in the mortor pit to be un garraisonable from the pit. currently the pit is to easily countered by other mortars that can move and this way you don't buff the pit to being too strong. you could then have it that they lose range when they do this back to 80. thus in pit they have more range. with garrison more range and increased fire. out of pit less range.

Dude I only see hidden ranks on your stats.. pls play the game before giving too harsh opinion about the changes

when I did play... I was top 100 and for some factions top 50 at various times in 1v1 and #1 in 2v2 for axis and allies when I played those... played plenty of tourneys and got a bunch of top 16 finishes as well as a few second place finishes as well as winning a 2v2 tourney. Oh ya I was also on some of relic's older community balance groups, so I know a thing or too about what I am talking about and my first post was with testing, not just reading notes and commenting.

One of the reasons I don't play anymore is because I like okw, but their garrison control abilities makes them unplayable on maps with lots of garrisons unless you just med truck camp and grind it out in long games, and I don't like playing a game where the other player can just maxim spam you to victory and there is little you can do about it.

I loaded up the mod and tested the 251 flak ht vs a single maxim. The maxim would bring the 251 flak low enough that a good player would have had to retreat it before the 251 flak could clear the garrison of the maxim, this took place of the course of minutes. If it was a real live game the soviets player would have had ample time to bring up an at gun and/or light vehicle and either kill or scare off the 251.

Tested the luchs as well, it ended up killing the wooden buildings and took about 1 and a half plus minutes at that before it dislodged the maxim, this is plenty of time for an at gun or stronger light vehicle to come and deal with it and scare it off. nonwooden buildings remain a real problem for okw. Perhaps is this balanced out by their still insane vet 5 units? I will let someone else be the judge on that...

Easier access to healing crates from strum pios is nice either way.

Personally I would of liked lower experince gates, since sturm pios have some nice vet but have some of the highest gates on infantry in the game, but that could cause some problems if they level up too fast I guess, and it is just nice having healing no matter the vet in any case either way.

Was a good game

edit: The following post has been edited to showcase that the following poster is biased to the most strategically OP things that take the least amount of control to use, but that aren't so blatantly OP that relic will nerf them next patch, the poster is kinda hipster in that way.

Brace yourselves, this is going to be a long post.

Please read at least the majority of the post before posting a response. I do encourage everyone to respond, but please stay constructive.

None of this post is meant to come off as “salty” although I am sure there will be those out there that try to claim that is what this is about. However, my goal is to express my reasons behind not enjoying CoH 2 recently and what I hope Relic can do to improve the current state of the game.

While the past few patches have had good content on a shallow level, I think they have done much to expose fundamental flaws in the underlying mechanics of the game as well as (in some cases) hurt the game on a tactical level. These past two patches are the first time in awhile that I do not look forward to logging into COH 2. In fact I have been seeking other games to occupy my time.

Grab some popcorn, go to the bathroom… let’s begin.

1) Flame weapon changes:

One of the more recent mechanic changes to the game, flame damage gain an active bonus against units in garrisons and green cover. There are a number of problems with this approach. First, not every faction has equal access to flame weapons. OKW for example only has flamethrowers in a single DLC doctrine, while UKF’s only early access to flame damage is in the form of an extremely underwhelming light vehicle. I am a fan of asymmetric balance, but I believe that each faction needs to have near equal access to a couple of things - one of which is a flamethrower… but let’s assume that I am wrong in that belief and that not every faction needs early flame-based damage. There are still things fundamentally wrong with the way flame damage is handled in these most recent patches.

First off, punishing players for placing their squads in cover seems to fly in the face of everything that the CoH franchise is about. If I get my squads into good green cover positions then, usually, I have outplayed you tactically on some level - thus you should have to actively dislodge me. Prior to these changes this could involve using indirect fire to soften my position, a sniper to whittle down my squad, brute force in the form of multiple squads, or even forcing me to fight on other areas of the map. All of these options present both players with numerous choices, and the player trying to push into green cover is properly punished for allowing their opponent to gain that advantageous position. The ways in which players then utilize cover, and counter cover by making tactical choices on how best to counter that cover given the current situation lent a lot towards differentiating player skill. Under the current changes, should you have access to a flamethrower you just run at the green cover. There are no intricate decisions to be made about how to best dislodge that advantageous position. The flamethrower does all the work for you. Doubly problematic is the rampant availability of flame damage in Rifle Company, the new OKW commander, and the Soviet faction in general. (Although I think molotovs are fine, and potentially underperforming). I also feel that this mechanic does not make sense within the context of the game. Why should I be directly punished for placing my troops in an advantageous position?

