Stats from the WCS 2019

In case people have missed this post on reddit:

(not my work btw)

https://www.reddit.com/r/CompanyOfHeroes/comments/e335o2/an_analysis_of_faction_selection_and_win_rate_in/

I think the biggest axis problem was almost everyone going Tiger doctrine only, which seemed to be autolose since 1 SU85 or 2 ZiS guns countered it pretty effective.

Surprised that people didnt try other docs like Hans did vs Nicko successfully in G4 (Elite Armor vs Pershing doc)

I think the biggest axis problem was almost everyone going Tiger doctrine only, which seemed to be autolose since 1 SU85 or 2 ZiS guns countered it pretty effective.

Surprised that people didnt try other docs like Hans did vs Nicko successfully in G4 (Elite Armor vs Pershing doc)

I disagree. Tiger is just too good not to get it at the moment.

But these stats prove that Ostheer was used in the tourney, which proves a lot of people on coh2.org wrong. And interestingly enough they didn't have lower WR% than OKW either.

I disagree. Tiger is just too good not to get it at the moment.

But these stats prove that Ostheer was used in the tourney, which proves a lot of people on coh2.org wrong. And interestingly enough they didn't have lower WR% than OKW either.

- vs Ostheer vs OKW
Soviet 71.4% 54.2%
USF 54.5% 53.3%

You mean they didn't have lower WR% than OKW vs USF...
Soviet where far better vs Ostheer than vs OKW...at least according to these stats.

I did not like people's obsession with the Tiger in WCS. Breakthrough had been meta for a while with the Sturm Officier and saw 0 use in the tournament, while Fallschrimjagers and the two JLI doctrines (Overwatch and Scavenge) were possible picks.

The Tiger obsession stems from the simple fact you need something to reliably counter the IS2.

Beyond a King Tiger (lol), there is no unit other than Tiger that does that.

Most of the matches were 3-0. All you can conclude from those was that one player was better than the other. Out of all of the matches, there were only about five that were 3/2 splits. That makes such a small sample size that it isn't possible to make any balance statements.

If anything, the large number of 3-0 matches says that balance for 1v1 is close enough that the better player usually wins.

Soviet is strongest faction, for some time now Imo. The buff to conscript pretty much cement the deal.

Wehr lack of early AI light tank, ok sure.
But their old comeback mechanics of stronger late game, non existence for some time too. Not surprised they got pwned bad.

Allies at 56% win rates are a touch too high, and we should look at buffing some Axis units or nerfing some Allies if power creep is concern.

Not surprised since Ostheer lategame was nerfed out of the game.

Panther is mediocre. Brummbär has no armor and range left. Panzerwerfer is strange design. That cuts the "premium" tier Ost was supposed to have otu of the game.

All while Soviets were buffed for the lategame (IS-2, Conscript lategame, KV buffs). Combine that with easier micro since the support weapons (especiall Zis and maxim) have better survivability and spammable cheap units and Sovs have pretty much every advantage in the game. Oh and Ostheer MG 42s don't turn fast enough.

I am noob, but I think Grand Offensive was chosen every time due to having 0 CP snares and Tiger. That commander lets you counter everything a SOV player can throw at you start to finish.

The Tiger obsession stems from the simple fact you need something to reliably counter the IS2.

Beyond a King Tiger (lol), there is no unit other than Tiger that does that.

A Panther with HEAT rounds has same penetration value like a vet 3 Jackson or vet 2 SU85 IIRC... which means very high chance to pen IS2 frontal armor on top of +48 damage per shot (160 --> 208)

I'll say you guys should wait a bit more for SyphonX article. Numbers are slightly different as more games are considered, which is still a small sample size compared to other articles.

I think the biggest axis problem was almost everyone going Tiger doctrine only, which seemed to be autolose since 1 SU85 or 2 ZiS guns countered it pretty effective.

Surprised that people didnt try other docs like Hans did vs Nicko successfully in G4 (Elite Armor vs Pershing doc)

OH:
Spearhead, Mechanized and Lighting were the most staple OH picks across the different match ups and still they were the most successful for them compared to other choices.

OKW:
Grand Offensive was the most successful pick for OKW and it was the most effective against SU. You could argue if WR was dragged down by people going Luftwaffe.

SU: Armored assault was mostly picked against OH. On the other hand, against OKW, commander pick was mostly things that countered P2 + Puma. Urban defense and Guard Motor.

USF: it was basically either mechanised or heavy cavalry.

Not surprised since Ostheer lategame was nerfed out of the game.

Panther is mediocre. Brummbär has no armor and range left. Panzerwerfer is strange design. That cuts the "premium" tier Ost was supposed to have otu of the game.

All while Soviets were buffed for the lategame (IS-2, Conscript lategame, KV buffs). Combine that with easier micro since the support weapons (especiall Zis and maxim) have better survivability and spammable cheap units and Sovs have pretty much every advantage in the game. Oh and Ostheer MG 42s don't turn fast enough.

Pretty much.

A Panther with HEAT rounds has same penetration value like a vet 3 Jackson or vet 2 SU85 IIRC... which means very high chance to pen IS2 frontal armor on top of +48 damage per shot (160 --> 208)

Which is a fair point, but while that works for OKW, it doesn't help Wehrmacht.

