4v4 balance improvement

I want to be simple about this, I think it's a simple problem.

It's a fact that it is easier to win as Axis as the player count scales.

I believe this is due to efficiency related to units and player scaling.

In a small game, axis having more efficient units is not much of a problem, because the squad sizes are low and individual player skill ends up being more important than that small efficiency gains, hence 1v1 players do not feel it and excellent play is rewarded.

As the games get larger, the individual matters less. 1 or 2 axis players can be worth 3 or 4 allied players, just on efficiency. This means that if you took 2 average skilled axis players and put them against 3 average skilled allied players, it would be a CLOSE game.

I wish Relic had a decent API that allowed us to pull game data, because then we could easily see this with a little code.


Anyhow, I think the failure is in the pop cap. Maybe some 1v1 players can chime in, but I've never noticed people in 1v1 having pop cap issues. Meaning that Axis pop values should be adjusted to further reflect their greater efficiency. I don't think this would impact 1v1 and 2v2 so much, but it would make a big difference in 3v3 and 4v4, which tend to devolve into brainless tit for tats with high efficiency units.

I know its NOT what they want, but 3v3/4v4 should have a separate game menu before you get into the lobby called 'War' or whatever. This should be different from 1v1/2v2 mode which is 'Company' or whatever. Reflecting the scale of the fight. War should have exactly the same base units as Company, but changes should be made to accomodate the larger scale balance. Popcap, resource income etc etc. It's not to difficult to think of and test actual changes.

We all love War scale games but they are balanced around Company. COH2 really missed a trick with its War mode as plenty people still love and play, and come into, the game.

However these people leave eventually beause they arent willing to put in the skill to smoke an MG42... im not saying this is what should be balanced around, but it is an inherent problem, I think that is undeniable. Competitive 4v4 isn't a thing but it could be.

The only advice I can give u is git gud (this includes map knowledge, covers, etc)and abuse early game. Imo its harder to carry 4v4 than win 1v1, if you're not smurfing that is... try reaching high level 1v1 and then go back to team games.

regardless of the side you play, it doesn't matter as much how good you are. If you aren't playing arranged teams, you could be an ace and get slaughtered like a newb by a team of below average individuals. Even the axis AI kicks more ass than the allied AI.

I think the issue in 4v4 is that people can spam caches which makes getting the resources for the most expensive stuff which is usually axis much easier to get allowing its timing to be a lot faster than it should be. I almost think caches should be limited to like 1 per player. People in 1v1/2v2 don't often build more than 1 cache anyway.

It's true that axis have much higher WR in team games, but I say one reason is because more player it gets, higher chance you get UKF in team. Which is more like 0.5 faction per say...

One of the things that would help 4v4 balance would be to adjust all the MG arcs down to the 50 cal (nerf the Vickers, MG34 and MG42). There are lots of people that have complained about set-it-and-forget-it units like mortars, but MG's aren't that different and the wide arc makes it way to easy to shut down lanes on maps like Red Ball.


MG comparison

The DSHK & Maxim probably should be buffed. They are so narrow that they almost don't act like MG's.

I don't think caches have anything to do with the imbalance, especially given that OKW can't build them yet have the highest win rate.

People have been hating on the general quality of UKF players in automatch. While there may be an issue there, the problem seems worse than that because it seems like the better Allied players of all factions aren't playing now. One thing that sticks out to me is that my team of 3 went from rank 42 to 28 while LOSING three matches in a row. That means that either a lot of the better teams stopped playing or they're playing more and losing. Either way, it isn't a healthy indicator for balance.

I think the issue in 4v4 is that people can spam caches which makes getting the resources for the most expensive stuff which is usually axis much easier to get allowing its timing to be a lot faster than it should be. I almost think caches should be limited to like 1 per player. People in 1v1/2v2 don't often build more than 1 cache anyway.

I think because of Ost can give resources to Okw make Okw sometimes tank come much earlier. Especially 3v3 4v4. I had a game where Okw got King at 12min.

Put cache cost down to 150mp. But only give the player who built it resources.

I don't really find a problem with caches, regardless of the team you are on, if you are engaging your opponent, they won't have the mp to spare for early cache to get 12 min kt. It also can't help address the difference in infantry scaling.

Axis is stronger because of one reason only: They can blob efficiently.
PGrens or obers into grens/volks blobs can't really be punished by anyone except Soviets. Non doctrinal at least. I used to love punishing such blobs with AA HT + 2xpak howi but ever since the nerf, you can really feel the damage drop and the lower kill count on the paks.
Good OKW players can also A-move raketen behind the blobs because of the retreat, so you don't really risk anything. Anyone with half a brain will stuka/werfer known MG/AT positions before advancing.

