2v2s just feel like an upward battle for axis

IMO the best thing for 2v2 would be nerfs to both ISU doctrines and removing spotting scopes from Jäger Armour. That would instantly improve 2v2 a lot by making these doctrines less of a braindead auto pick on all the lane maps.

It's very strange why this was not done back when the doctrines got reworked.

Another problem is the ISU vs Ele/JT match-up doesn't work because both ISU doctrines have IL2 bombs + T34 non-doctrinal ram. One of the ISU doctrines even has mark target which means you can just frontally kill Ele and JT with vet 2 Su 85 and ISU on AT shells or a combination of SU 85/Jackson/Firefly or whatever else you might have.

Jäger Armour isn't much better either because it counters snipers, artillery and tanks all in one doctrine.

I play Jäger alot ... because u have to in 2vs2. U cant compete against a well played M36. The only thing that helps is the ele on narrow maps. Same for the ISU but the ram il2 combo can counter u.
I would like to play some Pak43 commanders but u get deleted so easily be planes and firebombs.

So nerf Jackson,
nerf the ISU commanders, nerf scopes or remove it from Jäger and than it would be much better.

Immagine what USF feels like.

USF has good indirect fire with Mortars, Pak Howitzers, Scott and Major off-map barrage + recon and doctrinal Mortar HT, Calliope and Priest.

UKF on the other hand has a mediocre doctrinal mortar, mortar pit (which is hard to make work against decent opponents) and base artillery that struggles to even be useful for area denial. Then they have Landmattress (super clunky and annoying and way worse than any other rocket artillery) and Sexton (same as Priest usually not a good investment after the last cool down changes). The only good indirect fire UKF has is Concentrated Barrage in the Royal Artillery Regiment doctrine. Anyone playing UKF a few times will agree that all of the USF indirect options (other than the mortar) would be godly for UKF.

Infantry Sections having to be OP for UKF to be useful is a lot caused by the lack of indirect fire options. Too bad Relic doesn't want to give them decent indirect fire and in return we have to deal with overly powerful infantry sections which basically force you to blob if you want to counter sniper+mg on narrow maps.

Rocket artillery is good both ways. Using Stuka or Panzerwerfer against Allied support weapon spam or blobs is just as good.

Panzerwerfer is a bit harder to use but I have suffered a lot from well-microed Panzerwerfers and can promise you they are not a joke. I would agree for the average player Katjusha and Stuka are better because they don't require as much effort. Calliope is the best rocket artillery but it's also doctrinal and expensive, so it should be the best.

Playing against Allied off-meta builds is also far from an easy win. I don't know how you came to this conclusion?

Hello, thanks for the reply, I can see some of your point.

Umh, Panzerwerfer is not just " a bit hard to use ", it's actually not good because they have high scatter, required you to get close to your target as possible in order to reduced scatter or get to vet 2 when compare to katchusa and Stuka are way easier to use? And why are non-doctrine rocket unit like katjusha and stuka are required less effort compare to panzerwerfels?

And the conclusion about off - meta? Because I play them myself: When enemy doesn't go anti-tank overwatch, doesn't go ISU and USF Airborne skilled plane, almost nothing can counter an elefant with half track 251 vet 3 + spotting scope on the field unless you get T34 Ram + IL2 bomb drop ( which 2 out of 3 commanders are ISU commander ) or a good rushing from Allies

Without a threat to Elefant ( which usually are meta ), if I can draw out to late game then most Allies TD are scrap metal ( at leats in the top ~100 level games that I have play). And yes just like you said, it's also about the map design which some are harder to flank too.

No, I'm not shitting on the balance, I'm not saying " uh hu this unit OP please nerf ", just saying that Panzerwerfel compare to Katjusha and Stuka are frankly harder to use because they have high scatter, meaning it's depend on RNG and the risk of moving it as close as possible to reduced scatter

P/S: I agree with your about the ISU commander nerfing and Elefant commander without spotting scope, they need fixing both of that.

Immagine what USF feels like. They don't even have non docrinal rocket arty. USF in teamgames has to choose between having any lategame arty and having a tank with more than 640HP that doesn't get 2-shotted by a duo of raketten that are always in your face bacause they have a get out of jail for free Retreat ability.

