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.
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?
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.)
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
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
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.
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 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'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.
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 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.
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 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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
My general philosophy on this would be that if you have an "anti-everything" unit, they either need to be so massively expensive that youd hesitate to throw them into combat OR they need to be jack of all's, master of none's. I think of something like the Lothern Sea Guards in Total War Warhammer 2. At first they seem like a strong investment, and they can hold up, but they have the tradeoff of not having as many men in a unit as regular spears or archers, and suffer long-term as a result.
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 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.
This is what i do for my blob in coh2 when playing USA. I choose amour company and use assault engineers with flamethrower upgrade and 1 bazooka. 3 grease guns is not alot in terms of damage the flamethrower carries the cqc dmg. I add 1 captain, lieutenant and riflemen to bring the blob to 6 divisions. Equip all with 1 BAR and 1 Zook each. Now i have a blob that can do well at pushing holding and defeating amour with help from cheap m10 tank destroyer and 105 sherman.
It’s a ww2 game so bottom line is things should make reasonable sense in respect to source material. 75mm cannon is bad news for infantrymen. Elite infantry that kills trash infantry and has at is also reasonable, should just have appropriate costing or even unit caps
Role specific infantry makes sense, but tanks are always weird for me, it was quite a disconnect back I started playing seeing and not getting how the hell tanks were doing nothing to infantry, the shell should’ve rip them apart.
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"
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
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
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?
only point i disagree on is the Stug. Any armoured vehicle against infantry, im sorry, infantry should lose, unless they are dedicated antitank and can beat the armour head on. And hopefully in cover. Out of cover? forget it, as thats realistic The Stug was the singular most successful vehicle the germans made across the war in terms of both effectiveness and numbers produced. A 75mm HE shell landing near infantry should hurt. If she has a machinegunner on top, again, infantry out of cover, im sorry, but that should hurt. the weakness of the stug is its casement gun, but thats also its strength. if she sees you, kaboom.
You are right about the Stug, in real life, a tank is able to switch ammunition, from AP to HP, not to mention the machine guns. When I first play CoH2, I was so angry about the division of role because it wasn't realistic irl, until I realized it was actually a very smart gameplay decision. CoH 3 definitely need some twerking.
Not really, Stug was designated as Assault gun but its long barrel variant was always assigned the anti tank role with ammo heavily on anti armor side. That designated name is just designated name.
Yes, but some later clearly AT tank vehicle were designated as Assault Gun too. So through the war, Assault gun became a design type designation not role.
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.
This conversation has largely passed me by since I only played COH for the campaigns. I know this is affected by game balance but the unique stories and mechanics is what I always played for. I’ve never played multiplayer at all so while I appreciate these conversations happening I’m not in good position to comment
Traditionally, all-rounder units would cost more resources and weren't as effective at killing a specific target. While specialized units may seem to be slightly more expensive, their efficiency per investment or their RoI (return on investment for those who don't know) generally are far greater when properly used, or terrible when not. Much like how artillery are usually balanced. They typically do decent dmg to infantry and tanks while dealing indirect fire at the cost of movement and a much higher cost to create... Until something gets close and all of a sudden a single infantry squad with a C4 satchel let's 'er rip, or the standing crew outside the artillery tank is taken out. If these all rounder units are performing alright in both scenarios, it's alright so long as something else is sacrificed, be it decreased movement speed (for lugging rpg's around), and a higher cost (you have to pay for 4 soldiers with thompson's, and then pay the cost of upgrading 2 of them to rpg's). So the cost of 3 squads of 2 thompsons and 2 bazookas is equivalent to the cost of 4 squads of 4 thompsons... Well, we know the outcome here! There are other ways to balance units. I see no issue at all with all-rounder units. They can be used to create a "buffer" against an opponent (when you don't know what they're bringing to a fight, you don't want to heavily lean into one or another form of dmg, but you also can't afford to build 1 of each unit i.e. 1 tank with anti infantry, 1 tank with anti tank, 1 infantry with anti infantry and 1 infantry with anti tank. Instead, you build 4 infantry all rounder squads, and use them to buy time to build a strategy and force to counter your opponents) Source: has not played Company of Heroes, but has played RTS games for 2 decades
I really think that anti-everything is a role that can be included, as long as its executed well, usually by making a omni-effective squad as good as 1 equivalent tier specialized squad, but costing at minimum thrice as much, it reduces the needed micromanagement by reducing unit count in exchange for reduced total firepower, and would be useful for people who prefer to use smaller numbers of units and are willing to give up map coverage to play to that strength
I think COH3 is more about the tech and resource management. You can't assume riflemen will beat jaegers because you invest so much more teching into the second tier of Wher. Riflemen don't necessarily fit into the anti-infantry role until you upgrade to BARs, then it is a totally different story. They're more like bodies and damage soaks for your weapons teams.
