Thanks for the insight.
My concern is less about balance itself, but about how boring it makes it to watch CoH3. In the previews, I didn't feel like TTK was overly long either, although I didn't have the time to play much.
I am obviously biased by CoH2, but watching CoH3 tournament play feels like a constant stream of misplays not being punished and good plays not rewarded. There have been quite a few moment where I thought that the correct move should be to go all in, to focus down that completely overextended, wounded squad, but nothing like that happened. This design might male more sense when playing the game and might also be decently designed, but they take away from the spectacle that watching a CoH1/2 match was. Eco damage is just really boring to look at.
vCoH tourney CoH2 looks more alive and action packed, despite tourney played on one of the "meatiest" maps of vCoH.
Well I mean, I do honestly think its just bias towards CoH2. Presentation and visuals aside (and they are clearly lacking in 3), fundamentally CoH3 is very similar to vCoH. And vCoH and CoH2 are like DoW1 and DoW2, but with DoW its much more noticeable.
They share similarities, but again in its core its completely different games. So watching CoH3 with the ghost of CoH2 in mind, for sure leads to some disappointment.
The same way expecting CoH3 to be similar to CoH2 is kinda silly, because Relic said that they pretty much thought that vCoH was a better game and they want CoH3 to be closer to it. This actually might be the reason why so many players, cant cope with vCoH\CoH3 because fundamental gameplay of 2 was completely different. I myself played vCoH when I was very-very young and played CoH2 since release, and even CoH2 on release cant be compared to present CoH2 in terms of how game is played. And since for the majority of players CoH2 was their first game in the series, after it started shifting towards different gameplay, they feel disappointed.
As for personal taste, I liked vCoH much better then CoH2, especially after all "e-sport" alterations, which made CoH2 into meta, micro and stats war, with minimal decision making and adaptive gameplay, which was actually a fundamental part of CoH. But CoH2 introduced really good visuals, effects, quality of life changes and over-all presentation and atmosphere of the game was astonishing, even after WFA release, so it was easy to stick with it. Hell, even after 10 years I still enjoy pretty much every single audio aspect of CoH2, its just that good.
But again it is also stupid to disregard all the technical\balance\visuals problems of CoH3 atm, which play much bigger role in its presentation. Basically all good parts of CoH3 are completely and fully overshadowed right now by the really poor quality in pretty much all technical aspects. Casuals wont stick with it because it dosnt have "wow" factor, competitive players wont because of shortcomings in mentioned balance\tech areas.
Firstly TTK out of cover, is more then alright, for me it works even better then in CoH2. Because in CoH2 cover really mattered only if your opponent was in cover in most cases, having it is really good, but lack of it was usually not a as big of deal. In most cases at least, busted LMGs\MGs of CoH2 forced to used cover, but all other small arms not really. Not saying cover was pointless in 2, but rather less important when you compare it to vCoH\3.
Units in CoH2 were significantly more tanky out of cover then in CoH3, maybe due to RNG based received accuracy. In 2 you basically had understanding of how fight should go, but it was still fully RNG based. Like Stumpios dropping 0 models charging rifles and winning or dropping 2 models against combat engis for example. In 3 inf fights are very predictable, you in most cases just know when you can and cant win, there is almost no middle ground or gambling.
And wise versa TTK in cover was faster in CoH2 for the same reasons basically. In CoH3 frontally fighting cover to cover is basically a stalemate, where you have to find better angle or flank. I would say, I like this system much more, tho small TTK increase could be done for sure.
Secondly, if you watch vCoH top play its pretty much the same as in CoH3 (but actually even slower), with a difference being that vCoH is much less forgiving then 2\3, with call ins on the base, instant wipes and much less friendly gameplay. So fun in vCoH basically comes from occasional money shots and really bold moves.
Also you should take into a consideration, that CoH2 basically was a meat grinder for a VPs. Maps across the board were much smaller, resources distribution was basically uncontested, aside from cut-offs and occasional de-caps (in 1v1 that is), but over-all harassment of the economy and map control played much lesser role in CoH2 then in 1\3, so all focus was on the action. In teamgames, it was either the same meatgrinder for VPs (if fuel\muni points were safely placed) or the same meat grinder for both VP\res points, because they were located close to each other, creating constant unit concentration in small areas.
