I don't trust the official balance team.

Yes and so what if 1v1 automatch is dead? What do you balance the game around then? 4v4s? 99% of the 4v4 players don't know anything about the game and 4v4s are incredibly dumb. Blob 24/7, spam tank destroyers and arty. That's literally it. Half of the game mechanics don't matter in 4v4s, timings, cover, build orders all go into the trash. If you look at twitch or youtube 90% of the content is for 1v1s and 2v2s, 5% is tightrope being paid to cast 3v3s and 4v4s.

Don't act like you want to balance the game for the majority because an overwhelming majority of the playerbase is playing 4v4s at level 1-16 and it's pretty much an objective fact that axis shits on allies at that level in 4v4s. Go ask anyone in, uhhh, skippy's server or whatever and they will tell you how the mg42, elefant and JT are broken yet you and sturmpanther keep saying allies are better than axis in 4v4s simply because allies can cheese the game better than axis in top 10 arranged team games which happens way less than 1v1 games or normal 4v4 games where the allies get shit on. "1v1s automatch is dead" is literally just an excuse.

And lastly why do we have this server full of top 30-50 1v1/2v2 players if our feedback is going to get dismissed as "1v1 automatch is dead"? Go and post the invite link to this server to the coh3 server so people from game modes where automatch is not dead can help you guys balance the game.

Sorry but this post is toxic and really strikes at the core of why the author made this thread. This kind of toxicity/elitism should have no place on the forums or in CoH. There really is no excuse for this kind of toxicity and wanting a balanced team game modes should not warrant this kind of toxicity.

Please, for the love of god, stop using that site for 4v4. As a 4v4 tournament player I can guarantee you that arranged team vs. arranged team in 4v4 is completely balanced or depends on the map.

Random 4v4 automatch is a shitfest of monkey apes that cant deal with the tech tree of USF and soviets. For example soviet t1 players that get rekt by blobs and tank rush because they dont know how to counter it without a HMG or AT gun. Same story with USF tech tree as HMG and AT gun + packhowie are kinda mutually exclusive. Both axis factions always have MG, AT guns and indirect fire no matter how they tech. I have seen it sooooooo many times now on playercards where someone had 60% winrate as axis but 40-45% winrate as allies because of this (ofc the player was just bad as well)


Oh and there is also the 4v4 matchmaking. We (a lot of 4v4 players that I know & myself) have a saying "Do not search allies 4v4 in dead timezones, only in EU afternoon time. You will always get unwinable games."

Are these screenshots recent?

I think part of the reason why those screenshots are the way they are is because Axis is incredibly unbalanced and powerful in team games at the moment. There are barely any players playing Allies because of this fact. Playing Allies in team games, especially 4v4, leads to some very not-fun games and most of the time a loss.

This is anecdotal but I was around rank 300-500 last patch and now I'm floating around under 200 this patch for USF. It seems like there is a lack of 4v4 USF players playing because they understand the faction is so weak. I want to abandon my favourite faction (USF) because it feels near impossible to counter the Axis meta atm because of all the nerfs.

There are reasons why 4v4 automatch tend to favour axis and its because they have several non-doctrinal units that help them immensely in the late game. OKW, a faction built around securely the late game, unbalances win rates a lot by having access to a non-doctrinal King Tiger. Most team games will last into the late game where they really shine unless they are pushed off the fuel early. They can't get pushed off the fuel early because recent buffs have buffed their early game. What makes this worse is the short width maps like Redball and Whiteball that favour Axis HMGs to secure early game.

Since I'm pointing out problems but not offering solutions. I have several suggestions to reduce Axis win rate without shaking up the meta all that much. Here are some things that can be done or at least be used as a starting point to put a dent in the Axis late game in team games.

- New 4v4 maps or updating the current ones in the pool such as Whiteball and Redball to introduce wider lanes.
- Increasing setup/teardown time for Axis HMGs so they can't be relocated on a dime. HMG spam with Pio vision is uncounterable unless the Ost player makes a mistake. Every top 200 Ost player does this. Manual reload makes it even worse because all MGs will always be fully loaded.
- Reduce lethality of Ost mortars so its not as powerful when spammed behind an HMG wall. Which is typically what happens in 90% of the games. HMG wall and then 2-3 mortars. Alternately, restrict all mortars team to 1 across all factions.
- Adjustments to Panther that affect multiple Panthers but not the first one. Such as increasing popcap or increasing repair time or removal of Axis minesweeper/repair bonus combo. Also add repair bonus for USF Rear Echelons sweeper upgrade or somehow bundle it into the Pershing Commander because Pershing Commander is gimped without it. The Panther popcap could be increased by 3-4 from its current value because of how powerful it is in team games.
- Add repair bonus to UKF Royal Engi sweepers. Why? Because repairing comets takes forever without the upgrade. There is significantly more downtime repairing Comets than there is repairing the same amount of Panthers. For a unit that is supposed to be similar, its unbalanced because the repair times are not similar.
- Normalize pen across all anti-tank snare grenades. Why should Allies have a lower chance to pen with their snares?
- Add non-doctrinal heavy tank call-in for USF (Pershing), Soviets (IS-2), and Ost (Tiger). That way every faction has a non-doctrinal late-game heavy tank hero unit instead of just OKW. Again most games go late.
- Increase Ober reinforce cost. They are far too efficient for what they are able to do. Non-doctrinal long-range DPS with a very low maintenance/reinforce cost is dominating late-game infantry fights and is incredibly efficient.