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.
@@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.)
I really love giving my units upgrades and i miss that a bit in coh3 i really like upgrades in cheap untis and i like doctrins which gives your cheap regular units upgrades for example the conscripts with ppsh i love that I would love to have more a choice to give my troops upgrades and choose what there good up
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.
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
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.
Fantastic explanation of a pivotal balance point for people to actually have fun WITH the RTS. This problem can be seen in games like Age of Empires 2 as well, specifically with the Byzantine Cataphract, off the top of my head.
@@lucanus7116 Nearly all Heavy Calvary in the entire game are vulnerable to arrows, thats a baseline functionality of having high melee stats. 85-90% of all UUs in the game are expensive to upgrade. Byzantines literally GET PALADINS. AND Camels, and Halberdiers (both of which have a discount on them), and Handcannons, and fully upgraded Skirmishers (which also has a discount on them allowing the Byzantine player to always have a hard counter to an archer civ they're fighting), and fully upgraded Arbalest, and fully upgraded Monks. Even the Guard in coh2 are still vulnerable to artillery. Even the Jaeger from coh3 are still vulnerable to artillery. That doesnt keep people from recognizing them as being anti-""everything"". inb4 competitive players, yeah well im not a competitive player and neither are the majority of aoe 2 players or the majority of company of hero players. And this isnt starcraft 2 so we're never going to have a situation where ByUn literally gets Reapers nerfed simply because he exists on the ladder.
@@lucanus7116 Every heavy cavalry in the game is weak to arrows. 85-90% of all UU upgrades are expensive. Byzantines literally GET PALADINS. AND camels, and halberdier, and hand cannon, and fully upgraded skirmishers and arbalest, and fully upgraded monks. AND they get a discount on camels, halberdiers and skirmishers to counter any civ that even has a technical counter to their Cataphracts. The Guard in coh2 can still be destroyed by artillery. The Jaeger in coh3 can still be destroyed by artillery. That doesn't stop us from still categorizing them as anti-everything.
@@hmonglord most people who play the game seriously dont think every single facet can be perfectly balanced, and thats valid, because aoe2 isnt the same game as starcraft2, where a unit can be nerfed exclusively on a single competitive player's (byuN) performance with the unit (Reaper) i've never been a fan of massively expensive upgrades that can turn a unit into a game ender, i honestly think its better to make UU upgrades cheaper and more accessible, and in turn lower their power spike a bit to compensate huscarls are a great example, they CAN be a game ender, but they are inherently weak against their own unity type, infantry/champions, making their advantage into a double edged sword with an interesting complex with their own unit-type and that makes them a much better execution of a "game ender" UU
Don't play CoH3 but from the looks of it, StuGs seem to act just like Pz IVs, except not having an MG when not unlocking it. Casemates should be cheaper vehicles but have some aiming penalty when moving. They should be stationary and only engage targets in some 30° area in front of them without penalty, but when they move or have to turn too much they would get some penalty in the form of some delay for aiming. Which results in two use cases: - Assualt gun -> Drive to some defended area and blast defenses with HE rounds - Tank destroyer -> Lay in ambush to destroy tanks or vehicles with AP rounds Since they need some time to adjust aim, they are not that great for supporting infantry on the move like tanks but for helping infantry to break through defensive formations.
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.
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.
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.
People act like the rng nature of the rangers weapon drops is a balancing factor but when you have enough rangers it literally doesnt matter. You will get enough of a variety to be able to delete everything.
