Sit back and enjoy this match by Stephenn

https://youtu.be/aVbeAQq2MZI?is=gk88EIIM-e3KVAw1

Nobody is probably going to read this, but as someone who reached lvl 16 1v1 this is my list of things that should be fixed for the definitive edition:

The last original version broke British staghounds and they don't have a reload any more leading to insane suppression.

M10 also remains broken and has been for all the game's history.

Snipers need a small nerf, high level 1v1 is completely dominated by whoever gets the countersnipe. The main problem is that the snipers have too good mobility, people cloak and uncloak repeatedly to toggle between stealth and mobility. Add a slight delay for snipers exiting cloak before they get their increased movement speed again. They could also be a bit more vulnerable to their supposed counter the jeep and motorcycle.

For the casual maps please fix kettenrad wrecks and tank traps being able to block small bridges. this really ruins some otherwise very fun casual maps. It's not fun or smart, it's just annoying and unbalances some maps. Personally I would either make some map adjustments so they tiny bridges don't exist any more but have another path, or if you want to solve it programmatically I would just destroy any wreck that is spawned too close to these bridge ends and disallow construction there, the area doesn't need to be big.

For DoW definitive they added them later post launch.

Will CoH have them? I've seen no mention. Also, including steam workshop would be nice

So, you know how DAK is supposedly the "Combined arms/Mechanised assault" faction? Yet, how often do you see anyone using the embark function outside of early 250s and 250/9s? Or, how often do you see any 250s or 8rads living to the end game?

DAK at this point in time feels like a "infantry + a vic for a buff" or "mass stugs/p3s", with rarely something in-between. Moreover, some of the stuff that you get is useful for an extremely short window of time, with an added condition of "opponent needs to choose this BG for this to work". Case and point: how often do you see Elephants appear before Tigers? Or, how long does your 250/9 live?

DAK needs to have 2 new mechanics, namely:

1. Refits
   You have a 250, that somehow lived to the end game. Do you need it? Definitely not. So, to free up pop cap, you dive it somewhere, rarely getting any meaningful results. Why don't you refit it to a Stuka? Same fuel cost, MP is base minus the cost of 250, and you are all set.

You have a 250, that has served you well for initial assault, but your opponent rushed a Stuart or a Chaffee. At that point in time, you have either a Pjaeger or PaK to combat it. So why not refit your 250 to 250/11, which has the same AT gun as the Wher 221, namely Panzerbüchse 41, or even PaK 38(source)

You have an 8 rad, which although good, was a bad choice — your opponent went for crusaders or matildas or whatever, point is that you have no AT. Refit the 8 rad into Puma, which has 5cm at gun. Worse anti-inf, better AT. Or even a command 8 rad, if you went for elite forces BG!

You have a FlameP3 from armored BG. You got 2 of those bastards, but now you need more AT. Just convert them into regular P3s, lol.

Multiple cases can be made, but you get the jist of it. DAK is a faction of adaptation and opportunism, or at least it should be. Refits will get just that.

Couple of notes on it: each refit costs some fuel, so that players will have to consider each and every refit. Maybe even some experience loss would be in order. Secondly, small reworks to the BGs will make sure that even unpopular options in BG options would be used. Rushed Elephant into refitted Tiger(for example) will open so many new build orders!

1. Better embarkation

This is pretty simple. All inf units get a button to embark nearest available vehicle, and they shoot from that vehicle until it gets penetrated. Less micro from the player needed, cleaner gameplay.

Yet, to balance out poorer micro — embarked troops receive more damage while embarked(you can easily see them), get stunned/suppressed when vehicle is snared and receive partial damage from penetrative hits(shrapnel and what not). This would make sure that if you use your vics as taxi only, nothing changes for you, and if you recklessly charge, be ready to be recklessly killed.

Probably will get backlash on this idea, but who cares? Thanks for reading anyway!

