Also you should check an excel sheet yourself once in a while. You now twice stated (even in capital letters for further mockery) that the KV1 has exactly the same gun as the T34 which is not even correct.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only difference between them a marginally better reload speed of KV-1?
My proposal would be to change this ability, so that the fuel is deliverd by two planes. Increasing the survivability. So change it to two planes and reduce the fuel crates to two , but increase the amount of fuel per crate to 15
Why stop at two planes?
Jokes aside, I do think this ability is far less interactive than Ostheer's Supply Drop Zone and could use a small rework. In Drop Zone's case, both player have the incentive to fight over the point designated as the drop zone. It becomes a new objective on the map, which you can't just ignore. In case of Allied Supply Drop it's just binary "you get it or you don't if opponent has AA unit in the right spot".
One potential fix that was already proposed, was to have a dedicated "AA Mode" for all units that can shoot at planes, so Axis players would at least have to take a conscious action to shoot it down. It's a good start, but in my opinion something else could be done too.
I personally never liked that implementation because you had to plan to lose models and it was kind of weird like that, nobody 'plans' to lose half their army, and especially not for Osttruppen (and especially not old Osttruppen). I'm not sure what the best implementation would be here though, because straight up Munitions for Squads is an odd concept as well. Maybe I was just never good at foreseeing losses and using that to my advantage.
Note that you're not getting an actual normal squad, but pretty much just equivalent in manpower with few extra steps. The "bonuses" you get from those Relief Squads is ability to reinforce weapon teams and capping points in a pinch. Plus, getting them for munitions wouldn't leave much counterplay for the opponent (although the counterplay against Rapid Conscription/Relief Infantry isn't stellar either).
Soviets have several unused (in multiplayer) icons, they can either use the one with a horizontal bar or the single Mosin-Nagant icon (like Conscripts, except it only shows one rifle). I think Ostheer and OKW use all of their icons though, so they'll likely need a new one; or alternatively both sides just use the neutral 'bar' icon for their replacement unit.
I also thought about repurposing that exact horizontal bar icon too. I assume that balance team/whoever is in charge at Relic would still prefer having new icon, but that one works.
I really like this idea, how would they deploy though? Maybe one large squad or two smaller ones? The Soviet one could be 7 men and the Ostheer one 5 men, or alternatively 2 of 5/3 (fully reinforce 2 squads). They could either be armed with Conscript/Panzerfusilier rifles or just crew rifles (crew nagant, crew karabiner) if you wish to completely discourage their use as infantry. Could give them Sov/Ost AT Gun Crew models so they stand out as being distinct from any regular infantry.
I thought that keeping the original mode of deployment (lose models to earn squads) would be fine with this implementation. You wouldn't be killing yourself with popcap of extra squads, so it shouldn't be as unwieldy as original abilities.
Also, using gun crew models is pretty solid idea too, though using regular Ostruppen/Conscript models is fine, as long as they get a new proper squad icon.
Instead of providing the normal conscripts/Ostruppen you get the different "new" squad. Lets call them "Relief infatry squad" for now.
Relief infatry squad has entities with target size of 1
Number of entities can be from 4-6
The squad has the ability to merge
The squad does not have the ability to reinforce
In the sort the "Relief infatry squad" can be used to reinforce front line infantry via merge or re-crew support weapons.
It does not how ever increase the size of one's army since the squad can not reinforce and will eventually run out of entities.
I've said before that this is kind of a good idea, but after some more thought, I think this could work quite well.
Weapon teams recrewed by squads that cannot reinforce actually can reinforce. If you set the model cost of those Relief Squads to be equal to the default weapon team crew reinforcement cost (22 mp for OH, 15 mp for Soviets), then it should be fine (note that weapon teams recrewed by Ostruppen have 16 mp reinforcement cost).
Considering how such Relief Squad would be unable to reinforce itself, would arrive without any veterancy (and probably shouldn't earn any experience at all) and would (likely) have combat stats equivalent to vanilla Conscripts/Ostruppen, you would be incentivized to use it only for merging. I can't think of any other crafty ways of using them, but I'll leave that as an exercise for better players than me.
