Some imbalances in CoH

[Sepha]

These are just some things i've noticed from playing way too much, maybe you guys can agree/disagree on some things and accept i've tried a LOT of different counters/strat before making suggestions on how to beat anything listed.:read:

Firstly it's that Allies can send calliope's and pershings without having to build a tank depot, even if they did cost some fuel it wouldn't make any difference as if you're making an army of riflemen, hmg's and the like you're not going to be spending fuel on anything but riflemen upgrades and long after that you'll have 100+ fuel to buy calliope's with. This unit has won me games simply because it counters hmg's, volks and pumas extremely effectively. Stickies do a number on stugs while the calliope gets rid of everything else with its power.

Secondly it's the stug and I keep repeating this, shermans cost 420 MP and 90 fuel, stugs cost 340 MP and 50 Fuel, Stugs beat shermans 1v1 and it's easier to do that if there are more stugs, which there will be because you can make 2 stugs for every 1 sherman. 'Stug is an anti-tank tank, it's a walking gun!! it's suppozed to kil tankz!' uh sure thing, let it kill tanks, but for 50 fuel...... NO.

Third and most importantly it's the axis early game that rules over the allies early game in every way until BAR's, simple counter... starve allies of munitions. Camp the munitions points with HMG's, use a motorcycle if a sniper comes around, if allies goes hmg's it's not a problem because your counter sniper comes out 10 seconds later, Allies need a barracks for a jeep and by then you have volks. Camp with hmg's vs riflemen and allies need a WSC for a mortar team or sniper, which takes time, a WSC costs 10 fuel and 20 less MP than axis tier2, by the time a mortar team is out axis have volks with mp40's that cost no fuel and require BAR's to beat. Allies starved of munitions and to win every fight vs volks need to use supression (volks retreat, 40 munitions wasted, volks keep their mp40s and come back, repeat). Axis just go into mid-game at a very strong position, by the time allies have barely been able to pull back some map control from this onslaught the pumas and stugs arrive, you don't even have a supply yard up, you dare make m8's because they're useless now. I also think Axis lose less manpower generation from their units on the battlefield... THIS IS WHERE YOU NEED THE CALLIOPE, or you're screwed...

I don't rely on stats much but there are much more higher ranked Axis players than their are allies, I also had a much easier time gaining ranks with axis than allies and I play worser with axis. I think axis are going to be the most played in future if it keeps going like this, Stugs destroy infantry, all light armor and the allies heaviest made tank in the game, combined with Axis's tough early game from making all units out of 1 building, mp40's that don't slow down your tech at all (BAR's cost 10 fuel more than axis tier3...).

[Coey]

If you let the enemy build up his(or hers) forces your screwed.

[Druidika]

Moving to balance forum.

[Grell]

Good points and I agree with you. Allies have it tough.

[FatalTheRabbit]

A lot of problems would be solved if all heavy armor was less accessible including tanks which are commander/doctrine depedent. I could live with the stug costing 10-15 more fuel than it does on top of a significant blanket increase for fuel cost of all heavy armor.

Both the barracks and the weapon support center cost 15 fuel. I think the fuel cost on the barracks and weapons support center could use some tweaking, so it's easier to access both structures in good time. Something like reducing the fuel cost of each to 10 instead of 15, or leaving rax at 15 with weapon support at 5 or vice versa. That's sort of a half assed suggestion at this point though. Just throwing it out there off the top of my head.

I'm not really sure what to do about the BAR, because it's a very powerful weapon, and you don't purchase it individually. The more rifle squads you make over time the more value you get from the upgrade, while Mp40s are a per squad thing. If the allies had an easier time accessing their .30 cals I think it might even things out a little, because you have something to fall back on against mp40s.

[Boomstar]

Argreed with all points, people really underestimate the cost of BAR's, and the cost of riflemen abilities, and overestimate the usefullness of supression. I rarely buy bars anymore 1vs1 as its easy enough to retreat and come back, and it slows down getting the tank depot by *alot* (I usually go airborne).

