1. Lower the ressource income in 3v3/4vs4: Owning half oft he map should always result in having the same ressource income no matter the map size or game mode. So points should generate less ressources in bigger game modes. The reason is simple:
- early and mid game is way to short in 3vs3/4vs4 because of higher ressource income leading to a faster tech (+ teching beeing less risky if you have a mate that is covering your tech)
- all CP call-in units come too late in 3vs3/4vs4 because the teched counterparts hit the field minutes before (you can field a KT long before a Tiger, a M10 comes after the Panther has arrived and so on)
Probably caused by the patches over time that raised CP costs for call ins. First thing I thought was, as a 4v4 player, this meant non-doctrinal stuff ends up coming earlier. Obviously the change was designed to FORCE you to use non-doctrinal stuff, but then you have things like Churchills and King Tiger. ;/
In any case, a simpler method may be to just reduce the number of territory sectors in larger maps to closer to the number you find in smaller maps, though this presents issues like building/ upgrading in neutral/ enemy sectors. I mean taking an example out of Sittard, removing a total of like four points may considerably alter strategy without presenting spatial issues, though that's largely due to the nature of that map's overall design (divided urban map with river + bridges in middle).
2. Make more maps with 5 VPs and maybe 3 fuel/munition points, because it is more fun and more epic to fight in bigger scale at multiple locations. There could be some bigger maps too to give room for the additional points. It would punish sim city playstyle in addition and that's a good thing.
I do like this idea, but of course liking an idea doesn't automatically make it a good idea. We can start with moddres or most large maps to make sub-variants that replace some resource points with VP points instead. Some maps might be too small or their design doesn't allow for this though, especially if the converted points turns means less resources (which might alleviate Point #1).
3. Make teching linear with multiple sidetech options for all factions. If you look at brits tech-wise they are very well designed. They have a linear main tech with lots of interesting side techs at each tech level that are slowing down the main tech but are worth affording it depending on the situation. This would help to solve some problems:
- OKW/USF are very hard to balance atm and their unit positioning at their tech levels is a tough one. The problem is their non-linear tech. They already changed soviets in a linear tech for a good reason, why not reworking tech of OKW/USF?
- some units that don’t fit very well in their current tech level could moved to a sidetech. T34/76 could be a sidetech of T3, so it would be a kind of an optional T3,5 like AEC/Bofors or Hammer/Anvil
This is a fundamental faction design issue though, and making it exist ONLY for larger maps means you effectively have two very different games, not merely game versions. Given the way UKF works it only really works because of how Relic designs their commanders; you cannot really replicate the same thing into the other factions without having to go back and reexamine, and likely revamp, the commanders too. And it's not an equally large issue between the other factions either- Soviet and Ostheer commanders are abundant but largely shite, whereas WFA factions have tech issues but overall some good commander designs.
Non-linear teching design is good IMO. A bit hard if you have to compose them against factions utilizing (more) linear tech design, but to me the current design isn't terrible, if also definitely not great. If you're to focus on infantry then as OKW you must go Regimental HQ and forego Luchs/ Stuka/ Puma, and vice versa.
4. Remove any kind of Forward Retreat Point, without removing healing and reinforcing on the field. This really encourages blobbing in bigger game modes and gives a huge advantage in infantry combat. People should be rewarded to withdraw troops in time. Retreating should always result in going back to your base sector.
Forward Retreat is a problem simply because certain factions have it and some don't. The ones that don't, don't even have the luxury through a commander unlock and even if they did, it's a rather bad design because it heavily skews the advantage towards other factions in larger maps. It's a different (and IMO a lesser) kind of problem when it's something like General Mud and only Soviets vs. Ostheer, because at least then you got both sides no having that advantage. But of course you have three of the five factions having said ability, and one that's frankly fundamental to usefulness of infantry as time goes by.
As for rewarding troops in time, you still do this regardless of FRPs, the difference is when you have a FRP, you come back earlier. That's it. You don't lose less men nor does that mean you get less manpower, it just means you have infantry presence back sooner than if you were Ostheer. If anything it allows players to be more haphazard and risk losing troops because hey, I can always retreat and come back faster.
