There's also the option of a mortar pit for 150mp and 75 munitions (I think?). They're actually pretty good as well - better range than the standard mortar and more resilient due to no model losses. Pretty good in the inevitible mortar fight that follows the MG spam. The downside is that they can't move (naturally) and that the munitions cost is pretty steep in the early game.
Theoretically the air support centre could work as well. I think the idea was that USF would have to choose between better infantry, better vehicles or better offmap support - except since the vast majority of the game involves infantry or vehicles fighting, those two are always going to be the main choices. It's so niche that the playerbase seems to have forgotten it exists - it simply never gets brought up as an option. Relic also seem to have forgotten it exists as they made no changes to it with this patch, not even to adjust the slow and lacklustre dive bomb run (or to fix the incredibly slow and bad looking bomb drop animation). They also left USF with literally no other indirect fire beyond the mortars and the Whizbang - which is utterly bizarre considering how much artillery played a role in US doctrine.
In practice, the air support centre may prove too expensive to use regularly. It also still has the core problem of axis AA being able to totally nullify it in the late game.
Off map support is nice against a prepared defensive position or an opponent who is not paying attention, but its always felt weird to me in all CoH games in that normally you spend a lot of munitions just to see the enemy move out of the way.
Well axis gets offmap options that do more, like instant AoE retreat (that one gets spammed regularly in team games) and wehr sector artillery that's simply huge.
I don't think air center is effective for anything. USF already struggles between choosing strong infantry or strong T4, some offmap strafes aren't enough to choose neither.
Edit: perimeter artillery as well, though I've literally never used it.
So my random faction glitch finally seems to have sorted itself out and I played a few games and, I guess the Brits are just totally useless now? Or thats how it feels playing against or as them. They don't seem remotely viable with the nerfs and USF is now essentially the only allied choice? Ugh. I think I might shelve it until they do some more balance sweeps at this point
Well axis gets offmap options that do more, like instant AoE retreat (that one gets spammed regularly in team games) and wehr sector artillery that's simply huge.
I don't think air center is effective for anything. USF already struggles between choosing strong infantry or strong T4, some offmap strafes aren't enough to choose neither.
Edit: perimeter artillery as well, though I've literally never used it.
It was a problem in CoH2 as well, the US had to choose a specialty to equal what the Axis could do by default. Meanwhile the Axis can still choose their own specialty that out classes the Americans.
Okay I talked shit about off maps and then played a 3v3 against the AI where the USF spammed airstrikes. Probably because I made one expert and historically that difficulty cheats but I did learn there is such a thing as to many planes to shoot down.
So my random faction glitch finally seems to have sorted itself out and I played a few games and, I guess the Brits are just totally useless now? Or thats how it feels playing against or as them. They don't seem remotely viable with the nerfs and USF is now essentially the only allied choice? Ugh. I think I might shelve it until they do some more balance sweeps at this point
That was certainly my take on it. I mostly played brits, didn't use the boys AT blob that the axis players complaiend about lots, and still found the faction lost a lot of power with this patch. I was already struggling against the StuG D and Marder spam - and they decided to make the StuG stronger for some reason. Likewise Wehr had it so easy with the Jaeger blob that they didn't need to do anything else to win. I think this patch was a huge misstep and can't fathom why they went with such severe nerfs to the brits without considering the overall effect.
Overall though, I get the feeling that the brits were an afterthought. The overall faction design isn't that interesting, the training centre was always a dull and confusing design and off-hand I think they have the fewest stock units (again). Their main saving grace is that, unlike the US, they have a bit of everything even if the options aren't very good. A core part of the design seems to be making the veterancy important, especially the vet 1 ability, except you get units like the pack howitzer and LMG commandos that simply don't have one. How much effort has been put into the faction when they don't even give a proper vet 1 ability to all of the units? The LMG commandos really are emblematic of this sort of neglect. It took them a few patches to get the DPS up to a point where they were even worth considering and outside of that they have next to nothing going for them. Air drop and maybe they have stealth? I honestly can't remember if they have stealth or not I used them so little, and I'm not sure there's much use in air dropping a fragile long-range unit that doesn't turn up until mid-game. Their lone ability, supression fire, apparently makes them do 0 damage while active (although I would have to test this to confirm). At any rate, that's all they have. Compare with Fallschimjagers - air drop, stealth, ambush, grenade, passive healing at vet 1, quicker capture and a 160 damage panzerfaust. Which unit got more thought put into it?
We've played some 3v3s today and we lost the vast majority of the games as allies, fun matches though. Some we just left early because of the super shitty high ground in the middle with double megafuels map, if you lose both fuels early as allies the game is over, you're never attacking up the high ground against stugs.
The gulf of opinions on the game are huge, we face mainly MG42 spams and gigantic grenadier blobs into just tons and tons of indirect fire. It doesn't exactly feel like allies have a lot of options right now to counter but going on twitch to listen to streamers and chats it sounds like the opposite, while here again the reigning opinion seem to be that axis is very OP. On twitch DAK is considered extremely difficult to play and essentially hard countered by USF.
I'm trying some 1v1s now and wanted to go wehr since we play allies in team games and I can't find any matches. Like the wait time is 9 minutes.
Mignano summit is a beautiful but terrible map. The urban areas in CoH3 look much better than previous iterations, it's just a pity that this specific map is awful to play. Fuel layout aside, it's just too small for 3v3 and has chokepoints that are too harsh at the top of the map. Personally, I tended to find urban areas and indirect firefights favoured axis factions but I could see arguments either way. In the end my policy was to press esc -> leave before the countdown finished if I saw that map turn up.
On general balance, there will always be a very vocal crowd that insist Axis factions are underpowered no matter what the actual situation is. At the same time, axis queues are getting longer as people vote with their feet.
Mignano summit is a beautiful but terrible map. The urban areas in CoH3 look much better than previous iterations, it's just a pity that this specific map is awful to play. Fuel layout aside, it's just too small for 3v3 and has chokepoints that are too harsh at the top of the map. Personally, I tended to find urban areas and indirect firefights favoured axis factions but I could see arguments either way. In the end my policy was to press esc -> leave before the countdown finished if I saw that map turn up.