Every faction has weaknesses. Every faction has strenghts. As Ostheer you don't have the best arty, but you don't have the worst either as stock, and you can get it in combination with heavy tanks, and you always have access to T4 premium tanks regardless of doctrines.

We are talking about 3vs3/4vs4 so, imagine being Ostheer and:
-having to face 3 different faction at the same time
-having to face bunch of 60 range TD
-having a 0.5 moving accuracy while rushing those 60 range TD while others have 0.75 moving accuracy
-having your main spearhead heavy tank nerf
-having a 4 models based infantry while also having a faction relying heavily on support weapon
-having to deals with many type of arty while relying on support weapon.

I think this list is long enough but can be longer. The whole dynamic around the Ostheer faction which is a combined weapon faction is just easily countered in 3-lane camp map where the arty is a must have.
Plus "Every faction has weaknesses. Every faction has strenghts." is true till the first stage of this game, so why is there patch coming up? We need to see beyond this.

Umh, Panzerwerfer is not just " a bit hard to use ", it's actually not good because they have high scatter, required you to get close to your target as possible in order to reduced scatter or get to vet 2 when compare to katchusa and Stuka are way easier to use? Why don't you create a custom map and test the panzerwerfels yourself?

And why are non-doctrine rocket unit like katjusha and stuka are required less effort compare to panzerwerfels?

And the conclusion about off - meta? Because I play them myself: When enemy doesn't go anti-tank overwatch, doesn't go ISU and USF Airborne skilled plane, almost nothing can counter an elefant with half track 251 vet 3 + spotting scope on the field unless you get T34 Ram + IL2 bomb drop ( which 2 out of 3 commanders are ISU commander ) or a good rushing from Allies

Without a threat to Elefant ( which usually are meta ), if I can draw out to late game then most Allies TD are scrap metal ( at leats in the top ~100 level games that I have play). And yes just like you said, it's also about the map design which some are harder to flank too.


No, I'm not shitting on the balance, I'm not saying " uh hu this unit OP please nerf ", just saying that Panzerwerfel compare to Katjusha and Stuka are frankly harder to use because they have high scatter, meaning it's depend on RNG and the risk of moving it as close as possible to reduced scatter

It's not all about Elefant in 2v2. On many maps it's rarely used. Your argument would also make you think Allies are UP when they are always losing unless they select a specific doctrine to counter Elefant. It doesn't work like that. Many of the most meta Allied 2v2 doctrines don't counter Elefant. Just look at Soviet Shock Rifle, AVRE, USF Heavy Cav or Recon Support, etc. According to you all these doctrines would be pretty much useless which couldn't be farther from the truth.

Panzerwerfer is harder to use, as I already said before. I still don't think it's underpowered. All the things you complain about also apply to Katjusha for example. Have you ever tried using Katjusha at max range? It will not hit your intended target either. Stuka doesn't scatter so it can fire from longer distances but at the same time you have to aim it perfectly right or it will miss everything. It's good vs support weapons but against blobs you have to get lucky to do damage as infantry has an easier time dodging it than for example Katjusha or Calliope.

I always thought tha PIOs were the best candidate for been a non doctrinal 5 man squad on late game. You can recrew weapon and improve repairs while you don't foment Gren base spam strats.

Hey that sounds like a pretty cool idea. Like, it seems like 4 man gren squads is how it's meant to be and how the devs wanted the game to be designed

Five man pios would be great. Not a huge combat spike and a lot more utility. Always thought it'd be a lot more straightforward to do that than all of the random capping tweaks.

Ost Axis are op in 2v2.
You all are wrong.
Ost can call in Tiger Ace or Elefant.
Ost have rocket arty to clear blobs easily.

Okw can lock down a sector when fighting in another.

Imagine calling in Luch + Puma + Pak40 + Ostwind mid-early game.

Forward retreats are lame. Efa is superior because it was designed around your choices mattering. If you picked a weapon upgrade it didn't buff every single combat Stat and it's dog and more to the point retreating meant giving up ground. It's a core part of the game that seems to have been forgotten. Retreat isn't a get out of jail free card its supposed to be trading ground to save your unit. Certainly not "well this is a minor inconvenience so I'll retreat 6 feet so I can try again.
OST has no need for a forward retreat. They have both bunkers and a very improved halftrack for reinforcement and more ways to heal than you can shake a stick at. Please leave some semblance of thought required yea?