[Firesparks]

the stug is very cost effective, much more than the m10 which cost 10 more fuel point, but it is very weak to most type of AT infantry unit (with the except of rangers).

The problem is that a stug user can also use AC which tear any infantry apart, at the cost of a mere 280 mp and 25 fuel. I'm personally more afraid at the sight of a AC than a stug.

One other of the axis advantage is than axis building make unit that works well together, on the other hand Allies unit production are scatter all over the place together

[Bentguru]

Agreed on most points.

I think your underestimating how ridiculously powerful suppression fire is. 1 rifle company can pin several axis squads almost instaneously with it. It pretty much negates all axis infantry because of that. My volks are going to be useless because every single firefight they get into they're insta-pinned. So all that MP and munitions paid for mp40's is wasted. Same for grenadiers, stormtroopers, and KHC. I labbed it a while back, suppresison fire is an instaneous pin in about 2 seconds, doesn't matter what type of infantry or how many squads. Unless they're spread very wide apart BAR's pin them all.

As for stugs and calliopes, Agreed wholeheartedly. I had a thread a while back talking about how being able to get tigers, calliopes, and pershings without any fuel is just retarded. For the stugs, I wouldn't really reduce the firepower or armor of them, else they'll be terrible. What I would do is to reduce their maneuvarablity. 1v1 front vs front I'd like to see stugs beat unupgraded shermans consistantly. But they shouldn't have their turn on a dime ability that they have now that keeps allied armor from flanking and destroying them. They should be like AT guns on tracks, best tactic for dealing with AT guns is to flank them since they can't turn fast. Same tactic should work against stugs.

[Ahenian]

Amen on that Sepha.

[AntiCommie]

I would actually disagree that its a problem with the Allies alone. Blitz can get Tigers+Storms without fuel. Tigers can beat 1v1 pershings. They can also beat calliopes almost 2v1. Terror can also get Tiger Ace, which are even worse, but atleast you only deal with 1 at a time. About Calliopes, usually they come out about the same time as Stugs, and as you say, they can 1v1 shermans... with or without a rocket attachment.

I would agree that if the Axis can hold the munitions, the allies are in for a rough time, but isnt the opposite true? If the Allies have most of the muns... Well unupgraded german units suck. I'm not trying to insult you, because I know your stats are much better then mine, but if you cant hold out a few points, something is wrong. Its not like MGs are spammable and even if they can box you in most maps provide enough space to flank. Even on Semios, there are 3 entrances that need to be blocked off, thats 3 MGs. An allied player should be able to hold atleast 1 of these crossings, whether you go WSC or Barracks. Personally, I like WSC better for city fighting, using snipers to counter snipe and Barracks for open fields, using jeeps to flank MGs and counter snipers.

M10s Vs Stugs... M10s 1v1 can beat stugs if the terrain allows.

[2biT]

I said at the start of the beta that axis adaptability would count for far more than allies multi-purpose, and unless BARs cost was reduced, everyone at a high level will play axis. I hate being right.

This is not helped by allies fuel costs to stay competative.

Rfiles need to spend 300/100 on nades/bars to beat mp40 volks/mgs. Without them they die, lose map control and its gg.

And when you do you still need to spend 65 MU to actually beat them.

Fuel costs need to be reduced, otherwise there will be (if there already isnt) a shift towards axis. Already im the only player in TLSC that has bothered with allies. Everyone wants to play axis, playing axis is easyer.

Any deviation from your starting build (both barraks and a WSC) leaves you open to AC/StuGs, leave out bars/nades and you lose map control. Its catch-22.

Starting with a wsc doesnt work as aixs mg42 out ranges the .30 cal and the bikes/snipers are avaible against everything in the wsc.

Swapping the mortar with the jeep would also fix it, or reducing the gobal upgrades fuel costs. Increasing supression to 60 would balance it out i think.

