Good points and very well presented! Only thing i kinda disagree with is the idea of the Sturmgeschütz doing 0% damage to infantry, since it is literally an Assault Gun. (I know the 75mm long gun is a bit diffrent, but still.) Anyhow, I totally agree on the main point about making a decision on the units to either do one damage type or the other, more skill and planning involved.
well stug does damage with mg upgrade and vet 1 ability anti infrantry ability it is easy to balance out vehicle because it is one unit with one gun and with tech cost and unit cost because in way expensive comparing to what you need for infrantry
That might be so but it's ridiculously cheap atm and you can get it very early which is kinda weird since it's basically a full fledged medium tank in the game
@@cloaker2829 no, they don't. They may have similar calibers (or may not, the germans used many different calibers over the course of the war) but Stugs carried a large load of HE (i.e. anti-infantry) shells while Jags didn't, because they were tank destroyers not assault guns. Conversely, Jags got more of the limited supply of APCR rounds (armor-percing rounds made partially from tungsten).
Yes and no. The driving intent was to monetize contents all over again. "Reinventing" was the pretext to convince people to purchase the same (yet different) title a second time.
@@simonak9699 I honestly think this is the answer to everyone's frustration with the game. They didn't want to make a good or bad game, they just wanted to monetize the sequel of a franchise with a strong following.
The problem is not having an anti everything unit, its how it works, I say this because you can, in COH2 make all rounder rifleman and rifle section, but they lose compared to their more specialized counterpart with only BARs or Brens The problem is not being a jack of all trade, but being a master of both, while costing in a similar way to the other. In another RTS like Supreme Commander, even tho this does not happens, you can justify an experimental being good against both by being expensive. The King Tiger and Tiger are good against both in COH 2 but they are expensive, and they still lose to specialized units.
But even then, in Supreme Commander its more Rock (Land), Paper(Air) and Scissor(Sea) so even if a unit is good against a combination of 2 units types, there is always one that is a sure bet counter to it, no matter its cost. In CoH3 there is only 2 types of unit, so making a unit good at both makes ZERO sense.
@@TheSpectralFX Bro, Land and Sea units are the same the only difference is underwater units but that is very specific... specially when a lot of them can go into the beach, as well as one ship can do that.
@@patriciohe9273 well most of the time Infantry is made to fight other infantry with some capabilityies against other stuff, but on a squad level you usually see an RPG-7 or AT-4, and this is today. tho I get what you saying.
@@gerfand but that's because current armoured targets are more hardened, have better protection systems and can detect threats at longer distances, so specialized weapons are heavier, biggest and more cumbersome In WW2 you could give a 2kg brick of tnt to all soldiers and call it a day, or give them a 5kg panzerfaust-like weapon, or give 1-2 of 20kg PTRS-like rifles in a squad and call it a day. But today your disposable AT launcher weights 3 times as much, even 122mm+C4 HE only disables tank mobility, and your anti-material rifle is no longer capable of disabling a tank
This is so spot on! Its so sad to see how they choose to design coh 3. I have played almost 1000 hours of coh 3 and recently every time I boot up the game it just makes me want to play coh 2 instead. Coh 2 is just so superior in almost every way!
@@zwerne42 Coh1 has a bit of a problem with spam, for example spamming AT and Snipers is a perfectly viable strategy in Coh1 while in Coh2, you're going to get absolutely shredded if you do that since snipers are not the one man armies they used to be. Not to mention how all players in Coh1 are perfectly aware of this considering most players are veterans by now and even the AI is prone to doing this sort of nonsense if you decide to play by yourself (Coh2's AI has its own problems, but I'd take propaganda arty spam over sniper and AT spam every day of the week). And don't get me started on the ridiculous veterancy mechanic of the Wehrmacht in Coh1.
@@Rather.Splended.Cromwell Honestly you hit the mark, dude. Between that and the loss of that gritty feel CoH2 had, I just don't ever see myself moving to the third.
I disagree. Anti-everything does not mean we should specialize units making them totally worthless versus unit A and a counter to unit B. I think all units should be useful in most situations but their efficiency should vary, depending on unit profile, weapons available and reality, for balancing -reference-. For example, tank destroyers should outrange tanks ALWAYS (CoH2 did this right, in CoH3 StuGs they have the range of a tank... wtf), and deal high damage to tanks and lower damage to infantry. This can be balanced by either pop cap, cost and performance of the main cannon vs infantry. Tanks should be generalists, jack of all trades, and their performance should vary depending on profile, being somewhat based in reality for balancing reference. This means that a Panzer III should be excellent infantry support, fast, somewhat nimble but should have difficulty penetrating heavier and late war tanks. In contrast a Sherman should be beefier than the Panzer III, somewhat slower, better at killing infantry but somewhat poor vs tanks. This is what we have, tank wise, in CoH3 and I agree with the vision the devs have for them. I don't think the balancing philosophy should be to ultra-specialize units making them worthless against certain units and the ideal, no-thought counter to other units. I think every unit should have a response be it through a utility option (smoke grenades vs a tank, for example), a sticky bomb, a cover bonus, camouflage, sprints or straight up damage, but NEVER outright counter except for a few select cases. Marders were realistically AT guns on wheels so they should be just that, but StuGs were actually assault guns so they could engage whatever enemy came upon them: fortifications, tanks, vehicles and infantry BUT their performance varied. In short, rock-paper-scissors balancing is boring and an easy way to balance that leads only to standardization, streamlining and stagnation.
I haven't gotten around to grabbing CoH3 yet, but I've been doing a ton of CoH1 in the past months, and something that just came to mind after watching this is how Rangers have always been an Anti-Everything Unit. CoH 1, you drop 400 manpower to get a squad of 6 Rangers equipped with 2 Bazookas and 4 Garands, with 100 munis to upgrade the Garands for Thompsons. The downside being Rangers now went from Midrange units who were upgraded Riflemen to Close Range Units, but this was sort of negated by the fact close range, they could shred infantry and still take on Tanks. HOWEVER, they were also the only unit in the game that was Anti-Everything without salvaging gear, like a BAR-equipped Riflemen Squad grabbing a fallen Panzershrek. CoH2, you could definitely feel the beginning of pushing into anti-everything. As a USF main, you could spend the munis to give a Riflemen squad both a BAR and a Bazooka instead of doubling up on them, but they did LESS damage than a dedicated Anti-Infantry or Anti-Tank unit as a result of splitting into both. Once I get CoH3, I can see for myself how the Anti-Everything feels, but it already seems like a major problem of "every match sees the same units being played"
I haven't played COH3 yet but coming from COH2 I'm a bit confused on the situation as you described it. "anti-everything" blobs are very much a thing people attempt to do in COH2 but it's so easily countered by machineguns, mortars, and better micro being able to control of the map by splitting your presence, that blobing gets shut down pretty hard by any competent player. Is this not a factor in play in COH3? I see you mention that units are becoming "anti-everything" but like you mentioned with the SMG+bazooka section, they lose to more specialized mid-range anti-infantry squads. This feels intentional, and that the SMGs in the squad do make them more of a specialized assaulter, and otherwise serve to limit their range. I'm not implying your general assessment is wrong mind you, I just don't think I understand the full picture because the units as described aren't problems unless they're operating in a raw vacuum. I got into COH2 pretty late, so I only ever had well developed resources and examples to learn from, but I never really went into the game thinking of anything as simply a "anti-tank" or "anti-infantry". Machine guns pin infantry, mortars heavily punish stationary or clumped units, flame throwers break through entrenchment, Snipers punish an over-reliance on emplaced or specialist troops, grenades demand your opponents attention in a fight and punish a lack of micro, light tanks are highly mobile and cheap, and a light tank + penal AT + conscripts with AT grenades can easily defeat much heavier and more expensive units when micro'd correctly. Is this kind of nuanced play and counter play not available in COH3 to counter this "anti-everything" problem?
The main counter in reallife to anti everything elite is its cost and depletion of fit operators in armed forces. Look at current war - the most elite units are depleted in first half a year of the war. Now both armies are built from regular joes that wouldn't pass a very loose medical examination and physical fitness for combat readiness. Veterans become the elite now and pushed into commanding positions so SAs become even more rare. Additional counter is cost to kill vs cost to train/manufacture. Introduction of limited munitions will fix the issue you brought in - anti all will become high alfastrike unit and then just regular infantry.
Some units feel kinda wonky, but relic is trying or at least aware in some regards when you look at British tanks. A Crusader with a two pounder will be able to curbstomp infantry, but if you go for the six pounder, you're less effective against infantry but can now punch into armour more effectively. As always, just have to hope patches make things somewhat better feeling without breaking too much in the process.
I mean no disrespect when I say this, but 11k views on a low-sub account one day after upload proves a lot of people agree with you. I've not actually looked at it with this anti-everything perspective but you're totally right. My only issue (being an allied main, and also average ELO) I struggle even against the shitty axis players with the current balancing because you need "anti-everything" to even come close to defeating some of their cheese units. Guastatori, jagers, Wirbelwind etc...If they don't balance the factions first fixing anti everything will just make it even more painful!
Anti-everything Infantry blobs grow so fast over the game if the owner retreats at the right times, making them cost efficient in the long game. Anti everything tanks are usually difficult to mass since fuel is often contested and losing one tank is a big blow. There are many efficient counters to tanks like AT guns, tank destroyers and Call-ins. Especially the allied AT Call-ins in coh2. It's actually insane how fast you can destroy the most expensive tanks in coh2 by just ramming a t-34 into them and dropping AT overwatch
I made anti everything squads in COH1. Panzer Grenadiers with an MG42, STG44 and 2 G43s(not snipers). They also had access to incendiary grenades as well as had the ability to fire Panzerschrecks. The Schrecks cost me ammo everytime to use but the ability was there.
Fair points, I respect your opinion and have some points: - Agreed that AT rifles improving a squad’s potency against infantry is just odd. Yes an AT rifle is powerful, but also unwieldy and slow to fire… assets that are no help in an infantry engagement. Believe they were worse at release and have been nerfed now. - I feel like the example of Jaeger’s is cherry-picking. Yes they have a strong multi-role potential BUT this ignores the threat of weapon engagement range and flanking. Units with auto-weapons or those that can flank them will do the job. - I feel the point of the Foot Guards js to complement the faction’s infantry tanks. They pair perfectly with the Matilda, adding to its weak vehicle firepower with the bazookas to whittle down vehicle health, whilst the tank can help them get up close and personal with their SMGs. - Yes Rangers are arguably too strong. I got roasted by one with a flamethrower and they were a nightmare to kill. - Finally, maybe all your points are more valid at higher play levels where the meta is exploited to the max. Down at bronze I don’t have these kind of problems. Also, I love this game.
I somewhat agree with the infantry part. There's no clear division in who's good at what. But I completely disagree with vehicle damage. I think he's got it twisted. Armour is a thing in coh3 that actually matters this time around. I think the idea presented in this video, in regards to anti tank, is the opposite of the truth. Coh2 had this problem. Coh3 just doesn't. Anti tank rifles and even other tanks are completely helpless against some more armoured enemies because they just can't pen them. But in coh2 2 penal squads could kill infantry as well as a damm king tiger without much struggle. I honestly find it quite surprising to see somebody say that this is a problem coh3 has when the entire reason I prefer it is because it fixed that anti-everything issue. 3 Stuarts can win against a tiger in coh2. 3 Stuarts won't scratch it in coh3. So you need something more specialised. But in coh2 you could just spam more at it. For clarity I have 983 hours in coh2 and 312 in coh3. If you think I'm wrong or misunderstanding this guys point. I'd be happy to talk about it. Just don't be a twerp.
A possible way around this problem would be to have munitions upkeep as you do manpower, and increase that appropriately when you equip your troops with a "gets better at everything" loadout. That way you could have one or two super units, but at the cost of your air strike and whatnot abilities. Also kinda panders to realism since you have to be able to logistically support the bigger array of weaponry.