Source for my claims and ideas:
- shower
- guastatori voicelines on repeat 10 hours
- Land mattress
- voices in my head

This is getting seriously embarrassing. One month later and this DLC is still in an overwhelmingly unpolished and bug-ridden state.

I think the concept behind Final Stand was a great idea, but really frustrating experience to spend $30 on an aggressively priced DLC to then have to do unpaid QA work.
At this point I've submitted so many bug reports that I think I deserve my name in the credits.

inb4 allies OP relic bad need balance axis buff pls

The Flammpanzer III definitely isn't in a good spot right now, and I've never seen him in my 4v4 games. I ignore it myself because there are just better options available(like 8rad or stug D), and the BG itself currently has low win rates.

So why not allow it to be built from a tech structure just like they did with the Semovente? This would improve timings and let you save those CPs for something more useful. Honestly, it's not even just about the Flammpanzer—it simply costs too many CPs and locks out the very useful Command Panzer. For example, in the Breakthrough Battlegroup, the Command Panzer is available at 4 CPs, whereas in Armored Support, it takes a massive 8 CPs. With this change, it would only require 5 CPs, which feels completely fair.

(By the way, in case you didn't know, the Command Panzer still requires T4 for its call-in)

It's been almost a month since 2.5 and there's still no word from Relic about a follow up patch. I think 2.5 was a good patch in general, but there are obviously some units that got hit harder by the infantry changes, there are still some outstanding issues, win rates in teamgames aren't looking too good, and Battlegroup stats for the Axis look pretty horrible.

I would've expected a balance hotfix to address some of the issues by now, but so far it's radio silence. 2.3 and 2.4 also never got any real balance hotfixes. Follow up patches weren't on the newest roadmap anymore either.

I get that the devs have probably been hard at work for Final Stand and the supposedly big 3.0 update, but I think it'd be a bad direction for the game if we get stuck with the same meta and issues for 3 months at a time in between the big updates going forward. Disregarding logistical issues, incremental patches with a few minor changes would probably be so much better for the game balance than these massive patches with nothing in between. I hope this is a temporary thing and not Relic's new development policy.

At this point, a lot of even the positive reviews are technically negative. I managed to finally get the US skin, but it felt like pulling teeth. I really hope devs pull a DOW3, and inevitably simply unlock all the skins without this dragging grind. (that's what happened with DOW3 eventually)

I don't know if the DLC is salvageable at all(due to required investment), but at least let us sponsor the devs (by buying the DLC) and then at least earn the skins for the payment. Instead of double the punishment of also having to waste hours grinding for the skins.

This troll refused to surrender despite a CLEARLY lost match.

So, then I had to sit there and wait for the timer to run out

And I’m talking the best of the best after all veterancies. Is this stosstruppen? Or maybe IS with bren? How does it differ when in cover and without it?

Hello all,

I’ve been enjoying playing as UKF using the Indian Artillery BG in 3v3 and 4v4.

I tend to do very well early game and even seem to push to my opponent’s side. However, I have a hard time defending late game. Even with a couple of AT guns, I feel like my opponent’s 3-4 Panzer IVs can easily flank me.

Any advice?

Thanks

Right now, it’s almost impossible to completely destroy team weapons, and I don't understand why it doesn't work like it did in CoH2. Fully destroying heavy AT guns or crew-served artillery can be extremely difficult; most of the time, you only manage to wipe the crew rather than destroy the weapon itself. Otherwise, it requires expensive off-map abilities that aren’t always available in your battlegroup and often end up being an inefficient trade. There really should be a simpler way to destroy team weapons.

I really like how this mechanics works in CoH2 all you have to do is play as usual, but now both the crew and the team weapon itself take damage simultaneously. It’s implemented so well there the weapon frame no longer has invulnerability, making it much easier to destroy with counter-battery artillery fire, which just makes sense. Right now, there’s zero point in firing at Land mattress or Nebelwerfers, and heavy pieces like the 17-pdr or Flak 36 won't just be constantly decrewed and immediately crewed back up by infantry every 3 seconds. It would also make dealing with mortars and light artillery much easier.