Finally, my personal grievance, a USF buff. Reverse 2 patch changes on the Scott and restrict it to 1. Its so dumb that non-doctrinal Panzerwerfer, Brumbar, and Stuka don't get any nerfs but Pack Howie and Scott gets a nerf. These nerfs combined have completely neutered USF in team games.

Sorry but this post is toxic and really strikes at the core of why the author made this thread. This kind of toxicity/elitism should have no place on the forums or in CoH. There really is no excuse for this kind of toxicity and wanting a balanced team game modes should not warrant this kind of toxicity.

he is right though. 4v4 game spammers are usually 'fixed screen on your blob' type of players, which is understandable, because it is hard to micro vs several players. The game mode is flawed and should have never been viewed as competitive. It is just COH's analogue of "team deathmatch", nothing more. And yes, the game mode is very unfair towards Allies, because JTs, Elefants, early mg42, tight spaces and lots of AT guns per squared meter. On top of that there are tons of leavers, overall more frustrated and toxic playerbase with addition of imbalance. Also I believe that factional fanboism is more prevalent there.

Imo, if 4v4 people were aware of 2v2 and 1v1 balance, so they would discuss changes that mostly influence that mode, they game mode would have been in a better spot, but instead it boils down to factional holy wars with touch up of whine why X unit is not effective in 4v4. Just ask yourself how often do you hear that t34 is trash from team game players and how often do you hear it from 1v1 players? People even claiming t34-85 to be "much worse then a panther". And how would even they will know, if hypothetical guy loses the tank to a pak wall while microing his blob and even if he didn't lose it that way, he will sooner or later. Ofc after that, that poor sod will just curse the damn thing and just buy a SU-85 that will help him with shooting at Panthers and other cats, while staying out of pak40's range.

he is right though. 4v4 game spammers are usually 'fixed screen on your blob' type of players, which is understandable, because it is hard to micro vs several players. The game mode is flawed and should have never been viewed as competitive. It is just COH's analogue of "team deathmatch", nothing more. And yes, the game mode is very unfair towards Allies, because JTs, Elefants, early mg42, tight spaces and lots of AT guns per squared meter. On top of that there are tons of leavers, overall more frustrated and toxic playerbase with addition of imbalance. Also I believe that factional fanboism is more prevalent there.

Imo, if 4v4 people were aware of 2v2 and 1v1 balance, so they would discuss changes that mostly influence that mode, they game mode would have been in a better spot, but instead it boils down to factional holy wars with touch up of whine why X unit is not effective in 4v4. Just ask yourself how often do you hear that t34 is trash from team game players and how often do you hear it from 1v1 players? People even claiming t34-85 to be "much worse then a panther". And how would even they will know, if hypothetical guy loses the tank to a pak wall while microing his blob and even if he didn't lose it that way, he will sooner or later. Ofc after that, that poor sod will just curse the damn thing and just buy a SU-85 that will help him with shooting at Panthers and other cats, while staying out of pak40's range.

You know the reverse can be said. If 1v1 and 2v2 players were more aware and empathetic to 3v3 and 4v4 players they they can discuss what changes can be made without shaking up the balance all that much. Technically the majority of players are in team game modes so they are keeping the game alive while only the minority are enjoying a balanced game.

I can think of several changes that can be made without affecting 1v1 and 2v2s all that much. Such as limiting rocket artillery to 1 or in general, limiting artillery to 1 so it can't be spammed. I made a list above your post which includes some other changes that can be made without affecting 1v1/2v2 balance.

Yes, you are absolutely right. This website only got released very recently. But I can clearly remember there was a predecessor. And there are for sure people in this forum posting data each year from ... nowhere, actually. Though I can't provide direct evidence here, there is one thing I am sure about. Because the data I mentioned before showed by somebody else presented such a contractive and almost laughable pattern, late last year, around December, I was planning on writing a thread about how difficult it is to balance around 4v4 and 1v1 with only one set of data( If you have tried making mod before, you would know that the original campaign and multiplayer actually got balanced differently). I was a strong promoter for splitting the game in half and balance each independently( 1v1 & 2v2; 3v3 & 4v4). At least, until then, I was trying to help the balance team out and explain to the public that it was just utterly impossible to balance around all game modes. In the end, I did not finish what I wrote because somebody in my family passed away in mid-December.

This might be the stats you're looking for: https://www.coh2.org/news/92866/automatch-stats-factions-teams-and-maps#stat4v4

From 2019. Those were some simpler times when 4v4s were more balanced and fun.