I haven't touched COH3 since launch and to be honest I don't get why Jaeger get Shreks anyway, it feels weird to give light infantry that were used for recon and skirmishing, I feel like Panzergrenadiers would be more fitting for an AT role since they were more focused on that role irl, not to say that COH should make everything similar to irl but I found it weird from a gameplay standpoint too since I'm used to COH 2 Jaeger. Also I do agree with the points you made aside from my annoyance of Jaegers, the everyman infantry is just annoying, though as another commenter said, I do feel that elite units make sense to have decent capabilities against everything since training wise they were trained to handle most circumstances thrown their way, however I feel they should get one or the other for that regardless as it's more fair that way
probably using the word "weird" isn't the best word to use, because it makes it sound like its a "comfort" issue and not a "gameplay/strategy" issue. But I do agree, I haaate coh3. its literally just blob as much of one unit as possible. Like jaegers, they can just run down infantry so fast, and since you spammed them, they all got shreks so they can all take 1 second to aim at a tank,fire all their launchers together,then back to shooting infantry And its like this across the board for each faction really. They all have this spam this 1 unit and rush kind of unit and whoever gets it first basically wins
As a 4v4 coh2 allied player, I actually miss the volk Shrek for different reasons. They didn't have a snare, and t34s were in T3 (or did not require t3 for t4)and costed less fuel so getting t34s at 12 minutes was a reality. 5 Shreks with no raketan. You could just drive the t34 and crush them forcing retreats or mass casualties. You had to out cheese axis back in 4v4
I main Wehr in Coh3, and usually play 3v3, 4v4. I usually start with The 1 engineering you were given at start, 1 ketten and build infantries kompanies for 1 mg or mortar (if i see mg drop in from the USF airborne ability) from there, i will go for second mg or second mortar, before i build T4 building, and when it comes to T4 building, i always have trouble deciding what i want to build PanzerGrenadier is great frontline infantries, and i usually get 2, and kept 2 of them for the rest of the game, but enemy might get Greyhound this time, so i need the AT gun, but if enemy get mortar to spam on my position, my AT gun and MG team gonna be useless, with PzGren i could go and flank those mortars, but then, they could come with constant flanking, where i need the half truck to heal or recrew the teamweapon to hold the line, and that's where my early into mid game gets tricky And if the enemy go rangers spam, 2 mg isnt gonna hold, those ranger can fire specialize weapons on the move, which also means even if supressed, they still remains their same accuracy on their specialized weapon and take my MG out, at this point, i will need to consider build T3 and research the armoured support for Wirbel to surpress those rangers, but Rangers with bazookas can still take out the wirbel even when surpressed, so the best option is to have 2, 3 nebel to area denial those rangers spam, and best if take them all out at once, but without supressing it, it's waste of manpower to get them, and may not even be useful to do something and not able to hold the caps Long story short, due to my personal build order, trying to decide which unit to go for, during mid game, can be heavily deter by enemy units spam choices
I would make all anti-everything units, do less damage and bee less cost effective them the specialist options (anti-inf and anti-tank). They have greater ultity but would only be a soft-counter.
I will say to balance these anti everything role, all of those units (guard, pz shreck, rangers) They all cost a lot more upfront and to reinforce, it make their counter (pz werfer and katucha) even better against them
I dont feel like coh 3 made a good sequel. They should have just done more stuff for coh 2 and develope another game in the meantime. Problems like these show that they are incabable of recreating the quality of coh 2 or even surpassing it.
Although the critique is spot on, there is something important that I feel the need to bring up. And that is the role of the anti-Nothing. Or Neutral. CoH2 especially is more than the binary, heads or tails of the anti-tank vs anti-infantry. In a lot of cases, there exists the option to go for the middle ground with its own unique cost-benefit. Think of the T3 for Wer in coh2, for example. Ostwind, p4, Stug. An anti-infantry (and AA), a multifunctional, An anti-tank. That role of the p4 is what makes Coh2. It throws the balance of anti-tank meets anti-infantry by including the third possibility : Numbers. Now, others usually say that the third class is indirect fire. Meaning that there is 9 classes : light, medium, heavy and then anti-infantry, anti-tank, indirect. Where heavy beats medium, medium beats light. The costing reflects this. A quad halftrack is not going to beat a panther, even when massed in equal fuel numbers but enough katyushas rockets will. Yet a katyusha is primarily used to counter infantry. ML20s, mortars, Priests, these all can take out vehicles and infantry depending on use. This carries over into CoH3 but the ranges are a bit squiffy so it feels kinda crap. Why I mention the anti-nothing is because of units like ostruppen. By itself, its trash. It should lose to every other unit. Theres a lot of tech required before it can be upgraded with an LMG and even then they cant hit a barn door. By design. Flank a maxim crew with unvetted ost and its still a 50 50 as to if they can do enough dps to decrew it before they have to retreat. But if you have the munitions and the numbers, they can faust any tank with guarenteed damage. Enough numbers? dead tank. ISU152 vs 16 ost, ostruppen win. CoH3 takes this principle and gives it to every unit. Suddenly, there is no dedicated units and the issue is as you state in the video. But it feels shitty because of the discrepancy between the anti-everything and then the anti-nothing. Trash units? sure. Need them to cap. But anyone who has played enough hours will know that there is no reason to build one unit over another if the output is the same. Add the extra cost on top and you see units gathering mothballs in the meta becasue "why would you build that when you can build this for half the cost and it performs the same?" Moral of the story? BOYS rifle infantry perform better in both anti-tank and anti-infantry as the guards but they cost less and can sit at distance.
But don't they still die to snipers, mines, mortars, dedicated anti-infantry tanks and HMGs? I don't think infantry with a single anti-tank gun is Anti-everything. Generally infantry in the CoH series are very easily suppressed and when surpressed, they cannot do anything. Just because tier 1 infantry, cannot take out tier 3 infantry with a bazooka, doesn't mean other things don't work. Distance is als a huge factor in the balance I feel you left out. Some units are strong in close range, some in long range, some are good against cover, some are bad. I feel there is a lot more than just tank dam / infantry dam to consider in the balancing.
You Completely Forgot That You Can Get Around The Specialization Of A Unit With Abilities. For Example: Panzergrenadiers Get Shreks But Keep The Bundle Grenade Ability Can You See The Problem? No? If Someone Ain't Paying Attention You Need Just One Of Those To Cripple Multiple Infantry Squads To The Point Where 2 Sturmgewhers Are More Than Sufficient. Mf I Had Panzergrenadiers Become The Terminator Incarnate, The More You Have The More Bundle Grenades And Stgs. When You Have 4 Of Them You Quickly Start To Realize That Keeping 2 For Anti-Infatry Only Is Overkill, So You Upgrade Them Or Maybe Pick Up An Lmg And Give Them One Shrek (Even More Busted). The Point Is With 4 Of Those Bastards If The Enemy Dosen't Have An HMG Tanks Get Melted And Infantry Goes Kaboom.
youre right anti everything units makes the game worse like guards infantry or comet tank from coh2 they good against both infantry and vehicles yes there are other (effective againt all) heavy tanks but their main trade off is that they are slow and will die to a tank destroyer we cant see such a thing with comet as it can just zip thru the battlefield with its blitz ability and pop smoke/white phosphrous shells at will
an anti everything unit could be cool as long as its more of mediochre against everything like maybe make them cheap expendable units that could save you in a pinch or be useful as a distraction but arent in the slightest a good choice as a primary force i think that would further incentivize a combined arms style play while still keeping the all rounders useful somewhat. i also think defensive balancing should be changed i think defenses should have more health and require certain types of damage to hurt them like i dont think tank destroyers or light tanks should be able to seriously hurt them like maybe do the same damage to them as an AT rifle and have medium and heavy tanks do a bit more damage with assault guns and artillery doing much more damage i think that would help defensive gameplay while still keeping offense interesting and engaging unlike basegame coh2 where you build a bunker and it gets 2 shotted by a panzer 4 and your wondering why you just wasted your resources
3:00 i played coh2 alot and mainly soviet. As much as i like guardsmen they are universal but still loose to a more specialized units and also by the time you gain enough mass to really deal that damage its lategame and werfer time
I too play soviets a lot and they shine in mid-game, when there is only light vehicles are around and low vet infantry. In late game against vet3 grens/obers, P4s and Tigers they bleed a lot. But their slow on vehicles is very good to protect SUs and ISU. Their role change from masters of battlefield to jack of all trades, master of none.
What is interesting about Guards. Despite being anti-everything they are waaaay far away from the best in both departments. Even best PTRSs are no match for double Schrek of a fusi and Pgren squad or double/triple zook on paras and rangers. Their DPs are not M1919 and neither are MG34 Obers. Also it takes 4!!!!!! weapons to be able to do both and still not be the best. Schrek for Jeagers is 1!!!! and best in slot. You can also pick up dropped one and make it 320 Damage per volley…… for a sqaud with a fooking stealth. Wtf? Also, add retarded long TTK and Jeagers can even stay in a fight for waaaaaay too long than they should unlike Pgrens, Paras, Rangers and Fusiliers
they should definitely tone down the anti everything stuff but making units do only one specific thing is boring af,coh 2 slowed down and stagnated in ultra safe gameplay whilst coh 3 went for faster paced powerful units that rewards you for good play instead of just stagnating into attritional warfare (which fit the eastern front themese very well)
From what I have heard halo wars has a air problem. On ground troops though there are great clear counters. Wolverines and vampires might be the counters as they should be. I however haven’t tested it or really done pvp. So odd strategies aren’t what I have seen.
I do not think it is so much the anti-everything that is bothersome. I think it is the lack of good and bad. An anti-everything is a thing, it happens in real life. The truth is, a squad that had two mgs, rifles, and a panzerschrek or two would be really bad news for a lot of things. But that is quite costly. It takes a lot to keep running. When put aside something like volksturm, with an mg34, one will cost way more than the other. You should have to outlay a lot FOR that anti-everything. It should be something you have to be careful with, because losing it in a careless way is quite a loss. But in a lot of these games, there is not much ''ups and downs''. It is more so, linear progression of bad to good, and no reason to work with the older stuff. It is cool stuff like making it so reinforcement might cost munitions, that it costs more manpower, that it has a higher upkeep. That the raw cost is much higher. That is what makes anti-everything reasonable. When the cost is reasonable to the shit they have. Tanks should NOT be something common and quick to get. They should be quite costly to begin with. It should not be a oh it is late phase so everything is cheap. Maybe things get cheaper as it goes on, but they should not be cheap, unless they were a rustbucket, to begin with! The StuG was the best performing tank of the war. It did really, really well in almost every role. It killed the most tanks, it was great against footmen. It was also on the cheaper side. But it is still a tank! And it is still quite killable. I think it all works out, unless your ''balancing'' is really bad. And most games go for really onefold (simple) ''balancing'' than a bit more manifold (nuanced) ''balancing''.
Iirc flames on the move had insane penalty but still could fire. Green cover or garrison cover= death penalty, red cover gave flames negative accuracy @@CrabQueen
@@johnngrey1 The point of fire in COH1 was to invert cover defense, making it situationally very powerful. in COH2 they make fire a nuker of infantry making it an annoying instant killing machine limited by mobility/armor mostly. Loos like in COH3 they tripled down on COH3 style.
I tested CoH3 flamethrowers in skirmish and they are very powerful. I usually group 2-3 engineer squads with flamethrowers and basically they can win most infantry squads. In CoH2, not every squad with flamethrowers could dominate the firefight. Only the sturmpioneers and us assault engineers can use them effectively
Honestly I prefer making all rounder unit really expensive that you can only have very few of them. I like the idea of elite unit being able to do everything because you know, they're the elite troops, they're trained for everything. And when I mean expensive, I mean _really expensive,_ I'm talking about double cost of regular troops.
That in itself makes them vulnerable to dedicated anti infantry weapons. That's how relics balanced both of the Tigers in CoH2. The Tiger can fight everything but in terms of cost efficiency it'll lose to the TDs because it costs less to make a handful of TDs that can kill Tigers than making one Tiger. You can make a unit strong against everything offensively but at least it has to be vulnerable to something defensively.
@@WiciuWitekname a reason where it needed to exist in a video game with health bars and arbitrary pinned down mechanics. An at infantry with good rifles are reasonable, as in the special weapon section with 3 garands and two bazooka does exist irl
@@taomongkol5921 irl that unit is getting smoked by a tank with one he shot or a machine gun burst, i'm not advocating for realism or anything but come the fuck on, do you really think that it's acceptable to make a game with rock paper scissors type counter mechanics and then just make something that can counter all of them in large enough numbers?