My solution: Remove the damage bonus that flame weapons have against cover. Leave them as garrison counters. Give each “engineer” unit access to a 60 munitions flamethrower. Remove all doctrinal access to flamethrowers. Prevent flamethrowers from firing while a unit is garrisoned in a vehicle of any sort.

Now let’s talk about the flame DoT left on the ground by vehicle with flamethrowers. In my opinion this mechanic punishes infantry based AT too harshly. It also creates awkward battlefield scenarios that serve to only limit and frustrate players. The balance of this mechanic is significantly better than it was last patch but the design is, in my opinion, poor. There are plenty of counters to infantry based AT weapons, tanks that happen to have flamethrowers should not hard-counter AT guns by driving straight at them and roasting the crew alive. Properly faced AT guns should punish tanks that drive towards them while improperly faced AT should be punished by being flanked. Driving at an AT gun and winning with fire does not promote this dynamic.

2) Indirect Fire Units

The ISG, Pack Howi, (and historically the Ost mortar/120mm Soviet mortar) have been extremely problematic. These units have never required any degree of skill to use properly, nor have they encouraged much, if any, real counterplay. Formerly, vehicle-based indirect fire (Werfer, Katy, Stuka) has been able to handle these “mortar” units upon finally hitting the field in the late game. Let’s take a look at what has changed:

For the record I think the non-doctrinal Soviet mortar is balanced now that the precision strike is gone. The 120mm still one shots squads a bit too often and it does not make sense in my opinion to give it (even a doctrinal unit) every advantage imaginable over other mortars. Suppression on the ISG and Pack Howi... I wrote another thread on how the recent changes to these two units was not going to resolve the root of the problem. Putting one of the most powerful mechanics in the game (suppression) on long-ranged and highly accurate units breaks any concept of tactically outplaying your opponent. The suppression on these units allows for normally unwinnable fights to be won. Not because of any skill on either player's part, but because the ISG/Pack Howi shell suppressed your squad. These units are essentially extremely long ranged HMGs with the potential to one-shot squads.

Additionally, countering these units has become significantly more difficult now that the gun won’t break while crewed. This results in Stuka/Sturmtiger shots only decrewing the weapon whereas previously the weapon would break for good.

My solution:
Remove the suppression and change all “mortar” units to never autofire. Give them a low cooldown, accurate and highly damaging barrage - basically make them baby howitzers (without the tremendous damage/shot that howitzers have). Properly using these units would then require skill and more planning, plus playing around them would be more realistic because you would have a chance to get your units out of the barrage. Also, these weapons should break even while crewed. Only HMGs and AT guns should not break while crewed.

3) Weapon Upgrades in General

The first problem is that nearly every weapon upgrade is a strict upgrade. What do I mean by this? Purchasing the upgrade does not hinder your squad at any range. I never have to take a step back to think “Should I purchase this LMG on my Grenadier squad?” because the answer is always “Yes.” There is no real overt drawback to buying the LMG. The only thing I can think of is not being able to shoot on the move, but Grenadiers want to be standing still to shoot even without an LMG so I don’t think the purchase of the upgrade hampers them in that regard. This is generally the case with every upgrade in the game (except Con PPSh, that just sucks). In my opinion purchasing a weapon upgrade should provide you with a large advantage at one particular range but punish you at other ranges - or they should be rare (perhaps limited to “elite” units).

Another issue with weapon upgrades as they are currently implemented is the “caveman” sort of gameplay that they produce. Any unit with a LMG can just be attack moved with almost as good of an effect as a skilled player positioning these units. On the other hand any unit with a powerful SMG (Shocks, Rangers, Commandos primarily) just run at stuff and win. These sorts of one-dimensional units do not encourage players to make strategic choices regarding weapon upgrades and they do not promote beating your opponent on a tactical level because there is only one way to use these squads. I find SMG squads to be less problematic than LMG squads because at least they have to get close to win fights - and generally their upgrades only provide a performance increase at close range.

It is my belief that each player should be rewarded or punished based on their use of cover, or how they approach a squad in cover. To this end I think that weapon profiles should have a more linear curve. I don’t necessarily think an SMG squad in green cover should beat an LMG squad at max range, but I don’t think the fight should be as one sided as it currently is given that the SMG squad does have the cover advantage.

My solution: Smooth out weapon profile curves so that units are still advantaged at specific ranges without being completely dominated at all ranges other than their one “good” range - even while having a cover advantage. Change weapon upgrades to significantly increase performance at one range, while reducing performance at at least one other range. For example the LMG upgrade on Grenadiers could greatly improve long-distance damage output while throttling short-range damage output. Perhaps the entire squad could change from KAR98s to LMGs to better illustrate this change in the squad. Of course each LMG would not do the full damage of a current LMG.