[Bentguru]

Well before you go bashing the rest of us, I chose axis because everybody was getting hammered by allied rifle spam and I wanted to break it.

BAR's could do with a cost decrease in fuel, personally I think BAR's are fine. It's suppression fire thats absolutely ridiculous.

[Demonic Spoon]

Firstly it's that Allies can send calliope's and pershings without having to build a tank depot, even if they did cost some fuel it wouldn't make any difference as if you're making an army of riflemen, hmg's and the like you're not going to be spending fuel on anything but riflemen upgrades and long after that you'll have 100+ fuel to buy calliope's with. This unit has won me games simply because it counters hmg's, volks and pumas extremely effectively. Stickies do a number on stugs while the calliope gets rid of everything else with its power.


If, by the time you have calliopes, he does not have Stugs or AT guns, or even grenadiers with panzershreks, he has lost anyway.




Secondly it's the stug and I keep repeating this, shermans cost 420 MP and 90 fuel, stugs cost 340 MP and 50 Fuel, Stugs beat shermans 1v1 and it's easier to do that if there are more stugs, which there will be because you can make 2 stugs for every 1 sherman. 'Stug is an anti-tank tank, it's a walking gun!! it's suppozed to kil tankz!' uh sure thing, let it kill tanks, but for 50 fuel...... NO.


Considering you're the allied SM at GR.org, I'd expect you to know this. Shermans can kill multiple stugs due to their speed. Not to mention the fact that they are more accurate, better against infantry, and can get away from trouble extremely fast.



Third and most importantly it's the axis early game that rules over the allies early game in every way until BAR's, simple counter... starve allies of munitions. Camp the munitions points with HMG's, use a motorcycle if a sniper comes around, if allies goes hmg's it's not a problem because your counter sniper comes out 10 seconds later, Allies need a barracks for a jeep and by then you have volks. Camp with hmg's vs riflemen and allies need a WSC for a mortar team or sniper, which takes time, a WSC costs 10 fuel and 20 less MP than axis tier2, by the time a mortar team is out axis have volks with mp40's that cost no fuel and require BAR's to beat. Allies starved of munitions and to win every fight vs volks need to use supression (volks retreat, 40 munitions wasted, volks keep their mp40s and come back, repeat). Axis just go into mid-game at a very strong position, by the time allies have barely been able to pull back some map control from this onslaught the pumas and stugs arrive, you don't even have a supply yard up, you dare make m8's because they're useless now. I also think Axis lose less manpower generation from their units on the battlefield... THIS IS WHERE YOU NEED THE CALLIOPE, or you're screwed...

Grenades are pretty cheap, and with two riflemen squads you can pretty easily take down an MG42 nest, even in a building. Before that, if he manages to get all your munition points before you get them for some reason, go around and cut off his supply lines. MG42s are offensive units, not defensive ones. If you run into volks, then simply get close and kick his ass.

[Starfisher]

Bent: have you labbed suppression recently? I only asked because I played a game today where I was able to walk KC all over an Ally who was using BAR riflemen. I did it for a good ten minutes, so I assume he tried to fire once or twice in there, but the only time I saw my KC supressed was by a mine.

[Bentguru]

Not since the most recent patch no, but from my rifle's preformance using it there didn't seem to be any apparent change at all.

Some people just never use it. If it was changed though I'd be a little happier.

[naradaman]

Firstly it's that Allies can send calliope's and pershings without having to build a tank depot, even if they did cost some fuel it wouldn't make any difference as if you're making an army of riflemen, hmg's and the like you're not going to be spending fuel on anything but riflemen upgrades and long after that you'll have 100+ fuel to buy calliope's with. This unit has won me games simply because it counters hmg's, volks and pumas extremely effectively. Stickies do a number on stugs while the calliope gets rid of everything else with its power. I don't understand... do you also have a problem with the Axis, they get StuHs, Tigers and Tiger Aces without any armour factories either. Also, each Axis doctrine get's an offmap tank reinforcment whereas only one Allied doctrine can.