There are 3 ways to fix the anti-every spam that I can think of. 1: As you mention, tweak them to remove or reduce anti-everything capabilities 2: Up their resource cost to make them impractical to spam/ blob as well as limiting them to later into the game. For example the sherman is a decent allrounder but at 360 manpower and 90 fuel it is hard to mass until lategame, by contrast: the 75mm gun carriage is cheap (280 mp and 30f) while packing a cannon able to do good damage to vehicles but with no mg and wet paper for armor it requires an escort to keep enemy away and vehicles shooting at something else. The greyhound (280mp and 40f)can deal with light enemy vehicles and infantry effectively but will struggle to pen any vehicle meant for tank vs tank fighting The Chaffee (300mp and 50f) is fairly light and fast while having enough armor to ignore small arms and a gun big enough to threaten vehicles. Given how IMO the fuel is the most restrictive resource for production (especially compared to COH 1 where the airborne could airdrop fuel) you can see the difference in value, with for each anti-everything tank you can deploy you could get between just under 2- 3 of these other vehicles which can use group tactics like the chaffee tanks splitting around an enemy tank to flank it, or simply operate in several areas, like being able to buy 3 of the 75mm gun carrages to watch bridges on that 3v3 map with all the bridges. 3: An even more extreme unit deployment limit, in Company of heroes 1, the perishing tank for the Americans was 1 at a time per armored player on a team (shouldn't be more than 2 in a 4v4 game), preventing them from being deployed in blobs to beat through german lines with its bigger gun, thicker armor and ability to crush tank barriers, instead it became a primary focus point in the offensive, the tip of the spear to pierce german defenses. The German's were limited to a single king tiger tank in the match per player with the perk, this thing was a nightmare, blowing holes in shermans and eating entire armories of AT shells, however it was stupidly expensive, one of the slowest units with a super slow turret traversal meaning had no method of defending itself up close from a tank driving circles around it and just outrunning the gun, or simply being attacked by a group of tanks that are smart enough to encircle it. This thing could easily buckle American lines on a push or bait them into an ambush with the goal of breaking it but if lost then that slot on your skill tree and the points invested are never coming back.
Emerson Tung is the artist for the thumbnail in this video by the way if people are curious. He's the artist behind a lot of cool designs in things including DooM 2016 and Eternal
Do people use machinegun teams or AT guns? Most gameplay I see is just infantry squads and vehicles. Maybe buffing the hyper-specialist units like AT guns and machineguns will make them see more use and remove the focus on homogenous infantry blobs.
I think the main downside to making AT gun or MG is...plainly the mobility of inf. You always better to just push forward, smoke the MG and destroy the AT or MG with your own inf.
Problem is the limitation of pop count itself and since you need every available unit for combat. Another is that depending on the player, MG and AT crews can be easily deleted if not supported.
The only time I've ever seen an MG used is one of the first units to be deployed, usually just to lock down one of the Victory points so the other team can't capture it. Their FUCKED the moment that a sniper enters the field. God help them if the MG is actually inside a building, because most buildings will be destroyed before they can undeploy and leave, killing the unit. AT guns suffer the same fate most times. I've rushed AT guns with infantry or swarmed them with light vehicles that can take 1 shot then zoom past to flank. They just aren't worth it.
Nice video, i agree with pretty much every point you made, since launch i said that jaeger were a problem because how little it mattered to get a shrek on them, you are still very good vs inf and very good vs tanks because it has so much pen + dmg. I definitely think the same as you as they should lower dmg of shrek and put 2 per squad so they can be less potent vs infantry. As a whole i'm not 100% against anti everything if its still ok. Boys got nerfed pretty hard (and sections are also kinda bad which doesnt help) so boys doesnt feel anti everything now, guards are also kinda ok with what you described, with that weird weapon combo, that makes them not op. Now Rangers and jaegers are more of a problem, because of how effective they can be at both. As i said above 3g43 and 2 shrek would work but honestly even 4g43 and 1 shrek could work too if they balance it better, and not make the panzershrek that good and the g43 that good too. Tune down both shrek and g43 so they can still be ok jack of all trades and master of none. Instead of being jack of all trade and master of all trade at the same time lol and being a no brainer to blob. ( sorry for the repetition, havent slept much and english isnt my first language ahaha)
Yeah I should have been more specific, I was talking about the Boys section from COH2, they have a bug where they do more DMG against infantry than planned.
Honestly, it was just a loss of identity for me that led to me dropping COH3 (among other things). There was really no need for adapting strategy or fun on-the-back-foot moments, because yeah you just spawn an anti-everything unit.
I wonder if they did this in order to streamline expected unit behaviors for players who don't have a lot of experience with squad based RTS and may have certain expectations for unit upgrades. Like, I played COH very casually and didn't notice/realize that unit upgrades could potentially make a unit worse at their previous role until this video. Especially coming from other RTS games, unit upgrades don't usually change the role of a unit, and if they do, the unit is given a much more dramatic visual change to account for its new role rather than 1 or 2 guns out of 5 or more getting swapped out. Relic may have designed themselves into a hole by trying to address this problem, so we end up with a lot of anti-everything blobs as a result.
just glad that the men of war series is moving forward with gates of hell. there, everything is anti-everything as counterplay and skill expression is less on blobbing and veterancy-retreat-stacking, but more on positioning, vision, and overall efficiency and resourcefulness - the fact that the cheapest conscripts are capable of knocking out the most expensive vehicles with AT grenades looted from regular troops makes it so that if you lose vehicles to underhanded stuff like that then you aren't providing them with enough vision or are excessively putting them in harm's way. i just love how choosing to spend more on quality units forces you to be more careful, and cheaper units encourage risky aggressive behavior to either catch up or widen the lead in resource usage, and roles are harder to distinguish as most dedicated AT cannons come with some HE shells just in case for example. the flexibility is layered in through so much of the gameplay yet it still encourages players to adapt while still having a preference
Honestly as a designer it's fine to have generalist options in a game. You just have to make sure they have the right disadvantages and be diligent about not allowing them to be too strong (because an overpowered generalist really does "do everything"). It's also a reason I like to have multiple layers of counter systems, like how COH could've done a better job of swarm vs. elite balance by having some basic troops be very reliable at AOE damage (with the correct exclusive upgrade) and so if there's an overpowered infantry generalist that now gives you an extra-targeted option for cost-effectively defeating them. Unfortunately the majority of COH AOE options are player-targeted, and so I think that's why blobbing has been a historic problem. (Granted, some blobbing is just misdiagnosed Rich Get Richer, which is a natural part of any RTS.)
i agree specially with infrantry being anti everything because people would choice that because there no negetive about them comparing to other specailize infrantry like but i think like SFF in co h 3 are fine unit because they need time to switch weapons unlike anti everything that just have it and can fight all types of units at once overall they need to make stronger role units and they upgrades idk why relic in coh 3 decided to remove almost entire concept of that like strong example of jeagers they have 2 upgrades but only one is use because it is anti everything only thing you lose from other upgrade is flare pity much so yeah pity much
First of all I completely agree with your point. The do it all is annoying from both the player having a restricted choice with the unit, and also the foe for having to deal with that type of all around unit. Your suggestions of changes are reasonable I believe. Secondly, I think you meant "summary" instead of summery. ;) I'm not a fan of the "feeling lucky drop box for 100 muni" with the rangers aswell. CoH3 especially has fundamental issues and thats one of them. good vid
I'm fine with Generalists existing as long as they are not overpowered. You're forgetting that 450 Manpower and 300 Munitions of Rangers can be easily countered by 260 Manpower of MG42, so they aren't Anti-Everything, they're actually very easy to counter with Mines and MG teams. Late game tanks also have no problems with rangers, being able to reverse while bleeding them heavily. Its also honestly immersion-ruining that a tank destroyer does NOTHING to infantry, instead of just being cost-ineffective. IRL in WW2 every unit was made as Generalist as possible, despite having intended roles.
Rangers have a lot of Problems: - RNG Weapons (at times frustating for both sides: early bazooka and flamethrower are far better than bar or lmg) - Without Weapon Upgrades they are already really strong close combat - Firing on the move with Flamethrower and Bazooka (Indeeed Gustatori should also not be able to do that) - Grenade that is like a mini nuke - They are elite but can come out early - Veterancy removes their Counter (Bleeding Manpower because DMG Resistance and way more difficult to supress), Squad Wipe becomes really difficult - Additional abilities due to heavy weapon training - Increased accuracy while on the move encouraging to run around with a deathblob of rangers Early you can counter with MG42 and Mines, but they are way more difficult to micro and rangers wont be your only problem. Mines also require setup and are sometimes way too random in how close the enemy squad will blob together which sometimes only causes 1-2 models to die. Early they can easily farm veterancy because there is no other infantry that can closely match them and keeping them down, means you have to sacrifice ressources which are needed elsewhere I also have no Problem with generalist units and strong rangers, but I dont think they should outclass every other specialist unit in their designated role on both sides
They are absolutely not countered by mg42, there are countless times a ranger charging heads on is able to throw out a grenade and finish off with flamethrower. And when they didn't get in range, they are never ever red pinned, and can't be dislodged in a reasonable time.
Great video enjoyed listening to it. The only criticism I have is that somehow, relic seem to lve redoing game after game changes that were done in the prior game. Then my 2 cent on the jeager problem on the solution I see is that you make the squad spawn as 4 man G43 for 300 mp because you lose a model and you either get a shcrek and keep the 4 model or the scoped G43 and you get a 5th one and a flare. That way, as you explained in your vid, it forces the player to make a choice and focus on one of these option.
I disagree. Generalists existed in CoH since forever, you can't just delete them. Remember CoH1 grenadiers, who could be upgraded with an MG-42 and a panzershrek or two MGs, or two shreks? And CoH1 rangers spawned with two bazookas and could get four thompsons on top of them. In CoH2 nothing stops you from, for example, giving your USF riflemen an 1919 and a bazooka. CoH2 tanks are generalists more often than not, capable of defeating anything in their weight class other than a specialized AT unit. Even then, a tank vs tank destroyer engagement isn't completely one-sided and is often decided by positioning and ability usage instead of rock-paper-scissors rules
Anti-everything is literally what infantry are all about, though. That's why MANPATS and MANPADS are so powerful IRL. What bothers me more is the ridiculous tankiness of infantry, who are able to massively expose and move under fire at full speed up to point-blank range with other already-in-cover infantry directly targeting them, and for some reason bayonets don't come out. I think the issue you're focusing on is the wrong thing to be looking at entirely. Anti-everything infantry is fine....super-shock-troopers in WWII with seemingly Space Marine -tier armor and unrealistic movement capability is instead the issue. The strength and weakness of infantry is their lack of encumbrance; they can get their weapons to wherever they're needed, but they can't be caught out in the open or else they're dead, and they can't move at speed while under fire. The level of technology employed by infantry is also a balancing point, with more advanced weapons being heavier and slowing them down, increasing their cost, and often increasing their logistical requirements. It's harder to feed an AT platform like a Super Bazooka than it is an M1 Garand battle rifle. Also, that dude carrying the bazooka is also likely to have a personal defense weapon, be it an M1 Carbine, a 1911 pistol, or an M3 Grease Gun. You're not going to be wasting a body in a gun fight, and you're probably not going to be wasting valuable rockets on infantry *unless* you're trying to destroy their cover. So, just some thoughts for you to consider. Anti-everything infantry is fine, but it needs to be subject to the same vulnerabilities and costs of normal infantry, or else it's utterly OP and why even bother with tanks and their unique capacity to push through return fire and get cannons and machineguns to where they're most needed on the battlefield?
Heavily disagree on tanks, even tank destroyers must have a anti infantry role or cover buster role. Especially the stug, which is a sturm geschutz, it's an assault tank. Point blank blast is there to solidify it's assault role, as well as the mounted MG. But Rangers & footguards 100% need to go back to role-exclusive upgrade system, that's a fact.
CoH3 is like a reset of a franchise that did really well... Except they fire all the competent people that Fixed Coh2 after release and let the incompetent one recreate the original mess.
"the anti everything problem" Uhm... you know that COH ALWAY'S was supposed to be SOMEWHAT realistic? Remember the first game? Even thou your genZ you should. The 88 killed EVERYTHING! TANKS WHERE LETHAL AF! INFANTRY PROPERLY USED COULD ERRADICATE TANKS. The point is : COULD! Open field? Tanks win 10/10 matches easily. City? Infantry CAN be lethal , CAN! So shut up with your shitty "it needs ballance and all". A PROPER RTS DOES NOT! The BEST RTS games EVER CREATED had NO BALLANCE WHATSOEVER!
To be 100% honest, stuff like this is exactly why there's an avid and loyal fanbase of things like Blitzkrieg mod for COH and Spearhead for COH2. The total lack of any realism and bulletsponge damage system, as well as the laughable upgrades, leads many players to prefer playing these mods. I REFUSE to play any COH title without a realism/higher damage mod, I've been too spoiled by BKM and Spearhead. You don't see these same issues in them with the blobs, role-based vs. anti everything-based dichotomy, lack of historical accuracy or realism, etc. In actual warfare infantry have always been the squishy jack of all trades but mediocre damage dealers of any army, so it's appropriate for them to have access to a variety of weapons in something like BKM or Spearhead, vehicles and weapon teams are more specialized and have a higher amount of damage than infantry but therefore have more hard counters. Idk if COH3 has anything like a realism mod, but if it did I would exclusively play it. Vanilla COH games SP is ok, but vanilla MP is hot garbage, basically MOBA brain rot.