I know CoH in general only from watching some gameplays/tournaments, but completely get the messsage. This game is about decisions. Although my realism seeking side screams "nooo stugs were all about fighting infantry", but I get it's necessary to keep the balance
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.
I still remember the OG anti everything was the Hummel SPA, and I intentionally destroy them and revive them using the recovery tank so I can get 10 of them while my friend focus on infantry and tanks
Also the units seem to be moving faster, or probably too many "increase movement" abilities. Blobs usually get bogged down by MGs, making them easy to be stopped by grenades
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.
"In summery" @ 9:13 Bruh. Otherwise, something very important not mentioned in this video is the tier at which the "anti-everything" unit lays. An infantry unit at the last tier ought to be able to defend itself against a halftrack or take advantage of a side shot against armor, as it's at the point of the game where snipers, support weapons, mines, and tank spam generally mulches through infantry.
I think the solution would be an active ability: while it is on you use anti-tank weapons and prioritize vehicles, but their anti-infantry power should decrease drastically (and they should do something with the panzershreks, they miss a lot of shots) and when you deactivate them the whole group uses anti-infantry weapons.
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.
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
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.
this is a prime example of money directing "vision" what i mean by this is that they had Coh2 for so long that the player base shrunk so much that it made any possiblity of profit from further investment unlikely, thus they decided that Coh3 would target a new playerbase and with that comes the challenge of making it simple enough for the new players to grasp quickly as such we have a great game losing its individuality in exchange for a lower hurdle generalizing its ironic that this issue is such a plague in the game industry when its easy to find out the most popular games ever made are standing upon their individuality and only enrich it never giving it up in a gamble for profitability
I do not like the Starcraft 2 mentality of hard counter for everything. One thing that made COH series stand out was the versatility of units in the game. EG 76MM Sherman which is good vs Tanks or the HE 75MM gun on the standard M4 good against most things but sucks at AP. The INF murder balls are easy to deal with : MG + Mortar or Artillery. Manpower bleed is hellish, but still fun to play. Also weapon pickups were Great in COH2 when you had some Brits rocking Soviet PTRS rifles and Shreks from fallen Germans. To each his own, but I do think COH2 is the superior game atm due to better balance and choice. Thank you for sharing your thoughts :)
its interesting that it turned out this way when guys like miragefla who helped shape the post-relic coh2 meta are working on the current coh3 meta. no lesson unlearned apparently
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
When first trying out the regular Germans I wasn't doing well until I switched to building jeagers as early as possible. Then I was able to counter everthing. No longer had to fear early British light vehicle rushes. After I seen their do all nature I honestly said bring on all the light vechicles you want. You are just wasting fuel and setting back your end game.
You wanna counter blobbing? Build a machine gub or two and learn the map to anticipate where the blob comes form. You'll be able to have one unit counter an entire infantey army.
A unit being an anti-everything sounds more like a boss unit or atleast a unit that is a large and in charge entity on the map. Or a really expensive elite unit, sure it can do everything, but that just means they are vulnerable to cheaper, fast recruiting units that can also specialized in anti infantry. Now I am all for a basic yet general unit or atleast a roster if lets say "this unit is a basic infantry, now this is a basic infantry good against armor" but elite units need more thought. But I will say, the ability to give your units launchers is far more better as during the Campaign in the US faction, I ran into a problem where I had no real reliable way of dispatching tanks, I spent more resources on AT cannons and Tank destroyers while using 1 or 2 squads to play ring around the rosie around the enemy tank. Its ultimately not a resource issue but a population issue where my objective requires me to have 3 tanks at best to complete said mission.
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.
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?
