Ostheer sux ass

Alright, here goes, my first balance thread also known as my coming out as a wehraboo or whatever.

I haven’t seen Ostheer get shit on this badly since snipers were allowed in scout cars, or perhaps since 2016 where the only reliable opening was delaying with PaK's until a Tiger could bail you out. Something has to be done, so instead of that, I'm going to post about it.

In the interests of being thorough I didn't think that just my own experience in playing and coaching recently would be sufficient to make my argument so, again 'cos I'm old and harken back to the good old days, I tried to do my best SiphonX impression by tabulating top games that I spectated over the weekend.

My criteria:

• Players must be evenly rated and rated in the top 150
  
• I only reviewed one game from the same player
  

Here was the outcome:

Opening	vs.	Map	Outcome
Jager Infantry → Default	Urban Defense → 4 Scripts	Kholdny East	Crushed
Festung Armor → Default → 666 Variation	Recon Support → M20 → Stuart	Bayeux East	Crushed
Spearhead → Default→ Double Pak / Mortar HT	Guard Motor → Flame Car → Guards → Maxim??	Ploiesti North	Good win!
Spearhead → Default	Guard Motor → Flame Car → 2x Scripts/Guards	Ploiesti South	Great win!
No Cmd → 3/2 Opening	Guard Motor→ 4 Scripts	Bocage East	Crushed (Early-ish Resigns)
No Cmd → 3/2 Opening 444 Variation	No Cmd Lt. M20 → Cpt.	Langres North	Crushed (Early Resigns)
Spearhead → Default → Mortar HT → Double PaK	AB → 50. → Stuart	Kholdny West	Played well, could not overcome the triple cap or triple Sherman, VP line says Crushed
Jager Infantry → Double Pio/42 into PzGrens	Mobile Assault → 3 IS/UC	Bayeux East	Incredible win, use of camouflage and mines was impeccable
Storm Docrtine?? → 2/2 → PzGrens??	Heavy Cav → Double RE	Faymonville South	Shocked that this was a Top 100 game, both sides played like ass. Wish I could unsee this. Also, Crushed.
Jager Infantry → Default	Recon Support → M20 → Stuart → Mortar?	Mill Road West	Outplayed fairly badly but an awkward USF build allowed them the keep the points close, resigned after losing PiV
No Cmd → Transposed into 3/2 + Mortar	Lend Lease → Double Ass IS / Mortar	Kholdny East	I thought an equal game where Ost resigned possibly early after losing 2 squads
Jager Infantry → Default / Sniper Variation	Lend Lease → 4 IS / Bolster → M5/M10	Nexus East	Great win, managed to base pin their opponent in focusing in the south.
Jager Infantry → Default	Commandos → 4 IS / Mills → 2x Commandos (??)	Bocage North	Solid win against a suspicious opening
Jager Armor → Default → +1 Gren +PzGren → T4 variation	Armored Assault T2 → IS2 Variation	Bayeux East	Among one of the greatest games I’ve ever witnessed live. Base pinned the Sov player down to 100 pts by 10 minutes. Still lost, had no late game power. Besides going T3 instead I don’t think they could have done anything different, and against a more common opening I think they still may have struggled.

*default I consider to be 3 Grens + Mg42

A 0.357 win%

That’s fucking brutal.

The Ostheer were being absolutely crushed with most games lasting < 30 mins and Ostheer suffering a VP deficit of at least 300 points, often much more; and in only two of those wins would I say the Ostheer player was ever comfortable, (one game against Augustine being ridiculous and playing a terrible opening, I’ll let you decide which one it was) and the other was against the Brits as well, a faction possibly even more broken. Their close wins usually involved some novelty that their opponent wasn't prepared for, or they were against openings that were far from optimal, not as bad as the Brit games but still pretty garbo. (who is going flame car and back teching into a Maxim at 12 mins???)

I challenge anyone to analyse this game, the last in the games I reviewed, and point out what the Ostheer player should have done differently or how they should l2p:

•  
  

  0

  VS

  维京师

  °Markov.-

  3

  An incredible game.

  by: turbotortoise map: Unknown

  1

  -

They played their damn heart out, I was really impressed, they played nearly perfectly for 40 minutes out of 44. They were brilliant in the early game managing to base pin the Sov player and in the mid game they pulled out every trick, rifle nade mines, vet 222 spotting scope/werfer synergy, attack ground Brummbar... everything. Yes they made some late game blunders, they even got bailed out by a Panther that took 58 thousand deflections, but so did the Soviet player, moreso I would say, and good faction design and balance should not require a >100 rated player playing +98% accurately.