As for retreat TTK, its a double edge sword. Units having like 40% damage reduction during retreats, make them super hard to kill\damage during retreats, but at the same time, loosing units in CoH3 is much more punishing then in 1\2 because of how fast passed games can be. Meaning that you most likely then not, wont even have spare resources to recover from losses, because your opponent will be snowballing like crazy and VP drain is insane. This is mitigated a bit in late game, but in early-mid game its super brutal. So this alone kinda forces players to play much safer then in 1\2 and at the same time much dumber sometimes, because they know, that unless its a major fuck up, they can easily retreat. I also believe that in vCoH retreating units were also very hard to kill, but it was mitigated by instant wipes with everything else.
Lastly you shouldn't disregard technical problems of the game. Pathing and unit responsiveness especially, is mediocre to put it lightly. So vehicle play is much more stale because of it.
For me wehr's 1v1 and 2v2 is a LOT better that DAK's counterpart.
Honestly I fail to see how wehr is better in this patch with how busted USF is.
Wehr literally have no inf answer to Bar rifles, besides PGs, which on themself cant keep up with bars in terms of quantity\economy bleed. So US player wins in a long run, especially considering all the insane discounts USF gets from inf support company.
Nor Wehr have any proper answer to mass E8 spam, besides trying to turtle behind AT gun wall and shitton of mines infront.
As dak, your early PGs suck balls, but you always can pick up bersas or go full sturmpios+ass.grens and counter rifle blobs with 8rad\stug and sherman\crusader spam with cheap marder spam or even 88.
As wehr on the other hand you have 0 options, because your P4 cant do jack shit it goes toe to toe with stock sherman and either looses to everything else or being out numbered, stugs are not even that cost effective and super clunky to use, wehr marders are garbage and if you schreck blob you are equally will be fked by rifles.
It just feels like you have to do 5head play, with AT gun ambushes, mines, insane MG micro and if you fail you lose in a blink of an eye to a much dumber strate forward play.
I get why this might be an issue in 1v1, because it's not efficient to constantly tie two squads together, but in larger gamemodes, haven't you been using grenadiers to perform the soviet tactic of merging into pios to keep them on the field?
When I played 3s and 4s, I felt that it worked quite well.
Merge works in case when you need to keep your flamer alive no matter what, but its on itself brings a lot of other problems.
Plus, I'm not sure about survivability stats on both units. Just from playing the game it does feels like Pios are in general significantly easier to kill then any other engi unit, but it might be subjective. What is not subjective is the fact that, being 3 model chances of same model being focused fire is much higher, lowering over-all staying power.
On top of that, merging into them is not even cost effective. In CoH2 combat engis cost was 21 per model, and cons were 20, so by merging you was not only staying in combat but saving 1 MP per model. In CoH3 by merging you lose 2MP, since grens cost 22MP and Pios 20.
I actually like PGs, but I rarely play 1v1. In teamgames, I usually start with MG+2 grens into T3, converting Grens to PGs and also getting veteran officer. With Vet1 and exp boots PGs are really solid.
Wehr do have strong units, mainly Flak, Stug, Nebel, MG and Schreck jagers. But at the same time it feels like Wehr units hit ceiling super early, forcing you into a 5head combined arms play, in order to even hold your ground. While concept is interesting, its not fun microwing 5+ units, while enemy is basically might be playing full inf.
And as a matter of fact, Wehr is kinda supposed to be "dat late game faction", while imo Wehr lategame is the weakest out of all faction, even including commanders. So I myself usually play T2+T3 wehr, ignoring T4, because investing 130 fuel into a tier where you would realistically only get P4 is pointless, especially because it can be hard-countered with 1 hand. Better to spam cheaper StuGs and make full use of both T2\T3. Especially because it cost you 115 fuel to get both tiers at full capacity.
Wehr loosing badly in late game against USF rifle build, ones USF player start getting upgrades, same with armor build, your armor is weaker then 76mm\E8 or Hellcats. And units like Maders\Stugs are pretty much can be countered by chaffee.
Against UKF, lategame is a bit more manageable, but early game UKF is dominating Wehr, with one saving grase being MG. Lategame UKF either can get anti-everything guards or 17 pounder to deny your armor play. On top of that Crusaders are trading with P4s despite being 30 fuel cheaper.
