Brummbar change

Yupp i too was talking general trend. T4 used to be an elite tier of units that are now trying to be shoehorned in as general use units instead of exclusive specialists. When it comes down to it the ostwind will either be the obvious choice or the brumbar will have to be OP to warrant picking over it. We will run into the penal/con scenario but with AI vehicles with them coming so close together. Either the expensive one defies balance or the cheaper one is more effecoent. Trying to make t4 into an alternative to t3 instead of an escalation was a mistake.

Actually the changes delay T3

Fuel cost is exactly the same. The only difference is that it'll take slightly longer before the Battlephase can be researched, but 9/10 times T3 is built well before enough fuel has been accumulated to purchase a vehicle, in which case it doesn't matter. And if it does prove an issue, it's an easy change to reduce the BP2 research time in compensation.

I don't get the point of this. It was super cheap to go T4 after T3 already. The problem was never the price of T4 but Ost T4 units being bad in 1v1. Seems like a weird change to me to be honest.

T4 is meta and very good in teamgames. Which is why T4 units themselves can't just be buffed or it'd have consequences for the current decent status quo in teamgames. We're fully aware that these tech changes will not suddenly solve all T4 issues in 1v1, but something is better than nothing.

Yupp i too was talking general trend. T4 used to be an elite tier of units that are now trying to be shoehorned in as general use units instead of exclusive specialists. When it comes down to it the ostwind will either be the obvious choice or the brumbar will have to be OP to warrant picking over it. We will run into the penal/con scenario but with AI vehicles with them coming so close together. Either the expensive one defies balance or the cheaper one is more effecoent. Trying to make t4 into an alternative to t3 instead of an escalation was a mistake.

Absolutely agree. If anything T4 should have been expensive and taking a while to research, then there should have been a couple army benefits from it and good T4 units (Buffed Brummbar and Panther).

Absolutely agree. If anything T4 should have been expensive and taking a while to research, then there should have been a couple army benefits from it and good T4 units (Buffed Brummbar and Panther).

Exactly, except the balance team is lying about T4, saying that it's not affordable so they're not gonna really touch the performance of T4 but make it somehow more "accessible" instead.

Total opposite of what should have been done.

You're not so good, why are you so proud of your rank?

Apparently rank 140 isn't "good" in your eyes, while I recall, your playercard, (which u don't make publicly available) puts your rank at around 300.

Exactly, except the balance team is lying about T4, saying that it's not affordable so they're not gonna really touch the performance of T4 but make it somehow more "accessible" instead.

Total opposite of what should have been done.

I mean, people have been specifically saying it isn't worth the cost - Imperial Dane constantly says this - so you can't say this is just something the balance team made up.

One way to solve that would be to buff T4, yes, but the other is indeed making it cheaper. I for one would rather see something like exp gain or otherwise indirect/non-combat buffs for certain Ostheer units upon reaching T4, as I laid out for grenadiers in another thread.

I mean, people have been specifically saying it isn't worth the cost - Imperial Dane constantly says this - so you can't say this is just something the balance team made up.

One way to solve that would be to buff T4, yes, but the other is indeed making it cheaper. I for one would rather see something like exp gain or otherwise indirect/non-combat buffs for certain Ostheer units upon reaching T4, as I laid out for grenadiers in another thread.

The problem with ist t4 is that all it gives is units. Compare to brits (the closest faction in design,teching and playstyle) and their top tier grants a whole bunch of other goodies as well as units. With t4 only giving units the units within need to be damn good to be worth it which means team games are going to be fucked up due to the resource saturation. Id much sooner t4 be more worth getting even without getting the units within than watering down the units just to make them come sooner so they can be accessible.

Exactly, except the balance team is lying about T4, saying that it's not affordable so they're not gonna really touch the performance of T4 but make it somehow more "accessible" instead.

Total opposite of what should have been done.

Same few whiney axis speak. You are insane to accuse others for lying...just saying.

Why not play more 4v4 and see how you deal with 3 panthers vs 3 jacksons. Hint, its ugly and its more often than you think. Sure you lose 1 gren squad pop, but nothing an Op werfer cant do to even the infantry odds

Stop being elitist. 4v4 team games are most popular mode and it may even be harder to reach rank in 4v4.

Same few whiney axis speak. You are insane to accuse others for lying...just saying.

Why not play more 4v4 and see how you deal with 3 panthers vs 3 jacksons. Hint, its ugly and its more often than you think. Sure you lose 1 gren squad pop, but nothing an Op werfer cant do to even the infantry odds

Stop being elitist. 4v4 team games are most popular mode and it may even be harder to reach rank in 4v4.