I had planned to watch more games but after that I was too tired... I also tried to view some >800 rated games for a more balanced perspective but… they weren’t very instructive.........

What I saw: Pios furiously trying to wire off heavy cover in a hopeless attempt for the Grens to actually win an engagement; MG42’s back to back forming a salient trying to pin squads which were flanking them and still being forced to retreat… crutching on Jaeger squads ‘cos their mainline infantry couldn’t survive until Vet3 and an LMG42, while desperately trying to hide behind a PaK40 and get a PiV up ~15min and even then they only had about a 3 minute window until the Allied indirect fire rocks up.

There were four thematic problems that each player tried to meet:

• Little early game field presence
  
• No shock units or LV’s that scale (-222)
  
• No durability
  
• A poor late game (more like a mid-game that didn’t scale well and doesn’t allow them to transition to a late game)
  
  

My suggestions are, in the true fashion of being a balance forum warrior, extreme!
By 1943-44 the Wehrmacht in the east is mainly a defensive force trying their best not to be encircled. Their units (if they survive) should be durable with their support weapons or armor providing most of the killing power.

So, I say fuck it, overhaul the unit the veterancy, remove every offensive veterancy bonus if we have to, I don’t care if the core infantry fight like Ostruppen; replace those bonuses with something that allows their 4 man squads and the weak mid-war armor to actually survive if by some miracle they reach Vet2/3. It’s possible to win games positionally and strategically by constricting your opponent, not outright killing them, perhaps a thematic/doctrinal shift, Festung Europa, the Dnieper line, this could be a new way to look at the faction.

Short of giving the Ostheer a 300 point VP advantage to start with, I personally think this approach if tuned properly addresses many of these issues. If they could actually stay on the field for more than 5 minutes, maybe they could actually generate the resources they need to deploy the units that are functional. If it's an l2p issue about being more defensive and positionally aware then you do playing the other factions then make it fun/easier to do so.

But OK, I realise the balance team are restricted to making small incremental changes; so operating in the realm of minor fiction instead of complete fantasy, perhaps there are other changes we can make:

Let’s start with the PaK gun and Mg42: these units are necessary to meet the threats presented by the allies and they do a damn fine job at it, but if you lose even one in the mid game, your game is over. There’s very little winning chances afterwards, no alternatives, and that isn’t fun. So, I might consider giving the Mg42 grenadier rifles. Particularly with the new formation changes there are many instances, particularly around corners, where the crew will actually advance and die while the MG sets up. In the early game if the Mg42 is routed, not even necessarily lost, the Ostheer will struggle to get back into the game. If we give the actual squad members marginally more fighting ability, 5-10% more damage than they already do, that makes the counter attack, (which will usually be uphill against a fortified **cons in sandbags cough** position) that much more likely to be successful, or at least the chance at retaking the ground in a more timely fashion, more likely.

I would make the same argument for the PaK gun, it needs to be either more durable or more readily available/cheaper, but OK, if we aren’t willing to make these less punishing if lost, then the soft counters need to be made more viable:

I would like to see the StuG improved, 4 hits to destroy a T70 is prohibitively poor; if it needs to perform like an SU85 in vision mode: poor rotation + acceleration, with an emphasis on positioning, like the tank destroyer they're supposed to be, so it isn’t chasing light armor across the map, then that’s fine but the StuG needs to be more credible.

Speaking about StuG’s I would also like to see the StuG-E reverted. It’s a joke. It’s worse than a mortar half track. Move it to T3 and buff it so AT LEAST it becomes a deterrent against things like Stuarts, T70’s and perhaps tone down it’s RoF or otherwise the AI capability to something akin to the 222/M20.

Move the Puma to T2 and balance it to fight armor about equally as well as a Stuart.
or fuck it make the Pak43 viable, maybe that gives us enough field presence in the mid game until a Katy/Calli rocks up.

This would allow some other doctrines a bit more play time, players could decide which alternative they would like to use to meet the allied threat.

Infantry wise I think the reason we’re seeing so many Jager squads is that the Ost need a combat squad that isn’t ridiculous and can be relied upon. I propose giving PzGrens 5 men and Kar98’s with an option to go StG’s at T4, something resembling guards-, and perhaps reverting the VSL changes but make the vet bonuses defensive, and/or make the upgrade Vet2 dependent. Vet squad leaders require a vet squad, makes sense.