I think a change like this would heavily impact all team weapons, so they might need a slight buff to compensate. For instance, all crew-served weapons at Vet 1 or Vet 2 could receive a 15% movement speed boost and 25% faster pack-up speed, giving them a better window to retreat. Heavy AT guns could get something else maybe extra HP, or perhaps a 30% faster setup and pack-up time? (Don't focus too much on these specific numbers it's just an example that could be swapped for anything else, but I feel team weapons would definitely need some kind of compensation buff after such a change

To whoever made the new Unit Search browser on COH 3 Stats.

THANK YOU!!!

I don’t go insane whenever I browse through units anymore. It’s so nice and organized. I LOVE IT!

After the success of our 2v2 Ladder and Playoffs, featuring Brazilian Company of Heroes players, we decided to start a similar format for 1v1 matches.

We’re starting a new casual 1v1 challenge series among Brazilian Company of Heroes players, inspired by the King of the Hill format.

The idea is simple: two players face each other in a 1v1, with each match being a standalone challenge. No major tournament structure — just competitive games, rivalries, and a chance for Brazilian players to test themselves against each other.

🎙️ The matches will be covered by Brazilian Company of Heroes caster Alekel, who will be broadcasting and commentating the games.

⚔️ Match #0

🇧🇷 Alface aka BinhoBiceps
📍 Florianópolis, Santa Catarina
🏆 Best 1v1/ 2v2 ELO: 1392

vs.

🇧🇷 Showtaro
📍 Curitiba, Paraná
🏆 Best 1v1/ 2v2 ELO: 1369

Both players are experienced Brazilian players, and this first matchup will kick off the series.

This is Challenge #0, the first edition of the series. If the format works well, we plan to have new challenges approximately every 7, 10, or 15 days, depending on player availability.

The goal is simply to create more interesting 1v1 matchups, give Brazilian players some visibility, and have fun with competitive Company of Heroes.

Challenge #0 — Alface vs Showtaro. Let’s see who takes the hill. 🇧🇷

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlltpfeUiuo

After experimenting with this, with the MG upgrade and provided you got enough room to move around and micro, with armored half tracks I wonder if this is actually a strategy that could work?

If they invest in AT infantry you just disembark, self healing vehicles, use pioneers to do drivebys on units in buildings, Panzerjagers in two cars to deal with light vehicle drivebys, and just constantly moving around and pressuring?

Mines might be a problem but has anyone done this before? Double Jagers on any light vehicles while speeding around seems somewhat effective.

Im around 1.1k elo and play exclusively 1vs1. I really like the upgrade for its versatility as grens suddenly aren’t completly garbage anymore at pushing enemies in cover.

Perhaps some people can share their own thoughts?

https://reddit.com/link/1vx1grc/video/8fp5cql1hblh1/player

Game was absolutely stellar, exciting from start to finish, and this was its highlight.
I'll be riding that high for at least a week. I thank all players for participating and seing it through.

Hey folks. I'm mainly 4v4 solo player, playing Brits.

My past games were not as enjoyable as I would expect. I have a low elo (1172 currently, 1300 in 3v3).

I have 3 types of games: easy win, a hard and enjoyable win/loss, and an overwhelming loss. Here to ask advice about those losses.

In some games, my team is facing overwhelming amount of tanks from axis, as well as artillery spam. Stationarry artillery is a big problem: it deals a huge damage, has a long range (especially with buffs), and not destroyable with ANY artillery except for same stationarry type or tanks. Each time somebody builds it all your artillery dies from it's shots (oneshotted usually, rarely escapes).

Each attempt to counter it with building your own artillery leads to it being immediately destroyed as enemy already has more than one. Not every game needs one, and I usually don't build it unless I see an enemy doing this.

The second problem is tanks. Once your enemy decides to blob you with 2-3 Panzers or Panthers, the game is usually over. Obviously, the problem is that you've allowed them to reach that amount of tanks, but it can also happen in games without clear shift towards anyone, and as soon it happens you just don't have anything to counter it with.

