Profile of and

It's a fallacy that fixing 4v4 will have adverse effects on 1v1.

The huge lategame disadvantage of the US and the game breaking effects of heavy tanks are still present in 1v1, just to a lesser degree.

Balancing heavy tanks to be more in line with medium tanks stat and cost-wise would help out both 1v1 and 4v4.

It's flat out wrong that axis require game breaking tanks for 1v1 late game, because there is no early game disadvantage anymore (and there shouldn't be).

Hi ICoH,

You will definitely get a lot of responses here like "I don't really have it/It doesn't bother me".

To say it bluntly, these people are clueless. The command latency in CoH2 is atrocious, and is up towards 500 milliseconds. Other RTS games like StarCraft 2 have a command latency that is around half of that.

People who are not bothered by this have most likely not played other RTS games at a competitive level, meaning they lack awareness of how bad the latency in CoH2 is.

There is nothing you can do on your end to fix it. It is a problem in the game's net-code, which is seen from the fact that there is no command latency in single player at all.

I have been trying to bring attention to this before, as it in my opinion makes the game nearly unbearable to play if you're used to the responsive micro of other RTS games. But you'll almost always see a group of CoH2-only players here either deny or downplay the importance of this problem. Sorry guys, but this is real.

CoH2 will continue to be a Mickey Mouse RTS until Relic takes this seriously. No matter whether casual 4v4 players can notice it or not. Sorry for the bashing, but this problem really bothers me, and there's simply no way to know if Relic knows or cares.

Fuel upkeep is interesting but it wont solve the issue that as soon as heavies such as the KT roll out its gg, the armor on these things makes stock units useless as they rarely penetrate and even if they do the damage is negligible.

Exactly, this is why fuel upkeep is a bad idea.

Imagine a call in tank that no unit could penetrate. Yeah, no amount of fuel upkeep would balance that unit.

Heavy tanks needs to be scaled down through both stat and cost decreases, such that they are more in line with the rest of the tanks. Basically they need to be only slightly better than medium tanks, not extreme as they are now. Heavy tanks need to be made counterable.

At the moment they're equivalent to 'I win' buttons, and who cares about fuel upkeep after you win?

Heavy tanks are a no-brainer.

Their main advantage, as I see it, is that they can go in, take out a tank or two, and back out with 10% hp and get repaired to full, for free.

This mechanic is the main reason why the US late game is bad: they lack heavy tanks, and heavy tanks are simply too hard to counter properly. It's the same reason why team games are heavily swayed towards Axis (though Soviet does have some heavy tanks as well).

Simply making heavy call-ins require tech buildings won't fix the problem. Basically, it can only be fixed with a larger overhaul of unit stats and costs.

My opinion is that heavy tanks should not have such a huge HP advantage over medium tanks. They can take a huge amount of penetrating shots, and it's simply ridiculous. The main advantage of heavy tanks should be penetration/range and armor. By making heavy tanks closer to medium tanks in performance, they could be made cheaper. I think this change would be nice, as I also dislike the fact that you almost can't afford to field any other vehicles if you get a heavy tank. It makes the gameplay way too dumb. Finally, infantry soft counters such as AT guns would also become more viable in the late game.

Any thoughts on this? The above could also be accompanied with adding a cost to repairs (but might not be necessary).

(PS: limiting the amount of tanks you can get is a pretty stale fix and does not change the origin of why heavy tanks are frustrating to play against.)

Yeah this new patch is definitely not going to have more people playing US.