I would also like to see the 250 more viable as an equivalent early game shock unit, allow it to hit the field earlier, and give the Ostheer something like the flame bus that they could maybe put PzGrens in (my go to shock unit atm) or if that’s a non-starter for gods sakes make it’s MG42 worth a damn; remember when the Kubel could supress? No, maybe that doesn’t need to be done, but it could fulfill a similar role, exchanging HP/Dmg instead of MP bleed, pushing it forward to help your grens fight against infantry in directional cover.

OR when we think, “grens are better at long range!” when you’re fighting over a point it’s not often you can actually find cover at that range; if the 250 and 251 provided heavy/vehicle cover that could be an interesting way of improving durability, requiring some level of skill. This combined with reinforcement perhaps gives Ostheer the field presence they need, and if they survive, maybe late game durability, (consider adding a defensive aura at vet 2/3)

These are some of my suggestions, feel free to shit on them, discuss or whatever happens these days, but please don't tell me that the Ostheer are fine.

I see no problems with Wehr at the moment, In fact I think Wehr is top 1 or 2 imo. Extremely well rounded faction with good mainline that scales better than anyone on the forum wants to give them credit for. Their stock mediums are great these days, especially with the brummy being the beast of burden it is. And the cherry on top is a fantastic selection of commanders that can fill any weaknesses you have or compound any strengths you have. Brits/USF are the factions to look at imo.

That's a LOT of words, but to sum them all up and cross them off:
Singular games from random players are not indicator of anything else but who is a better player.

I see no problems with Wehr at the moment, In fact I think Wehr is top 1 or 2 imo. Extremely well rounded faction with good mainline that scales better than anyone on the forum wants to give them credit for. Their stock mediums are great these days, especially with the brummy being the beast of burden it is. And the cherry on top is a fantastic selection of commanders that can fill any weaknesses you have or compound any strengths you have. Brits/USF are the factions to look at imo.

I think we share different definitions of good and great.

just 'cos you made me question what I was seeing I decided to watch Treadz who unleashed a clown car of a 6 cons opening 'cos fuck it, and they rolled over JibberJabber who, even after stealing an abandoned T34 couldn't take more than 60 points off them, 25 mins, GG...

Redemption came against Finndeed who blundered 2 Kv1's against mines, but it didn't look easy, 2x ZiS and Maxim and the position was probably still equal, despite a great early game adv provided by not countering the FlameHT and a decent use of the MortarHT smoke.

If they had more options, not even necessarily as potent as the Flame HT, it would go a long way to making the faction more fun to play and I suspect more balanced. 'cos right now...

Ost are an embarrassment, I challenge you to watch any game in the spectate menu where this infantry that scales so well, even at Vet3 in the mid/end game isn't getting deleted en masse by the allies, leaving a player with their pants over their heads.

....

The Ostwind is great, but you can only get it if you're ahead. The PiV can out duel a 34/76, possibly a Cromwell, with skill but it isn't a sure thing AND you NEED it as a potential power spike to regain SOME of the map you lost in the opening 15 minutes, but it struggles if there is ANY AT threat on the field and gets dumped on by a M4A3.

Everyone is using Jaeger Infantry and losing, Spearhead and losing, Strategic Reserves and losing. (there was a reason we gave them the PiVJ and Winfantry, the armor and infantry couldn't stand alone) Call in openings are long gone, doctrines don't matter if the core of your army folds like a cheap tent.

That's a LOT of words, but to sum them all up and cross them off:
Singular games from random players are not indicator of anything else but who is a better player.

I took a sample of a weekend of play between equally rated top players combined with what I've played myself and observed since the launch of the balance patch. Balance decisions have been made based on group stages in one off tournaments or even less in the past.

If you aren't going to engage with my observations that's fine, no one's forcing you to, but to write the trends and themes I observed off as simply fluctuations in skill or randomness is just lazy and not worth you posting at all; furthermore, when it did happen, which I mention-- it usually resulted in the Ostheer player getting crushed, blunders did not harm the allies proportionally as harshly.

Interesting suggestions. Of the games listed who played?

On one of the minor points I do think the change in received accuracy for AT guns was particularly painful for ostheer

Interesting suggestions. Of the games listed who played?

Treadz,
Augy,
DSM,
Jibber,
Isildur
HD.8XX
TAD
Kobal
Markov
Finndeed
Giap

among others, I didn't keep all the receipts though.

