Profile of Esxile

As I said, I highly doubt that Relic had a better balance towards micro than the balance team had. The balance team has done a LOT towards consistency. Vehicles for example usually got armor reduced and HP increased. These changes also reduce the overall micro load.
However, I'd rather move back to the overall topic of how micro affects balance in a not-so-obvious way. We can surely have different opinions who is the scapegoat of the current issue, in the end it is futile since Coh2 does not get updated anymore and we'll have to wait for CoH3 to maybe do a better job.

The various balance teams, I could trust MrSmith in his ideal of balance, not Sanders. To me the balance was great around the moment Relic let the first balance team take over, then it went down.

I know that, and yet it is still the best data we have. Definitely better than purely anecdotal evidence.
But still, my last point stands regardless of win rate data: Axis factions are easier to micro, because they have less units on the field. The current mix of cost/population and performance is very well on point for most units in CoH2 thanks to the community patches, but having to take care of more squads means every unit will be managed less efficiently, and that's were late game Axis shines a bit brighter than late game Allies.

Major Arnold Ernst Toht and his fellow Nazi friends would have to have a word with you about the best data you have and the assumption you're doing with.

From what I remember, Sanders always said tournaments should be taken with a big grain of salt for balance discussions. Which is exactly on point.
The fact that Soviets and Ostheer dominate tournaments is still Relic's fuck up. Especially USF and UKF play very linearly and predictably with little deviation and easy exploits. Especially if your opponent can counter pick a faction.

From years of experience, we started seeing USF/OKW vanish from final tournament games when he and his fellow mates took the lead on the balance. Last USF stand was with the WC51 but it was an anomaly. Evidently their approach of balance unit per unit base and not faction wide cannot work since 2 of 5 factions are designed with gaps but it is easier to say it's Relic's fault cuz Relic stopped communicating.

They've just abused the Khrushchev letters method.

I am not quite sure which time frame you are talking about. I played CoH2 only against bots for quite a while and did not care much about unit balance, so I probably missed it.

But you are raising two in my opinion different issues. There is no connection between Relic acknowledging an issue and the balance team having their vision.
Acknowledging an issue is not fixing it. Judging by my memory and Relic's general behaviour in balance patches, I highly doubt they ever fixed the issue of different micromanaging levels. Especially since this Soviets=cheap an numerous, Ostheer=expensive and outnumbered was Relics own design. Axis having high value/high population units compared to Soviets was also never fixed under Relic's patches.

The Grenadier issue you bring up is exaggerated in my opinion, but is also a singular issue. No doubt late game Grenadiers are less micro intensive than Riflemen, but at the time the damage reduction was introduced there was also no doubt that Grenadiers were very weak in the late game and needed a buff in that direction. Anyway, I don't think this would be a larger issue if Axis tanks required more micro, but they don't. And that is what my suggestion was aiming at: If your infantry is already "low maintenance", your tanks should require more input.

I don't remember the exact timeframe either but yes it occured, they took actions to reduce the skill gap required to play every faction at the same level and I can tell you it brought result because it was my feeling at that time.

Grenadier's late game issue is a symptome of balance failure. Ostheer was designed around weak mainline infantry and strong late game tanks to where we are today: strong mainline infantry and strong tanks. And if my memory is correct this change was applied because arty shells wiped them with ease. So yeah today I can't remember the last time I saw a ML20 or priest on 2vs2 vs Ostheer but what I know is that tanks have harder time dealing with them while Axis armor still fence Allied's one like butter.

So, what could be done to solve this?
As I noted above, one faction should not have micro intensive infantry AND tanks. Shift the micro between different unit types. Micro intensive mainline, but easy support and normal tanks. Faction two needs a lot of focus on the support units, but has forgiving tanks. Faction three has an easy mainline etc etc.
This will need some specific balancing for certain time frames where e.g. only infantry is present, but it should alleviate the problem with overloading one faction with micromanagement.

This issue was addressed long time ago with Relic acknowledging Axis factions were in essence easier to play but Allied having an higher celling resulting in having ELO matches quite balanced but high level tournament favoring Allied. I remember there was a post from Relic dedicated to this matter and a couple of patches aimed to correct it.

That was long time ago because then the modding team took the decision to change that to where we are today. Now we have what the OP describes where Grenadiers have late game equal survivability than 5men squads while being less exposed to damage and having superior support tools and tanks around them.