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
My take on this is from a personal perspective late into CoH2. Generally the last 7 commander choices added jack of all trade units and they were highly received. The problem is units are more accurate in CoH3 so the inharent problems are different. Russian anti tank squads were not sniping your infantry for example, and a MG42 pinned your squads and required quick thinking follow ups where as CoH3 is just a MG with rappid banishing. The problem was they made the games TTK better with higher accuracy. The units are just all around more reliable causing issues. This is noticable when you pay attention to russian at squads and how often tgere rounds coubt as "bounced" in CoH2 vs the bows at squad in CoH3. Both 1 hit infa try, both do chi ks of damage to vehicals, however boys at teams are snipers with anti tank as a core punch. Even the AI spams the shit, and on any difficulty lol. They need to stop adding units with devistating mechanics if units are going to be laser accurate. This is why most of tge units in each caragory just feel suoer strong. The complaint i have is each faction has too much cheese to be played as intended making the players feel forced to pick the meta units cause everyone else will use them automatically
I love this view on the game and I think it is very on point with the issues with COH3 I really like you suggestion when it comes to the normal Jager unit Panzer Jagers on the other hand I think are a good example of an anti-everything unit mainly because that unit only has 4 members in it it starts off as a mainly anti- vehicle unit that can add a little anti infantry to it but since there is only 4 guys in the squad it is still pretty squishy and requires some forethought when using them.
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.
I think with shorter TTK specialists and Schrek Jeagers will not overperform - the gap will be too narrow for blobbing with them but at the same time individualy they still will be strong to justify the price
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.
Classic fucking Relic dude. Same shit with dawn of war 3.
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?
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
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.
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
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
"Hans, your coffee tastes like shit."
"Alarm!"
"Am I your mother, asshole! Make your own coffee then!"
flashbacks
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.
Commenting for visibility. You understand what makes COH great, and why coh3 is very disappointing
I really Appreciate that man. Thank you :)
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.)
Also commenting for visibility. You made great points. I hope lelic will hear you.
Thank you my guy.
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)?
Gates of Hells infantry barely automatically shoots on enemies and moves braindead. Neither, unlike mow, they do automatically throw nades.
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
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.
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 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'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.
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
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.
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
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 with blizkrieg mod is still the ultimate company of heroes experience. Vanilla coh1,2,3 play so slow and blob heavy
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.
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
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
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
No infantry should ever survive frontal storming against a tank without any cover. Thats the main problem, infantry is FAR too tanky in this game.
exactly waay more counterplay and the game gets good!!
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.
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
My general philosophy on this would be that if you have an "anti-everything" unit, they either need to be so massively expensive that youd hesitate to throw them into combat OR they need to be jack of all's, master of none's. I think of something like the Lothern Sea Guards in Total War Warhammer 2. At first they seem like a strong investment, and they can hold up, but they have the tradeoff of not having as many men in a unit as regular spears or archers, and suffer long-term as a result.
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 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.
This is what i do for my blob in coh2 when playing USA.
I choose amour company and use assault engineers with flamethrower upgrade and 1 bazooka.
3 grease guns is not alot in terms of damage the flamethrower carries the cqc dmg.
I add 1 captain, lieutenant and riflemen to bring the blob to 6 divisions.
Equip all with 1 BAR and 1 Zook each.
Now i have a blob that can do well at pushing holding and defeating amour with help from cheap m10 tank destroyer and 105 sherman.
It’s a ww2 game so bottom line is things should make reasonable sense in respect to source material. 75mm cannon is bad news for infantrymen. Elite infantry that kills trash infantry and has at is also reasonable, should just have appropriate costing or even unit caps
Role specific infantry makes sense, but tanks are always weird for me, it was quite a disconnect back I started playing seeing and not getting how the hell tanks were doing nothing to infantry, the shell should’ve rip them apart.
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
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
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 have never played a COH game. I’m not sure why I’m here, I’m watching the whole thing though
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?
only point i disagree on is the Stug.
Any armoured vehicle against infantry, im sorry, infantry should lose, unless they are dedicated antitank and can beat the armour head on. And hopefully in cover. Out of cover? forget it, as thats realistic
The Stug was the singular most successful vehicle the germans made across the war in terms of both effectiveness and numbers produced. A 75mm HE shell landing near infantry should hurt. If she has a machinegunner on top, again, infantry out of cover, im sorry, but that should hurt.
the weakness of the stug is its casement gun, but thats also its strength. if she sees you, kaboom.
One s,mall thing you forget. like when you choose a thompson/MP40, you have to go into close combat, so the weapon can excell.
You are right about the Stug, in real life, a tank is able to switch ammunition, from AP to HP, not to mention the machine guns. When I first play CoH2, I was so angry about the division of role because it wasn't realistic irl, until I realized it was actually a very smart gameplay decision. CoH 3 definitely need some twerking.