LOL. Werfer OP???? And u accuse me of being a whiny axis player??? And you think it's harder to reach high ranks in 4v4???? WOW. Just WOW. It was so easy for me to reach a high rank in 3v3s in just a few games and my 3v3 rank is basically the same as my 1v1 rank as Ost. Yes offense, team game players, on average can't compete with 1v1 players. Team game players, specifically 3v3 and 4v4, don't flank as often, are less capable of strategic thinking due to 1/3 to 1/2 of the maps being too small for strategy and map control to be important. In other words, team game players don't need to worry about macro, they only know how to micro. As well, their build orders are more rigid and they don't like to adapt or respond to an opponent's build order.

CoH2 was NEVER balanced to a 4v4 player whether or not 4v4 is the most popular game mode. Most 4v4 players aren't worth listening to. I'm officially done talking to you.

LOL. Werfer OP???? And u accuse me of being a whiny axis player??? And you think it's harder to reach high ranks in 4v4???? WOW. Just WOW. It was so easy for me to reach a high rank in 3v3s in just a few games and my 3v3 rank is basically the same as my 1v1 rank as Ost. Yes offense, team game players, on average can't compete with 1v1 players. Team game players, specifically 3v3 and 4v4, don't flank as often, are less capable of strategic thinking due to 1/3 to 1/2 of the maps being too small for strategy and map control to be important. In other words, team game players don't need to worry about macro, they only know how to micro. As well, their build orders are more rigid and they don't like to adapt or respond to an opponent's build order.

CoH2 was NEVER balanced to a 4v4 player whether or not 4v4 is the most popular game mode. Most 4v4 players aren't worth listening to. I'm officially done talking to you.

4vs4 requires just as much skill as 1vs1, if anything it requires more knowledge about the game because of how powerful certain abilities can be when combined with allies. Previous tournaments have proven this where top 1vs1 twitch streamers have struggled against good 4vs4 AT teams.

I mean if you want to set up a thread calling for good 4vs4 mains to 1vs1 you I'm sure most would happily give you a game to test your extra "flanking" skills that team players lack.

4vs4 requires just as much skill as 1vs1, if anything it requires more knowledge about the game because of how powerful certain abilities can be when combined with allies. Previous tournaments have proven this where top 1vs1 twitch streamers have struggled against good 4vs4 AT teams.

I mean if you want to set up a thread calling for good 4vs4 to 1vs1 you I'm sure most would happily give you a game to test your extra "flanking" skills that team players lack.

"Knowledge" of abilities combined with allies? Yeah, there's just a few. Recon + any kind of off map to delete static howitzers/emplacements. Ram + AT bombs/overwatch. That isn't much "knowledge" at all. 4v4 is a joke. PERIOD.

Meanwhile, even high level 4v4 players are unable to control more than just their blob of inf or support weapons. If there's a lone squad capping some point in the corner of the map, and a I throw a grenade on that squad, 8 times out of 10, I'm scoring a wipe on that squad. 4v4 players have poor multitasking ability which makes them suck at all other game modes.

If a 1v1 player has zero games experience in 4v4, OF COURSE he's gonna struggle. When I first started playing 3v3s as a 1v1 player, I struggled the first 5 games. Then I started to kick everyone's asses in no time. U can see that I easily achieve a high rank in 3v3s with little experience compared to other game modes. 4v4, I'm sure has even more noobs than 3v3. If you think 4v4 seriously takes at least the amount of skill required for 1v1, you obviously don't play 1v1.

Where's your playercard?

Playing 80 3v3 games ain't much though. I got up to 400 in 4v4 random. It is the next step and maintaining is hard in 4v4. And if you play allies, it is even harder with late game axis armor spam.

3 jackson v 3 panther each, let's go!
And yes werfer is OP af in 4v4

4v4 is a closest thing COH2 has to a deathmatch. If you are not playing as a team of 4, it is very casual and not worth stressing about.

One thing I wish COH had that could greatly impact 4v4 is doctrine bans, so I could ban every ISU, Elephant/jagtiger doctrine

Anyway it is 20 v 4 against your suggestion, lol. Git gud with the brumbar instead of asking buffs. Its insanely strong in 4v4 already

Playing 80 3v3 games ain't much though. I got up to 400 in 4v4 random. It is the next step and maintaining is hard in 4v4. And if you play allies, it is even harder with late game axis armor spam.