So basically;
1. Sov OP (game-breaking vs. OST)
2. USF slightly OP
3. OKW slightly UP
4. OST UP
5. UKF trash (almost no one even played them, let alone won)

This lines up closely with what people voted for a little while ago; although I don't think anyone expected that level of dominance in the Sov vs. OST match-up.

I think this warrants a fairly serious discussion about MP balance; in particular the state of Ost and UKF. It's been well known for a while that UKF has been in a pretty bad state, but I think many (myself included) will be surprised by the poor state of OST.

Obviously, we'll need a much more in depth analysis of games, so we can narrow down exactly what needs nerfs/buffs - and I believe SiphonX is working on something like this - but needless to say, the balance team has an interesting task ahead of them.

So basically;
1. Sov OP (game-breaking vs. OST)
2. USF slightly OP
3. OKW/Ost bad
4. UKF trash

This lines up closely with what people voted for a little while ago; although I don't think anyone expected that level of dominance in the Sov vs. OST match-up.

I think this warrants a fairly serious discussion about MP balance; in particular the state of Ost and UKF. It's been well known for a while that UKF has been in a pretty bad state, but I think many (myself included) will be surprised by the poor state of OST.

Obviously, we'll need a much more in depth analysis of games, so we can narrow down exactly what needs nerfs/buffs - and I believe SiphonX is working on something like this - but needless to say, the balance team has an interesting task ahead of them.

Soviets, at present, simply don't have a weak point where they are vulnerable. Early game? Cons will dominate because you can mass them. Alternatively, Penals dominate Grens and early Volks.

If that fails, call out elite infantry like guards that counter light vehicles on top of dominating other infantry.

Then they get the single greatest power spike in the game in the form of the T70. No other vehicle has this big of an impact when it arrives on the field.

Finally, we have the IS2 which is a better, cheaper and more accessible KT.

To add some more data to the discussion; GSC2 was roughly a year ago, so it's a good place to use as a milestone when looking at the progress of CoH2's balance - at least in top level 1v1 play. SiphonX wrote up an excellent analysis on that series, and it's interesting to see how the match-up has changed.

Win/Loss percentages by year, with improvement marked as progression towards 50% win:loss ratio.

Match-up	2018	2019	Improvement
OST/SOV	47%	28.6%	-18.4%
OST/USF	63%	45.5%	+17.5%
OST/UKF	66%	60%	+6%
OKW/SOV	48%	45.8%	-2.2%
OKW/USF	64%	46.7%	+17.3%
OKW/UKF	70%	No Data	No Data

While the balance team has clearly made some very good progress in most matchups, there is obviously something very wrong with the current Sov situation. Not only are they the only 'common denominator' in terms of balance regression, the OST/SOV matchup shows a larger regression than any other matchup shows in improvement.

I think Farlion's post points out why, pretty concisely.

Soviets, at present, simply don't have a weak point where they are vulnerable. Early game? Cons will dominate because you can mass them. Alternatively, Penals dominate Grens and early Volks.

If that fails, call out elite infantry like guards that counter light vehicles on top of dominating other infantry.

Then they get the single greatest power spike in the game in the form of the T70. No other vehicle has this big of an impact when it arrives on the field.

Finally, we have the IS2 which is a better, cheaper and more accessible KT.

This seems pretty much spot on, but it also raises an interesting question: where do you nerf (they clearly must to be nerfed) Sov the hardest? If it's a nerf across the board, you either end up with a faction that's still "decent" at all times (but not as OP as now), or with an unusable one (basically flipping the current OST/Sov rolls). To me, the most obvious choice would be mid-game, since that's how it used to play (iirc) in vCoH2. However, this would still need to be accompanied by minor early and late game nerfs as well (likely early game penals, late game 7-man cons, IS2 price increase).



My main hope, however, is that when these changes are made, they are made via nerfing Sov and NOT buffing everything else. Please, no more power-creep.

...........And my prophecies were right about everything.

Nerf the heavy tank meta and soviets will be less oppressive.

So basically;
1. Sov OP (game-breaking vs. OST)
2. USF slightly OP
3. OKW slightly UP
4. OST UP
5. UKF trash (almost no one even played them, let alone won)

This lines up closely with what people voted for a little while ago; although I don't think anyone expected that level of dominance in the Sov vs. OST match-up.

I think this warrants a fairly serious discussion about MP balance; in particular the state of Ost and UKF. It's been well known for a while that UKF has been in a pretty bad state, but I think many (myself included) will be surprised by the poor state of OST.

Obviously, we'll need a much more in depth analysis of games, so we can narrow down exactly what needs nerfs/buffs - and I believe SiphonX is working on something like this - but needless to say, the balance team has an interesting task ahead of them.

The sample size for those OH vs SU numbers is 14 games (10 W / 4 L). Syphon sample is 18 games (12 W / 6 L).
Then you have to take into account WHO was playing each faction. For example: Luvnest was the one who played the most soviets (11 games) compared to the following players Isildur/Happycat/Jove at 4 each. Luvnest only drop a game against Von Ivan till the finals against Noggano.

Rather than panicking on small sample sizes comparisons i would rather at least take a look at overall performance and even better how most games played out.

For example: i think it's more clear how to tone down SU than doing so with USF or toning up OH.

Nerf the heavy tank meta and soviets will be less oppressive.

That would also hurt Wehrmacht hard because the faction has so many Tiger commanders.
T70 nerf is needed. ALL light vehicles were tuned down but the t70 is as lethal as ever.

But i really dont need to post more stuff here because of Farlion's great post which i support 100%.