On general balance, there will always be a very vocal crowd that insist Axis factions are underpowered no matter what the actual situation is. At the same time, axis queues are getting longer as people vote with their feet.
I mean yes but this shouldn't be true with top player opinions. Of course they only care about 1v1.
The summit map is shit mainly because of elevation. It's such a boring mechanic and having all the fuel of the map controlled not just with garrisons but garrisons on elevation is super binary. Especially if you're USF and you don't really have artillery.
As a general rule, I take top player opinions with a grain of salt. Being good at playing a game does not make them good at designing a game. For CoH specifically, I remember how many of those top player opinions shaped what happened to the UKF in CoH2 - pretty much any strength or uniqueness they had was gutted and the faction left as a hollowed out husk. For DAK in CoH3 it may be a different focus due to 1v1 but for 3v3 they always had ample tools to work with.
I actually somewhat like the elevation mechanic, especially for tall buildings. It's poorly implemented on the summit map with the main chokepoint for the top of the map on either side being flanked by higher ground. It makes cutting off and holding the area even easier than it already was - and as you point out the reward for holding the top is massive.
i dont think the AOE2 community (which you could argue was THE aoe community) liked 4 very much at all
its a very different game, i don't follow the scene closely but all the players I did follow from AOE2 dropped 4 in a matter of weeks
it seems to have brought in a separate batch of players. Grubby, who is a prolific ex-WC3 pro grinded AOE4 pretty heavily on released but eventually dropped it, in his words at the time, due to bugs and lack of response from the devs (sounds familiar!)
What other projects do they even have? Did they lose their good devs to blackbird
I think basically all the people who have the magic touch are long gone, yeah.
Wasn't Age of Empires IV at least well received?
Better than Dawn of War 3 for sure. It had some serious bugs for a while (maybe it still has them?) which turned some people off. Certainly it didn't set the world on fire like CoH.
Thanks to the bookmarks bug I ended up going back and reading through the DoW3 thread here. It was a fairly depressing read. Started with so much excitement and hope, more and more warning signs appeared as the previews were shown and eventually it just died a while after the game launched.
What I remember of DoW3's launch is that the fundamentals were wrong, content was lacking or absent (maps, game modes, Last Stand) but other than that it was pretty well produced? It felt higher budget and more polished than CoH3 has been so far, but CoH3 at least has the fundamentals right. There were some good ideas in DoW3 as well that could have been very interesting in a more CoH/DoW2 style game (e.g. space marines designed around deep striking etc). Hopefully there will be a Dawn of War IV to revive the series some day.
It has been said before but CoH3 really does feel like it's an early access title as it stands. Hopefully it fares better than DoW3 did long term but that's very much dependent on them rolling out updates.
+1
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
I had fun with the single player stuff I played in DoW3.
I'm trying some 1v1s now and wanted to go wehr since we play allies in team games and I can't find any matches. Like the wait time is 9 minutes.
I think a few nights ago I queued up for an Axis game with some friends and we went for 13 minutes without finding any game. We gave up and just switched to allies eventually... though I was morbidly curious how long it would take. That allied match turned into a 55 minute nail biter because everyone was fucking around because we wanted to do something different. Build diversity on Allies, particularly on shit maps like Mignano Summit (3v3) can be a bit tiresome.
Population imbalance simply feeds into people having bad games though. I'll queue up for a 2v2 and get put against two low level opponents and they'll get crushed. The matchmaker just gives up finding a fair match eventually. That in turn feeds discontent and feelings of gameplay balance.
I've had some good games/wins lately though with some odd ball strategies. Playing left side of British Air and Sea Battlegroup to get an early Centaur is neat. The buffs have made it pretty decent. Though, you can get away with a lot in team games if you just get two Bishops behind your team. I had 111 kills with Bishops in a game tonight... they probably actually did 70-80% of my kills. Though, that's not too surprising with my build being mostly team weapons to support allies and protect that investment. It was a tough game too... 48 minutes.
I do think the balance patch improved things still and have been enjoying it still. Some choices, like improving StuGs, are a bit baffling. I assume these things are driven by 1v1 metrics though. Most fixed-gun weapons have struggled in 1v1s - too easy to flank, too specialized.
Relented and decided to try USF 3v3... and it's just as fucking bad. The axis cheese strategies are everywhere and basically unstoppable. Sure, if I played perfectly in every single engagement and perfectly mapped out a build order for the entire game, then it would maybe be an even fight. The axis, on the other hand, can get to that point by spamming fallschimpioneers with grenade launchers to totally negate all cover (and any light vehicle that stays still for a fraction of a second). Then there's the endless parade of MG42s... don't bother flanking them with infantry, because they can calmly pack up, relocate and carry on as if nothing happened. Literally the only game I won was because the opposing axis player was bad enough to let me borrow 2xMG42 for the duration of the game, they're just that powerful. The only surprise there was that they didn't default to nebelwerfers to remove any weapon team that gave them trouble.
Every game played out in much the same way. Axis spam infantry at the start, win or lose they build up a nearly impenetrable layer of weapon teams on the VPs then spam nebelwerfers and other artillery until they win. It's incredible how one sided they've been on the balance side of things and the game is very much bleeding to death as a result.
Edit: Yes, this very much is a post made in frustration. I'd went back to see if the UF changes had motorpool more viable but for the most part I didn't see it. The chaffee is nice but will eventually be outscaled and the greyhound just didn't work for me - usually arriving too late, with too little threat to infantry and easily hard countered by picking up any AT.
It really does just feel like choosing to play allied factions in team games is choosing to lose before the game starts - and at that point I just give up.
Brits did have a bit of a cheese strategy with Boys AT blobs but that got needed. However, so did a lot of other things for them, leaving them over tuned.
How do the Axis forum fan boys explain away the fact that queue populations are so skewed?
