|
--- note this is covering generally both games rather than just vCoH or CoH2---
In my opinion the problem at the heart of all the Company of Heroes expansions/iterations since the original came out has been that it's strayed from what it was originally. Basically that it was Band of Brothers - the Game (this is obvious given the number of references there are to the series in the original game and even the name, there's a line in Band of Brothers where they refer to themselves as a "Company of Heroes").
I have a bunch of problems with Band of Brothers, but what I can't really fault are the combat sequences, which are admittedly some of the best in film making. What's significant about Band of Brothers is how well it often portrays combined arms (the scene outside of Carentan when they face Fallschirmjagers, Stugs and Jagdpanthers springs to mind). Throughout it you'll see your standard infantry squads, your .30 cal squads and your mortar squads, as well as various bazookas etc all working together to destroy the opposition.
This was translated well into the original Company of Heroes (and if you watch the campaign cutscenes, there will even be moments where Band of Brothers scenes are played out) and in the faction setups of the original vCoH this was mirrored, with your company being easily able to access standard infantry sections, MGs, mortars etc. This resulted in a fairly even and well balanced game, with Yankees vs Wehrmacht being the original and the best when it came to a good fight, even after Opposing Fronts came out.
However, the Band of Brothers-esque style of set up vanished with Opposing Fronts, and hasn't really made a reappearance since, apart from the Ostheer in CoH2.
For Opposing Fronts, the Brits had to have all their support units entrenched (which led to all the turtling and sim citying that they were famous - and hated, for) and the Panzer Elite didn't even have a dedicated suppression unit, having to make do instead with G43 armed PGs and for mortars they had the (admittedly excellent IMO) mortar halftrack.
Opposing Fronts, whilst admittedly fun, was, when it came to balance, something of a disaster (don't mention the Kangaroos, I think I mentioned it once and I think I got away with it). I've had a suspicion for some time that this was down primarily to Relic not following the same general principal of Company of Heroes being "Band of Brothers- the Game". Instead, the classic (and historical) aspects of company battles of World War II were sadly left out, for weird set ups devoid of historical authenticity. (of course it's possible that units would have come up against either extremely mechanised units who'd left their support weapons behind in order move faster, or else heavily fortified units, but in comparison to standard company on company combat, this would have been far less frequent and also far less interesting in comparison to standard company battles.
It's my opinion that one of the key reasons for Opposing Front's failure in the balance department was its failure to follow the authentic structure of an infantry company. (Tanks and artillery are a different matter and I don't feel that following a structure with them is necessary)
Fast forward to CoH2 and we have a similar thing, but once again there are some aberrations. The ostheer are the only one following a conventional "Band of Brothers" setup. Ostheer these days gets a lot of hate, but I personally rather like them these days. In my experience they place great emphasis on tactics, movement and positioning, definitely a greater emphasis upon it then all the other factions. Soviets by contrast (whilst having some of the worst faction design in the history of the game), whilst having the full suite of combined arms, are still hamstrung by missing out elite infantry (desperately needed by the) if they forgo T1. If they go for elite infantry by contrast, they forgo their absolutely vital support weaponry. So whilst Ostheer follows a relatively authentic Company setup, the Soviets do not, and thus is the origin of some of their significant early game balance issues.
Now we come to Western Front Armies. Here we have the same deal as Opposing Fronts. The classic set up of a World War II infantry company is thrown out the window and this has left both armies in precarious positions of balance. On the one hand we have the Americans, whose Indirect fire support is frankly pitiful with a few minor outliers, they have an MG which is too easily destroyed and is gunned down by blobs and their options for opening the game are limitted to rifles... rifles... and more rifles. Meanwhile, OKW has no infantry MG (which led to the silliness with the KoenigKubel), no mortar, it's indirect fire is frankly not very good early game, with no mortar, a heavily nerfed infantry gun and an extremely dodgy in the balance department Stuka zu Fuss, which on a bad day kills nothing and on a good day wipes out 2-3 squads in a barrage. To make up for this, the OKW is forced to rely on massive blobs of infantry, infantry whose balance is extremely questionable. In my experience, OKW is the only faction that doesn't reward positioning infantry more than blobbing them. Both factions have significant core balance problems and once again, like Opposing Fronts, this comes down to their not following authentic company set ups.
I know this comes off as a rant in favour of historical accuracy, but when you look at the factions with the full suite of combined arms, compared with factions that do not, it is clear that those factions are both more capable of facing all battlefield threats, are more flexible, are better able to use skill to defeat blobs (instead of another blob) and are better able survive to the late game with veteran infantry (because it is far harder to punish combined arms then blobs).
In short, factions with a more authentic structure with infantry at their core are better balanced, more interesting and skillful to play and are better able (when balanced properly) to defeat blobbing and low skill tactics. The most significant balance problems that are in CoH2 are all derived from how certain factions are well balanced combined arms forces, and other factions which are not focused on combined arms are forced to have patently broken units to make up for those deficiencies.
On faction variety:
There's a strong argument for not homogenising factions like my writing suggests above. It's a decent argument and is valid. However there are myriad ways to make factions different without forcing some factions not be able to benefit from combined arms. Within a combined arms company in CoH2 you have 4 different elements. Infantry, Machine Guns, Mortars and AT guns. Each of these can be balanced to allow certain factions to excel in certain areas or the like. Perhaps the Soviets could have better infantry, however the Ostheer have better Machine Guns to counteract that.
On Tanks: Tanks I'd regard as seperate from this particular debate. If anything they are a whole different game within the game. Nor should superior tanks be used as an excuse for a poor early game. The core of balance is balance, It's imbalanced when one faction is doomed after a particular minute mark.
Hopefully this will reach the right ears.
|
0
MarcoRossolini
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
