Profile of Katitof

but the coh1 system worked perfectly. and that was 18 years ago.

why did they change it?

Pretty sure COH1 had no indicator for 57 buffs PE units had through upgrades and vet.

At the moment I don't see the need of reducing the resource outcome at least in 2vs2, I don't have the feeling that late game units are arriving that early and early/mid game LVs and units have their role and impact.

I'm not sure that would help 3vs3 or 4vs4, the problem isn't the resource but the concentration, we've seen that in those modes the side with the highest winrate is usually the one with the best indirect fire units. It has little to do with ressources.
There isn't such late game unit that win the game on their own like in coh2, or at least not until now that they buffed the Grant... which they could undo next patch.

Because it is not a problem in 2s.

Its specifically issue of 3s and 4s, where stalemate happens early and points do not change ownership, on top of that you always have caches.

In 1s and 2s a lot of map is often contested and changing hands, leading to armor arriving at its intended time, you won't exactly find many 5 min Stuarts in 2s and 1s.

As a casual player. are you able to conjecture why Relic even bothered to waste time making a new engine? I am grateful for your brief analysis as to how COH2 was created - so why not simply adapt COH2 to COH3 and cut out the time and expense of the new engine?

That's actually extremely easy to answer:
CoH1 and as a result, CoH2 had too many things hard-coded, which resulted in certain mechanics being inflexible and impossible to change - primary example is front/rear armor of CoH2 and lack of side armor - a design choice that happened on engine level and could not be changed.

Main reason to make a new version of the engine was to get rid of hard-coded mechanics and allow flexibility to alterations if they prove to be in need of severe changes.

Second, it is evident that COH1 concentrated on 1v1 and LV play, while the introduction of the 'casualisation beam' in COH2 led to a concentration on team games with plenty of Armour and Arty, to the extent that by the end of Relic's active development of COH2, balancing was concentrated on team games.

That isn't what I meant by 'casualisation beam' there tho, it was not team game focus of coh2, it was early coh2 extreme simplification of the game, plain, uninspiring and shared by all vehicles and infantry cope+paste veterancy, linear weapon dps profiles, lack of damage tables(I would argue that was a good thing, but executed very poorly due to all of the remaining choices), stupidly overpowered health increases/damage reductions.
Early CoH2 in terms of gameplay and stats was very shallow compared to CoH1, it just did not had the depth until weapon profiles rework and veterancy revamp.

The consequence of the first 3 COH iterations is that the 1v1 players from COH1 tended to look with disdain on COH2, while the team players from COH2 seem less than enamoured with COH3.

My other questions are:

• You state that Relic failed to satisfy either group of DOW players. But it looks as if history may be repeating itself with COH3. Is it not possible with a new engine to apply different balancing and values to team games as opposed to 1v1? e.g. is it possible to create different BGs for team games only which could not be selected for 1v1?
  
  
• Since developers presumably wish to maximise their income, would Relic have been wiser to concentrate on team games rather than 1v1?
  
  
• Is the relatively crude COH3 UI indicative of the loss of ability and/or experience of those Relic Devs who departed the game pre-COH3?

Same questions to Tiger Baron

PS Let's lay off with the fisticuffs, please.

The big thing to notice here is that all 3 CoH games are, without any question, CoH games.
There are pace, TTK and where the game is reaching "golden point" of combat differences, but all are very clearly CoH games.

DoW on the other hand went from large squads and armies macro strategy to purely micro and hero oriented one in 2nd part.

3rd part attempted to merge previous 2 together and fell flat in the attempt - it was good RTS, but it was bad DoW from DoW1 players perspective, who wanted massive escalating battles with large customizable squads as well as from DoW2 players perspective who expected hero and squad preservation oriented gameplay with individual squad upgrades vs tech up gameplay.

It did had elements that made both DoW1 good and DoW2 good, but it got rid of all that made them distinct, which resulted in both playerbases rejecting the game.

No idea for dynamic balance changes, but no RTS ever did that and from design pov, its clear as to why - learning balance all over again just because game mode changes is very bad for the accessibility of the game.

What they should have done is what they did in DoW2, largest problem of CoH team games balance is the fact that contrary to 1s and 2s, map is very rarely contested, there is too many resource points in team games, which give regular values as in 1s and 2s.

Instead of trying to drive into a wall with dynamic balance, DoW2 solution of dynamic resources should be applied, where increased number of players in team games meant that there is indeed more resource points, but each of them provided LESS resources than corresponding one in smaller game mode while costing the same amount to build up.

Resource caches providing +1/2 instead of +3/5 in team games alone would massively improve the balance there, lowering regular fuel points values would go a long way too.

Fundamental problem with CoH series and team games was always imbalance in fuel abundance between game modes, not the balance itself.

You can pump out brummbar in 10 minutes or less in team games.
Good luck with that in 1s or 2s.

That to me is the crux of team game imbalance and as long as relic will refuse to accept resource inflation being main driving factor of imbalance between 1s and 2s and larger team games, there will never be balance there.

As for the UI, its not the easiest thing to design, but it is far from hardest, my experience is they aimed for simplicity and readability and as a result, some clarity going towards much smaller group of more experienced players was sacrificed, given how CoH3 is 1st CoH to land on consoles as well.

Keep in mind that CoH3 is based off of DoW3, which if I remember correctly didn't have a lot of the older normal features so they've had to port a lot of things from CoH2 which of course means that not everything made it for one reason or another.

If this was steam forum, you would be getting clown awards now.

So let do a tl;dr history lesson for you:

CoH1 was a game.
CoH2 was pretty much a mod to CoH1, reusing assets and code everywhere while stripping everything that made CoH1 belowed only to add it back later after their "casualization beam" failure.
CoH3 was made from scratch as new engine had to be written for it, so things were not hard coded as they were in previous games, therefore development time had to go into engine itself instead of using engine to build on, couple that with experienced developers and designers leaving and you have release CoH3. It got to where it should be with 1.4 and is mechanically superior to CoH1 and 2. What's missing now is QoL of low relevance, hence it is not in yet.

DoW3 was management of relic completely losing touch with playerbases of DoW (DoW1 players are not the same as DoW2 players) and their attempt to cater both spectacularly failed on both fronts, the game had absolutely nothing to do with CoH3 or vice versa.

StephennJF will always be the go-to streamer for learning as he always comments on why he does stuff instead of just doing it.