Not really, Stug was designated as Assault gun but its long barrel variant was always assigned the anti tank role with ammo heavily on anti armor side.
That designated name is just designated name.
The Stug is an assault gun a type of self propelled artillery dedicated as anti infantry later in the war modified as a tank destroyer
Yes, but some later clearly AT tank vehicle were designated as Assault Gun too.
So through the war, Assault gun became a design type designation not role.
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.
This conversation has largely passed me by since I only played COH for the campaigns. I know this is affected by game balance but the unique stories and mechanics is what I always played for. I’ve never played multiplayer at all so while I appreciate these conversations happening I’m not in good position to comment
imagine not just playing Wikinger Europe at war for COH2 and never having to experience this issue
Traditionally, all-rounder units would cost more resources and weren't as effective at killing a specific target.
While specialized units may seem to be slightly more expensive, their efficiency per investment or their RoI (return on investment for those who don't know) generally are far greater when properly used, or terrible when not.
Much like how artillery are usually balanced. They typically do decent dmg to infantry and tanks while dealing indirect fire at the cost of movement and a much higher cost to create... Until something gets close and all of a sudden a single infantry squad with a C4 satchel let's 'er rip, or the standing crew outside the artillery tank is taken out.
If these all rounder units are performing alright in both scenarios, it's alright so long as something else is sacrificed, be it decreased movement speed (for lugging rpg's around), and a higher cost (you have to pay for 4 soldiers with thompson's, and then pay the cost of upgrading 2 of them to rpg's).
So the cost of 3 squads of 2 thompsons and 2 bazookas is equivalent to the cost of 4 squads of 4 thompsons... Well, we know the outcome here!
There are other ways to balance units. I see no issue at all with all-rounder units. They can be used to create a "buffer" against an opponent (when you don't know what they're bringing to a fight, you don't want to heavily lean into one or another form of dmg, but you also can't afford to build 1 of each unit i.e. 1 tank with anti infantry, 1 tank with anti tank, 1 infantry with anti infantry and 1 infantry with anti tank. Instead, you build 4 infantry all rounder squads, and use them to buy time to build a strategy and force to counter your opponents)
Source: has not played Company of Heroes, but has played RTS games for 2 decades
I really think that anti-everything is a role that can be included, as long as its executed well, usually by making a omni-effective squad as good as 1 equivalent tier specialized squad, but costing at minimum thrice as much, it reduces the needed micromanagement by reducing unit count in exchange for reduced total firepower, and would be useful for people who prefer to use smaller numbers of units and are willing to give up map coverage to play to that strength
Me too, I am anti everything.
I think COH3 is more about the tech and resource management. You can't assume riflemen will beat jaegers because you invest so much more teching into the second tier of Wher. Riflemen don't necessarily fit into the anti-infantry role until you upgrade to BARs, then it is a totally different story. They're more like bodies and damage soaks for your weapons teams.
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 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.)
I really love giving my units upgrades and i miss that a bit in coh3 i really like upgrades in cheap untis and i like doctrins which gives your cheap regular units upgrades for example the conscripts with ppsh i love that
I would love to have more a choice to give my troops upgrades and choose what there good up
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.
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.
I think I I hit gold with your channel man keep it up man your stuff is cool
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
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.
Fantastic explanation of a pivotal balance point for people to actually have fun WITH the RTS.
This problem can be seen in games like Age of Empires 2 as well, specifically with the Byzantine Cataphract, off the top of my head.
Wrong, cataphrac are vulnerable to arrow. They are costly to upgrade. They have less HP than paladins
@@lucanus7116 Nearly all Heavy Calvary in the entire game are vulnerable to arrows, thats a baseline functionality of having high melee stats.
85-90% of all UUs in the game are expensive to upgrade.
Byzantines literally GET PALADINS. AND Camels, and Halberdiers (both of which have a discount on them), and Handcannons, and fully upgraded Skirmishers (which also has a discount on them allowing the Byzantine player to always have a hard counter to an archer civ they're fighting), and fully upgraded Arbalest, and fully upgraded Monks.