That Allies are so overpowereded that everyone is refusing to play them out of getting bored from constantly winning?
they mostly talk about how the game itself is dead because of relic (which is partially true), but never really any acknowledgement about how bad the allies have it in terms of fun-factor
i was interested in playing post-patch but I couldn't bribe my 2s partner to log back in, unfortunately
im going to editorialize slightly but i've noticed that COH has a very awkward and vocal "influencer" community which has all of the hallmarks of a larger games' reddit/youtube scene except they're serving an audience of like 800 dudes... and it's my observation that this group is 1) all axis mains 2) extremely obnoxious. it also shines a light on the top end 1v1 scene which could not be more different from the rest of the game...
no dev will admit it but a lot of them do pay attention to these scenes and if that's what's steering the balance conversations then the game has no future
I wish the matchmaker showed ratios like in the previous games for active searches.
Shining a light on 1v1... I feel like that's a specter from Starcraft's esports scene that every RTS will have to grapple with. I would love to see a game that steps away from that and optimizes for a team experience. There have been some that tried and some that may still (Stormgate).
I haven't followed much CoH3 streaming but CoH2 celebrities were tournament players who were mostly concerned by 1v1 because that's what was seen as the legitimate arena. I assume it's the same undercurrent.
I wish the matchmaker showed ratios like in the previous games for active searches.
Shining a light on 1v1... I feel like that's a specter from Starcraft's esports scene that every RTS will have to grapple with. I would love to see a game that steps away from that and optimizes for a team experience. There have been some that tried and some that may still (Stormgate).
I haven't followed much CoH3 streaming but CoH2 celebrities were tournament players who were mostly concerned by 1v1 because that's what was seen as the legitimate arena. I assume it's the same undercurrent.
Originally CoH was meant to be the team-based RTS to SC's 1v1, but they kinda sorta forgot about it, other than keeping the Axis vs Allies teams thing going.
I guess it's difficult in modern days to have a successful RTS, let alone one where enough people play it with teams.
I'm not a fan of the CoH 'influencer' community. I remember Relic handing off balance to them in CoH2 and they proceeded to basically remove UKF from the game. But that's all CoH2. There's definitely a level of elitish snobbery in the community. Anything above 1v1 (or maybe 2v2 at a stretch) is looked down upon and considered irrelevant. It's never going to be easy to balance the two simultaneously but it would be nice if Relic could at least try.
For the matchmaking, Relic have been saying that they're investigating the cause of long wait times - but it's hard to ignore that it's entirely an axis problem. At the end of the day it's going to come down to numbers and it would seem there's a lot more people on one side of the matchmaking than the other.
We play exclusively allies in 3v3s because of the que times, in 1v1s I play both sides.
I watch a lot of streams and to them and twitch chats 1v1 is the only game mode that matters, it is through this lens that any high level balance discussions is viewed through. So if you listen to the best players USF is broken strong at the moment and DAK is miserable to play. Theres frustration with facing wehr mechanized mg42 play, but mainly everyone is mad at vehicle pathing and bugs. Brits were considered the brain dead easy OP faction before the latest nerfs. I never see anyone bring up actual stats to merit their OPness feelings though.
I had a bit of a light bulb moment recently when I tried out some stuff with cheatmod, rifleman nades are horridly weak, like utter garbage half damage same cost. I don't think it's unbalanced because rifles are really good right now but bersa and wehr pgren nades are on another level.
USF mortar is kewl vs MGs, just make sure to pick the delayed fuse shells. I tested them out recently and they outperform airburst by a lot.
I'm general I'm having a lot of fun and I think the patch was in the right direction. Vehicle pathing is obnoxious and the brit nerfs made me stop playing them but it's fun. In general regardless of power level I will say that axis is way easier to play than allies maybe with the exception of DAK in 1v1. Like bersa blobs into T2 DAK is just playing 2 control groups all game, and wehr requires a lot less micro than playing USF trying to beat MG42s and german armor.
Edit: DoW2 and World in Conflict were great team RTS games.
Yeah last time I played USF advancing into the FoW mean my riflemen would be pinned down by MG42s in a second. Couldn't level up my mortar enough to be a strong counter to that.
Had slightly better luck with USF this evening, but by no means convincing wins. Mostly just desparately clinging on and hoping for the best.
I can't stress enough just how stupid the MG buff was though. While MGs did need a buff, a flat % increase to supression across the board was a terrible way to do it. The mediocre allied MGs remained mediocre, while the already good german MGs became incredible. Then they standardized cost and build time, and upped their health for good measure. None of this took into account the differences in performance or utility in their respective factions.
The end result is that the german MGs are incredibly oppressive and their counters less effective than before. Often it takes so much effort to remove one that the axis player essentially wins by defualt - either you wasted so much time that they manage to reinforce without much territory loss, or you've bled so much that they win the economy fight. A good example of the gulf in MG performance came up in one of my matches - I'd left a 30 cal covering the VP but the DAK player was able to walk headlong into it with vet 2 panzergrens, decap the point and crawl out again all without being pinned. One squad of three did eventually get pinned after it had left. If it had been an MG42, there's no way that would happen. Currently, the MG42 will pin in 2 bursts against vet 0 infantry.
The USF mg is pure garbage since release. MG42s costing 240 is indeed lol, I think what really REALLY sends them over the top is the combination of suppression and damage. Any time the MG cant suppress it will deal huge DPS instead, an MG42 can clear the buildings around it by itself and smash squads in cover for good measure.
Riflemen grenades are really weak, flanking and grenading works poorly. Mortar barrages do the work, double BARs shooting it from outside the arc works and the captain ability to remove suppression helps. 90% of the time I use it to pull back the suppressed squad mind you, it will save the insasuppressed one that found the MG. Using it to sprint forward generally does not work, though sometimes in edge cases it can make the difference.
If instead you need wehr advice go 2 grens 2 MGs, T3 into pgrens and paks. If you're against brits sprint into everything and throw 35 muni bundled grenades, generally wrecks anything that isnt a tank. I had one vetted pgren 1v1 a 400mp SAS squad just by shooting.
I was surprised bundled grenades were just 35 instead of the customary 50. Combined with you not needing to pay munis for weapon upgrades you can throw a lot of nades that are essentially mini nukes.
I really don't know why I keep trying. Playing allies simply isn't fun.