I never realized that Penals have SVTs. Who at lelic thought "Yes, those criminal battalions that the Soviets used as cannon fodder? They get better stats and weapons than the real infantry battalion". They should've balanced them like the Osttruppen.
Penal Battalion equipment varied on the task and the criminals inside. Some times you had officers who disobeyed orders send to seize critical positions with SVTs and PPSHs. And sometimes you send thieves to clear a minefield with their feet and a shovel. Somewhere I read that the battalion was more respectable, but the scum were in separate companies serving a meatshields
All of the unbalances of the axis is compensated by the Rangers blobbing. There's more blobbing in CoH3 compared to CoH2. Even worse when blobbing with bunkers and vehicles.
Well Lelic ran DoW3 into the ground with questionable decisions, now it's CoH3s turn. Hopefully we get something to change in regard to unit itentity, yet given the recent "expansions" basically Addon prized commanders and doubling down on the issue im not sure anymore.
@@MasterSteve_117 There is a huge difference between counters and hard counters. Having infantry with an AT package lose to a full strength regular infantry squad? Cool. But having an AT-upgraded infantry squad lose to a quarter-strength regular infantry squad just because it isn’t “anti-infantry” is also bad for skill-expression.
@@alarminglyfastmovingskelet7289 but having an AT upgraded infantry being now extremely effective against vehicles equalizes it out. It’s also about what u need and what u don’t need. Having a „jack of all trades“ units just encourages the player to build only that.
this is why I left COH to play the men of war / call to arms series. A single conscript can do as much damage as a single elite infantry unit if under the right circumstances but that doesn't mean your entire forces will revolve around the weak conscript units. A unit in that game can be a jack of all trades BUT only for a temporary time (lets say a soldier got a heavy AT weapon after killing an enemy wielding it. he destroys an expensive tank but then instantly gets killed by another unit.)
Stug is and always has been an assault gun, not tank destroyer. In comparison with his counterpart Hellcat, Stug 1) has no turret 2) is much slower 3) can't chase / hunt tanks to finish off 4) is less responsive 5) has worse penetration. Budget tank destroyer is MARDER and there's no reason for creating another marder. Making now the Stug only anti-tank would result in it being hugely worse than a hellcat. Stug's role is to support infantry assault and be a spearhead for storming operations, tank some hits, destroy defensive structures, ward off LVs. With such small firing range and low penetration, it simply wouldn't work against tanks in general.
Yeah hearing my self say that, I cant help but think its wrong. perhaps a better thing to have said is, I think the Stug should do less damage, rather than none. Apologies. Maybe A change from point blank shot to target weak point, or spotting scopes. something like that.
@@Rather.Splended.Cromwell I don't think people need MORE reasons to not pick STUG compared to Wirbelwind/Marder combo. STUG is an assault gun (that's literally it's translated name) and infantry can easily counterplay with hiding behind cover since even Point Blank Shot has trouble landing hits on units behind cover
That has been bugging me lately. I couldn't tell what it was. Thanks to you, now I've known. The Rock, Paper, Scissors formula has been destroyed by giving some units the ability to counter or anti-everything
Still playing COH1 with great enjoyment - like chess it never gets old and the graphics is still superior to COH2 and COH3. Only thing missing is a relaunch, new multiplayer features, new maps, new singleplayer campaigns. And integration of eastern front. I would definitely buy or pay a subscription for this - because it's the best RTS world war 2 game ever made.
I just can't stand the artistic tone of the game. You showed the Coh2 footage, gritty, realistic, serious. And then Coh3 with it's slick UI, bright colors and toy soldier like units. The unbalanced design I also agree with. But to me the biggest tragedy is the resulting lack of meta evolvement. Coh2 every match is different, slight adjustment to unit composition makes a huge difference, and there are so many ways to play. Coh3 there is only one, bloobing super units or tanks.
Six months since this video post i've uninstalled the game and no longer play it. CoH3 is clearly intended to be designed the way it is-badly. The developers like generalist units, and can't figure out why TTK changes have not solved the blobbing issue. The issue is intrinsic to the unit designs they have, support units don't work better than generalist units do and this means that the game is always heavily slanted toward offense. Defensive play and economy of force are sub optimal ways to play and a waste of resources. The only meta is the blob and all-in hyper offensives that just don't lay off because there's no other way to play. I just don't care about the game anymore. It's too reductionistic to be interesting.
@5:45 I am guessing you have not played coh1. There are units there who are anti-everything. Like grens/stormis with shrecks and lmg's/stgs, rangers with zooks and tommies.
-game feels incomplete and lacking -lacks features previous games did have (replay viewer, observer mode, no progression system, no ranked mode) -very expensive in-game store (€20 for an incomplete faction skin pack!!!!) more suitable for an f2p or mobile game, -unrealistic skins -very few maps. -balance is all over the place -sound design is bad compared to coh1 & 2 -Linear DAK campaign is an afterthought, simple, easy & forgettable -Italian grand campaign is buggy, boring (some 4 maps over and over again), unbalanced People also have to remember, the devs that worked on COH1 & COH2 all left. But the COH3 team has devs of the legendary Dawn of War 3 on board :D First game in a long time i regret buying. I have a feeling that COH3 is going the way of Dawn of War 3
The reason I like COH1 more than the other rts back then is that the game is designed with infantry in mind, everything are balanced around infantry. Sudden Strike, Blitzkrieg, World in Conflict, and Codename: Panzer have infantry that straight up useless because they can be killed by everything, there's no incentive to use infantry because a tank can do what they can do and do it better.
The StuG has been actually always be used as infantry support weapon, rarely as a dedicated tankdestoyer, otherwise it's designation would have been changed over the course of upgrades during ww2
Yes, yes, yes. All of this yes. My biggest grip about the game was that the British can just build Rifle Section's and just completely dominate the game. On their own they do decent against infantry, but you just upgrade 10 squads with the Boys anti-tank rifle and suddenly entire squads are vanishing in moments the second that they are detected. Light vehicles shared a very similar fate. The only possible way that I found to counter them were heavy tanks, or ones with huge frontal armor like the STUG/H, but good luck getting to that point when you don't have any points/income.
Relic knows this, in CoH2 at first Panzergrenadier's upgrade gave one Panzerschreck, which made this unit overpowered. The double-schreck upgrade only came out in a later patch, exactly to counteract this. But well, it doesn't matter much now. CoH3 is a mobile game money farm cleverly disguised under name of popular title. Stop giving them money for this scam.
Haven't played CoH3, have played CoH2 and 1. IMO CoH4 or its derivative needs to be a fantasy game like Rattenreich. Our own universe is good for inspiration but its played through so much that a good balance in a game like CoH can be very hard to manage when "sticking to history". What I imagine, for example, is alternative earth with alternative commies that fight with T34s (american heavy tanks from our universe) against alternative nazis that use IS-3s or something like that.
I disagree with part of the video. The is not too many anti- everything units. Mostly elite rangers (or british guys who can switch between LMG and bazookas), and they are very expansive - I am ok with that. Jeagers even if they have 4 guys with rifles and 1 with Shrek - still quite nice against infantry, good against light vehicles, but against medium - not too strong and you need to have more than 1 squad. It makes them unit "not great vs anything". :) I think CoH 2 with guards was more problematic (or even penals with those AT rifles). They were cheaper than elite, their AT rifle was often 1 shooting infantry models too. In terms of Stugs etc. if you are doing upgrade with HMG then it should be somehow viable against infantry. In terms of their ability - it has quite long cooldown and also it is high risk/ high reward. You need to go very close to use it. Coh 3 has a lot of issues in terms of balance, but those few units which can be soft counter against both infantry and vehicles is not the part of them (or those who can be a hard counter against both, but very expansive). Since CoH 2 the series has issue with balancing artillery (in team games it's just OP shit), it cannot find good place for light vehicles, snipers are underperforming or overperforming, units on retreat are almost immortal in CoH 3 etc.
Historially, the point of the STUG was infantry support, not a cheap tank destroyer (though they were used as such as well). And an HE round will mess infantry up. I always liked the more realistic damaged potrayal of COH over games like C&C (which I like as well). But a guy with an assault rifle shouldn't be able to damage a tank and a tank firing HE should be a terrible threat to infantry.
Hard disagree. I really dislike a pure rock paper scissors system. There should be units that blur the line and it's the player's job to find the right combination and develop strategies. Not just "Oh you build a rock? Now I build a paper!" What I'd really want was more information on unit stats so I can actually make better decisions. What actually are the hp, dmg, firerate, accuracy, speed etc of the units. Having to look such things up in a wiki is dumb.
Solid video, I'm sure we were all extremely excited for COH3. And it's obvious that it's been a major let down. Especially in team games anyways. Brain dead blobbing and or bunker spamming is a thing. And idk it's just cheesy to me. Doesn't seem to be as skill based as before in COH2. So, I think they made it more streamlined to adhere to a larger audience.
The busted balancing is plain sad, but what‘s even worse is that CoH 3 looks uglier than its predecessor. How did they even manage that? I swear just look at the ground textures or the shadows, everything’s so washed up and low-res in the sequel. The GUI feels cheaper too, I‘m glad I haven’t wasted any money on buying it, it‘s even worse than I anticipated lol.
Good points and very well presented!
Only thing i kinda disagree with is the idea of the Sturmgeschütz doing 0% damage to infantry, since it is literally an Assault Gun.
(I know the 75mm long gun is a bit diffrent, but still.)
Anyhow, I totally agree on the main point about making a decision on the units to either do one damage type or the other, more skill and planning involved.
well stug does damage with mg upgrade and vet 1 ability anti infrantry ability it is easy to balance out vehicle because it is one unit with one gun and with tech cost and unit cost because in way expensive comparing to what you need for infrantry
That might be so but it's ridiculously cheap atm and you can get it very early which is kinda weird since it's basically a full fledged medium tank in the game
maybe they're being confused with the very similar-looking Jagdpanzers
@@nnelg8139 but they have the same shells?
@@cloaker2829 no, they don't. They may have similar calibers (or may not, the germans used many different calibers over the course of the war) but Stugs carried a large load of HE (i.e. anti-infantry) shells while Jags didn't, because they were tank destroyers not assault guns. Conversely, Jags got more of the limited supply of APCR rounds (armor-percing rounds made partially from tungsten).
They decided to make the exact same game we curated over 20 years, yet try to reinvent the wheel instead of improve what was already there.
Yes and no. The driving intent was to monetize contents all over again. "Reinventing" was the pretext to convince people to purchase the same (yet different) title a second time.
@@simonak9699Yeah monetization is cancer
If it was a very similar game with new campaigns and stuff it would have been fine
@@simonak9699 I honestly think this is the answer to everyone's frustration with the game. They didn't want to make a good or bad game, they just wanted to monetize the sequel of a franchise with a strong following.
The problem is not having an anti everything unit, its how it works, I say this because you can, in COH2 make all rounder rifleman and rifle section, but they lose compared to their more specialized counterpart with only BARs or Brens
The problem is not being a jack of all trade, but being a master of both, while costing in a similar way to the other.
In another RTS like Supreme Commander, even tho this does not happens, you can justify an experimental being good against both by being expensive.
The King Tiger and Tiger are good against both in COH 2 but they are expensive, and they still lose to specialized units.
Specially considering that all WW2 doctrins fell uppon making standar infantry anti-everything and supporting it with specialized units
But even then, in Supreme Commander its more Rock (Land), Paper(Air) and Scissor(Sea)
so even if a unit is good against a combination of 2 units types, there is always one that is a sure bet counter to it, no matter its cost.
In CoH3 there is only 2 types of unit, so making a unit good at both makes ZERO sense.
@@TheSpectralFX Bro, Land and Sea units are the same the only difference is underwater units but that is very specific... specially when a lot of them can go into the beach, as well as one ship can do that.
@@patriciohe9273 well most of the time Infantry is made to fight other infantry with some capabilityies against other stuff, but on a squad level you usually see an RPG-7 or AT-4, and this is today. tho I get what you saying.