Even the Guard in coh2 are still vulnerable to artillery. Even the Jaeger from coh3 are still vulnerable to artillery. That doesnt keep people from recognizing them as being anti-""everything"".
inb4 competitive players, yeah well im not a competitive player and neither are the majority of aoe 2 players or the majority of company of hero players. And this isnt starcraft 2 so we're never going to have a situation where ByUn literally gets Reapers nerfed simply because he exists on the ladder.
@@lucanus7116 Every heavy cavalry in the game is weak to arrows.
85-90% of all UU upgrades are expensive.
Byzantines literally GET PALADINS.
AND camels, and halberdier, and hand cannon, and fully upgraded skirmishers and arbalest, and fully upgraded monks. AND they get a discount on camels, halberdiers and skirmishers to counter any civ that even has a technical counter to their Cataphracts.
The Guard in coh2 can still be destroyed by artillery. The Jaeger in coh3 can still be destroyed by artillery. That doesn't stop us from still categorizing them as anti-everything.
What wrong with the byz cata?I don't think anyone who Playa the game semi seriously think byz cata are a problem
@@hmonglord most people who play the game seriously dont think every single facet can be perfectly balanced, and thats valid, because aoe2 isnt the same game as starcraft2, where a unit can be nerfed exclusively on a single competitive player's (byuN) performance with the unit (Reaper)
i've never been a fan of massively expensive upgrades that can turn a unit into a game ender, i honestly think its better to make UU upgrades cheaper and more accessible, and in turn lower their power spike a bit to compensate
huscarls are a great example, they CAN be a game ender, but they are inherently weak against their own unity type, infantry/champions, making their advantage into a double edged sword with an interesting complex with their own unit-type
and that makes them a much better execution of a "game ender" UU
Don't play CoH3 but from the looks of it, StuGs seem to act just like Pz IVs, except not having an MG when not unlocking it.
Casemates should be cheaper vehicles but have some aiming penalty when moving. They should be stationary and only engage targets in some 30° area in front of them without penalty, but when they move or have to turn too much they would get some penalty in the form of some delay for aiming.
Which results in two use cases:
- Assualt gun -> Drive to some defended area and blast defenses with HE rounds
- Tank destroyer -> Lay in ambush to destroy tanks or vehicles with AP rounds
Since they need some time to adjust aim, they are not that great for supporting infantry on the move like tanks but for helping infantry to break through defensive formations.
rather splendid video
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.
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)
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.
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.
People act like the rng nature of the rangers weapon drops is a balancing factor but when you have enough rangers it literally doesnt matter. You will get enough of a variety to be able to delete everything.
I know CoH in general only from watching some gameplays/tournaments, but completely get the messsage. This game is about decisions. Although my realism seeking side screams "nooo stugs were all about fighting infantry", but I get it's necessary to keep the balance
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.
I still remember the OG anti everything was the Hummel SPA, and I intentionally destroy them and revive them using the recovery tank so I can get 10 of them while my friend focus on infantry and tanks
Also the units seem to be moving faster, or probably too many "increase movement" abilities. Blobs usually get bogged down by MGs, making them easy to be stopped by grenades
Okay, but that anime tank mecha is wicked awesome. That's a thing to inspire zeal alright!
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.
"In summery" @ 9:13
Bruh. Otherwise, something very important not mentioned in this video is the tier at which the "anti-everything" unit lays. An infantry unit at the last tier ought to be able to defend itself against a halftrack or take advantage of a side shot against armor, as it's at the point of the game where snipers, support weapons, mines, and tank spam generally mulches through infantry.
Yeah the 4 man last tier obersoldaten squad would have a word to you
I think the solution would be an active ability: while it is on you use anti-tank weapons and prioritize vehicles, but their anti-infantry power should decrease drastically (and they should do something with the panzershreks, they miss a lot of shots) and when you deactivate them the whole group uses anti-infantry weapons.
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
the counter of anti-everything infantry is the counter of all squishy infantry, artillery.
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
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.