Not exactly on-topic but since this is so important:

+1

Five man pios would be great. Not a huge combat spike and a lot more utility. Always thought it'd be a lot more straightforward to do that than all of the random capping tweaks.

I feel like this would be the simplest fix and give a repair speed boost for the late game too.

Not exactly on-topic but since this is so important:

+1

agree, pls copy it in a new thread

Five man pios would be great. Not a huge combat spike and a lot more utility. Always thought it'd be a lot more straightforward to do that than all of the random capping tweaks.

Getting 5 men pios from the get go would even more put the nail on the coffin of grens as a viable early game unit. Now skipping T1 and going straight for pgrens would be even stronger.

Non doctrinal 5 men pio upgrade is a great idea but the upgrade needs to be tied to T3 or T4

So true: Axis go Elefant + Tiger / King Tiger, Allies going ISU + 1 kind of heavy tanks ( Churchill flame, KV2, IS2 ) OR using Anti-tank Overwatch OR USF Airborne doctrine.

It's not like we want to play boring style but it's more like it's the only way to play, if we don't go turtle style then we die to enemy metal build

Thanks for understanding!

elefant is just lazy way to win that's all

The problem with ostheer.

They get great support weapons earlier than allies.

But after that, ostheer support weapons just get outclassed.

Ostheer mortar? nah i rather want a pack howitser, mortar pit, or even a 6 man soviet mortar team.

Only enjoyable way to play ostheer for me is to go 4 man grens g43 and sniper.

Getting 5 men pios from the get go would even more put the nail on the coffin of grens as a viable early game unit. Now skipping T1 and going straight for pgrens would be even stronger.

Non doctrinal 5 men pio upgrade is a great idea but the upgrade needs to be tied to T3 or T4

My idea was for BP3/T4.

Getting 5 men pios from the get go would even more put the nail on the coffin of grens as a viable early game unit. Now skipping T1 and going straight for pgrens would be even stronger.

Non doctrinal 5 men pio upgrade is a great idea but the upgrade needs to be tied to T3 or T4

That's what I meant but I forgot to say it

I was thinking t4, mostly born out of the early days when ost didn't have upgraded repairs. It still seems relevant though, as ostheer still needs a buff to their repairing just as much as sovs need a buff to their healing.

Recrewing wiped team weapons late in the game would be slightly less dangerous and pio recrews are better in general imo because of their sight bonus.

Not exactly on-topic but since this is so important:

+1

It was a bit of a rant but it was following a suggestion to give ost a FRP not ON topic but not off topic either I think

USF has good indirect fire with Mortars, Pak Howitzers, Scott and Major off-map barrage + recon and doctrinal Mortar HT, Calliope and Priest.

UKF on the other hand has a mediocre doctrinal mortar, mortar pit (which is hard to make work against decent opponents) and base artillery that struggles to even be useful for area denial. Then they have Landmattress (super clunky and annoying and way worse than any other rocket artillery) and Sexton (same as Priest usually not a good investment after the last cool down changes). The only good indirect fire UKF has is Concentrated Barrage in the Royal Artillery Regiment doctrine. Anyone playing UKF a few times will agree that all of the USF indirect options (other than the mortar) would be godly for UKF.

Infantry Sections having to be OP for UKF to be useful is a lot caused by the lack of indirect fire options. Too bad Relic doesn't want to give them decent indirect fire and in return we have to deal with overly powerful infantry sections which basically force you to blob if you want to counter sniper+mg on narrow maps.

+1

Although sextons are actually quite good, especially since they can double barrage with the valentine ability now. Still not as useful overall as commandos IMO but not a bad option.

how to fix :
1 make pio 5 man at tier 3-4 so u can crew and repair better

2 make the jackson not the best tank in the game

3 change stug to have 55 range but less reload to give it the chance to actually hit a TD

how to fix :
1 make pio 5 man at tier 3-4 so u can crew and repair better

2 make the jackson not the best tank in the game

3 change stug to have 55 range but less reload to give it the chance to actually hit a TD

You gotta be careful buffing stugs since they basicly shut down mediums really well. Transitioning easily into also fighting TDs would be a tad much. HOWEVER if stugs were to get a range buff, imo, it would need to be a munitions cost as ost is heavy on muni and they it adds a much needed conflict of resources. Thus not being a no brainer.
Say 100mu after bp3 is researched as a ball park?