@@gerfand but that's because current armoured targets are more hardened, have better protection systems and can detect threats at longer distances, so specialized weapons are heavier, biggest and more cumbersome
In WW2 you could give a 2kg brick of tnt to all soldiers and call it a day, or give them a 5kg panzerfaust-like weapon, or give 1-2 of 20kg PTRS-like rifles in a squad and call it a day. But today your disposable AT launcher weights 3 times as much, even 122mm+C4 HE only disables tank mobility, and your anti-material rifle is no longer capable of disabling a tank
This is so spot on! Its so sad to see how they choose to design coh 3. I have played almost 1000 hours of coh 3 and recently every time I boot up the game it just makes me want to play coh 2 instead. Coh 2 is just so superior in almost every way!
What about Coh1?
No vehicle reverse command@@zwerne42
@@zwerne42coh1 is definitely funnier
It's because they took money from Trudeau, now they're beholden to the dictator that feeds
@@zwerne42 Coh1 has a bit of a problem with spam, for example spamming AT and Snipers is a perfectly viable strategy in Coh1 while in Coh2, you're going to get absolutely shredded if you do that since snipers are not the one man armies they used to be. Not to mention how all players in Coh1 are perfectly aware of this considering most players are veterans by now and even the AI is prone to doing this sort of nonsense if you decide to play by yourself (Coh2's AI has its own problems, but I'd take propaganda arty spam over sniper and AT spam every day of the week).
And don't get me started on the ridiculous veterancy mechanic of the Wehrmacht in Coh1.
A rather splendid analysis ! Cheerio !
I appreciate you brother. cheers!
@@Rather.Splended.Cromwell Honestly you hit the mark, dude. Between that and the loss of that gritty feel CoH2 had, I just don't ever see myself moving to the third.
I disagree. Anti-everything does not mean we should specialize units making them totally worthless versus unit A and a counter to unit B. I think all units should be useful in most situations but their efficiency should vary, depending on unit profile, weapons available and reality, for balancing -reference-.
For example, tank destroyers should outrange tanks ALWAYS (CoH2 did this right, in CoH3 StuGs they have the range of a tank... wtf), and deal high damage to tanks and lower damage to infantry. This can be balanced by either pop cap, cost and performance of the main cannon vs infantry.
Tanks should be generalists, jack of all trades, and their performance should vary depending on profile, being somewhat based in reality for balancing reference. This means that a Panzer III should be excellent infantry support, fast, somewhat nimble but should have difficulty penetrating heavier and late war tanks. In contrast a Sherman should be beefier than the Panzer III, somewhat slower, better at killing infantry but somewhat poor vs tanks. This is what we have, tank wise, in CoH3 and I agree with the vision the devs have for them.
I don't think the balancing philosophy should be to ultra-specialize units making them worthless against certain units and the ideal, no-thought counter to other units. I think every unit should have a response be it through a utility option (smoke grenades vs a tank, for example), a sticky bomb, a cover bonus, camouflage, sprints or straight up damage, but NEVER outright counter except for a few select cases. Marders were realistically AT guns on wheels so they should be just that, but StuGs were actually assault guns so they could engage whatever enemy came upon them: fortifications, tanks, vehicles and infantry BUT their performance varied.
In short, rock-paper-scissors balancing is boring and an easy way to balance that leads only to standardization, streamlining and stagnation.
I haven't gotten around to grabbing CoH3 yet, but I've been doing a ton of CoH1 in the past months, and something that just came to mind after watching this is how Rangers have always been an Anti-Everything Unit.
CoH 1, you drop 400 manpower to get a squad of 6 Rangers equipped with 2 Bazookas and 4 Garands, with 100 munis to upgrade the Garands for Thompsons. The downside being Rangers now went from Midrange units who were upgraded Riflemen to Close Range Units, but this was sort of negated by the fact close range, they could shred infantry and still take on Tanks. HOWEVER, they were also the only unit in the game that was Anti-Everything without salvaging gear, like a BAR-equipped Riflemen Squad grabbing a fallen Panzershrek.
CoH2, you could definitely feel the beginning of pushing into anti-everything. As a USF main, you could spend the munis to give a Riflemen squad both a BAR and a Bazooka instead of doubling up on them, but they did LESS damage than a dedicated Anti-Infantry or Anti-Tank unit as a result of splitting into both.
Once I get CoH3, I can see for myself how the Anti-Everything feels, but it already seems like a major problem of "every match sees the same units being played"
I always had better luck with paratroopers, the rangers never seemed to use the bazookas well
I haven't played COH3 yet but coming from COH2 I'm a bit confused on the situation as you described it. "anti-everything" blobs are very much a thing people attempt to do in COH2 but it's so easily countered by machineguns, mortars, and better micro being able to control of the map by splitting your presence, that blobing gets shut down pretty hard by any competent player. Is this not a factor in play in COH3? I see you mention that units are becoming "anti-everything" but like you mentioned with the SMG+bazooka section, they lose to more specialized mid-range anti-infantry squads. This feels intentional, and that the SMGs in the squad do make them more of a specialized assaulter, and otherwise serve to limit their range. I'm not implying your general assessment is wrong mind you, I just don't think I understand the full picture because the units as described aren't problems unless they're operating in a raw vacuum.
I got into COH2 pretty late, so I only ever had well developed resources and examples to learn from, but I never really went into the game thinking of anything as simply a "anti-tank" or "anti-infantry". Machine guns pin infantry, mortars heavily punish stationary or clumped units, flame throwers break through entrenchment, Snipers punish an over-reliance on emplaced or specialist troops, grenades demand your opponents attention in a fight and punish a lack of micro, light tanks are highly mobile and cheap, and a light tank + penal AT + conscripts with AT grenades can easily defeat much heavier and more expensive units when micro'd correctly. Is this kind of nuanced play and counter play not available in COH3 to counter this "anti-everything" problem?
The main counter in reallife to anti everything elite is its cost and depletion of fit operators in armed forces.
Look at current war - the most elite units are depleted in first half a year of the war. Now both armies are built from regular joes that wouldn't pass a very loose medical examination and physical fitness for combat readiness. Veterans become the elite now and pushed into commanding positions so SAs become even more rare.
Additional counter is cost to kill vs cost to train/manufacture.
Introduction of limited munitions will fix the issue you brought in - anti all will become high alfastrike unit and then just regular infantry.
Some units feel kinda wonky, but relic is trying or at least aware in some regards when you look at British tanks.
A Crusader with a two pounder will be able to curbstomp infantry, but if you go for the six pounder, you're less effective against infantry but can now punch into armour more effectively.
As always, just have to hope patches make things somewhat better feeling without breaking too much in the process.
I mean no disrespect when I say this, but 11k views on a low-sub account one day after upload proves a lot of people agree with you. I've not actually looked at it with this anti-everything perspective but you're totally right. My only issue (being an allied main, and also average ELO) I struggle even against the shitty axis players with the current balancing because you need "anti-everything" to even come close to defeating some of their cheese units. Guastatori, jagers, Wirbelwind etc...If they don't balance the factions first fixing anti everything will just make it even more painful!
rather splendid video
Anti-everything Infantry blobs grow so fast over the game if the owner retreats at the right times, making them cost efficient in the long game. Anti everything tanks are usually difficult to mass since fuel is often contested and losing one tank is a big blow. There are many efficient counters to tanks like AT guns, tank destroyers and Call-ins. Especially the allied AT Call-ins in coh2. It's actually insane how fast you can destroy the most expensive tanks in coh2 by just ramming a t-34 into them and dropping AT overwatch
I made anti everything squads in COH1. Panzer Grenadiers with an MG42, STG44 and 2 G43s(not snipers). They also had access to incendiary grenades as well as had the ability to fire Panzerschrecks. The Schrecks cost me ammo everytime to use but the ability was there.
jeger 的問題好解決，就跟COH2 法子，使用雙重升級：
一、減少jeger初始的數量到4 並減少G41的裝備到3把；升級G43的武裝並提升一個組員的數量並提供兩把新武器升級(更快射擊能力等等)、顯卓增加人員傷害能力與生存能力
二、升級反裝甲殺手裝備，提升單兵閃避與生存能力(比如裝甲1或是減少AOE傷害)，給他們優秀的反載具能力
另外像是Ranger也可以藉由禁止檢裝備、只能升級固定強化切換武裝等等減少泛用
再說了，這三代不是有藉由建築物轉換普通士兵的能力嗎，那個變化時間和生產時間再加上資源的雙重消耗的菁英兵種化也可以帶來質量的變換
簡單來說就是，優勢兵種不該輕易獲取，更不該被濫用，COH2 中我不知道用多少次PTRS 跟DP 結合去打爛德軍，幾乎是輕輕鬆鬆(幹，那個技能 能壓制一台坦克直接廢掉它的行動能力真的是愚蠢到家)
Fair points, I respect your opinion and have some points:
- Agreed that AT rifles improving a squad’s potency against infantry is just odd. Yes an AT rifle is powerful, but also unwieldy and slow to fire… assets that are no help in an infantry engagement. Believe they were worse at release and have been nerfed now.
- I feel like the example of Jaeger’s is cherry-picking. Yes they have a strong multi-role potential BUT this ignores the threat of weapon engagement range and flanking. Units with auto-weapons or those that can flank them will do the job.
- I feel the point of the Foot Guards js to complement the faction’s infantry tanks. They pair perfectly with the Matilda, adding to its weak vehicle firepower with the bazookas to whittle down vehicle health, whilst the tank can help them get up close and personal with their SMGs.
- Yes Rangers are arguably too strong. I got roasted by one with a flamethrower and they were a nightmare to kill.
- Finally, maybe all your points are more valid at higher play levels where the meta is exploited to the max. Down at bronze I don’t have these kind of problems.
Also, I love this game.
I somewhat agree with the infantry part. There's no clear division in who's good at what. But I completely disagree with vehicle damage. I think he's got it twisted.
Armour is a thing in coh3 that actually matters this time around.
I think the idea presented in this video, in regards to anti tank, is the opposite of the truth. Coh2 had this problem. Coh3 just doesn't. Anti tank rifles and even other tanks are completely helpless against some more armoured enemies because they just can't pen them. But in coh2 2 penal squads could kill infantry as well as a damm king tiger without much struggle. I honestly find it quite surprising to see somebody say that this is a problem coh3 has when the entire reason I prefer it is because it fixed that anti-everything issue. 3 Stuarts can win against a tiger in coh2. 3 Stuarts won't scratch it in coh3. So you need something more specialised. But in coh2 you could just spam more at it.
For clarity I have 983 hours in coh2 and 312 in coh3.
If you think I'm wrong or misunderstanding this guys point. I'd be happy to talk about it. Just don't be a twerp.
A possible way around this problem would be to have munitions upkeep as you do manpower, and increase that appropriately when you equip your troops with a "gets better at everything" loadout. That way you could have one or two super units, but at the cost of your air strike and whatnot abilities. Also kinda panders to realism since you have to be able to logistically support the bigger array of weaponry.
I haven't touched COH3 since launch and to be honest I don't get why Jaeger get Shreks anyway, it feels weird to give light infantry that were used for recon and skirmishing, I feel like Panzergrenadiers would be more fitting for an AT role since they were more focused on that role irl, not to say that COH should make everything similar to irl but I found it weird from a gameplay standpoint too since I'm used to COH 2 Jaeger.
Also I do agree with the points you made aside from my annoyance of Jaegers, the everyman infantry is just annoying, though as another commenter said, I do feel that elite units make sense to have decent capabilities against everything since training wise they were trained to handle most circumstances thrown their way, however I feel they should get one or the other for that regardless as it's more fair that way
Rangers shooting Bazookas in the move realy broke the Game...
probably using the word "weird" isn't the best word to use, because it makes it sound like its a "comfort" issue and not a "gameplay/strategy" issue.
But I do agree, I haaate coh3. its literally just blob as much of one unit as possible. Like jaegers, they can just run down infantry so fast, and since you spammed them, they all got shreks so they can all take 1 second to aim at a tank,fire all their launchers together,then back to shooting infantry
And its like this across the board for each faction really. They all have this spam this 1 unit and rush kind of unit and whoever gets it first basically wins
As a 4v4 coh2 allied player, I actually miss the volk Shrek for different reasons. They didn't have a snare, and t34s were in T3 (or did not require t3 for t4)and costed less fuel so getting t34s at 12 minutes was a reality. 5 Shreks with no raketan. You could just drive the t34 and crush them forcing retreats or mass casualties. You had to out cheese axis back in 4v4
I main Wehr in Coh3, and usually play 3v3, 4v4.