As for the actual tank, the Calliope is devestating, yes. But 125 munitions per bombard is a steep price to pay. In a competetive game you aren't gonna see huge amounts of it, especially if you are using stickies/BARs/grenades (like you say in your third point) to win encounters.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Defensive does not get any off map reinforcement abilities.

[Sepha]

The best counter to riflemen with BAR's are pumas, well micro'd they can stay out of sticky range and keep on killing riflemen. However once you bring in a calliope then you can destroy pumas with it easilly. Yes axis get a stuh & stormtroopers from the blitz tree but because the sturm armory is so powerful the stuh isn't much more of a help than a stug and the stormtroopers not as much help as a puma. Stugs get destroyed by stickies and mines pretty easilly as does the Stuh'42. I do agree axis should have fuel costs for their off-map units too and should require a quarters for stormtroopers, armory for the stuh, panzer command for the tiger... etc.

A point about BAR's suppression, it costs the same amount of munitions as mp40's do. Say your volks squad is at the north 16 munitions point and my volks supress, my riflemen squad won't even have that territory captured by the time your volks return from the HQ after you retreated them. This is even worse if you send volks in 1 by 1 to waste allies munitions, BAR's do not instantly pin it takes about 6 seconds of firing and volks can quickly run in and kill a few riflemen before that happens. Retreat once supressed, and return. It allows riflemen to beat infantry yes, but it will cost all munitions that allies will be low on because axis have camped both 16 munitions the whole game.

[naradaman]

Defensive does not get any off map reinforcement abilities. Ah yes but ofcourse. My silly.

[Firesparks]

the calliope's ability probably need a cost increase, maybe around 150-175.

the stug should have a slight cost increase (60 fuel), and its turning speed decrease, I had a stug manage to keep its front toward a flanking m10.

The puma is just evil, it's unupgraded gun rape infantry, and it does a number on a m8's flank, and it's one of the cheapest unit in the game.

The mg42 is powerful, as it should be, but it shouldn't outrange the .30. The .30's only saving grace compare to the mg42 is ap bullet against light armor, but a puma can still kill it with no problem.

the bar suppression is a bit powerful, but then you do have to spen 200mp 60 to even have access to it and it's still pretty useless once puma comes out. If the puma and stug are less powerful I wouldn't mind a decrease to bar power.

[Bentguru]

40 munitions isn't a great deal. And considering that generally when BAR's come out an axis player would have just gotten puma's there isn't a whole lot of units that can stand up to the rifles that are presumably rushing the high munitions points.

I'm not saying there aren't counters, I'm saying I dislike having my playstyle dictated to me in the way that BARs+ Suppression fire normally do. I'm not saying make them less powerful, I'l saying that if I send 3 volk squads against 1 rifle the volks should win, not all get pinned ridiculously fast.

[Shizzle007]

rocket barriage should be increased to 150 i think, its ridicilous powerfull, since it nearly always hits its target. But on the other hand its the only allies armor arty support.

[2biT]

Check out this quality replay.

This you should note, 2 mgs, a bit of wire and its gg.

http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=137432

[Shizzle007]

I also thinks the terrain favors the axis side on semois. You can cap faster with axis and you have more acces to the middle and the right. What you guys think about this? I find it really easier to play on the right side. I dont play much on that map either so maybe i need more practice on that map.

[Bentguru]

2bit, an imbalanced map does not mean the sides are imbalanced.

You are aware there will be more maps in retail right...