I'm working like mad to coordinate riflemen moving in 2-3 different directions all the while trying to flank MGs, cap territory, get some kind of advantage - and what I get in return is an instant pin and axis infantry that can just attack move anywhere. There's absolutely nothing as easy as the close quarters axis infantry - especially as they will not face MGs anywhere near as potent as the MG42. Even if I do manage a flank on an MG, a single squad poses literally no threat to it. I managed to get behind one with 4 riflemen in a squad, the axis player didn't bother moving it - the MG didn't lose a single man before they had reinforcements on the field, the riflemen died trying to retreat past it. I didn't have grenades or BARs at that point and it seems there's little hope of actually killing an MG without them.
Edit: One of my biggest frustrations in all this is that axis can just endlessly attack with next to zero risk. They don't have to worry about MGs, nor do they have to worry about infantry based AT (since the US version sucks outside of paras and the british got nerfed), nor do they have to worry much about light vehicles being used against them as they have easy infantry AT options if needed and there's only about two worthwhile allied light vehicles anyway. Instead, they can just always attack. If it doesn't work out, oh well, the MG will hold anywhere important long enough to get back there.
I forget, are you playing 1v1 or team games? In 2v2, at least, mortars with the delayed fuse vet (imminent nerf in...) seem to be pinpoint accurate and absolutely mince MGs, but they're probably harder to protect in solo matches.
And it's later on but if you go armored, it sounds like Scott is way more effective albeit still short ranged and squishy as hell.
Team games, primarily 3v3 but the last attempt was moving down to 2v2 as USF. Unfortunately, the map was Torrente which leans into axis strengths - one side close quarters, the other perfectly set up for turtling, both sides plenty of places to hide a medic bunker in a way that can't be hit and overall a fairly narrow map that a single MG42 can lock down large chunks of.
There were definitely things I could have done better of course. Like not trying the greyhound or T3 in general. Thought I had an opening since the panzergrens they were using don't have snares, but really they still had more than enough from the grens and a single AT gun to manage. That and ultimately the greyhound just isn't much of a threat to infantry. Its accuracy at any range greater than panzerfaust range is poor and it doesn't have the rate of fire or damage on its shells to compensate. Apparently they slashed the rate of fire sometime before release (by something like half) and it has never quite recovered. I could also have went more heavily into mortars, but that also comes with a bit more micro tax and they'll never have the same level of safety as a german mortar sitting behind an MG42 - especially important when your opponent is running everywhere with CQC troops.
I'm surprised the Scott seems to have become popular, but seems it's because it can fill in as a half decent light vehicle with decent timing at 3cp. It definitely isn't for utility as indirect fire at least, it's still terrible at that.
The game itself was even-ish until the panzer IV's started rolling in. The frustration is that unless allies strongly win the opening engagements, they will just lose. An even early game just lets the axis wait it out until they win in the end game. With USF a single bad tech decision isn't a setback, it's going to cost you the game. Or at least that's how it feels.
The USF weapon teams feel like they suck because there are two vehicles that can pump them out for pretty cheap: the weasel and the jeep. 75 munitions plus 4 reinforces... well, ~90 manpower and 75 munitions is a pretty decent deal for weapon team no matter how bad. Actually building an MG or Mortar out of the building feels like a trap though. Mortar might be worth it... nothing really wrong with the M1. As said earlier, the vet 1 delayed HE shells are really good. You can kill Tiger tanks with those if you drop a barrage on the enemy and they're not paying attention. Great Flak36 counter. They're pretty silly.
People like the M8A1 Scott, now.. really? I didn't think the changes looked that good though. Hrm... maybe I'll have to try it. I think Search and Destroy is pretty critical at times but I will admit the current strength of Armored Company - invest heavy into Riflemen and then stall in motor pool until Easy Eights arrive fits well for it. You can spare the fuel to pick one up while you wait.
M8A1s were incredible in CoH2 (still are) with the right spotting and protection. It's a unit that has long sat on the fence of bullshit in that game. Like a sniper on wheels - a persistent creeping threat that needs to be hunted down but is much harder to finish off than a sniper.
I was so brutally disappointed with the launch CoH3 Scott... utterly worthless garbage. I'll have to give it another go.
I've barely used the Scott at all, though I've seen Dxen try it. The special barrage is free and you can reverse a bit after starting a barrage, with the vet it might be good. Any 2 shots will kill it though so in team games if they've got 2 AT guns is very likely to explode when you move up to barrage the MG.
USF mortar is good, it just requires more micro than the opponent generally, riflemen are REALLY good expect them to be nerfed.
Twitch thinks the ez8 is OP and I agree but not in the way they say. It's extremely good vs infantry but especially in team games what USF needs is AT, where I think its merely good. It's not the p4 murderer people accuse it of, even if it just about wins 1v1. Its fire rate is low. What makes it especially powerful is the tech skip, saving 100 fuel for T4 is huge considering that USF with ISC doesnt use T4 anyway. USF is very fuel hungry and can really make use of it, its rough if wehr does the same with a panther though.
Theres a lot of whine about the Chaffee vs DAK right now but honestly if it didnt kill vehicles good it would be terrible. In general I think USF light vehicles can put out punishment but they're very easy to lose, it's not like they have instant smoke even with mechanized smoke upgrade.
I really want a light vehicle refund build for brits but after doing a lot of DPS testing the Humber is soooooo bad. It's cool with its and stuarts ability focus but I just cant be assed in the current patch.
EZ8 is strong, but all of the tech skip tanks right now are. I think EZ8 is up at the top of those though. Only the Panther competes in cost efficiency.
It's a bit strong right now. Tech skipping is just always strong and generally broken if the unit is any good. Its a bad design usually. CoH2 eventually removed nearly every call-in tech skip. You either had to have a minimum tech level to call in the tank or it unlocked a tank to build. That tends to be a better design.
The other issue is that the USF tank depot offers nothing interesting or better than an easy eight. Bulldozer? Worse anti infantry. Same health. Normal sherman? Just plain worse and barely cheaper. Hellcat? The hellcat has superior damage per shot but is not much of a better tank hunter. It does not excel enough.