I usually start with
The 1 engineering you were given at start, 1 ketten and build infantries kompanies for 1 mg or mortar (if i see mg drop in from the USF airborne ability)
from there, i will go for second mg or second mortar, before i build T4 building, and when it comes to T4 building, i always have trouble deciding what i want to build
PanzerGrenadier is great frontline infantries, and i usually get 2, and kept 2 of them for the rest of the game, but
enemy might get Greyhound this time, so i need the AT gun, but if enemy get mortar to spam on my position, my AT gun and MG team gonna be useless, with PzGren i could go and flank those mortars, but then, they could come with constant flanking, where i need the half truck to heal or recrew the teamweapon to hold the line, and that's where my early into mid game gets tricky
And if the enemy go rangers spam, 2 mg isnt gonna hold, those ranger can fire specialize weapons on the move, which also means even if supressed, they still remains their same accuracy on their specialized weapon and take my MG out, at this point, i will need to consider build T3 and research the armoured support for Wirbel to surpress those rangers, but Rangers with bazookas can still take out the wirbel even when surpressed, so the best option is to have 2, 3 nebel to area denial those rangers spam, and best if take them all out at once, but without supressing it, it's waste of manpower to get them, and may not even be useful to do something and not able to hold the caps
Long story short, due to my personal build order, trying to decide which unit to go for, during mid game, can be heavily deter by enemy units spam choices
I think that if they want all round infantry, it should be limited. 1 or 2 of them to act as a spearhead unit instead of just being able to spam them.
I would make all anti-everything units, do less damage and bee less cost effective them the specialist options (anti-inf and anti-tank). They have greater ultity but would only be a soft-counter.
I will say to balance these anti everything role, all of those units (guard, pz shreck, rangers)
They all cost a lot more upfront and to reinforce, it make their counter (pz werfer and katucha) even better against them
I dont feel like coh 3 made a good sequel. They should have just done more stuff for coh 2 and develope another game in the meantime. Problems like these show that they are incabable of recreating the quality of coh 2 or even surpassing it.
Although the critique is spot on, there is something important that I feel the need to bring up. And that is the role of the anti-Nothing. Or Neutral.
CoH2 especially is more than the binary, heads or tails of the anti-tank vs anti-infantry. In a lot of cases, there exists the option to go for the middle ground with its own unique cost-benefit. Think of the T3 for Wer in coh2, for example. Ostwind, p4, Stug. An anti-infantry (and AA), a multifunctional, An anti-tank. That role of the p4 is what makes Coh2. It throws the balance of anti-tank meets anti-infantry by including the third possibility : Numbers.
Now, others usually say that the third class is indirect fire. Meaning that there is 9 classes : light, medium, heavy and then anti-infantry, anti-tank, indirect. Where heavy beats medium, medium beats light. The costing reflects this. A quad halftrack is not going to beat a panther, even when massed in equal fuel numbers but enough katyushas rockets will. Yet a katyusha is primarily used to counter infantry. ML20s, mortars, Priests, these all can take out vehicles and infantry depending on use. This carries over into CoH3 but the ranges are a bit squiffy so it feels kinda crap.
Why I mention the anti-nothing is because of units like ostruppen. By itself, its trash. It should lose to every other unit. Theres a lot of tech required before it can be upgraded with an LMG and even then they cant hit a barn door. By design. Flank a maxim crew with unvetted ost and its still a 50 50 as to if they can do enough dps to decrew it before they have to retreat. But if you have the munitions and the numbers, they can faust any tank with guarenteed damage. Enough numbers? dead tank. ISU152 vs 16 ost, ostruppen win. CoH3 takes this principle and gives it to every unit. Suddenly, there is no dedicated units and the issue is as you state in the video. But it feels shitty because of the discrepancy between the anti-everything and then the anti-nothing. Trash units? sure. Need them to cap. But anyone who has played enough hours will know that there is no reason to build one unit over another if the output is the same. Add the extra cost on top and you see units gathering mothballs in the meta becasue "why would you build that when you can build this for half the cost and it performs the same?"
Moral of the story? BOYS rifle infantry perform better in both anti-tank and anti-infantry as the guards but they cost less and can sit at distance.
But don't they still die to snipers, mines, mortars, dedicated anti-infantry tanks and HMGs? I don't think infantry with a single anti-tank gun is Anti-everything.
Generally infantry in the CoH series are very easily suppressed and when surpressed, they cannot do anything.
Just because tier 1 infantry, cannot take out tier 3 infantry with a bazooka, doesn't mean other things don't work.
Distance is als a huge factor in the balance I feel you left out. Some units are strong in close range, some in long range, some are good against cover, some are bad.
I feel there is a lot more than just tank dam / infantry dam to consider in the balancing.
The blobbing problem is caused by infantry speed and health being too high.
This also removes the utility of cover.
It's the moving while firing that makes the smg blobs so effective, in fact very few tanks could even fire effectively on the move in reality.
You Completely Forgot That You Can Get Around The Specialization Of A Unit With Abilities.
For Example: Panzergrenadiers Get Shreks But Keep The Bundle Grenade Ability Can You See The Problem?
No?
If Someone Ain't Paying Attention You Need Just One Of Those To Cripple Multiple Infantry Squads To The Point Where 2 Sturmgewhers Are More Than Sufficient.
Mf I Had Panzergrenadiers Become The Terminator Incarnate, The More You Have The More Bundle Grenades And Stgs.
When You Have 4 Of Them You Quickly Start To Realize That Keeping 2 For Anti-Infatry Only Is Overkill, So You Upgrade Them Or Maybe Pick Up An Lmg And Give Them One Shrek (Even More Busted).
The Point Is With 4 Of Those Bastards If The Enemy Dosen't Have An HMG Tanks Get Melted And Infantry Goes Kaboom.
youre right anti everything units makes the game worse like guards infantry or comet tank from coh2 they good against both infantry and vehicles yes there are other (effective againt all) heavy tanks but their main trade off is that they are slow and will die to a tank destroyer we cant see such a thing with comet as it can just zip thru the battlefield with its blitz ability and pop smoke/white phosphrous shells at will
an anti everything unit could be cool as long as its more of mediochre against everything like maybe make them cheap expendable units that could save you in a pinch or be useful as a distraction but arent in the slightest a good choice as a primary force i think that would further incentivize a combined arms style play while still keeping the all rounders useful somewhat. i also think defensive balancing should be changed i think defenses should have more health and require certain types of damage to hurt them like i dont think tank destroyers or light tanks should be able to seriously hurt them like maybe do the same damage to them as an AT rifle and have medium and heavy tanks do a bit more damage with assault guns and artillery doing much more damage i think that would help defensive gameplay while still keeping offense interesting and engaging unlike basegame coh2 where you build a bunker and it gets 2 shotted by a panzer 4 and your wondering why you just wasted your resources
3:00 i played coh2 alot and mainly soviet. As much as i like guardsmen they are universal but still loose to a more specialized units and also by the time you gain enough mass to really deal that damage its lategame and werfer time
I too play soviets a lot and they shine in mid-game, when there is only light vehicles are around and low vet infantry. In late game against vet3 grens/obers, P4s and Tigers they bleed a lot. But their slow on vehicles is very good to protect SUs and ISU. Their role change from masters of battlefield to jack of all trades, master of none.
What is interesting about Guards. Despite being anti-everything they are waaaay far away from the best in both departments. Even best PTRSs are no match for double Schrek of a fusi and Pgren squad or double/triple zook on paras and rangers. Their DPs are not M1919 and neither are MG34 Obers. Also it takes 4!!!!!! weapons to be able to do both and still not be the best. Schrek for Jeagers is 1!!!! and best in slot. You can also pick up dropped one and make it 320 Damage per volley…… for a sqaud with a fooking stealth. Wtf? Also, add retarded long TTK and Jeagers can even stay in a fight for waaaaaay too long than they should unlike Pgrens, Paras, Rangers and Fusiliers
i make tabletop games, but versatileunits are always complex
they should definitely tone down the anti everything stuff
but making units do only one specific thing is boring af,coh 2 slowed down and stagnated in ultra safe gameplay whilst coh 3 went for faster paced powerful units that rewards you for good play instead of just stagnating into attritional warfare (which fit the eastern front themese very well)
Nice video but the blur when putting up a keyword really hurts the eyes
From what I have heard halo wars has a air problem. On ground troops though there are great clear counters. Wolverines and vampires might be the counters as they should be. I however haven’t tested it or really done pvp. So odd strategies aren’t what I have seen.
Typos in chapter names. Would more intelligible if the music were quieter.
I do not think it is so much the anti-everything that is bothersome.
I think it is the lack of good and bad.
An anti-everything is a thing, it happens in real life. The truth is, a squad that had two mgs, rifles, and a panzerschrek or two would be really bad news for a lot of things.
But that is quite costly. It takes a lot to keep running. When put aside something like volksturm, with an mg34, one will cost way more than the other.
You should have to outlay a lot FOR that anti-everything. It should be something you have to be careful with, because losing it in a careless way is quite a loss.
But in a lot of these games, there is not much ''ups and downs''. It is more so, linear progression of bad to good, and no reason to work with the older stuff.
It is cool stuff like making it so reinforcement might cost munitions, that it costs more manpower, that it has a higher upkeep. That the raw cost is much higher. That is what makes anti-everything reasonable. When the cost is reasonable to the shit they have.
Tanks should NOT be something common and quick to get. They should be quite costly to begin with. It should not be a oh it is late phase so everything is cheap. Maybe things get cheaper as it goes on, but they should not be cheap, unless they were a rustbucket, to begin with!
The StuG was the best performing tank of the war. It did really, really well in almost every role. It killed the most tanks, it was great against footmen. It was also on the cheaper side. But it is still a tank! And it is still quite killable. I think it all works out, unless your ''balancing'' is really bad. And most games go for really onefold (simple) ''balancing'' than a bit more manifold (nuanced) ''balancing''.
I guess you could put it like this:
In tanks, there is often Firepower, Mobility, and Armour.
It would do a lot to add a fourth: Cost.
Man I remember how this game dropped and literally _nobody_ gave a shit.
There's a whole new COH3 that's so mid I routinely forget it actually exists.
You spelled "Summary" wrong.
I died when i saw flamethrower infantry firing when moving
CoH (the first game) engineers can fire flamethrower while running
@@bagustesa really? damn, has it really been that long?
Iirc flames on the move had insane penalty but still could fire. Green cover or garrison cover= death penalty, red cover gave flames negative accuracy @@CrabQueen
@@johnngrey1 The point of fire in COH1 was to invert cover defense, making it situationally very powerful. in COH2 they make fire a nuker of infantry making it an annoying instant killing machine limited by mobility/armor mostly. Loos like in COH3 they tripled down on COH3 style.
I tested CoH3 flamethrowers in skirmish and they are very powerful. I usually group 2-3 engineer squads with flamethrowers and basically they can win most infantry squads.
In CoH2, not every squad with flamethrowers could dominate the firefight. Only the sturmpioneers and us assault engineers can use them effectively
"Hans, your coffee tastes like shit."
"Alarm!"
"Am I your mother, asshole! Make your own coffee then!"
flashbacks
Honestly I prefer making all rounder unit really expensive that you can only have very few of them. I like the idea of elite unit being able to do everything because you know, they're the elite troops, they're trained for everything. And when I mean expensive, I mean _really expensive,_ I'm talking about double cost of regular troops.
That in itself makes them vulnerable to dedicated anti infantry weapons. That's how relics balanced both of the Tigers in CoH2. The Tiger can fight everything but in terms of cost efficiency it'll lose to the TDs because it costs less to make a handful of TDs that can kill Tigers than making one Tiger. You can make a unit strong against everything offensively but at least it has to be vulnerable to something defensively.
So, you prefer rangers lol
Name an elite unit irl that's meant to do everything, elite units aren't meant to do that, they're just meant to do their role really well
@@WiciuWitekname a reason where it needed to exist in a video game with health bars and arbitrary pinned down mechanics.
An at infantry with good rifles are reasonable, as in the special weapon section with 3 garands and two bazooka does exist irl
@@taomongkol5921 irl that unit is getting smoked by a tank with one he shot or a machine gun burst, i'm not advocating for realism or anything but come the fuck on, do you really think that it's acceptable to make a game with rock paper scissors type counter mechanics and then just make something that can counter all of them in large enough numbers?
There are 3 ways to fix the anti-every spam that I can think of.
1: As you mention, tweak them to remove or reduce anti-everything capabilities
2: Up their resource cost to make them impractical to spam/ blob as well as limiting them to later into the game.
For example the sherman is a decent allrounder but at 360 manpower and 90 fuel it is hard to mass until lategame, by contrast:
the 75mm gun carriage is cheap (280 mp and 30f) while packing a cannon able to do good damage to vehicles but with no mg and wet paper for armor it requires an escort to keep enemy away and vehicles shooting at something else.