3 jackson v 3 panther each, let's go!
And yes werfer is OP af in 4v4

80 games is more than enough to be a reliable indicator of rank. 10 games gives u a rank. 20 games is already fairly reliable of an indicator. If a player has 80 games in a game mode, no more questions need to be asked about his ability after seeing his rank.

"Up to" 400 in 4v4. LOL. This is the reason why I knew you aren't worth talking to. Go play some 1v1 games, you'll be lucky to get a 800 rank.

I think Brumbar is fine aside from veterancy requirements. Brumbar is amazing when supported with proper AT. Also, Brumbar range nerf was needed due to Jager doctrine being super cancer with scopes and elephant in the mix.

Why we don't use the chance and change the hole tech-system of Ostheer? It is simply outdated.

Instead of T4 is could open asymmetrical tech for other buildings, so you don't need the last base-building. e.g. T2 could become a new building for an overworked commander etc.


T0:
Pio
HMG42
*1st tech = PnzGren
3rd-tech + build T3 = Brummbär (as call-in/limit to 1)

T1: (blue_print T1)
Gren
Mortar
Sniper
build T2: PaK40


T2: (blue_print T3)
222
251
*2rd tech: StuG E
*3rd tech: Panzerwerfer

T3: (blue_print T4)
PnzIV
StuG G
Ostwind
*3rd-tech: Panther

Heavy-call in like Tiger and Elefant need T3 and 3rd-tech.

80 games is more than enough to be a reliable indicator of rank. 10 games gives u a rank. 20 games is already fairly reliable of an indicator. If a player has 80 games in a game mode, no more questions need to be asked about his ability after seeing his rank.

+1 to that.
It doesn't matter if you have 100 or 10000 games played, its about maintaining the best possible rank.

Also, now that Tiger will lose its overpowering AI damage, Brummbar might leave its shadow as prominent late game AI vehicle once again.

4v4 team games are most popular mode and it may even be harder to reach rank in 4v4.

It is the next step and maintaining is hard in 4v4.

While I agree that 4v4 is the most popular mode, I can't agree with it being harder to gain or maintain the rank (at least, intentionally). Because the mode is so popular, it's extremely variable in terms of skill, which means that while some games will be fair, other games will have very large skill ranges (I've had games with top 30 players against 2,000 to 5,000 rank players). This means that while it does take some effort to gain and maintain a high rank in 4v4, its highly influenced by what is essentially "RNG", in terms of team selection; whereas in 2v2 or even 1v1, its rare to see a range of over a few hundred places, making 'teammate RNG' much less of an influence.

CoH2 was NEVER balanced to a 4v4 player whether or not 4v4 is the most popular game mode.

This is the unfortunate truth to it. Its pretty clear that CoH2 was never designed around 4v4, from a basic standpoint. Resource income in larger games is simply too high (especially with caches) to balance. If the game had some sort of "game mode income multiplier", where resource incomes in 3v3 and 4v4 could be adjusted independently from smaller modes, then a legitimate case could be made for 4v4 being 'balanced' (or at least attempting to balance it).

However, in the current state, where losing a Panther or other expensive late-game unit isn't that significant of a loss, it's hard to make a case for the mode being balanced.

4vs4 requires just as much skill as 1vs1, if anything it requires more knowledge about the game because of how powerful certain abilities can be when combined with allies. Previous tournaments have proven this where top 1vs1 twitch streamers have struggled against good 4vs4 AT teams.

Do you mean individual top-tier steamers queuing as "random" against a 4 player arranged team, or groups of top-tier streamers as a team against a 4 player arranged team? Coordination is arguably the most important aspect of the larger modes, so I could easily see a streamer playing with a bunch of random players losing against a "lower skill" arranged team. If it was the later, i.e. 4x top-tier streamers with voice-chat, then this would be an interesting point (and I'd like to see the replay/VoD).

80 games is more than enough to be a reliable indicator of rank. 10 games gives u a rank. 20 games is already fairly reliable of an indicator. If a player has 80 games in a game mode, no more questions need to be asked about his ability after seeing his rank.

"Up to" 400 in 4v4. LOL. This is the reason why I knew you aren't worth talking to. Go play some 1v1 games, you'll be lucky to get a 800 rank.

You so elitist.
We are now 22 against 4. Sorry brumbar is in great spot. No cheap ost buffs for you. Learn to use it instead of asking for buffs majority most disagree.

Play more 4v4 too, you may meet up with me randomly! Balancing for 4v4 is a must for all