Can USF deal with an AT wall on maps like Redball? With calliope. Yes. Without one: never. The best thing USF brings to the table are the huge smoke dispensers called Scotts. Sure their autofire range is low and the AOE is low and they really don't stop any blobs, but holy smokes can they saturate an area with smoke, denying super heavies (unless the axis player likes micro to ground attack through smoke).
Point is. Yes, axis are less micro intensive and overall stronger due to the late game units they have, but with proper teamplay, allies are pretty fun to play. USF that brings a jackson + scotts can greatly complement Soviet's katy + [literally anything].
Brits can bring Comets to amplify the flanking pushes + a firefly (in my opinion, the best TD).

Sure the infantry scaling is in Axis favor, same with the tank scaling but that doesn't mean allies are hopeless. Axis have the brutal firepower (damage+armour), allies have versatility (3 factions) and range.
Besides, playing 4v4 is really a fools choice. 800 population worth of units = artyfests + tankspams + more artyfests.

Besides some braindead balance changes in last patch (and current commanders), the overall balance is quite well made. If you ask me, removing maps like Redball, Ettelbruck, Hamburger, Angermunde, Essen would go long ways of improving the balance.

Id rather balance the game mode separately (to 1v1) than start removing maps. Big team gsames its very easy for Axis to setup defences (mg42 bunkers etc) and get caches up behind. Allies need to constantly attack this frontline just to stand a chance. It involves a lot of bleed, whereas behind this Axis will often be able to put up more caches. More often than not thats what I see.

Yes, because as your efficiency scales you bleed less than the other guy as axis.

The recource disadvantidge axis have in 1v1 evaporate in big modes. Esp with t4 units such as panthers tigers and superheavies this becomes a problem.

Giving axis a recource penalty esp fuel in bigger modes can help bring the recource gain and effieciency in line for axis. Or increase the price of axis units esp tanks and of those esp big cats such as panthers and up.

Sure the infantry scaling is in Axis favor

This is just horribly wrong.

This is just horribly wrong.

In teamgames it is. You don't have to worry about not having snaring squads or sth and your infantry can always be supported by werfers/stukas. Most of the 3v3 games I've played. Volks and grens usually get upgraded to Obers and PGrens (which once vetted shred any and all allied mainline infantry).
Only scaling for USF is through bars/zooks.
Brits the same.
Soviets through 7th man which uses all weapon slots.

Provide me with the argument for the "horribly wrong". If it's so obvious, surely you can argument it easily

In teamgames it is. You don't have to worry about not having snaring squads or sth and your infantry can always be supported by werfers/stukas. Most of the 3v3 games I've played. Volks and grens usually get upgraded to Obers and PGrens (which once vetted shred any and all allied mainline infantry).
Only scaling for USF is through bars/zooks.
Brits the same.
Soviets through 7th man which uses all weapon slots.

Provide me with the argument for the "horribly wrong". If it's so obvious, surely you can argument it easily

What do you even mean by scaling, by your logic the only scaling for Grenadier is MG42 ?

If we look at pure bonuses from veterancy, USF and SOV mainlines are scaling way way WAY better than their axis counterparts and Infantry Sections build on to an insane base value.

And finally, if Grens and Volks are being "upgraded" to Obers and PGrens, so are Concripts to Guards and Shocks, Infantry Sections to Bren Commandos and Rifleman to Paras and Rangers.

If we look at weapons, both UKF and USF can field double guns on their units, which combined with better "veterancy bonus" infantry makes them basically elite infantry. And yes, in team games USF infantry is supported too with its SOV allys Katyusha or UKF Off-map barage.

What do you even mean by scaling, by your logic the only scaling for Grenadier is MG42 ?

If we look at pure bonuses from veterancy, USF and SOV mainlines are scaling way way WAY better than their axis counterparts and Infantry Sections build on to an insane base value.

And finally, if Grens and Volks are being "upgraded" to Obers and PGrens, so are Concripts to Guards and Shocks, Infantry Sections to Bren Commandos and Rifleman to Paras and Rangers.

If we look at weapons, both UKF and USF can field double guns on their units, which combined with better "veterancy bonus" infantry makes them basically elite infantry. And yes, in team games USF infantry is supported too with its SOV allys Katyusha or UKF Off-map barage.

Commandos and paras and shocks and guards are stock...
I'm not talking about veterancy scaling. Neither am I talking about pure mainline scaling.
If looking at mainlines only. Yes, allies win here (with exception to conscripts until 7th man).
However, in teamgames, you'll see a lot of builds which deviate from the usual 1v1 builds.

Eg: Most of the builds I've seen playing vs OST are: double MG42s with double pios. Light vehicle and then 3-4 PGrens.
OKW: Sturmpios, kubel and then one volk squad into vehicles and then 2-3 ober squads.

In 1v1 such builds would usually end up with a loss before minute 15 due to severe lack of map control. But in 3v3+, that's really not an issue.

In the later stages of the game, in teamgames, most infantry engagements are long range. Nobody is stupid enough to go through no cover zone to reach the enemy squad, when there are plenty of killing machines that can stop that halt and bleed you. Nobody can deny that Axis are dominant in long range engagements. It even says in the unit description.