[Shizzle007]

Ya i know, but axis are favoured in ranked, cos they always start at that spot. So some complaints might be cos of that map. I personally hate that map.
And doh i know there are more maps in retail, looking forward to that open 1v1 map:
http://60frame.gamechosun.co.kr/bbs/data/coh_map/Angoville%282%29.jpg

[Demon_Eyes]

I think your underestimating how ridiculously powerful suppression fire is. 1 rifle company can pin several axis squads almost instaneously with it.
It is nowhere near that now from what I have seen in my most recent games, 2v1 BAR+suppression will pin units quickly but a single squad using suppressing fire takes quite a while to pin a single squads (maybe 7 seconds) and the time is multiplied for each squad not directily in line with the other. Axis pays 50mu/per to force allies to retreat every time, unless allies have 40mu/per to force axis to retreat for that single time.

I think sepha brings up some fantastic points, however offmap is also a major part of certain doctrines, take airborne: AT guns with no motorpool (airdropped), mortars and HMGs with no WSC (though supply drop), infantry get offmap which allows them to get M10, M8, mortar, riflmen, HMG (though random). Armor doctrine of course is already covered as is terror's offmap tiger ace and stuh combat group and the blitz doctrine tiger x2. I believe these abilities are to give a late game benefit to the doctrines, and keep the game moving. Giving a pre-requisite or fuel cost to these abilities kind of defeats their purpose, they are there as accelerant or jumpstart units.

I agree whole heartly on the stug issue, but I don't think its just that, I think overall axis tanks are far too mobile and allied tanks are not mobile enough, until they get their first rank, allied tanks are not able to really use positioining, even afterwards it is overtly difficult to try and position allied armor due to their nominal mobility advantage. It seems like the last major balance patch the allied armor recieved a significant boost, to the point where at 76mm they beat axis armor in a head on fight, this seems wrong. They should have gotten more mobility, not more durability.

As for the axis vs allied early game, I also agree, but I think it could be simply solved by moving the jeep from barracks to the WSC and moving the sniper to the barracks (it would also make more sense imho).

[FatalTheRabbit]

I'd say it's less about mobility, and more about rotation rates of turrets, and sometimes the body of the tank.

[Demon_Eyes]

Define Mobility.

[FatalTheRabbit]

... The tanks ability to drive around, also known as being mobile? Moving from point a to point be with grace and speed? Agility while in motion?

You know, mobility! (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mobile&x=0&y=0). Not a lot of ways to interperet it.

[Demon_Eyes]

Kind of missed the point there, also that is the wrong page. You meant this page (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mobility).

The point being, stugs shouldn't track a sherman or M10 point blank for 300 degrees of angle without using the lurchturn, it is an assault gun without a turret, neither should tigers, panthers or pershings turn on a dime as they are all heavy tank. The M10, Sherman and Panzer IV should have the top end of the mobility for tracked units, right now they are about the same as any other tracked units, they just go in a strait line a little faster. The turret speeds on the tracked units actually seem fine, the tiger and pershing is very slow, the panther nearly as much while the panzer IV, sherman and M10 have a fairly quick traverse speed. So I would have to say it is deffinatly mobility that is the key, both min/max acceleration times and turning rates seem wrong.

[FatalTheRabbit]

When some one asks me to define mobility I take the point as defining mobility...

The lurchturn bit is rotation of the body while still, which is what I said in the first place, and I agree that's an issue with the stug.

[Demon_Eyes]

I was asking you to think really, turret speeds are one thing they got right on the tanks and you made the counter comment to mobility pretty vauge. They seemed to leave the turn rates and other things aside from max forward speed pretty standardized, there is barely any difference noticable in turning any of the tanks or in acceleration time, only in max speed do much differences pop up. The lurchturn is describing a bug that allows the stug to turn faster BTW.

[FatalTheRabbit]

It's a confirmed bug?

[Demon_Eyes]

Not confirmed yet, has been discussed in the one of the armor threads though.

[FatalTheRabbit]

Well, I certainly hope it turns out to be a bug. If that was out of the picture a lot would change for the better.

[Mirage Knight]

...neither should tigers, panthers or pershings turn on a dime as they are all heavy tank.

The Panther was indeed a German medium tank - classed as such by the Heerswaffenamt [sp?]. By American standards, it was considered a heavy though. I seem to recall reading that the Panther's mobility was good enough that it could practically turn on a dime.

