The reasons I made this post was to first acknowledge that coh2 has come a long way and that it has real potential to be a fantastic game – one with even more success than coh due to the fact that both armies have a lot more flexibility as to how they can win – the US faction in vcoh could never stand head to head with german armour but the soviets can and did.
But in my opinion this will only happen with some slight changes – COH was a game rich in detail and in coh2 this is less apparent, in some ways due to the fact that it really has less variables ( damage tables for instance, no real global upgrades) and in others because some parts of the game ( molatov spam, one shot wipes, crazy RNG from small arms ) prevents real depth of strategy to develop.
Many of these issues have been noted a lot of times but I am trying to consolidate it all into one post without being negative and with explanations as to why and what can be done.
I’m not saying im 100% correct but I do feel I know both games well enough to understand how to make some great improvements. Feel free to disagree and discuss.
My other post (
http://www.coh2.org/topic/14969/how-to-further-improve-coh2) seemed to have some success and I am motivated by relics feedback to it to put more effort into this one – they are already working on some of the things that I mentioned in my post and to me that means that they are trying to improve their game.
Like Peter said they are restricted by time and resources so if we can make things easier for them by highlighting issues that could be improved then that can only be a good thing.
Global Upgrades
What: Ost 5 man grenadier team upgrade
Why: to enable ost troops to commandeer weapons, and better late game survival ( after teir 3 upgrade? Upgrade in t 4 building? ) downside- upkeep and significant fuel cost to delay vehicles
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.
Opportunities for Change :
1 shot squad wipes – currently these happen a lot, they are in many instances unpreventable and even when all the right steps are taken they can wipe a squad. This should almost never happen from a non-call in type of weapon ( not including artillery ect) it means someone can micro their squad perfectly all game, vet up then lose to a random shot form a heavy tank. – there are many suggestions based around this : wider distance between squad members, reducing AOE for some weapons ect, scatter button.
Health based damage for inf – benefits: removes random chance and promotes tactics such as cover, or manoeuvring away without needing to retreat. ( one of cohs biggest asset to strategy in the early and mid game was that a squad could take damage but not lose men – this reservoir of health made infantry play dynamic and a lot of fun, it also made it “predictable” but in a way which added incredible depth to all infantry combat)
Could have big veterancy implications ( for example large squad health buff making cons vet 3 scale up to late game for example – something akin to vet 3 rifles – at least to give the option to do so, for example vet 3 p grens having late game survivability to area effect weapons which tend to wipe them out in 1-2 shots)
Makes medic type abilities useful again – as inf deaths are much more realted to squad health not random chance.
There would still be crits but would not negatively affect the game as it does now. people loved the 1 in a 100 scenarios in vcoh they added so much to the game, right now the unpredictability actually removes strategy form the game as “anything can happen” tends to happen much too often
Auto locking and auto engine damage faust and at nade – in this set up they do not act as soft counter, they dictate how vehicle combat works – they need to do solid damage, with chance to crit engine or weapon when vehicle below low health- this way tanks can manoeuvre better around the map allowing for more interesting strategies. I feel between this mechanic and molatov spam the game will never be anywhere as fluid as the original and therefore much more complex strategies will never flourish.
Vehicle targeting/ AT gun targeting : The vehicles in coh2 tend to have longer range and survive for much longer then in the pervious game, and there is many many more soft and hard AT options on each map – furthermore a lot of the maps are constrictive this all adds up into make armour manoeuvres to be a big gamble and when you put everything into a beautifully coordinated armour flank you need to be rewarded, right now that doest happen.
A big part of that is the terrible targeting mechanic where at guns shoot at inf antry instead of tanks and tanks do the same.
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.
Solution to this could be to add depth to vehicle combat – For example: different penetration at different range, different forward/ reverse speeds, proper front, side and rear armour with rear armour damage magnifier, enabling vehicle crits at low health, damage engine, heavy damage engine, immobilisation and weapon destruction.
for instance anti tank vehicles such as panther and su 85 could keep max penetration at max range, making them able to out position or out manoeuvre other vehicles damaging them at range, and with their great front armour would need to be either shot a close range or flanked by other vehicles making ita much safer option to either get a great coordinated attack or to use other means of taking them on.
This would give each vehicle unique strengths and weaknesses just for example due to a lower velocity main gun he IS2 could do more damage but struggle to penetrate tiger front armour at max range while the tiger could do full pen at max range and try to keep the is2 at bay, or is2 having great front armour but having a serious drop off at sides and rear making it susceptible to flanks, while having the tiger have strong side and front armour only being vulnerable form the rear ect – this is just an example how a few simple changes could add depth a lot of depth and really differentiate some vehicles.
Another example could be the standard t34 could have high pen at close range which would encourage to flank and close in for instance 2 t34s to actually flank a tiger and do a lot of damage from the rear instead of just being used as a ram ability or dying.
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.
Molatov: Too destructive and rewards bad play – things that shouldn’t work have big effect for example charging a MG , throwing molatov and retreating. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or t34 weakness against pz4 due to the fact that it cannot use it manoeuvrability to its advantage for the same reason. Or late game tanks lacking the ability to manoeuvre due to almost constant damaged engines ( soviets usually have more cons then there is grens and ost ability to manoeuvre with its vehicles is limited – especially when faced with the long range at/ai weapons the soviets have in their arsenal as well as some of the maps which force “head on” attacks)
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. I feel both units usefulness fades in the late game .
Visual effects / destruction effects:
Like I said coh was very detailed physics and this is really missing in the game – arty no longer makes infantry fly across the map and the game suffers from it in my opinion. Doesn’t matter if you like to admit it but those sort of things are drawcards for new players to the game, everyone loves good effects and attention to detail – whats worse is that coh did it and did it amazingly well and now its absent, this can only be a bad thing.
The other aspect is how the terrain does not get anywhere near the same level of cratering/ destruction but it still gives off green cover- this looks stupid and makes the game bad to play late game as what looks like scorch marks on the ground actually give full green cover to units walking through them, this removes a lot of the tactics required and to me is just poor design.
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.
If you guys have anything to add feel free. Like I said this game is getting better and there are some of the points I feel should be addressed and present some great opportunities for improvement.
I understand time and resources are an issue so its impossible to expect everything but I still wanted to have my say.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