Your previous post listed also other units, my initial response was mostly referring to those.
OKW does lack early AT though. That was the whole reason why the Schreck got more accessible. The Puma needs to be optional due to OKW's tech system. A usable ATG is also a must for any faction, you can see what issues a lack of penetration causes for USF already. If an ATG cannot deal with even mediums reliably, there is barely any reason to buy it in the first place.


If a unit is doctrinal or not does not matter. Your argumentation was that OKW as a faction has to work without the KT, meaning that building the KT on top will make the build OP. That works for basically all units that are not in the standard build order, including doctrinal ones.

The cost opportunity point is very simple, you can basically boil it down to this: The KT has weaknesses, that you would not have if you'd build something else with your resources instead. Your KT is slow, can be flanked/overrun, not respond to a shifting front line, you cannot rush with it etc. It needs heavy support by the rest of your army, focusing you in one single spot.
Other tanks for example are able to operate more on their own, can be dived to kill artillery etc. That's your cost opportunity, and sometimes the best counter to heavies is not even TDs, but artillery to bleed out all infantry and keep the tanks barely supported. That's the cost opportunity you have. Not even mentioning that I have seen many opponents throw their game because they stalled too long for their heavy.

Obviously all of this is heavily map dependent. On some maps you'll get more benefits, on some others rather the weaknesses.


I said it is noticable, so what is the point?
I assume the reason for the nerf was, that previously TDs were penning 300 armor heavies like the Tiger with close to 100% chance. Basically, a vet3 TD evaporated all meaning of Axis armor. I assume the KT was not really taken into consideration, or deemed to be okay.

You're right having the raketen being not efficient vs medium would be bad for design. But raketen that aren't effectively countered by infantry is also bad for design. The problem with the raketen is its price and usability when associated with heavies and super heavies.
Then I don't understand your comment on OKW not having AT at every stage of the game, the raketen is the only T0 atgun available whenever and whatever you tech. SPshreck just made OKW T2 irrelevant since how you can easily keep at bay light and medium just with the raketen/SPshrek and pfaust until the p4j hit the field.

KT weakness is usually offset by allies and the fact that late game both side have losses. Obviously if you're the only one bleeding and playing badly the KT will not be anymore your free out of hell card. But in the case, and its the majority of situations, you and your opponent are suffering heavy losses and then come the moment to replace them with new units then the KT is simply superior to anything else. Because you don't really need to assess your opponent forces, out of the gate your KT is going to be superior to whatever your opponent would also build or call-in to replace its own losses. So yes maybe in the case your opponent still have a ML20 or Priest/Sexton maybe the KT isn't going to be the best choice but you can still make it so. And any other situation will be KT > all.

This is why I say you can't balance OKW without the KT, if the KT exists and is stock then it means its should be part of any regular build order. As much as the HMG42 or Jacksons.
Because the HMG42 is part of Ostheer their infantry is only 4men squad supposely inferior to other mainline infantry.
Because the Jackson is part of USF late game then USF has shitty other AT and no late game meatshield tank.
Why would it be different for OKW and the KT? Why would OKW be on par with other factions without it if it exist and is superior to anything else?

All of these units are pretty in line with their cost. It's not like you'd get the P4J for the price of the Ostheer P4 or a Sherman. It also costs more population, so you can fit less units. That's balancing done right, I guess.
The faction definitely has some problems, such as MP inefficiencies unless you manage to transition to Obers, which in turn removes your snares, as well as their split tech system which at least for the first 20 minutes if not the whole game leaves you without proper healing or sub-par repair abilities.

Cost =! balance but I didn't say they weren't balanced, I said that the raketen costing 270mp and having free 5men squad + free retreat button + free vet1 camo + having no problem dealing with medium tanks is a problem when associated with said tanks and ultimately the KT, because its dirt cheap and resilient , even if said tanks are with their correct price tag.

What make the KT invincible and OKW a problematic faction as a whole isn't only the KT itself, its also the fact that OKW has to be "balanced" without it which mean the faction doesn't suffer if you don't use it. Now you have faction that can definitively win without the KT having it as a the cherry on top of the cake. That's make a really big cherry able to reverse the game by its mere presence.

In few words, what is balance without the KT becomes inbalanced with the KT simply because it is a force multiplier for anything around it for a resonable cost since its cost has to be reasonable to be balance.

It was statwise balanced before because TDs were actually countering it as they must. It is not today because of the huge amount of RNG their pen nerf brought in the game for the sake of few people enjoying their 1 unit's army.