I'll bite.
Ost 5 man grenadier team upgrade
If the main problem is one-shotting squads by mines, IS2 and similar, better look at these units first. Your proposed change will introduce a whole new string of HUGE balancing alterations. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
On the other hand, it would be nice to have a fuel intensive infantry upgrade.
What: Soviet Globals at or molatov
Why: To make an early game choice of either cover/building denial or soft AT. They cost should be increased considerably to only enable 1 upgrade ( at or moloatov) for the earl/ mid game. This would mean there would be choices to make and compromises. This would enable some early armoured cars to have an effect if no at grenades are researched and no guards.
The idea to seriously chose between AI / AT / tech is something i would welcome. I will agree that the fuel price for molotovs is not a severe hindrance for tech, because you will most likely gain territory (and fuel) in return. That does not mean i want to see a nerf to said weapons, make them stronger or remove MP cost if you have to, i just like a harder (tech-) choice and more risk involved.
I believe Stephenn (and others) suggested PPSh as a fuel intensive upgrade - like BARs - which could also work out and add more depth.
Currently Conspam with PPSh into quick tanks seems to be the best choice altogether, especially with the new commander.
1 shot squad wipes
This was mentioned many times before, and i think most of us will agree.
Health based damage for inf
To put it simply: If infantry had more health instead of armour (either through veterancy or base value) there is less RNG. The German sniper with his low health and high armor is the best example: Sometimes he dies seemingly in an instant, and sometimes he runs past multiple squads unscathed.
Oh, and there are no one-shot critical hits in infantry combat (besides flame weapons / PTRS / Schreck).
Auto locking and auto engine damage faust and at nade
Agreed more or less. It is not the "scare factor" or slowing down of a faust/at nade (after all, paks need a somewhat reliable snare to be effective against swarming vehicles/tanks) that worries me, but the absolutely random nature of it.
Vehicle targeting/ AT gun targeting :
Yes, give us a toggle between fire at will / fire only at tanks / hold fire for AT guns and tank destroyers.
Depth to vehicle combat: Things like no side/ rear armour means that there is currently no reason to take the risk of flanking and fighting head on is usually the safest option , this is obviously not good for strategy.
Apparently there are different penetrations at different ranges already in the game. It's just nobody considers it important enough in a game with such arcade-like distances.
Rear armour is also there, and (except in the case of the Tiger) considerable weaker than the front. Side armour most likely won't be implemented at that point.
Crits at low health (or near death crits) as described exist, i don't understand your point.
How tank fire effects at guns – at guns should not be as easily countered as they are right now by tanks – this is especially true of heavies such as IS2 , Tiger , ISU152 ect 1 at gun alone should never be anything more than a deterrent but 2-3 should be able to be a viable counter – at this moment heavies destruct at guns with no issue making at guns completely usless more so the ost as they have much less crew and are liable to being 1 shotted.
AT guns perform fine against every tank except IS2 and ISU152. But that's their special trait - good against emplacements. But even so, an IS2 dies very fast once stunned by a vet1 PAK.
Keep in mind that the openness of a map dictates how good or bad AT guns are perceived.
Molatov: Too destructive and rewards bad play – things that shouldn’t work have big effect for example charging a MG , throwing molatov and retreating.
Don't allow suppressed units to use special abilities / throw molotovs. Or at least cancel the action once the unit gets pinned. (last time i checked conscripts will continue the throwing animation even when pinned)
The way Molotov does damage should be re worked – should be something like incendiary nade from COH PE faction – more damage over time to deny cover/buildings less of a purely offensive weapon which enables cons to win majority of fire fights regardless of any tactical situation.
Agreed, the less RNG the better.
Flame Weapons – should do damage over time with higher chance of death than standard rifles but should be toned down from how it works – for a extreme example of flames damage done wrong is KV8 ridiculously squad killer
at best it should have equal damage to FHT – higher cost would be justified from fact that is has great armour, speed can cap territory at vet and can tangle with medium tanks such as PZ4.
The KV8 is in my opinion allowed to have better dps than the FHT, because it can
not tangle with anything that looks remotely like a tank.
For the flame crit chance, it's the same RNG issue as with every other flame weapon. It's more noticable on low number squads, than high number squads.
Capping: add depth by slowing down area cap – means u can cap in cover with no risk but its 50% of what it is now and if you want it to speed up you have to click on the point with your units, this allows faster capping but with risk of ambush – tanks should only be able to area cap. Means If you win an engagement and don’t want to risk ambush you may not have time to cap territories to exploit your win if you don’t solidify your defence.
Personally i prefer the capping in CoH2 and don't want to go back.
I can imagine it ends up in a stupid micro-dance around the capping point. "Risking an ambush" means you just have to react and click very fast once you see an enemy. It's just a micro tax, no thank you.
Resources: This is only a idea I could have big implications but to remove the fuel and muni from non fuel or muni points al la v coh.
Do such vague could-have-maybe things belong into an
ultimate guide?. Maps are all balanced around the new ressource system.
DLC: as many have said the new approach to the dlc ( cheaper but weaker options which add diversity ) such as the new commander is excellent and is in line with what should be done – this give each commander different options without game breaking moments like some of the “skill planes” had done so before.
I could argue the new soviet commander brought the opposite of diversity into the 1v1 meta.
Overall Balance: I honestly think that overall balance is not bad at all just that there is lack of opportunity due to the things listed above preventing players form being able to counter some units – ill use su 85 for example , I still think it either has too much damage, speed and armour (as a package) due to the fact that flanking does not reap a large enough reward due to side/rear armour issue and fairly fast reverse speed.
Overall balance is good. I thought we were done with the su 85 nerfs a while ago.
Veterancy:
I feel there is room for bigger veterancy buffs for some units – p grens for example or conscripts these units seems to be much less useful late game for different reasons, the rate of veterancy and their health and damage could be buffed in vet 3 meaning if the player could keep them alive for a long time and vet them up they become real assets on the battlefield.
PGrens get a great armour buff with vet2 and damage buff with vet3. Vet 3 conscripts perform similar as vet3 grens.
I feel both units usefulness fades in the late game .
That's because tanks and explosions don't give a shit about armour and anti-infantry damage.
I'm curious too how a health boost at vet3 instead of armour would effect the late game.
Visual effects / destruction effects:
I remember multiple threads about that specific topic and will say its subject to personal preference...
Controls/ pathing:
IN a game like this controls should be instantaneous, this means when you hit T the unit runs straight away, or when you click to move a vehicle it responds instantly. This gives control to the player and enables them to perform incredible manoeuvres and tactics, if you remove that then it completely removes intricate manoeuvring and positioning from the game.
Sure. Unit responsiveness is hugely improved, but:
Vehicle pathing is somewhat problematic, but i don't see how to fix it from a technical standpoint.
Decreasing the colliding box or removing small gaps and clutter from maps is the only thing i can think of.
Units on retreat tend to hang up on objects, wait several seconds for other members to catch up, or run back to jump into cover. That should be looked at.
You are mixing unit balancing with fundamental game changes, opinions and visual asthetics together. It sounds vague, opinionated ("revert everything back to old-established vCoH") and not fully familiar with the intricacies to me.
I'm surpirsed the T34 ram lottery is not mentioned directly. Or crashing airplanes killing everything and penal battalions still underperforming.
12
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