[Bentguru]

Well for a panther going at 610mp and 140 fuel, it had better turn rather well. Not as well as a sherman, but good.

However the more I play allies the more I get annoyed that the stug can constantly turn so that it's turret is facing a maneuvaring allied tank, so not only can it still fire but it will always have it's front armor facing it's opponent, unlike the allied tank who's now exposed.

[2biT]

Single ones i dont have a problem with. Its groups of stugs together that dish out the pain, as they completly nulify the mobility, unless you have 7 fingers and can move 3 shermans at once :P

[Demon_Eyes]

From what I recall the panther had a weaker transmission until near the end of the war and a lower power to wieght ratio on a tank that was nearly double the wieght that would mean quite a lot. It's top road speed was higher by a small amount and it had a superior suspension system however I do not recall this being considered a very mobile tank in comparison to the sherman and even more so the overall mass should have limited the tanks ability to manuver in comparison to a lighter tank as well as acceleration.

[FUBAR624]

About the infantry, what about a buff in rifle squad firepower but an equal nerf the power that suppression gives? This would make the BARs still a good upgrade, but also allow Riflesquads to compete in early game.

[FatalTheRabbit]

Rifles without bar are good at mid-close range. It's not until mp40s that volks start to really compete. Unless volks can maintain a long distance and cover they get roughed up by unupgraded riflemen.

[Mirage Knight]

From what I recall the panther had a weaker transmission until near the end of the war and a lower power to wieght ratio on a tank that was nearly double the wieght that would mean quite a lot. It's top road speed was higher by a small amount and it had a superior suspension system however I do not recall this being considered a very mobile tank in comparison to the sherman and even more so the overall mass should have limited the tanks ability to manuver in comparison to a lighter tank as well as acceleration.

The original transmission for the Panther was underpowered as it had been designed for the Panther's intended target weight of 36 tons - not the 45 tons it wound up weighing. As such, early Panthers suffered from outright transmission failure. Although a more suitable transmission unit was incorporated into the tank, the Panther's ZF transmission required careful maintenance and driving to ensure reliabilty (the transmission wasn't as durable as it could have been). That's not to say that the Panther's climb performance was bad - in fact it was quite decent, all things considered.

[Bentguru]

Lets all remember this is a game, not history class.

Gameplay > realism.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

The Panther was indeed a German medium tank - classed as such by the Heerswaffenamt [sp?]. By American standards, it was considered a heavy though. I seem to recall reading that the Panther's mobility was good enough that it could practically turn on a dime.Yep, one of the fastest tanks of the war, the Panther.

Regarding riflemen, how about just killing suppression fire completely? Remove it and make the BAR just be a passive firepower upgrade.

[Boomstar]

It would take to long volks would be able to tear them up all the time then.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The more I play the less I think supression fire is overpowered.

If anything it only needs minor tweaks.

After all for only slightly less munitions you can throw a grenade which can kill most of a squad.

[Firesparks]

as it is a bar infantry is only on par with mg42/mp40/stg44(depend alot on who's behind the control). It's only the suppression ability that make them so deadly, but unless you're fighting a volk or pioneer you will need nade or something or else it's going to take a while to kill the unit.

However, the suppression ability actually suppress and pin better than a heavy mg42 and that's a bit abursd.

I would say lower the duration, limit the effect to suppress, and lower the price (40-50 fuel).

[Bentguru]

You can micro away from a nade, or at least space your people so 1 doesn't take out half the squad.

There is no way to limit the damage suppressing fire can do, and seeing as your unit will never get unpinned you're forced to retreat, which on 1v1's hurts, and on larger maps is seriously bad.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

It does precisely zero manpower damage and it doesnt take long to get your squads back out there in a 1v1.

[Jagr]

it can however allow them the crucial 10 seconds that allows a machine gun to change positions and be able to defend