If the tank depot offered something critical that the easy eight couldn't do - like a Priest 105mm artillery or a truly excellent tank hunter - then you might feel an opportunity cost. As it stands it's just a great value that surpasses the tank depot units and saves tech costs for better things.
Chaffee OP... that thing is only good because it enables stalling to EZ without losing instantly
to a StuG D. Really the problem is DAK's anti tank infantry situation should be overhauled. If you lose a Panzerjaeger squad early it can feel overly punishing because your access to AT is time limited. Particularly in city fight battle where AT guns and markers are weaker. DAK needs some flexibility- not USF nerfs.
The problem with changing to tech level/building unlocks instead of call ins is that some of the battlegroups are explicitly built around tech skipping. The british armoured battlegroup, for example, gives the 'withdraw vehicle' ability which is otherwise available in T4. The only reason it's in the battlegroup is to allow you to skip T4 entirely. Changing now would need all of the battlegroups and possibly some core faction design reviewed. Given the number of units that just aren't viable right now, I wouldn't put a huge amount of faith in it being done right.
Going on recent precedent, I fully expect riflemen, the Chaffee and the Easy 8 to all be nerfed in the next patch. And not just nerfed, but given the classic Relic triple nerf to be reduced to near worthless.
Riflemen needed the buffs they got, as they were mostly a trap before. They're also the only stock infantry the USF have so need to be able to scale. USF don't really have much options for elites either with only paras and SSF available in battlegroups - and the latter are now pretty pointless since they didn't adjust their stats to match the riflemen buff so they just don't offer anything worth their cost right now. It could be argued that USF ought to make use of combined arms between riflemen and the anti-infantry elements in T2 (sniper, MGs) to be effective but the extra costs involved discourage this at least.
I did have a fun 2v2 where Chaffee's really did a number on the opponents. With two of them I was able to take on a slightly damaged Pz3 and Pz4 combo - my teammate had wounded them with a basic Sherman while I circled around to hit them from behind. Lost one of the Chaffees but not a bad trade overall. I have been using them as a sort of 'disposable' unit diving in to kill units more valuable than themselves. It's a bonus if they come out alive but so long as they kill more than their own value (and usually they do by a good amount) then it's a win. If it wasn't a threat to vehicles and tanks I really don't know what else it could be used for. It's also pretty much single handedly carrying USF T3.
In the same game I did end up pumping out Easy 8's. I had three of them by the end of the game, having lost none along the way (including one that ended up vet 3). They really do wreck enemy infantry. I think I heard that they still have the old pre-nerf 76mm profile? Much like the Chaffee though they need to fill a role of some sort. Are they meant to just be a replacement for the 76mm Sherman if you don't go infantry company? They're probably too expensive for that. They're very strong as a tech skip but, as pointed out, this only works because the Chaffee works well enough to allow it. Before the Chaffee and Rifleman buffs they were largely pointless with most going mechanized support centre. I could see the anti-infantry power being brought down but hopefully not to "only use this against tanks" levels as often happens. Also worth remembering the Tiger has absurd levels of anti-everything.
The game itself was long since won by that point of course but I did find some interesting problems with USF, or how I use them at least. Around the time I had T3 rolling I ended up floating manpower like mad with very little to do with it. The MP-only units tend to be fairly specialized, but at that point of the game the biggest problem is entrenched german positions and only the mortar can really do anything about that. Maybe an AT gun as preparation for medium tanks. The default combat option is just 'more riflemen' (or elite infantry of choice). I had so much resources that I did actually build the T4 building before starting with Easy 8's (I was 6 CP short and had too many resources), and never really struggled with MP for them - although I was using the infantry support centre to be fair.
I'd strongly agree that the other options in the tank depot need help. The bulldozer in particular just doesn't really do anything that a normal Sherman can't.
I think the US support centers need a rethink. No other fiction gets locked out of tech options and can't back track. I get the idea of do you want stronger infantry, vehicles, or airstrikes but right now the US needs all of them. The ISC helps early game in giving you cheap BARs, the MSC helps late game with the 76mm Sherman, and the Air Center helps with the US lack of arty. I'd just merge them all into one center and let the player choose what they want. It already costs so much fuel that I rarely research all the options as is.
The Sherman dozer does need a rework. It bothers me that the 105 on it does worse than the 75mm Stug D. I know the game can't and shouldn't be super strict with historical accuracy, but then you run into the issue that the 105 Sherman is a later option that costs more.
Posts
Theoretically the air support centre could work as well. I think the idea was that USF would have to choose between better infantry, better vehicles or better offmap support - except since the vast majority of the game involves infantry or vehicles fighting, those two are always going to be the main choices. It's so niche that the playerbase seems to have forgotten it exists - it simply never gets brought up as an option. Relic also seem to have forgotten it exists as they made no changes to it with this patch, not even to adjust the slow and lacklustre dive bomb run (or to fix the incredibly slow and bad looking bomb drop animation). They also left USF with literally no other indirect fire beyond the mortars and the Whizbang - which is utterly bizarre considering how much artillery played a role in US doctrine.
In practice, the air support centre may prove too expensive to use regularly. It also still has the core problem of axis AA being able to totally nullify it in the late game.
I don't think air center is effective for anything. USF already struggles between choosing strong infantry or strong T4, some offmap strafes aren't enough to choose neither.
Edit: perimeter artillery as well, though I've literally never used it.
It was a problem in CoH2 as well, the US had to choose a specialty to equal what the Axis could do by default. Meanwhile the Axis can still choose their own specialty that out classes the Americans.
UK had an offmap that was consistent and useful. but they nerfed it. twice. and then they nerfed it a third time. lol.
That was certainly my take on it. I mostly played brits, didn't use the boys AT blob that the axis players complaiend about lots, and still found the faction lost a lot of power with this patch. I was already struggling against the StuG D and Marder spam - and they decided to make the StuG stronger for some reason. Likewise Wehr had it so easy with the Jaeger blob that they didn't need to do anything else to win. I think this patch was a huge misstep and can't fathom why they went with such severe nerfs to the brits without considering the overall effect.