On one of the minor points I do think the change in received accuracy for AT guns was particularly painful for ostheer

I couldn't think of any good solutions to making the PaK more durable, the 4 man crew at 320mp when it's the only reliable AT option really suffers.

That's a LOT of words, but to sum them all up and cross them off:
Singular games from random players are not indicator of anything else but who is a better player.

Well, we can rest assured knowing that you aren't one of the players.

I don't think spectating 14 games on ladder means you should radically redesign everything about Ostheer, a faction design that has lasted mostly intact since 2013.

I don't think spectating 14 games on ladder means you should radically redesign everything about Ostheer, a faction design that has lasted mostly intact since 2013.

I would make the argument that there have been radical changes to faction design since then, particularly when considering tech structure and cost, mostly for the better. Ost in its current form probably starts from the 2018 commander update, but that's a digression.

Cmon Stormjager, you've seen me analyse before, that isn't the core of my argument it runs deeper and it's something I've waited probably since at least fall of last year to express based on my own experience. My time and expertise is limited I'm not a one man balance team I've done what I could and combined my experience with that sampleto try and cross check against the eye test.

I'm not asking for radical changes, I'm just not creative enough to actually come up with anything that isn't. I think having more options for players to solve the four issues I've mentioned would make the faction, and the game, more fun to play. I don't find it fun yeeting 4 man squads with a Katy, or stealling a single mg42 and base pinning my opponent or watching great players make one positional mistake and then lose by 400 pts.

I wish things were different.

Alright, here goes, my first balance thread also known as my coming out as a wehraboo or whatever.
/snip/

Hey,

You seem to have some idea of statistics based on your data collection, you should also know you presented it in a skewed way based on the small sample size, also on your lack of impartiality in your win loss table.

With more matches and just win/loss and some defining data, you might have a case for OST being under-powered, although I doubt it.

Hey,

You seem to have some idea of statistics based on your data collection, you should also know you presented it in a skewed way based on the small sample size, also on your lack of impartiality in your win loss table.

With more matches and just win/loss and some defining data, you might have a case for OST being under-powered, although I doubt it.

Hi!

I'm not basing this strictly on 14 random games, nor am I giving any pretense that I'm presenting this in a non-partisan way.

Relic took the tools away from us to tabulate the data, and when we did have it it was atrocious to use cos it took the entire population into account (if I remember correctly)

I'm not taking a purely qualitative approach. I was trying to understand what's happening strategically and tactically. I did what I could taking into account openings and commanders to try and build out that context especially compared to my own games, these were the themes and trends I identified which I didn't think could be rectified by l2p or accounted for by chaos, ie: mouse slip, lag w.e.

If you disagree with my conclusions, I'd like to know what you're seeing in your own games and games you spectate. I agree with you, it's a non scientific sample, but my --feeling-- is I could watch/play infinite games and not see much different, and maybe even worse, as things are right now I don't think it would be very much fun.

I don't think that "ost sucks" - but I do think the expansion factions (OKW/USF/UKF) have pushed OST into a really strange box, design-wise.

The initial premise at launch for OST was an "expensive/tanky defensive" faction to contrast Sov's "cheap/squishy offensive" design - with Sov making up the eHP difference through numbers. Grens were more expensive with 4 models, compared to Sov's cheaper (but weaker) 6 model cons, P4s were more expensive and tankier than T34s, the MG42 was much better than the Maxim (but had 3 models), etc. Additionally, for extra variety, Sov generally had a fairly noticeable advantage at close range, which further pushed OST into it's "defensive" roll. As a result of those trade offs, a single unit loss for OST was always more costly than for Sov, but that single unit was usually more powerful. Overall, I thought this was a pretty good design, if a bit simple in concept.

The problem is, the expansion factions don't fit between SOV/OST in terms of offensive/defensive nature; they actually surround OST (and Sov, but to a lesser degree), which makes balancing them really, really tricky. Take the standard roster of units (i.e. non-doc):
The strongest defensive mainline is UKF's double-bren/bolstered Infantry Sections, not LMG grens.
The strongest offensive mainline is USF's double-BAR Rifle squads, not conscripts.
The most mobile faction is OKW/USF (FRPs, no T0 MGs), not Sov.
The most defensive faction is UKF (cover bonus, emplacements, old MG vet 1 bonus, etc.), not Ost.

