>>277467>Perhaps another faction's base can be garrisoned as a strong defensive position
that's literally the imperial guard from DOW1.
The problem with meaningful base building is that the main game mode is VPs.
Why does that matter?
If your base building allow you to maintain a better field presence (Forward retreat point, forward unit spawn, emplacements, OKW truck) then you've got an advantage over the other factions.
Although this doesn't happen in COh2 much because they nerfed most defenses and forward retreat to the point that it's better to just build things in your base, a forward OKW truck is just free XP in most maps.
But this is way better than in COH1 where the brits would just park on a fuel point and hold it for the whole game.
At the same time, if you were to encourage base harassment by making the buildings squishy or by halting squad reinforcements when an enemy is in your base then you risk an early loss snowballing into base destruction.>Why not give some faction better defenses?
Because your really don't want only some factions to be immune to base harassment>Why not give all faction better defenses?
Because this way we're back to square one and base harassment becomes useless again unless you're stomping your enemy >Why not give all faction buildable/researchable defense?
Because this way the winning player can just harass the losing one, do damage, force investments in base defenses, pull back and enjoy the map control and a bigger economic lead.
This all comes back to the differences between COH and DoW1. (or Dow1 and Dow2)
Map control is how you win the game, so the only real asymmetry you can afford is in the tech structure. If the game was balanced around base destruction or a countdown as victory conditions then you could do something interesting with each faction defenses and bases, like DoW 1 did.