Overall though, I get the feeling that the brits were an afterthought. The overall faction design isn't that interesting, the training centre was always a dull and confusing design and off-hand I think they have the fewest stock units (again). Their main saving grace is that, unlike the US, they have a bit of everything even if the options aren't very good. A core part of the design seems to be making the veterancy important, especially the vet 1 ability, except you get units like the pack howitzer and LMG commandos that simply don't have one. How much effort has been put into the faction when they don't even give a proper vet 1 ability to all of the units? The LMG commandos really are emblematic of this sort of neglect. It took them a few patches to get the DPS up to a point where they were even worth considering and outside of that they have next to nothing going for them. Air drop and maybe they have stealth? I honestly can't remember if they have stealth or not I used them so little, and I'm not sure there's much use in air dropping a fragile long-range unit that doesn't turn up until mid-game. Their lone ability, supression fire, apparently makes them do 0 damage while active (although I would have to test this to confirm). At any rate, that's all they have. Compare with Fallschimjagers - air drop, stealth, ambush, grenade, passive healing at vet 1, quicker capture and a 160 damage panzerfaust. Which unit got more thought put into it?
The gulf of opinions on the game are huge, we face mainly MG42 spams and gigantic grenadier blobs into just tons and tons of indirect fire. It doesn't exactly feel like allies have a lot of options right now to counter but going on twitch to listen to streamers and chats it sounds like the opposite, while here again the reigning opinion seem to be that axis is very OP. On twitch DAK is considered extremely difficult to play and essentially hard countered by USF.
I'm trying some 1v1s now and wanted to go wehr since we play allies in team games and I can't find any matches. Like the wait time is 9 minutes.
On general balance, there will always be a very vocal crowd that insist Axis factions are underpowered no matter what the actual situation is. At the same time, axis queues are getting longer as people vote with their feet.
I mean yes but this shouldn't be true with top player opinions. Of course they only care about 1v1.
The summit map is shit mainly because of elevation. It's such a boring mechanic and having all the fuel of the map controlled not just with garrisons but garrisons on elevation is super binary. Especially if you're USF and you don't really have artillery.
I actually somewhat like the elevation mechanic, especially for tall buildings. It's poorly implemented on the summit map with the main chokepoint for the top of the map on either side being flanked by higher ground. It makes cutting off and holding the area even easier than it already was - and as you point out the reward for holding the top is massive.
Wasn't Age of Empires IV at least well received?
its a very different game, i don't follow the scene closely but all the players I did follow from AOE2 dropped 4 in a matter of weeks
it seems to have brought in a separate batch of players. Grubby, who is a prolific ex-WC3 pro grinded AOE4 pretty heavily on released but eventually dropped it, in his words at the time, due to bugs and lack of response from the devs (sounds familiar!)
What I remember of DoW3's launch is that the fundamentals were wrong, content was lacking or absent (maps, game modes, Last Stand) but other than that it was pretty well produced? It felt higher budget and more polished than CoH3 has been so far, but CoH3 at least has the fundamentals right. There were some good ideas in DoW3 as well that could have been very interesting in a more CoH/DoW2 style game (e.g. space marines designed around deep striking etc). Hopefully there will be a Dawn of War IV to revive the series some day.
It has been said before but CoH3 really does feel like it's an early access title as it stands. Hopefully it fares better than DoW3 did long term but that's very much dependent on them rolling out updates.
I think a few nights ago I queued up for an Axis game with some friends and we went for 13 minutes without finding any game. We gave up and just switched to allies eventually... though I was morbidly curious how long it would take. That allied match turned into a 55 minute nail biter because everyone was fucking around because we wanted to do something different. Build diversity on Allies, particularly on shit maps like Mignano Summit (3v3) can be a bit tiresome.
Population imbalance simply feeds into people having bad games though. I'll queue up for a 2v2 and get put against two low level opponents and they'll get crushed. The matchmaker just gives up finding a fair match eventually. That in turn feeds discontent and feelings of gameplay balance.
I've had some good games/wins lately though with some odd ball strategies. Playing left side of British Air and Sea Battlegroup to get an early Centaur is neat. The buffs have made it pretty decent. Though, you can get away with a lot in team games if you just get two Bishops behind your team. I had 111 kills with Bishops in a game tonight... they probably actually did 70-80% of my kills. Though, that's not too surprising with my build being mostly team weapons to support allies and protect that investment. It was a tough game too... 48 minutes.
I do think the balance patch improved things still and have been enjoying it still. Some choices, like improving StuGs, are a bit baffling. I assume these things are driven by 1v1 metrics though. Most fixed-gun weapons have struggled in 1v1s - too easy to flank, too specialized.
Also love having no artillery, despite the US having the best artillery of WW2.
Every game played out in much the same way. Axis spam infantry at the start, win or lose they build up a nearly impenetrable layer of weapon teams on the VPs then spam nebelwerfers and other artillery until they win. It's incredible how one sided they've been on the balance side of things and the game is very much bleeding to death as a result.
Edit: Yes, this very much is a post made in frustration. I'd went back to see if the UF changes had motorpool more viable but for the most part I didn't see it. The chaffee is nice but will eventually be outscaled and the greyhound just didn't work for me - usually arriving too late, with too little threat to infantry and easily hard countered by picking up any AT.
It really does just feel like choosing to play allied factions in team games is choosing to lose before the game starts - and at that point I just give up.
That Allies are so overpowereded that everyone is refusing to play them out of getting bored from constantly winning?
they mostly talk about how the game itself is dead because of relic (which is partially true), but never really any acknowledgement about how bad the allies have it in terms of fun-factor
i was interested in playing post-patch but I couldn't bribe my 2s partner to log back in, unfortunately
im going to editorialize slightly but i've noticed that COH has a very awkward and vocal "influencer" community which has all of the hallmarks of a larger games' reddit/youtube scene except they're serving an audience of like 800 dudes... and it's my observation that this group is 1) all axis mains 2) extremely obnoxious. it also shines a light on the top end 1v1 scene which could not be more different from the rest of the game...
no dev will admit it but a lot of them do pay attention to these scenes and if that's what's steering the balance conversations then the game has no future
Shining a light on 1v1... I feel like that's a specter from Starcraft's esports scene that every RTS will have to grapple with. I would love to see a game that steps away from that and optimizes for a team experience. There have been some that tried and some that may still (Stormgate).