But that doesn't fix the problem, it just makes games shorter by default. I want to see stalled games occur when there's a bigger intention on both parts on actually trying to cap the VPs. So even though the bleed is faster, you are still "rewarded" the moment you put units under fire inside a VP. Whether you are able to can/neutralize it or not.
I think it does fix the problem, just in a more straightforward way. If there are only 300 VPs to go and you find yourself in a 2v1 situation, there's more pressure on you to flip an extra VP to your side. Likewise, if you are on 1v2 side, you clearly want to stay there.
In that direction with bunkers, it would be better rather than needing mp to activate them, that instead it would incur in a mp gain penalty.
I think that giving a permanent MP income penalty would be too harsh. Base MGs only have impact on early game rushes - they can't suppress or even damage enemy tanks. At the same time, early game is time when one has to be extra careful with spending their resources, so the MP cost is impactful enough. If you manage to survive into the late game, having spent resources to survive a base rush, then good for you! In case of MP penalty, it would haunt you entire game.
Both topics are theoretical for CoH2, but it's interesting thing to discuss for CoH-like genre.
I would push for faster VP bleed, specially when there's no attempt at trying to decap a VP back. Games takes too long when you can force a 2vs1 VP situation and the defensive player has no reason to over extend for like 300 VPs or more.
To counter it, a contested VP would not count towards the bleed as long as a unit is fighting inside the point. So you would effectively stop the bleed at 1vs2 VP deficit even though you don't manage to neutralise the point, as long as you are able to keep units fighting in the decap zone.
Or simply cut down the standard VP amount from 500 to 300.
In regards to base rushes and defense, that's been an overlooked design problem, specially since WFA were released. There's no reason ATM that OKW has flak defenses (specially when its RNG on teamgames on which type of defenses you will have when paired with OH) and USF having extra MG bunkers on it's circular base. Bunker MG on small maps tend to also protect strategic points which is really stupid IMO.
For a future COH3, i would experiment on reducing the amount of MG bunkers or pushing them way further back, so you have a bit more space to maneuver or been able to smoke them to go for a base dive. Or give them little to no AoE suppression so you can try to bait the MG with one squad and let others get in.
To counter it, maybe make HQ have a single garrisonable spot for damaged units plus say an LMG (no suppression) model defending it to deter long stays on the inside of the base.
In somehow unrelated note, i wonder if the game would benefit from having say +50mp income (350mp) and variable upkeep ratios which goes more aggressively at higher pop values and lesser at lower ones.
A crude example would be: 0.5mp between 1-24 pop, 1mp at 25-49, 1.5mp at 50-74 and 2.0mp at 75-100.
I think one solution would be to have MG bunkers start inactive, but let players spend MP to permanently activate them. Their activation time would be very short (10-15 seconds maybe), so if you feel a base rush coming in, you can scare it off. You'd still be behind the curve, as you spent resources on base defences, but at least you'd still be in the game.
You guys remember "Main Gun Destroyed" crits from CoH1? They were basically an opposite of abandoned vehicles from gameplay perspective - they favoured the attacker, because they allowed your deep-diving vehicle to survive with a sliver of health when they should normally get destroyed. From what I recall, it was almost universally disliked too.
My point is that it doesn't matter whom it favours, it's better if such drastic tempo swings are left outside the game.
A squad dropping a slot weapon is certainly not good, but it's not the end of the world. One player loses 40-60 munitions and other gains the equivalent. Although some weapons are better to pickup than the others, in the end it's not really game defining.
Having your vehicle destroyed is much more impactful than dropping a slot weapon, but it's still something you can come back from usually. But losing your vehicle and effectively giving your opponent one for free? That's a huge swing. It's like if during a football match, every time a team misses a shot on the goal, the referee rolls a d20 and on a roll of 1 gives the opposing team a point.