The greyhound (280mp and 40f)can deal with light enemy vehicles and infantry effectively but will struggle to pen any vehicle meant for tank vs tank fighting
The Chaffee (300mp and 50f) is fairly light and fast while having enough armor to ignore small arms and a gun big enough to threaten vehicles.
Given how IMO the fuel is the most restrictive resource for production (especially compared to COH 1 where the airborne could airdrop fuel) you can see the difference in value, with for each anti-everything tank you can deploy you could get between just under 2- 3 of these other vehicles which can use group tactics like the chaffee tanks splitting around an enemy tank to flank it, or simply operate in several areas, like being able to buy 3 of the 75mm gun carrages to watch bridges on that 3v3 map with all the bridges.
3: An even more extreme unit deployment limit, in Company of heroes 1, the perishing tank for the Americans was 1 at a time per armored player on a team (shouldn't be more than 2 in a 4v4 game), preventing them from being deployed in blobs to beat through german lines with its bigger gun, thicker armor and ability to crush tank barriers, instead it became a primary focus point in the offensive, the tip of the spear to pierce german defenses.
The German's were limited to a single king tiger tank in the match per player with the perk, this thing was a nightmare, blowing holes in shermans and eating entire armories of AT shells, however it was stupidly expensive, one of the slowest units with a super slow turret traversal meaning had no method of defending itself up close from a tank driving circles around it and just outrunning the gun, or simply being attacked by a group of tanks that are smart enough to encircle it.
This thing could easily buckle American lines on a push or bait them into an ambush with the goal of breaking it but if lost then that slot on your skill tree and the points invested are never coming back.
Emerson Tung is the artist for the thumbnail in this video by the way if people are curious. He's the artist behind a lot of cool designs in things including DooM 2016 and Eternal
Do people use machinegun teams or AT guns? Most gameplay I see is just infantry squads and vehicles. Maybe buffing the hyper-specialist units like AT guns and machineguns will make them see more use and remove the focus on homogenous infantry blobs.
I think the main downside to making AT gun or MG is...plainly the mobility of inf.
You always better to just push forward, smoke the MG and destroy the AT or MG with your own inf.
Problem is the limitation of pop count itself and since you need every available unit for combat.
Another is that depending on the player, MG and AT crews can be easily deleted if not supported.
The only time I've ever seen an MG used is one of the first units to be deployed, usually just to lock down one of the Victory points so the other team can't capture it. Their FUCKED the moment that a sniper enters the field. God help them if the MG is actually inside a building, because most buildings will be destroyed before they can undeploy and leave, killing the unit. AT guns suffer the same fate most times. I've rushed AT guns with infantry or swarmed them with light vehicles that can take 1 shot then zoom past to flank. They just aren't worth it.
average player is on 3v3/4v4 noobs, so they know the stuka/nebel and mortar starts are coming lol
Commenting for visibility. You understand what makes COH great, and why coh3 is very disappointing
I really Appreciate that man. Thank you :)
Also commenting for visibility. You made great points. I hope lelic will hear you.
Thank you my guy.
Nice video, i agree with pretty much every point you made, since launch i said that jaeger were a problem because how little it mattered to get a shrek on them, you are still very good vs inf and very good vs tanks because it has so much pen + dmg.
I definitely think the same as you as they should lower dmg of shrek and put 2 per squad so they can be less potent vs infantry. As a whole i'm not 100% against anti everything if its still ok.
Boys got nerfed pretty hard (and sections are also kinda bad which doesnt help) so boys doesnt feel anti everything now, guards are also kinda ok with what you described, with that weird weapon combo, that makes them not op.
Now Rangers and jaegers are more of a problem, because of how effective they can be at both. As i said above 3g43 and 2 shrek would work but honestly even 4g43 and 1 shrek could work too if they balance it better, and not make the panzershrek that good and the g43 that good too. Tune down both shrek and g43 so they can still be ok jack of all trades and master of none. Instead of being jack of all trade and master of all trade at the same time lol and being a no brainer to blob.
( sorry for the repetition, havent slept much and english isnt my first language ahaha)
Yeah I should have been more specific, I was talking about the Boys section from COH2, they have a bug where they do more DMG against infantry than planned.
@@Rather.Splended.Cromwell oh ok I see, I haven't played coh2 that much and I was knew to the serie so I didn't catch that thing
jeger 的問題意外的好解決，就跟COH2 法子，使用雙重升級：一、減少jeger初始的數量到4 並減少G41的裝備到3把；升級G43的武裝並提升一個組員的數量並提供兩把新武器升級(更快射擊能力等等)、顯卓增加人員傷害能力與生存能力
二、升級反裝甲殺手裝備，提升單兵閃避與生存能力(比如裝甲1或是減少AOE傷害)，給他們優秀的反載具能力
另外像是Ranger也可以藉由禁止檢裝備、只能升級固定強化切換武裝等等減少泛用
再說了，這三代不是有藉由建築物轉換普通士兵的能力嗎，那個變化時間和生產時間再加上資源的雙重消耗的菁英兵種化也可以帶來質量的變換
Honestly, it was just a loss of identity for me that led to me dropping COH3 (among other things). There was really no need for adapting strategy or fun on-the-back-foot moments, because yeah you just spawn an anti-everything unit.
I wonder if they did this in order to streamline expected unit behaviors for players who don't have a lot of experience with squad based RTS and may have certain expectations for unit upgrades. Like, I played COH very casually and didn't notice/realize that unit upgrades could potentially make a unit worse at their previous role until this video. Especially coming from other RTS games, unit upgrades don't usually change the role of a unit, and if they do, the unit is given a much more dramatic visual change to account for its new role rather than 1 or 2 guns out of 5 or more getting swapped out.
Relic may have designed themselves into a hole by trying to address this problem, so we end up with a lot of anti-everything blobs as a result.
They did this for console players
槍不是大問題，老兄
平衡才是
玩法更是
@@LucasCunhaRocha the console players that no longer get updates
lol you are wrong, Lelic doesn't care about console
@@famulanrevengeance3044 no I'm right, first the comment was 6 months ago, and they designed the game with consoles in mind, so I'm right again.
Coh is officially dead. They ruined it . Rip old Relic
just glad that the men of war series is moving forward with gates of hell. there, everything is anti-everything as counterplay and skill expression is less on blobbing and veterancy-retreat-stacking, but more on positioning, vision, and overall efficiency and resourcefulness - the fact that the cheapest conscripts are capable of knocking out the most expensive vehicles with AT grenades looted from regular troops makes it so that if you lose vehicles to underhanded stuff like that then you aren't providing them with enough vision or are excessively putting them in harm's way.
i just love how choosing to spend more on quality units forces you to be more careful, and cheaper units encourage risky aggressive behavior to either catch up or widen the lead in resource usage, and roles are harder to distinguish as most dedicated AT cannons come with some HE shells just in case for example. the flexibility is layered in through so much of the gameplay yet it still encourages players to adapt while still having a preference
What is your opinion of Men Of War 2(The new one)?
Honestly as a designer it's fine to have generalist options in a game. You just have to make sure they have the right disadvantages and be diligent about not allowing them to be too strong (because an overpowered generalist really does "do everything"). It's also a reason I like to have multiple layers of counter systems, like how COH could've done a better job of swarm vs. elite balance by having some basic troops be very reliable at AOE damage (with the correct exclusive upgrade) and so if there's an overpowered infantry generalist that now gives you an extra-targeted option for cost-effectively defeating them. Unfortunately the majority of COH AOE options are player-targeted, and so I think that's why blobbing has been a historic problem. (Granted, some blobbing is just misdiagnosed Rich Get Richer, which is a natural part of any RTS.)
i agree specially with infrantry being anti everything because people would choice that because there no negetive about them comparing to other specailize infrantry like but i think like SFF in co h 3 are fine unit because they need time to switch weapons unlike anti everything that just have it and can fight all types of units at once overall they need to make stronger role units and they upgrades idk why relic in coh 3 decided to remove almost entire concept of that like strong example of jeagers they have 2 upgrades but only one is use because it is anti everything only thing you lose from other upgrade is flare pity much so yeah pity much
First of all I completely agree with your point. The do it all is annoying from both the player having a restricted choice with the unit, and also the foe for having to deal with that type of all around unit. Your suggestions of changes are reasonable I believe. Secondly, I think you meant "summary" instead of summery. ;) I'm not a fan of the "feeling lucky drop box for 100 muni" with the rangers aswell. CoH3 especially has fundamental issues and thats one of them. good vid
lol you got me! I totally thought I fixed that before lol
Relic sucks and you should not give them money or play their games
I'm fine with Generalists existing as long as they are not overpowered.
You're forgetting that 450 Manpower and 300 Munitions of Rangers can be easily countered by 260 Manpower of MG42, so they aren't Anti-Everything, they're actually very easy to counter with Mines and MG teams. Late game tanks also have no problems with rangers, being able to reverse while bleeding them heavily.
Its also honestly immersion-ruining that a tank destroyer does NOTHING to infantry, instead of just being cost-ineffective.
IRL in WW2 every unit was made as Generalist as possible, despite having intended roles.
Rangers have a lot of Problems:
- RNG Weapons (at times frustating for both sides: early bazooka and flamethrower are far better than bar or lmg)
- Without Weapon Upgrades they are already really strong close combat
- Firing on the move with Flamethrower and Bazooka (Indeeed Gustatori should also not be able to do that)
- Grenade that is like a mini nuke
- They are elite but can come out early
- Veterancy removes their Counter (Bleeding Manpower because DMG Resistance and way more difficult to supress), Squad Wipe becomes really difficult
- Additional abilities due to heavy weapon training
- Increased accuracy while on the move encouraging to run around with a deathblob of rangers
Early you can counter with MG42 and Mines, but they are way more difficult to micro and rangers wont be your only problem. Mines also require setup and are sometimes way too random in how close the enemy squad will blob together which sometimes only causes 1-2 models to die.
Early they can easily farm veterancy because there is no other infantry that can closely match them and keeping them down, means you have to sacrifice ressources which are needed elsewhere
I also have no Problem with generalist units and strong rangers, but I dont think they should outclass every other specialist unit in their designated role on both sides
They are absolutely not countered by mg42, there are countless times a ranger charging heads on is able to throw out a grenade and finish off with flamethrower. And when they didn't get in range, they are never ever red pinned, and can't be dislodged in a reasonable time.
exactly waay more counterplay and the game gets good!!
its not a good looking game, how does coh2 still look nicer?
Great video enjoyed listening to it. The only criticism I have is that somehow, relic seem to lve redoing game after game changes that were done in the prior game. Then my 2 cent on the jeager problem on the solution I see is that you make the squad spawn as 4 man G43 for 300 mp because you lose a model and you either get a shcrek and keep the 4 model or the scoped G43 and you get a 5th one and a flare. That way, as you explained in your vid, it forces the player to make a choice and focus on one of these option.
yeah that works too, I bet there re loads of ways to fix the problem. :)
I disagree. Generalists existed in CoH since forever, you can't just delete them. Remember CoH1 grenadiers, who could be upgraded with an MG-42 and a panzershrek or two MGs, or two shreks? And CoH1 rangers spawned with two bazookas and could get four thompsons on top of them. In CoH2 nothing stops you from, for example, giving your USF riflemen an 1919 and a bazooka. CoH2 tanks are generalists more often than not, capable of defeating anything in their weight class other than a specialized AT unit. Even then, a tank vs tank destroyer engagement isn't completely one-sided and is often decided by positioning and ability usage instead of rock-paper-scissors rules
Anti-everything is literally what infantry are all about, though. That's why MANPATS and MANPADS are so powerful IRL.
What bothers me more is the ridiculous tankiness of infantry, who are able to massively expose and move under fire at full speed up to point-blank range with other already-in-cover infantry directly targeting them, and for some reason bayonets don't come out.
I think the issue you're focusing on is the wrong thing to be looking at entirely. Anti-everything infantry is fine....super-shock-troopers in WWII with seemingly Space Marine -tier armor and unrealistic movement capability is instead the issue.
The strength and weakness of infantry is their lack of encumbrance; they can get their weapons to wherever they're needed, but they can't be caught out in the open or else they're dead, and they can't move at speed while under fire. The level of technology employed by infantry is also a balancing point, with more advanced weapons being heavier and slowing them down, increasing their cost, and often increasing their logistical requirements. It's harder to feed an AT platform like a Super Bazooka than it is an M1 Garand battle rifle. Also, that dude carrying the bazooka is also likely to have a personal defense weapon, be it an M1 Carbine, a 1911 pistol, or an M3 Grease Gun. You're not going to be wasting a body in a gun fight, and you're probably not going to be wasting valuable rockets on infantry *unless* you're trying to destroy their cover.
