Is asymmetrical balance all it is cracked up to be?

Bare with me on this one as I am new to contributing on forums but have been reading them religiously since US were introduced.

I love strategy games since AOE1 and C&C days and I wonder how Age of Empires 2 got it so right? Say what you will but it was released in 1999 and still has more players on right now then CoH2 and manages to do it with over a dozen factions.

player numbers on steam:
AoE2: 5,366 with max 10,992
CoH2: 3,367 with max 8,843

The reason for the balance for anyone who didn't play these types of RTS games is because the changes in units were very minor with only special units like COH2 call in units were really unique. All the rest of stats changes depending on what you could tech and positioning (higher terrain increased range ect).

Would COH2 really be that bad if all units essentially mirrored each other but with only the slightest of stats for the same costs across the board? You could add spice by having faction specific buffs that lead to slight buffs in different areas or commander specific. For example all soviets retreat 10% faster then others and all mechanized type commanders add a passive buff to all medium and heavy tank armor by 5%. Then you add the real diversity with the commanders call in or activated abilities.

I have read in the forums how a number of people hate this type of thinking but I have no idea on what % of people feel this way. Is it the vocal minority or the majority?

Genuinely interested in the poll and feedback and open to constructive comments.

I want more asymmetrical balance, the factions are too similar. Look at CoH1, each faction had a unique veterancy system that completely changed strategies. Here we just got OKW with the vet 5 that still functions in the exact same way as the other factions.

At a core level all the factions are very similar, the main difference is that okw can build outside their base and USF and UKF don't need to build their buildings with engineers, or the order of buildings used to unlock the highest tier. Look at Brits, the are so incredibly similar to Ostheer in faction design. They get base artillery and some nice emplacements, but all the teching and most of their units are so similar. The only things in this game that relic is trying to make asymmetrical balance work with is by adding in changes for the sake of changes to units. Many of the current balance problems being dealt with were from poorly implemented changes added to try and make unique units in the expansions: kubel, isg/packhowie, huge health brit tanks, emplacements. If Relic had instead focused on trying to create unique factions instead of unique units, the game would be much more interesting.

I would also like to point out that Relic completely fucked up OKW on a massive scale in the original faction design. When you scrap core faction ideas less than a week before release there will be big problems. They just need to put in more effort into implementing these broad ideas.

I want more asymmetrical balance, the factions are too similar. Look at CoH1, each faction had a unique veterancy system that completely changed strategies. Here we just got OKW with the vet 5 that still functions in the exact same way as the other factions.

At a core level all the factions are very similar, the main difference is that okw can build outside their base and USF and UKF don't need to build their buildings with engineers, or the order of buildings used to unlock the highest tier. Look at Brits, the are so incredibly similar to Ostheer in faction design. They get base artillery and some nice emplacements, but all the teching and most of their units are so similar. The only things in this game that relic is trying to make asymmetrical balance work with is by adding in changes for the sake of changes to units. Many of the current balance problems being dealt with were from poorly implemented changes added to try and make unique units in the expansions: kubel, isg/packhowie, huge health brit tanks, emplacements. If Relic had instead focused on trying to create unique factions instead of unique units, the game would be much more interesting.

I would also like to point out that Relic completely fucked up OKW on a massive scale in the original faction design. When you scrap core faction ideas less than a week before release there will be big problems. They just need to put in more effort into implementing these broad ideas.

Thanks for the post,

I guess the reason I like the games like AoE play is that you have multiple units to pick from to do a certain roll.

CoH2 is too rigid in the mainline infantry play style. Lets face it every team has a single mainline infantry and that is all you build. Soviets have penal's but no one counts them because they are poorly implemented.

Id like to see one of two things. More infantry options. Have a dedicated AT infantry or elite infantry build into the normal non- doctrinal build orders so it isn't so stale or the inclusion of multiple non doctrinal munition upgrades for the mainline infantry. Why can we not have all conscripts access PTRS and PPSH and the rest of the factions get something equivalent and to top it off you shouldn't see logos above the units head of enemies units telling me what they are carrying. Yes you might loose some of the asymmetrical balance but you would gain a boat load of strategical options this game currently lacks.

At the moment all you do is go. That unit beats that unit at that range. Run to the required spot and hope an RNG round doesn't take a model first volley. If there mainline infantry could be carrying any array of weapons and you cannot see what type?! Now that is interesting.