So basically rifles sh** on volks and grens in early stages of the game, but once the game progresses and BARs further amplify the short-medium range firepower, the Obers pretty much eat vet3 rifles, unless they have to close in (eg, you're behind cover and obers don't have any cover to get behind)
Conscripts are weird, not gonna comment the weird scaling of that unit. Pretty sh** until 7th man, then they shine.
IS dominate early on on long range, lose short. Brens do give them the edge long range, even vs Obers but don't really have anything to follow up with. Also have a power spike with 5 man.

Of course, if doctrines are picked, then the situations shifts a bit, depending which elite unit you get (if you get any at all).

Fussies are also in a weird position, but are doctrinal so not gonna comment.


In all the games I've played with USF, if I've won, it's been in first 20 minutes of the game most of the time. As the game progresses you find it more difficult to deal with the obers/PGrens. Even if you go trading with them, a werfer will displace you (or stuka). If you try to do the same with a pak howi, good luck. Not to mention how rifles are quite bad in snaring (due to the long animation, and God forbid the snaring unit is killed, the animation starts over).

I'm not denying that the ally infantry is strong. It is. Allies have stronger mainline infantry that is more versatile, which is exemplified in 1v1s where it's quite important. But in 3v3+, mainlines are not your bread and butter which win the game, only to cap. Elite squads shred infantry, mainline or two cap, while tanks battle it out with support from rocket arty.

If you don't understand scaling, I will simplify it.

The main thing you'll be looking at is how well a unit does as it's numbers increase. That's the main difference between 1v1 and 4v4, the numbers are far larger.

So for example, in 1v1 or at the start of a 4v4, a conscript squad may fight grenadiers. 1:1. This game is built on asynchronous balance, but it is still supposed to achieve a balance. So the idea is 6 men vs 4, but the 4 men get a lot of damage in while the 6 get to their most efficient range(close) and by the time this happens, the 6 are so weary that the engagement could go either way. You modify that with weapon upgrades, sight tactics, cover, and other support.

The scaling in a 1v1 will pretty much top out about what 4 allied squads vs 4 axis squads? Even at that point you'll likely start seeing the poor infantry scaling. Based on the upkeep costs alone, with axis squads costing 35-45 per model, you want each model to drop at least 2 enemy models before dying/retreating.

In 4v4 it's not uncommon to see large blobs greater than what you would see in 1v1. Sometimes they aren't even blobbed, but you still have to fight for control. Most of them you can pretty easily see you won't win before any engagement happens, but inaction isn't an option. Attempting to close can result in such an unbalanced engagement that you can see maybe 1 or 2 models drop off of an axis blob compared to an entire 3 or 4 squad allied blob mass retreat or complete elimination. This is an extreme situation I'm highlighting, but it has happened. Composition changes much of this. No you can't use heavy mg, it is much quicker to focus an hmg as axis than allied, maybe 1 squad gets suppressed, hmg won't even be able to change men after 1 dies.

When I ask other successful players how to deal with that, they always say you need a vehicle of some sort. Which of course has at least 2 tragic problems I can think of right off the top of my head. 1 is that you and your team need to be able to secure enough fuel for a vehicle(typically possible with an AVERAGE skilled team), the second is the methodical reduction of allied anti-blob tools' efficiency. Units like the scott have been finely tuned to ensure survival for axis squads. Meanwhile, the brumbar at twice the scott cost cannot be engaged by any infantry, including at guns. Scott has great smoke though, I hear.

The point of this is not to talk about vehicle balance, it's that when you scale up the unit count, axis units receive such an increase in efficiency that in the case of infantry, often times can no longer be engaged with infantry. Which isn't asynchronous balance, it's just imbalanced. The infantry alone would not be a big deal, if it weren't for the same thing happening with the tanks. The tanks are expensive, but eventually you reach a point where you have a blinged out fleet and an unstoppable set foot soldiers. Yes it can be beat, you just have to be better than the other guy, by a lot. Again, it's not balance.

In 1v1, it's all good, you aren't dealing with these scale issues. In 4v4 it leads to a lot of crazy stuff, like a general feeling by people that you can't win as allies unless you win in the first 20 minutes. If you play as axis and a teamates game crashes, you still have a chance to win. I've had some unbelievable losses to a really good stubborn axis player with an above average partner and 2 AI. Never happened playing as allies. I can kill and kill and kill, but no matter how good I am it doesn't make up for the ai being unable to do much with allied tools. It's been like this since 2013.

Every time I see stats on this game, 3v3 and 4v4 have the most players, which tells me that for the health of coh2, these two game modes are the most important by population. That said, I wouldn't want to see changes that screw up what has been done for 1v1, because it seems like most that play 1v1 are happy with the balance, and typically play all the factions. Except UKF?

Anyhow, that's my short explanation of what scaling means, it's about efficiency.

Another example is easily seen with snipers. Snipers have incredibly high efficiency. If you can manage 4 soviet snipers, you can completely eliminate entire axis squads before they can do anything at all. However it is very cost prohibitive in terms of mp and especially pop cap. Those 4 models are basically your entire infantry force.

In team games soviets/usa need non-doc T34-85/E8.