So, just some thoughts for you to consider. Anti-everything infantry is fine, but it needs to be subject to the same vulnerabilities and costs of normal infantry, or else it's utterly OP and why even bother with tanks and their unique capacity to push through return fire and get cannons and machineguns to where they're most needed on the battlefield?
Heavily disagree on tanks, even tank destroyers must have a anti infantry role or cover buster role. Especially the stug, which is a sturm geschutz, it's an assault tank. Point blank blast is there to solidify it's assault role, as well as the mounted MG.
But Rangers & footguards 100% need to go back to role-exclusive upgrade system, that's a fact.
Coh1 with blizkrieg mod is still the ultimate company of heroes experience. Vanilla coh1,2,3 play so slow and blob heavy
CoH3 is like a reset of a franchise that did really well... Except they fire all the competent people that Fixed Coh2 after release and let the incompetent one recreate the original mess.
"the anti everything problem" Uhm... you know that COH ALWAY'S was supposed to be SOMEWHAT realistic? Remember the first game? Even thou your genZ you should. The 88 killed EVERYTHING! TANKS WHERE LETHAL AF! INFANTRY PROPERLY USED COULD ERRADICATE TANKS. The point is : COULD! Open field? Tanks win 10/10 matches easily. City? Infantry CAN be lethal , CAN!
So shut up with your shitty "it needs ballance and all". A PROPER RTS DOES NOT! The BEST RTS games EVER CREATED had NO BALLANCE WHATSOEVER!
Calling a middle-aged guy genZ is wild
hey that's Emerson's art on the thumbnmail. I'm sure you got his permission 🙄
To be 100% honest, stuff like this is exactly why there's an avid and loyal fanbase of things like Blitzkrieg mod for COH and Spearhead for COH2. The total lack of any realism and bulletsponge damage system, as well as the laughable upgrades, leads many players to prefer playing these mods. I REFUSE to play any COH title without a realism/higher damage mod, I've been too spoiled by BKM and Spearhead. You don't see these same issues in them with the blobs, role-based vs. anti everything-based dichotomy, lack of historical accuracy or realism, etc. In actual warfare infantry have always been the squishy jack of all trades but mediocre damage dealers of any army, so it's appropriate for them to have access to a variety of weapons in something like BKM or Spearhead, vehicles and weapon teams are more specialized and have a higher amount of damage than infantry but therefore have more hard counters.
Idk if COH3 has anything like a realism mod, but if it did I would exclusively play it. Vanilla COH games SP is ok, but vanilla MP is hot garbage, basically MOBA brain rot.
yeah I hear you brother
I never realized that Penals have SVTs. Who at lelic thought "Yes, those criminal battalions that the Soviets used as cannon fodder? They get better stats and weapons than the real infantry battalion". They should've balanced them like the Osttruppen.
Penal Battalion equipment varied on the task and the criminals inside. Some times you had officers who disobeyed orders send to seize critical positions with SVTs and PPSHs. And sometimes you send thieves to clear a minefield with their feet and a shovel. Somewhere I read that the battalion was more respectable, but the scum were in separate companies serving a meatshields
COH1 is the best. check out Blitzkrieg mod ✌
All of the unbalances of the axis is compensated by the Rangers blobbing.
There's more blobbing in CoH3 compared to CoH2.
Even worse when blobbing with bunkers and vehicles.
music is very loud
Well Lelic ran DoW3 into the ground with questionable decisions, now it's CoH3s turn.
Hopefully we get something to change in regard to unit itentity,
yet given the recent "expansions" basically Addon prized commanders and doubling down on the issue im not sure anymore.
I agree with units having distinct roles but too much of this is also a problem. Then the game just turns into World War 2 rock-paper-scissors.
That is what company of heroes was always about. Its not suppose to be a simulation. Its suppose the be fun and balanced
@@MasterSteve_117 There is a huge difference between counters and hard counters. Having infantry with an AT package lose to a full strength regular infantry squad? Cool. But having an AT-upgraded infantry squad lose to a quarter-strength regular infantry squad just because it isn’t “anti-infantry” is also bad for skill-expression.
@@alarminglyfastmovingskelet7289 but having an AT upgraded infantry being now extremely effective against vehicles equalizes it out. It’s also about what u need and what u don’t need. Having a „jack of all trades“ units just encourages the player to build only that.
this is why I left COH to play the men of war / call to arms series. A single conscript can do as much damage as a single elite infantry unit if under the right circumstances but that doesn't mean your entire forces will revolve around the weak conscript units. A unit in that game can be a jack of all trades BUT only for a temporary time (lets say a soldier got a heavy AT weapon after killing an enemy wielding it. he destroys an expensive tank but then instantly gets killed by another unit.)
Me too, I am anti everything.
Stug is and always has been an assault gun, not tank destroyer. In comparison with his counterpart Hellcat, Stug 1) has no turret 2) is much slower 3) can't chase / hunt tanks to finish off 4) is less responsive 5) has worse penetration. Budget tank destroyer is MARDER and there's no reason for creating another marder. Making now the Stug only anti-tank would result in it being hugely worse than a hellcat. Stug's role is to support infantry assault and be a spearhead for storming operations, tank some hits, destroy defensive structures, ward off LVs. With such small firing range and low penetration, it simply wouldn't work against tanks in general.
Yeah hearing my self say that, I cant help but think its wrong. perhaps a better thing to have said is, I think the Stug should do less damage, rather than none. Apologies. Maybe A change from point blank shot to target weak point, or spotting scopes. something like that.
@@Rather.Splended.Cromwell maybe more roof mg damage? If a player invests munition for stug anti infantry capabilities, it should be rewarding
@@Rather.Splended.Cromwell I don't think people need MORE reasons to not pick STUG compared to Wirbelwind/Marder combo.
STUG is an assault gun (that's literally it's translated name) and infantry can easily counterplay with hiding behind cover since even Point Blank Shot has trouble landing hits on units behind cover
That has been bugging me lately. I couldn't tell what it was. Thanks to you, now I've known.
The Rock, Paper, Scissors formula has been destroyed by giving some units the ability to counter or anti-everything
Who made that thumbnail? That's sick as heck
Still playing COH1 with great enjoyment - like chess it never gets old and the graphics is still superior to COH2 and COH3. Only thing missing is a relaunch, new multiplayer features, new maps, new singleplayer campaigns. And integration of eastern front. I would definitely buy or pay a subscription for this - because it's the best RTS world war 2 game ever made.
I just can't stand the artistic tone of the game. You showed the Coh2 footage, gritty, realistic, serious. And then Coh3 with it's slick UI, bright colors and toy soldier like units.
The unbalanced design I also agree with. But to me the biggest tragedy is the resulting lack of meta evolvement. Coh2 every match is different, slight adjustment to unit composition makes a huge difference, and there are so many ways to play. Coh3 there is only one, bloobing super units or tanks.
Six months since this video post i've uninstalled the game and no longer play it. CoH3 is clearly intended to be designed the way it is-badly. The developers like generalist units, and can't figure out why TTK changes have not solved the blobbing issue. The issue is intrinsic to the unit designs they have, support units don't work better than generalist units do and this means that the game is always heavily slanted toward offense. Defensive play and economy of force are sub optimal ways to play and a waste of resources. The only meta is the blob and all-in hyper offensives that just don't lay off because there's no other way to play. I just don't care about the game anymore. It's too reductionistic to be interesting.
@5:45 I am guessing you have not played coh1. There are units there who are anti-everything. Like grens/stormis with shrecks and lmg's/stgs, rangers with zooks and tommies.
-game feels incomplete and lacking
-lacks features previous games did have (replay viewer, observer mode, no progression system, no ranked mode)
-very expensive in-game store (€20 for an incomplete faction skin pack!!!!) more suitable for an f2p or mobile game,
-unrealistic skins
-very few maps.
-balance is all over the place
-sound design is bad compared to coh1 & 2
-Linear DAK campaign is an afterthought, simple, easy & forgettable
-Italian grand campaign is buggy, boring (some 4 maps over and over again), unbalanced
People also have to remember, the devs that worked on COH1 & COH2 all left.
But the COH3 team has devs of the legendary Dawn of War 3 on board :D
First game in a long time i regret buying.
I have a feeling that COH3 is going the way of Dawn of War 3
One thing I did NOT miss from Coh2 were Chinese players that blobbed OWK and USF units like this, playing this as if it were Starcraft or something.
The reason I like COH1 more than the other rts back then is that the game is designed with infantry in mind, everything are balanced around infantry.
Sudden Strike, Blitzkrieg, World in Conflict, and Codename: Panzer have infantry that straight up useless because they can be killed by everything, there's no incentive to use infantry because a tank can do what they can do and do it better.
The StuG has been actually always be used as infantry support weapon, rarely as a dedicated tankdestoyer, otherwise it's designation would have been changed over the course of upgrades during ww2
Yes, yes, yes. All of this yes. My biggest grip about the game was that the British can just build Rifle Section's and just completely dominate the game. On their own they do decent against infantry, but you just upgrade 10 squads with the Boys anti-tank rifle and suddenly entire squads are vanishing in moments the second that they are detected. Light vehicles shared a very similar fate. The only possible way that I found to counter them were heavy tanks, or ones with huge frontal armor like the STUG/H, but good luck getting to that point when you don't have any points/income.
Relic knows this, in CoH2 at first Panzergrenadier's upgrade gave one Panzerschreck, which made this unit overpowered. The double-schreck upgrade only came out in a later patch, exactly to counteract this.
But well, it doesn't matter much now. CoH3 is a mobile game money farm cleverly disguised under name of popular title. Stop giving them money for this scam.
Haven't played CoH3, have played CoH2 and 1.
IMO CoH4 or its derivative needs to be a fantasy game like Rattenreich. Our own universe is good for inspiration but its played through so much that a good balance in a game like CoH can be very hard to manage when "sticking to history". What I imagine, for example, is alternative earth with alternative commies that fight with T34s (american heavy tanks from our universe) against alternative nazis that use IS-3s or something like that.
I disagree with part of the video. The is not too many anti- everything units. Mostly elite rangers (or british guys who can switch between LMG and bazookas), and they are very expansive - I am ok with that. Jeagers even if they have 4 guys with rifles and 1 with Shrek - still quite nice against infantry, good against light vehicles, but against medium - not too strong and you need to have more than 1 squad. It makes them unit "not great vs anything". :)
I think CoH 2 with guards was more problematic (or even penals with those AT rifles). They were cheaper than elite, their AT rifle was often 1 shooting infantry models too.
In terms of Stugs etc. if you are doing upgrade with HMG then it should be somehow viable against infantry. In terms of their ability - it has quite long cooldown and also it is high risk/ high reward. You need to go very close to use it.
Coh 3 has a lot of issues in terms of balance, but those few units which can be soft counter against both infantry and vehicles is not the part of them (or those who can be a hard counter against both, but very expansive). Since CoH 2 the series has issue with balancing artillery (in team games it's just OP shit), it cannot find good place for light vehicles, snipers are underperforming or overperforming, units on retreat are almost immortal in CoH 3 etc.
Historially, the point of the STUG was infantry support, not a cheap tank destroyer (though they were used as such as well). And an HE round will mess infantry up. I always liked the more realistic damaged potrayal of COH over games like C&C (which I like as well). But a guy with an assault rifle shouldn't be able to damage a tank and a tank firing HE should be a terrible threat to infantry.
Hard disagree. I really dislike a pure rock paper scissors system. There should be units that blur the line and it's the player's job to find the right combination and develop strategies.
Not just "Oh you build a rock? Now I build a paper!"
What I'd really want was more information on unit stats so I can actually make better decisions. What actually are the hp, dmg, firerate, accuracy, speed etc of the units. Having to look such things up in a wiki is dumb.
Solid video, I'm sure we were all extremely excited for COH3. And it's obvious that it's been a major let down. Especially in team games anyways. Brain dead blobbing and or bunker spamming is a thing. And idk it's just cheesy to me. Doesn't seem to be as skill based as before in COH2. So, I think they made it more streamlined to adhere to a larger audience.
man this game is garbage
I have never played a COH game. I’m not sure why I’m here, I’m watching the whole thing though
The busted balancing is plain sad, but what‘s even worse is that CoH 3 looks uglier than its predecessor. How did they even manage that? I swear just look at the ground textures or the shadows, everything’s so washed up and low-res in the sequel. The GUI feels cheaper too, I‘m glad I haven’t wasted any money on buying it, it‘s even worse than I anticipated lol.