At the end of COH1 and COH2...

When COH1 was no longer supported with updates, it left the game in a pretty bad state. Bugs like the infinite firing Staghound were a sign of sloppy programming, and the overall balance just indicated poor design. Yes, you could argue that the game, at least in a 1v1 setting, was balanced, but the elephant in the room that everyone seemed to try to ignore was that there was a pretty big skill gap between Americans and Wehrmacht (I won't be touching on the Opposing Fronts factions) where the units on their respective trees were balanced on paper, but in reality the American player had to be better overall than his Axis opponent.

I believe we are seeing a resurgence in of that in COH2. The end of this game's life cycle is approaching, and with further patches being doubtful at this point, it's time to face the facts that in terms of their simplicity of play, Axis factions are far more forgiving and there is a large skill gap compared to the Allied factions.

The core of this issue is really just the fact that both axis factions are designed around late game dominance, while the allied factions around early-mid game dominance. The early-mid game has a set end, while the late game, can, in theory, go on indefinitely. Having factions designed to have dominance around such a wide margin of gameplay is IMO, a bad idea.

For that reason, I'm hoping COH3 leaves out the idea that a specific faction, whether Allied or Axis, has to dominate at a given time. I think limited power spikes in different periods around the early-mid game to keep the factions asymmetrical would be ideal, but then having the late game homogenize the power spike so its more down to raw micro than superior late game arsenal.

I think this approach would help to curb the disparity in Axis/Allies search rates and create a more fun experience overall. Among other things, this would solve the issues inherent in larger team games that are present in both COH1 and 2.

When COH1 was no longer supported with updates, it left the game in a pretty bad state. Bugs like the infinite firing Staghound were a sign of sloppy programming, and the overall balance just indicated poor design. Yes, you could argue that the game, at least in a 1v1 setting, was balanced, but the elephant in the room that everyone seemed to try to ignore was that there was a pretty big skill gap between Americans and Wehrmacht (I won't be touching on the Opposing Fronts factions) where the units on their respective trees were balanced on paper, but in reality the American player had to be better overall than his Axis opponent.

I believe we are seeing a resurgence in of that in COH2. The end of this game's life cycle is approaching, and with further patches being doubtful at this point, it's time to face the facts that in terms of their simplicity of play, Axis factions are far more forgiving and there is a large skill gap compared to the Allied factions.

The core of this issue is really just the fact that both axis factions are designed around late game dominance, while the allied factions around early-mid game dominance. The early-mid game has a set end, while the late game, can, in theory, go on indefinitely. Having factions designed to have dominance around such a wide margin of gameplay is IMO, a bad idea.

For that reason, I'm hoping COH3 leaves out the idea that a specific faction, whether Allied or Axis, has to dominate at a given time. I think limited power spikes in different periods around the early-mid game to keep the factions asymmetrical would be ideal, but then having the late game homogenize the power spike so its more down to raw micro than superior late game arsenal.

I think this approach would help to curb the disparity in Axis/Allies search rates and create a more fun experience overall. Among other things, this would solve the issues inherent in larger team games that are present in both COH1 and 2.

-playing US in coh1 1v1 was much easier than Wehr, so that point doens't hold


-are you, by any chance, a 4v4 teamgame player?

When COH1 was no longer supported with updates, it left the game in a pretty bad state. Bugs like the infinite firing Staghound were a sign of sloppy programming, and the overall balance just indicated poor design. Yes, you could argue that the game, at least in a 1v1 setting, was balanced, but the elephant in the room that everyone seemed to try to ignore was that there was a pretty big skill gap between Americans and Wehrmacht (I won't be touching on the Opposing Fronts factions) where the units on their respective trees were balanced on paper, but in reality the American player had to be better overall than his Axis opponent.

I stopped reading at that part, US is much easier in coh 1

-playing US in coh1 1v1 was much easier than Wehr, so that point doens't hold


-are you, by any chance, a 4v4 teamgame player?

First point I disagree with, as do many others. Earlier on in the game’s life cycle in may have been the case, but certainly not by the end.

And no, if you look at my post history, I think team games are garbage. However, I’m aware that the largest part of the player base partakes in team games and that’s where a lot of complaints about the disparity between axis and allies stem.