I haven't followed much CoH3 streaming but CoH2 celebrities were tournament players who were mostly concerned by 1v1 because that's what was seen as the legitimate arena. I assume it's the same undercurrent.
Originally CoH was meant to be the team-based RTS to SC's 1v1, but they kinda sorta forgot about it, other than keeping the Axis vs Allies teams thing going.
I guess it's difficult in modern days to have a successful RTS, let alone one where enough people play it with teams.
For the matchmaking, Relic have been saying that they're investigating the cause of long wait times - but it's hard to ignore that it's entirely an axis problem. At the end of the day it's going to come down to numbers and it would seem there's a lot more people on one side of the matchmaking than the other.
I watch a lot of streams and to them and twitch chats 1v1 is the only game mode that matters, it is through this lens that any high level balance discussions is viewed through. So if you listen to the best players USF is broken strong at the moment and DAK is miserable to play. Theres frustration with facing wehr mechanized mg42 play, but mainly everyone is mad at vehicle pathing and bugs. Brits were considered the brain dead easy OP faction before the latest nerfs. I never see anyone bring up actual stats to merit their OPness feelings though.
I had a bit of a light bulb moment recently when I tried out some stuff with cheatmod, rifleman nades are horridly weak, like utter garbage half damage same cost. I don't think it's unbalanced because rifles are really good right now but bersa and wehr pgren nades are on another level.
USF mortar is kewl vs MGs, just make sure to pick the delayed fuse shells. I tested them out recently and they outperform airburst by a lot.
I'm general I'm having a lot of fun and I think the patch was in the right direction. Vehicle pathing is obnoxious and the brit nerfs made me stop playing them but it's fun. In general regardless of power level I will say that axis is way easier to play than allies maybe with the exception of DAK in 1v1. Like bersa blobs into T2 DAK is just playing 2 control groups all game, and wehr requires a lot less micro than playing USF trying to beat MG42s and german armor.
Edit: DoW2 and World in Conflict were great team RTS games.
I can't stress enough just how stupid the MG buff was though. While MGs did need a buff, a flat % increase to supression across the board was a terrible way to do it. The mediocre allied MGs remained mediocre, while the already good german MGs became incredible. Then they standardized cost and build time, and upped their health for good measure. None of this took into account the differences in performance or utility in their respective factions.
The end result is that the german MGs are incredibly oppressive and their counters less effective than before. Often it takes so much effort to remove one that the axis player essentially wins by defualt - either you wasted so much time that they manage to reinforce without much territory loss, or you've bled so much that they win the economy fight. A good example of the gulf in MG performance came up in one of my matches - I'd left a 30 cal covering the VP but the DAK player was able to walk headlong into it with vet 2 panzergrens, decap the point and crawl out again all without being pinned. One squad of three did eventually get pinned after it had left. If it had been an MG42, there's no way that would happen. Currently, the MG42 will pin in 2 bursts against vet 0 infantry.
Riflemen grenades are really weak, flanking and grenading works poorly. Mortar barrages do the work, double BARs shooting it from outside the arc works and the captain ability to remove suppression helps. 90% of the time I use it to pull back the suppressed squad mind you, it will save the insasuppressed one that found the MG. Using it to sprint forward generally does not work, though sometimes in edge cases it can make the difference.
If instead you need wehr advice go 2 grens 2 MGs, T3 into pgrens and paks. If you're against brits sprint into everything and throw 35 muni bundled grenades, generally wrecks anything that isnt a tank. I had one vetted pgren 1v1 a 400mp SAS squad just by shooting.
I was surprised bundled grenades were just 35 instead of the customary 50. Combined with you not needing to pay munis for weapon upgrades you can throw a lot of nades that are essentially mini nukes.
I'm working like mad to coordinate riflemen moving in 2-3 different directions all the while trying to flank MGs, cap territory, get some kind of advantage - and what I get in return is an instant pin and axis infantry that can just attack move anywhere. There's absolutely nothing as easy as the close quarters axis infantry - especially as they will not face MGs anywhere near as potent as the MG42. Even if I do manage a flank on an MG, a single squad poses literally no threat to it. I managed to get behind one with 4 riflemen in a squad, the axis player didn't bother moving it - the MG didn't lose a single man before they had reinforcements on the field, the riflemen died trying to retreat past it. I didn't have grenades or BARs at that point and it seems there's little hope of actually killing an MG without them.
Edit: One of my biggest frustrations in all this is that axis can just endlessly attack with next to zero risk. They don't have to worry about MGs, nor do they have to worry about infantry based AT (since the US version sucks outside of paras and the british got nerfed), nor do they have to worry much about light vehicles being used against them as they have easy infantry AT options if needed and there's only about two worthwhile allied light vehicles anyway. Instead, they can just always attack. If it doesn't work out, oh well, the MG will hold anywhere important long enough to get back there.
And it's later on but if you go armored, it sounds like Scott is way more effective albeit still short ranged and squishy as hell.
There were definitely things I could have done better of course. Like not trying the greyhound or T3 in general. Thought I had an opening since the panzergrens they were using don't have snares, but really they still had more than enough from the grens and a single AT gun to manage. That and ultimately the greyhound just isn't much of a threat to infantry. Its accuracy at any range greater than panzerfaust range is poor and it doesn't have the rate of fire or damage on its shells to compensate. Apparently they slashed the rate of fire sometime before release (by something like half) and it has never quite recovered. I could also have went more heavily into mortars, but that also comes with a bit more micro tax and they'll never have the same level of safety as a german mortar sitting behind an MG42 - especially important when your opponent is running everywhere with CQC troops.
I'm surprised the Scott seems to have become popular, but seems it's because it can fill in as a half decent light vehicle with decent timing at 3cp. It definitely isn't for utility as indirect fire at least, it's still terrible at that.