One of the most heartbreaking games of all time for me
this is a prime example of money directing "vision" what i mean by this is that they had Coh2 for so long that the player base shrunk so much that it made any possiblity of profit from further investment unlikely,
thus they decided that Coh3 would target a new playerbase and with that comes the challenge of making it simple enough for the new players to grasp quickly as such we have a great game losing its individuality in exchange for a lower hurdle generalizing
its ironic that this issue is such a plague in the game industry when its easy to find out the most popular games ever made are standing upon their individuality and only enrich it never giving it up in a gamble for profitability
I do not like the Starcraft 2 mentality of hard counter for everything. One thing that made COH series stand out was the versatility of units in the game. EG 76MM Sherman which is good vs Tanks or the HE 75MM gun on the standard M4 good against most things but sucks at AP. The INF murder balls are easy to deal with : MG + Mortar or Artillery. Manpower bleed is hellish, but still fun to play. Also weapon pickups were Great in COH2 when you had some Brits rocking Soviet PTRS rifles and Shreks from fallen Germans. To each his own, but I do think COH2 is the superior game atm due to better balance and choice. Thank you for sharing your thoughts :)
And thus the Algorithm sayeth "THIS ONEA!"
its interesting that it turned out this way when guys like miragefla who helped shape the post-relic coh2 meta are working on the current coh3 meta. no lesson unlearned apparently
Long story short: Casual game becomes more casual.
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
When first trying out the regular Germans I wasn't doing well until I switched to building jeagers as early as possible. Then I was able to counter everthing. No longer had to fear early British light vehicle rushes. After I seen their do all nature I honestly said bring on all the light vechicles you want. You are just wasting fuel and setting back your end game.
You wanna counter blobbing? Build a machine gub or two and learn the map to anticipate where the blob comes form. You'll be able to have one unit counter an entire infantey army.
A unit being an anti-everything sounds more like a boss unit or atleast a unit that is a large and in charge entity on the map.
Or a really expensive elite unit, sure it can do everything, but that just means they are vulnerable to cheaper, fast recruiting units that can also specialized in anti infantry.
Now I am all for a basic yet general unit or atleast a roster if lets say "this unit is a basic infantry, now this is a basic infantry good against armor" but elite units need more thought.
But I will say, the ability to give your units launchers is far more better as during the Campaign in the US faction, I ran into a problem where I had no real reliable way of dispatching tanks, I spent more resources on AT cannons and Tank destroyers while using 1 or 2 squads to play ring around the rosie around the enemy tank. Its ultimately not a resource issue but a population issue where my objective requires me to have 3 tanks at best to complete said mission.
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.
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?
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
My take on this is from a personal perspective late into CoH2. Generally the last 7 commander choices added jack of all trade units and they were highly received. The problem is units are more accurate in CoH3 so the inharent problems are different. Russian anti tank squads were not sniping your infantry for example, and a MG42 pinned your squads and required quick thinking follow ups where as CoH3 is just a MG with rappid banishing. The problem was they made the games TTK better with higher accuracy. The units are just all around more reliable causing issues. This is noticable when you pay attention to russian at squads and how often tgere rounds coubt as "bounced" in CoH2 vs the bows at squad in CoH3. Both 1 hit infa try, both do chi ks of damage to vehicals, however boys at teams are snipers with anti tank as a core punch. Even the AI spams the shit, and on any difficulty lol. They need to stop adding units with devistating mechanics if units are going to be laser accurate. This is why most of tge units in each caragory just feel suoer strong. The complaint i have is each faction has too much cheese to be played as intended making the players feel forced to pick the meta units cause everyone else will use them automatically
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.
I love this view on the game and I think it is very on point with the issues with COH3 I really like you suggestion when it comes to the normal Jager unit Panzer Jagers on the other hand I think are a good example of an anti-everything unit mainly because that unit only has 4 members in it it starts off as a mainly anti- vehicle unit that can add a little anti infantry to it but since there is only 4 guys in the squad it is still pretty squishy and requires some forethought when using them.
yes we don't want anti everything but we also don't want rock paper scissors
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.
I think with shorter TTK specialists and Schrek Jeagers will not overperform - the gap will be too narrow for blobbing with them but at the same time individualy they still will be strong to justify the price
Your suggestions are fine. Game designers on the whole do not have a clue what they are doing either. Your guess is as good as theirs.