So, how do you balance that while keeping each factions initial "flavor"? Do you buffs grens to beat IS' at range? Then you'll melt cons (and rifles) before they can get close. Do you buff cons to be better than Rifles? Then OST will get steamrolled. Do you make USF/OKW less mobile? Now they'll get pinned by Sov/Ost defensive units. Do you make UKF less defensive? Now they'll be overrun by OKW.

What we have right now is probably as close to the best that it can be without massive faction redesigns. Unfortunately, what that means is that Ost's "powerful but expensive units" design flavor has been pushed to the maximum; that single unit loss that was "more costly" than Sov's unit has now turned into "devastatingly costly" while also being more powerful than it used to be. As a result, OST requires an absolute minimum number of losses to use effectively, which can be really hard to do when the game is as RNG-heavy as it is - and even when RNG isn't involved, it means that a single loss early on can decide a match.

As always I will state that my complaint with OST is that grens are trash that need to specialize in durability, or firepower, and not the middleground solution we have now. As is they're mostly worthless, particularly against the WFA as rifleman can win any 1 on 1 engagement by charging them, even in green cover, and sections blow them out in any match-up except for close up early game fights.

Allied armies are being balanced against volks which are just better grens for the most part, so it shouldn't be a surprise that grens are underpreforming, and 5 men or some other infantry is the only viable open for OST.

90% of OST's issues can be fixed by changing gren RA to 1, and increasing their damage, particularly long range, to compensate. If this makes them too fragile in the late game a little bit of damage reduction can be added to vet3, or preferably to one of the later battlephases. This change gives grens a role distinct from 'worse volksgren' that gives better flavor to the faction. With higher long range damage they can actually exert map control since it doesn't take 5 minutes to win a favorable engagement, and the higher RA emphasizes good MG play to limit losses.

I don't think that "ost sucks" - but I do think the expansion factions (OKW/USF/UKF) have pushed OST into a really strange box, design-wise.

The initial premise at launch for OST was an "expensive/tanky defensive" faction to contrast Sov's "cheap/squishy offensive" design - with Sov making up the eHP difference through numbers. Grens were more expensive with 4 models, compared to Sov's cheaper (but weaker) 6 model cons, P4s were more expensive and tankier than T34s, the MG42 was much better than the Maxim (but had 3 models), etc. Additionally, for extra variety, Sov generally had a fairly noticeable advantage at close range, which further pushed OST into it's "defensive" roll. As a result of those trade offs, a single unit loss for OST was always more costly than for Sov, but that single unit was usually more powerful. Overall, I thought this was a pretty good design, if a bit simple in concept.

The problem is, the expansion factions don't fit between SOV/OST in terms of offensive/defensive nature; they actually surround OST (and Sov, but to a lesser degree), which makes balancing them really, really tricky. Take the standard roster of units (i.e. non-doc):
The strongest defensive mainline is UKF's double-bren/bolstered Infantry Sections, not LMG grens.
The strongest offensive mainline is USF's double-BAR Rifle squads, not conscripts.
The most mobile faction is OKW/USF (FRPs, no T0 MGs), not Sov.
The most defensive faction is UKF (cover bonus, emplacements, old MG vet 1 bonus, etc.), not Ost.

So, how do you balance that while keeping each factions initial "flavor"? Do you buffs grens to beat IS' at range? Then you'll melt cons (and rifles) before they can get close. Do you buff cons to be better than Rifles? Then OST will get steamrolled. Do you make USF/OKW less mobile? Now they'll get pinned by Sov/Ost defensive units. Do you make UKF less defensive? Now they'll be overrun by OKW.

What we have right now is probably as close to the best that it can be without massive faction redesigns. Unfortunately, what that means is that Ost's "powerful but expensive units" design flavor has been pushed to the maximum; that single unit loss that was "more costly" than Sov's unit has now turned into "devastatingly costly" while also being more powerful than it used to be. As a result, OST requires an absolute minimum number of losses to use effectively, which can be really hard to do when the game is as RNG-heavy as it is - and even when RNG isn't involved, it means that a single loss early on can decide a match.

I agree with most of the analysis I do not agree identifying the problem.

The problem imo was that when WFA armies where introduced it was the Ostheer/Soviet that ended be adjusted to them and not the other way around.

I agree with most of the analysis I do not agree identifying the problem.

The problem imo was that when WFA armies where introduced it was the Ostheer/Soviet that ended be adjusted to them and not the other way around.

Thats exactly the problem. Nothing more to say.