If anything this is better addressed if there were map-based FRPs in larger maps, like the rare mechanics or hospital points from maps like Lazur or City 17 Winter. These would be fixed, and used by whoever controls the point, and such points would naturally be contested ferociously. Like your 5VP idea I think this can be tested be selecting certain maps' certain territory points. Would be very popular for Ostheer/ Soviet players, I'd imagine, due to the conditional advantage it brings (you must take it, and make sure the enemy doesn't).
5. Integrate all kind of doctrinal call-in vehicles into the techtree like T34/85. There could be a T4,5 Upgrade for the heavy tanks. Setting them to 0 CP would address the problem with late coming call-in units too (see number 1, second aspect).
I'm not sure how this makes 3v3/ 4v4 better. If anything, setting ALL vehicle call-ins to 0CP would be a better solution, because you'd then have the option of having zero vehicle presence in the game but manage to sport a Tiger early on, only to get your arse whipped because your opponent rushed for tanks and swarmed your single unit.
Either way, an upgrade to access heavy tanks is really just another obstacle to getting doctrinal that pretty much serve the same purpose. If you're winning the game so well that you're floating resources, you're likely fighting a total noob that's gone AFK, or you've fought to the point where you've reached the required CP to access them like you'd normally would, anyways.
6. Give all factions non-doctrinal suppression, indirect fire and artillery (or rocket artillery). This is not about making all factions the same, they still would be different enough. It is about giving all factions this important mechanics of the game instead of forcing them to start every game the same way with multiple units of the same type. The units we need are already in the game, just take them from the appropriate commanders and add some new abilities instead. Choosing a commander shouldn’t be an all-in choice but a a tactical decision of useful support units/abilities. Especially when I get this annoying bug from time to time when I get no commander at all to choose from.
All factions already have non-doctrinal suppression, indirect fire and artillery. They all approach it differently sure, but they all have them. OKW has shittiest of the suppression side all because there is no HMG to train, but that's really just a problem of flaktrak that needs to be reworked rather than ignoring that issue and swapping a unit that works with MG34.
7. Restrict aura effects, so that they only benefit the controlling player; not the entire allied team.
I do not like this idea since I play CoH2 from a basis of playing for the teamplay fun. Making teamplay effectively reduced by having allied effects removed would greatly discourage players from playing as a team. Sure that already happens but that's not a good thing. I think a suitable compromise is that teammates get reduced effects compared with your own units. That way you still get the teamplay effect but with the additional "I'm helping you but not as much as it would me" vibe. Which is fair, that pretty much happens in the team games I play, where allies achieve their own goals which I benefit largely as a side effect (re they prevent a flank attack) more often than being their main objective (they break push back against a direct attack, which happens to result in flanking me if it succeeded).
In additional, some factions utilize these effects more than others.
8. Make all recon abilities cost something and have a cooldown period (so that flanking is possible).
Besides UKF Command Vehicle recon (which cost nothing and lengthy duration despite rather long cooldown), don't the list you have already have drawbacks? Spotting scopes cost munitions and the best units are the worst combat units, IR halftrack need to be positioned correctly and doesn't fight at all, and IIRC Kubel's recon makes it move slower?
So far, neither of the 5-VP maps are great to play in...
Perhaps that's a fault with the maps rather than the 5-VP system. I would love to see more types of maps added to the map-pool, provided I get enough vetoes.
Indeed, when I first played Lorsch my first though was "great, new 4v4 map" followed quickly with "FFS this is gigantic", there were lots of open fields that made travel a drag. Hill 400 hwoever works well as a 4v4 map, its large enough for 4v4 as well as for flanks, but small so that all players are forced to fight together as teams rather than isolated sections like in larger maps like Steppes.
6. No. However I would rephrase it as follows:
"Give each faction a set of free, non-DLC commanders that are viable and cover said weaknesses"
Never gonna happen, because that would directly affect Relic's bottom line.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