And on a side note:
1) Pios are the worst unit in the game. Literally, it would have been better if your starting unit was ketten. At least they should have had either combat package to make them viable inf or flamethrower should at give them 4th model.
2) 221 is a fun but ultimately useless unit. Its expensive and almost useless against inf. AT upgrade is good, but you dont have a turret, on top of that its a super glass cannon. Also the shitty pathing doesn't help, considering you basically have to kite like crazy.
3) Stummel is garbage.
4) Marder ... ok I guess, but its more of a emergency AT imo.
5) Wilberwind, fine, but its damage output is super slow and utility is lacking, UKF AA crusader\USF AA HT are much better.
6) Stosstruppen. Idk why would you even want them, their impact is questionable.
7) Brummbar is fine, but I rarely find myself even needing it. But I guess Bulldozer suffers from the same problem.
8) P4 the most expensive medium, yet have an equal ground only with crusaders\stock shermans.
Honestly speaking of Jaegers\Zooks\AT rifle spam, one key feature is missing in CoH3 which made inf AT much less oppressive in CoH2. They can reload on the move.
On top of that, unlike CoH2, you can clearly see animation cycle even when squad is moving, making it even easier to shoot move shoot.
That good reason would be a new alternative win condition. Make annihilation victory actually a possibility because let's be real here, in 9 years of CoH2 NOBODY has ever won a VP game through annihilation
Yeah because when you are base raping some-one who is not 2000+ rank he will drop, because in proper game, being able to destroy enemy base meaning that opponent most likely already lost the game or most of units are killed on process of base destuction.
Also how is being able to drive clowncar into the enemy base and planting 2 demos is a solid and fair annihilation victory?
Not to mention that pretty much in any RTS game, you are always given a second chance if your base is destroyed, if you have either resources and builder unit alive.
I like the house analogy, but feel you've used the wrong one.
In this case, the house we've bought has huge problems, and has some nice features but is largely unfinished.
The builders aren't offering a refund, but are promising to come back and fix it later, we can either live in it (not ideal), or stay elsewhere until it's finished.
It's a shit situation, but it's the one we've got. The house however, certainly isn't on fire.
With a remark. There is a possibility that the government officials will come (SEGA) and say that your house is bad looking and it should be demolished, since it wasn't finished in time.
it's not all terrible, relic aren't all terrible, and it's not fucked beyond repair.
Sure, its not. But who cares? If your house is burning, you can say "Well its not all terrible, since second floor is lessly damaged then the first one". But house is still in uninhabitable state regardless.
There is no point of coping about the game being not all that bad, because, while its not, people are leaving it. CoH2 back in the day, with all its problems, maintained bigger player base on release with-in the same time period, then CoH3, meaning that players tolerated all its problems and kept playing it. This is the sign of a game being "not all bad", which is not the case for CoH3, because its dropping to like 3500 players during the day, CoH2 never had so little players, despite having 10k less player peak on release. But its still speculation of course, looking at raw numbers, but point still is, that CoH3 lost much more % of players, then CoH2, giving the same time spend. And we are not even touching on subject, that CoH2 introduced much more players to the series then CoH1 did to CoH2.
DoW3 didn't even had games to return to nor competitors, yet it died. CoH3 still has alive CoH1\CoH2 as a competitors.
We are agree to disagree here, but, imo, time for "just wait guys, its gonna be fine eventually" is passed. Every one should be vocal that game is in terrible state, with main argument being that player base is vanishing. Trust me SEGA probably already made its investments back with all the sales, so if the game isn't profitable, they wont let Relic keep game of life support, hoping it will one day become good, its not economically viable to do so. This is main concern, because Relic is basically under constant pressure from publisher, and they aren't an indie game studio, which has infinite amount of time to fix everything.
I was saying the same shit to my friends during alphas. "Surely its just an alpha, surely it will be fixed on release or shortly after, surely, surely, it cant be on release". But honestly enough is enough, game wont become suddenly alive if all "toxic community members" will stfu and become god-tier ones, because game will be fucking dead regardless of that, if Relic wont put their shit together asap.
And its better be vocal about it, rather then silently watch Relic management\developers or that single terrible guy among good professional people, fuck up the game so many people love.
And next balance patch better be really good one, because even without being supper pessimistic, its not clear if the game will survive if its shit for the next 2 months.