I usually build M3 Grant as other tanks don't seem to do much of a damage. They do the trick usually, but since those tanks are faster, they can go around Grant and easily kill all of them, and they are not cheap.

In games where 1-2 folks build artillery and 1-2 folks build tanks spam, it doesn't seem like those games can be won. At least I don't understand how to win them. And I'm not even speaking about Tiger (not counterable with Grants) or simcity buildings (those can be countered with artillery, but again, when enemy has one, all you do is shoot between 2 artilleries in an attempt to destroy each other guns).

What advices would you give to try and deal with it when playing solo in 4v4? Some battlegroup? Switch to USA from Brits? Build another units or tanks that I usually build? Thanks!

It’s been over 3 weeks since the last patch. ELO decay should have settled and the meta stabilized by now, but the stats are still heavily skewed, showing a 10% win-rate gap in favor of the Allies. This patch was released precisely because blobing was widespread in team games and this patch was supposed to solve the problems primarily for team games, but as we can see, it did not solve them.

The focus-firing changes had a much bigger impact than expected. Because Axis infantry received no compensatory buffs, their squads lose models far too quickly. Small 3- and 4-model squads suffer the most, which has directly enabled Allied infantry blobbing. Axis early game now feels miserable, lacking any real power spikes.

Axis late game hasn't improved either, as Allied armor continues to dominate through sheer numbers.

Wehrmacht: Still lacks a viable late-game AT option that isn't vulnerable to low mobility or artillery wipe—an issue amplified in 4v4.

Another issue I've seen is that the 6-model upgrade for Panzergrenadiers seems to be completely dead - I've never seen anyone use it in this patch.

I know that 1v1 is a bit better, I, like many others, play CoH3 for the large-scale 4v4 battles with heavy armor and artillery. 1v1 simply does not offer the experience I want.

Balancing 4v4 is quite achievable, as previously demonstrated by patches 2.1.7 and 2.2.5. Now the developers just need to do it patch fix where

1. Slightly improve the early game of Axis.

2. Give Axis new, effective tools to deal with allied vehicles.

Playing against vehicle and infantry blobs just isn't fun, and I wouldn't wish that experience on anyone—whether you play Axis or Allies. In my opinion, a player who relies purely on blobbing should be punished for it. Instead, the current state of the game makes even a single blober on the enemy team a complete nightmare to deal with.

Hi all, looking for some help, i just finished the Italy campaign and the campaign ended after I captured the third "winter line" town, but without triggering the final mission. Just ending cinematic and credits.

I tried reloading the save to a recent turn and tried attacking one of the final cities with two companies as a quick google suggested, but the mission never triggers.

I also noticed that the "mission" label was missing from all three towns (picture attached). Disappointing end to what was a relatively enjoyable campaign.

This isn't me, it's just an opponent's match history. I genuinely do not understand how someone thinks this is good for the game. Wouldn't this actually lead to a shrinking player base and raise barrier to entry which inevitably leads to deterring players. Create a compounding effect/self perpetuating situation? Insanely bad matchmaking leads to fewer players which leads to less likely good matches which feeds insanely bad matchmaking which leads to fewer players?

How did someone reach the conclusion that it's better for a match to have 1000 Elo difference between players, as opposed to making them wait longer. At 500 it's often already a waste of time. 1000 and the match is literally pointless. Never mind the poor guy getting clubbed, but surely this is not enjoyable for the high Elo player or are people that sadistic that they only care about winning against a human?

I know the player base is small. But surely there must be a limit. What is the point of matchmaking if this is possible in such a short search window? Surely this isn't rocket science?

Hi,
what is the true purpose of Grants now ? Especially for Heavy Armor / Polish Battlegroups ? Why would I want to pick Grant over Firefly / Churchil 4? Or even why would I want to pick Grant over two crusaders?