4) Loiters (aka Skillplanes)

This post is already getting longer than I wanted it to be, and I think this one is more obvious than the others so I will try to keep it short.

The loiter based plane strafes are too strong for their cost given unequal access to anti-aircraft platforms. Of course it is easy to say “L2P #Adapt and build AA units” but the fact that neither player can directly control what the planes target is awkward at best. Furthermore things like the Ju87 AT strafe frequently target infantry to devastating effect even if you have already moved all of your tanks out of the AoE. These abilities generally provide little counterplay other than “make an ATunit and park it somewhere” at which point the ability is useless. While I do not agree with the way the Close Air Support commander has been implemented I do generally prefer the CAS “skillshot” strafes to loiters.

My solution: Make strafes skill-shots rather than loiters. This provides an increased potential for players to outplay each other. Reduce the cost of loiters to compensate.

5) Abandons/Out of control

Been a stupid mechanic since day one. Nothing more to say. Just get rid of it already.

My solution: Tanks die when they reach zero hp. No bullshit. They just die.

I want to end by saying that I think the core idea behind CoH 2 and the CoH franchise in general is stellar. It provides a level of gameplay that no other RTS can touch. These are just areas in which I think the game can (and should) be improved. Many of these issues have been long-standing. I have expressed my opinion on them in the past verbally, but wanted to finally put them out there in a more concrete fashion. It pains me to say that CoH 2 has just not been fun these past two patches, for the reasons listed above.

Too lazy to edit this at the moment. Hopefully I didn’t make any glaring grammar errors.

I completely disagree.

hand held flamers a fine atm, one could argue about riflemen flamers as many have alreadly done, but in general flamers are fine. (personally don't fine rifle company OP but I'm not like everyone else I play my own style. only time I have seen rifle company be really strong is when backed up by pack howi suppressing everything and that was last patch, so in general I think it is fine.) won;t mind if they where changed to re's though

Flame tanks SHOULD counter paks, in my option they should be a "you no have armor I kill you for this oversight" units. If your spamming at guns and have no tank a flame tank should be able to counter you. The way vehicle flamers is atm is pretty balanced, you can't say the wasp is UP and then complain about vehicle flamers, honestly it feels like half this post is just stuff from last patch.

The isg and pack howi are one thing, haven't played enough vs them or with with them to know if they are "OP". I find isg and pack howi's being "OP" is more map dependent then anything smaller more confined maps they are really good on whereas more wider maps they aren't very good, and may just be a waste of mp in some cases. not a fan of your mortar idea at all, I find mortars other then the isg and pack howi (haven't played enough vs or with to say where they are atm) kinda weak atm as is.

Weapon upgreades idea is just LOL. If I lose at max range in green cover smoothing out the curve for smgs doesn't change anything, just the speed and damage I do to the other sqaud. If I want to win the fight I still have to close in. smgs are generally balnced atm so that then can go up to lmg units in cover and win in most cases (ppsh cons included) the problem with units like ppsh cons is you are forced to make a choice atm to attack or retreat, whereas lmgs just have to get out after the smg closes, unless they can win. In general though I find the way most weapons work atm to be fine.

The planes idea really? I mean really?? Your control bais is showing... ( <-- this sadly lacks the personal touch of the spoken word Personally I find people wanting to add control to something cause it adds more "skill" to be really stupid. OH look I'm better at using a keyboard and mouse then someone, I should be able to win just because of that, is stupid. As long as people have to make a strategic decision in how and when to use something I'm fine with it, as long as there is some form of counter play. As they work now these abilites do have counter play, they create no go zones and the other player has to leave the area. if you leave the area, the planes do nothing but remove you from the area. adding some sort of skill shot requires them to be completely redesigned to be cheaper and have one pass, which means your likely gonna see more of them. Atm none of the abilities is super OP so I think we are ok. The game gives players like you plenty of tools to use your better control to gain advantages. Having direct control over how a plane attacks is just adding more barriers that don't need to exist. One can argue about how strong or weak a certain plane attack is, but needing to add a control check to it is just unnecessary. The way they are now is fine, it takes a certain about of skill to know when to use them and when not to, and most of them cost quite a lot of muni. Haven't seen a game where skill planes where the deciding factor in the game, certainly not like some old patches when that was the case.

The AA in this game could be a better then it is now, but honestly finding a balance that makes it good enough to counter planes but at the same time not just be a "I counter all planes" (making some commanders completely useless vs aa) thing is super tricky and probably impossible to get right especially when you take team games into mind.

Your last point I'll give you that one, nothing wrong with this leaving the game, since plenty of times games get decided because of a decrewed vehicle being remaned.

This too was written in haste and is no doubt littered in mistakes. Love ya brother