The game itself was even-ish until the panzer IV's started rolling in. The frustration is that unless allies strongly win the opening engagements, they will just lose. An even early game just lets the axis wait it out until they win in the end game. With USF a single bad tech decision isn't a setback, it's going to cost you the game. Or at least that's how it feels.
People like the M8A1 Scott, now.. really? I didn't think the changes looked that good though. Hrm... maybe I'll have to try it. I think Search and Destroy is pretty critical at times but I will admit the current strength of Armored Company - invest heavy into Riflemen and then stall in motor pool until Easy Eights arrive fits well for it. You can spare the fuel to pick one up while you wait.
M8A1s were incredible in CoH2 (still are) with the right spotting and protection. It's a unit that has long sat on the fence of bullshit in that game. Like a sniper on wheels - a persistent creeping threat that needs to be hunted down but is much harder to finish off than a sniper.
I was so brutally disappointed with the launch CoH3 Scott... utterly worthless garbage. I'll have to give it another go.
USF mortar is good, it just requires more micro than the opponent generally, riflemen are REALLY good expect them to be nerfed.
Twitch thinks the ez8 is OP and I agree but not in the way they say. It's extremely good vs infantry but especially in team games what USF needs is AT, where I think its merely good. It's not the p4 murderer people accuse it of, even if it just about wins 1v1. Its fire rate is low. What makes it especially powerful is the tech skip, saving 100 fuel for T4 is huge considering that USF with ISC doesnt use T4 anyway. USF is very fuel hungry and can really make use of it, its rough if wehr does the same with a panther though.
Theres a lot of whine about the Chaffee vs DAK right now but honestly if it didnt kill vehicles good it would be terrible. In general I think USF light vehicles can put out punishment but they're very easy to lose, it's not like they have instant smoke even with mechanized smoke upgrade.
I really want a light vehicle refund build for brits but after doing a lot of DPS testing the Humber is soooooo bad. It's cool with its and stuarts ability focus but I just cant be assed in the current patch.
It's a bit strong right now. Tech skipping is just always strong and generally broken if the unit is any good. Its a bad design usually. CoH2 eventually removed nearly every call-in tech skip. You either had to have a minimum tech level to call in the tank or it unlocked a tank to build. That tends to be a better design.
The other issue is that the USF tank depot offers nothing interesting or better than an easy eight. Bulldozer? Worse anti infantry. Same health. Normal sherman? Just plain worse and barely cheaper. Hellcat? The hellcat has superior damage per shot but is not much of a better tank hunter. It does not excel enough.
If the tank depot offered something critical that the easy eight couldn't do - like a Priest 105mm artillery or a truly excellent tank hunter - then you might feel an opportunity cost. As it stands it's just a great value that surpasses the tank depot units and saves tech costs for better things.
Chaffee OP... that thing is only good because it enables stalling to EZ without losing instantly
to a StuG D. Really the problem is DAK's anti tank infantry situation should be overhauled. If you lose a Panzerjaeger squad early it can feel overly punishing because your access to AT is time limited. Particularly in city fight battle where AT guns and markers are weaker. DAK needs some flexibility- not USF nerfs.
Going on recent precedent, I fully expect riflemen, the Chaffee and the Easy 8 to all be nerfed in the next patch. And not just nerfed, but given the classic Relic triple nerf to be reduced to near worthless.
Riflemen needed the buffs they got, as they were mostly a trap before. They're also the only stock infantry the USF have so need to be able to scale. USF don't really have much options for elites either with only paras and SSF available in battlegroups - and the latter are now pretty pointless since they didn't adjust their stats to match the riflemen buff so they just don't offer anything worth their cost right now. It could be argued that USF ought to make use of combined arms between riflemen and the anti-infantry elements in T2 (sniper, MGs) to be effective but the extra costs involved discourage this at least.
I did have a fun 2v2 where Chaffee's really did a number on the opponents. With two of them I was able to take on a slightly damaged Pz3 and Pz4 combo - my teammate had wounded them with a basic Sherman while I circled around to hit them from behind. Lost one of the Chaffees but not a bad trade overall. I have been using them as a sort of 'disposable' unit diving in to kill units more valuable than themselves. It's a bonus if they come out alive but so long as they kill more than their own value (and usually they do by a good amount) then it's a win. If it wasn't a threat to vehicles and tanks I really don't know what else it could be used for. It's also pretty much single handedly carrying USF T3.
In the same game I did end up pumping out Easy 8's. I had three of them by the end of the game, having lost none along the way (including one that ended up vet 3). They really do wreck enemy infantry. I think I heard that they still have the old pre-nerf 76mm profile? Much like the Chaffee though they need to fill a role of some sort. Are they meant to just be a replacement for the 76mm Sherman if you don't go infantry company? They're probably too expensive for that. They're very strong as a tech skip but, as pointed out, this only works because the Chaffee works well enough to allow it. Before the Chaffee and Rifleman buffs they were largely pointless with most going mechanized support centre. I could see the anti-infantry power being brought down but hopefully not to "only use this against tanks" levels as often happens. Also worth remembering the Tiger has absurd levels of anti-everything.
The game itself was long since won by that point of course but I did find some interesting problems with USF, or how I use them at least. Around the time I had T3 rolling I ended up floating manpower like mad with very little to do with it. The MP-only units tend to be fairly specialized, but at that point of the game the biggest problem is entrenched german positions and only the mortar can really do anything about that. Maybe an AT gun as preparation for medium tanks. The default combat option is just 'more riflemen' (or elite infantry of choice). I had so much resources that I did actually build the T4 building before starting with Easy 8's (I was 6 CP short and had too many resources), and never really struggled with MP for them - although I was using the infantry support centre to be fair.
I'd strongly agree that the other options in the tank depot need help. The bulldozer in particular just doesn't really do anything that a normal Sherman can't.
The Sherman dozer does need a rework. It bothers me that the 105 on it does worse than the 75mm Stug D. I know the game can't and shouldn't be super strict with historical accuracy, but then you run into the issue that the 105 Sherman is a later option that costs more.