Profile of ZombiFrancis

Doesn't that have more to do with infantry squad spacing though?

That's what I'm getting at.

Anyway, the overperformance of "light vehicles" is always about how the allied light tanks wipe axis infantry squads, and how 222s destroy allied light vehicles too cost effectively. That's two very different things being lumped together as one. I rarely see the Luchs being called OP outside of its vet. (Which, again, is more to do with OKW vet than the Luchs itself.)

Also, simply reducing the gun's damage and/or the damage spread of the AoE will go a great length to accomplishing the intended goal without creating hard caps to the amount of models in a squad that can be damaged.

I don't think it'll take much to fix them. Honestly, just making the Stuart deal 60 damage to infantry and only AOEing 1-2 models maximum means the vehicle will be a less powerful generalist and also less no-brainer.

Okay, I'm confused as to when this idea became such a golden calf of balancing. What's the point of having AoE? It seems clumsy as hell and makes even less sense in terms of gameplay and visuals.

T-70 just needs its AOE to no longer hit the entire squad by limiting it to 2 models. Still decent AI and can chase wounded squads down, but no sudden drive-bys that wipe out entire squads in 2-3 hits. The reason for only this change is that the T-70 arrives the latest of the light tank units and counters generally are on the field unless the Soviets have bled the enemy with minimal in return. If we're talking the combination of Penal and Guards, then just adjust Penal veterancy at vet 3 and the rate they gain veterancy.

I'm not sure how changing it's AoE is going to affect it's accuracy against retreating units. Limiting damage to 2 entities at a time means that it still takes 2 to 3 shots to wipe a squad? The 2-models-only damage only is an approach that probably makes more sense when you're looking at 5 and 6 man squads, I'll give you that. But isn't that clearly looking at an incomplete picture of the problem?

222 needs a price increase, that's a given with its dirt cheap cost and the bug with its MG fixed. 250-300 manpower and 30-35 fuel with a working MG. Still would like to see the unit reworked to a skrimishers and less of the dirt cheap scouting generalist once changed.

I feel like the kubelwagen goes what a 222 should actually do and the 222 is just pretending to be a 234/1 and hoping no one notices.

I'd like to see some implementation of all three of your ideas although I think the low/medium/high territory points would require all-new maps.

To implement your third idea, you could simply remove all natural cover from capture zones and give them negative cover. It would provide a risk to capping under fire and fighting from capture zones but also retain the CoH2 mechanics.

That's what I had to do in making my mod. In the original maps I've designed I always tried to make the capzones red cover and small but it put people too far out of their comfort zone.

I am kinda failing to understand what you are suggesting under active capture.

So you know how units have to be in a cap zone to capture a territory point?

You know how if enemy units are also in the cap zone the cap rate stops?

What I am suggesting is the ability for a unit to be able to 'use' a territory point to override that freeze. The unit would run to the physical territory point, incur a penalty not unlike repairing, but be able to finish capturing a point even if enemies are in the zone.

It seems like a pretty negligible change, but it introduces the kinds of player choices that could help improve gameplay.

(Or more accurately: My personal gripes about the game I want to yammer on about in the Lobby.)

In no particular order:

Better signal pings.

The current signal ping is extremely intrusive and distracting. It creates a lot of repeating noise and it provides little information other than to catch your attention. If the soundbyte could be reduced to just ONE beep that doesn't stack with itself when spammed, the QoL improvements would be immense. At the very least just making that signal less annoying in some/any way would be so nice.

More dynamic territory points.

This has been my pet peeve of CoH2. The territory/resource point choices are incredibly limited. Even if no current maps are changed, if there could be official territory points that provide low/medium/high and a zero income strategic point, there would be so much more freedom and dynamic development of maps. With three resource point options total, instead of seven (not counting VPs), there's only so much that can be done building maps for this game. Hell, I had to build a whole mod (see sig) AND rip and modify maps directly to be compatible with the mod. (I had to reuse and modify single player and unused territory points to accomplish this goal.) And there's no reason it has to be that hard.

Active capture.

Remember how in CoH1 units had to actively 'use' a territory point to capture it? The decision to cap under fire (which resulted in similar penalties as repairing) offered a surprisingly important decision making process for players. The choice to stop de/capping was a choice that could be manipulated by both players to a significant amount. The danger of capturing territory was a rather important component of gameplay.

But there's capzones now. And these allow for a new dynamic: Team weapons can now capture territory (without having to be torn down, etc) and opponents are able to freeze the de/capping process by entering the capzone. This is a good dynamic, but at the same time, it doesn't have to come at the cost of active capping.

Simply, if a unit actively capturing a territory point could override this freeze while taking on extensive risk, that same dynamic could be reintroduced without significantly impacting/detracting from the current game mechanics. Freezing territory capture already implies a combat zone, so providing a player choice that could impact the outcome of a battle instead of just unit strengths could be an acceptable addition to the game.

I don't mean to say that CoH2 should be CoH1. I do mean to say that while I have my preferences, these are some aspects of CoH2 that I feel could be easily improved. I don't think they're that complex or hard to implement given that one is just shortening a sound file and I've effectively accomplished another myself.

Anywho, I thought I'd post this brainfart for posterity's sake. Anyone dis/agree with these sentiments?

See, there was a time that people used to sync audio files with game replays to get meaningful information.

That sorta stuff took dedication and effort on the part of everyone involved. You didn't have people raging on a twitch stream and a hundred followers taking their rants to the forums.

Meaningful balance threads have always involved either a replay or specific changes clearly outlined, (if not accompanying a tuning pack for demonstration.) Other than that, any meaningful posts in any balance thread generally references said replays and/or testable changes.

As such a well tended garden approach to balance discussions would work wonders: keeping discussion about specific replays, videos, maps, and tuning packs, and not specific people, fanboism, Relic hate, or wishlists.

All that/(this) other stuff can be redirected to other forums.