You know the reverse can be said. If 1v1 and 2v2 players were more aware and empathetic to 3v3 and 4v4 players they they can discuss what changes can be made without shaking up the balance all that much. Technically the majority of players are in team game modes so they are keeping the game alive while only the minority are enjoying a balanced game.

I can think of several changes that can be made without affecting 1v1 and 2v2s all that much. Such as limiting rocket artillery to 1 or in general, limiting artillery to 1 so it can't be spammed. I made a list above your post which includes some other changes that can be made without affecting 1v1/2v2 balance.

the only change that wasn't really that bad in 4v4, but was crucial in 1v1 and 2v2 was t34 ram. I have no knowledge of other changes that influenced 4v4 meta that much, apart from maybe general OST improvements and unnecessary harsh USF nefrs. AFAIK in 2019 OST was not in a good place, probably even much worse then OKW right now.

the only change that wasn't really that bad in 4v4, but was crucial in 1v1 and 2v2 was t34 ram. I have no knowledge of other changes that influenced 4v4 meta that much, apart from maybe general OST improvements and unnecessary harsh USF nefrs. AFAIK in 2019 OST was not in a good place, probably even much worse then OKW right now.

I disagree. T-34 ram/IL-2 combo was a big buff to Axis heavy tanks in team games. Typically when you have heavy tanks covering heavy tanks, they become near impossible to defeat without the T-34/IL-2 ram combo.

It also wouldn't surprise me if the heavy tanks got some buffs over the years because of this combo but the buffs weren't reversed post-nerf of T-34 ram.

I'd argue that the winrates were closer to 50% in 2019 than it is now, therefore the game was more balanced in team games in 2019 than now where win rates have moved farther from 50%.

I disagree. T-34 ram/IL-2 combo was a big buff to Axis heavy tanks in team games. Typically when you have heavy tanks covering heavy tanks, they become near impossible to defeat without the T-34/IL-2 ram combo.

It wasn't bad, because it gave Allies a tool to counter super heavy TDs. See winrates you've posted in 2019 and then look at winrates pre "ST patch".

Calling it a myth is wrong. If I calculated correctly, in the late game the G43 retains about 84% DPS at short range and 90% long range. Although the close DPS is more important, still the G43 retains a crazy ratio when moving.

We are simply talking about different things. You are taking about the g43 weapons and I am talking about the whole PF squad.

The myth is that 6 men g43 PF squad lose only 10% DPS on the move. And it exactly that myth that is false.

Again, if my calcs are correct, late game Fusies perform between 44% short and 6% long range better on the move than Penals, with way better damage retention.

This is secondary myth. That G43 PF somehow have significantly superior DPS on the move than other units. As your state the difference far is only 6% so their far DPS on the move is not really that special.

You are correct to point DPS retention and that is why I pointed it out also in my previous posts.

But I don't know why you mention Penals in the first place. They have nothing to do with the topic. and also work very differently in their faction.

PF are not the topic either.
What has been argued is that the MOD team should have for foreseen the issues with PF and they should be nerfed:

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see 90% DPS on the move units is pretty stupid and when they're picked every game maybe there's an issue."

What I have pointed out is that is not the on the move performance the issue (since it similar to Penals) but the design so fixing PF might not be a simple as it looks at first glance.

We are simply talking about different things. You are taking about the g43 weapons and I am talking about the whole PF squad.

The myth is that 6 men g43 PF squad lose only 10% DPS on the move. And it exactly that myth that is false.

My misread on that part, I thought it was about the G43 itself.

This is secondary myth. That G43 PF somehow have significantly superior DPS on the move than other units. As your state the difference far is only 6% so their far DPS on the move is not really that special.

You are correct to point DPS retention and that is why I pointed it out also in my previous posts.

Why do you only point out the far DPS difference?
Their close moving DPS is 44% higher than Penals', I'd say this is pretty special, while retaining a vastly better DPS after model drops. But I'll move away from the Penal point since I don't see a reason to use Penals as a reference.
To the highlighted point: Normal squads in that function lose between 40-50% (sometimes even more) of their DPS across all ranges on the move. PFs lose 25-30% of their static DPS. Only Shocks achieve this, but even then only on the close range with heavier losses mid and far (not that these ranges really mattered, but still). But if we need a completely different class of units that is meant to do heavy damage close range which to justify PFs moving DPS, this should be a clear sign that PFs need changes, also regarding their DPS.

Phrase the issue as you want: Too high DPS concentration so that model drops are not punished, too high standard moving DPS: PFs do too much damage on the move for various reasons.

PF are not the topic either.
What has been argued is that the MOD team should have for foreseen the issues with PF and they should be nerfed:

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see 90% DPS on the move units is pretty stupid and when they're picked every game maybe there's an issue."

What I have pointed out is that is not the on the move performance the issue (since it similar to Penals) but the design so fixing PF might not be a simple as it looks at first glance.

The claim was that balance team did not care enough if issues exist outside of high level games with taking PFs as an example (no one has seriously complained about Penals for quite a while now). While I agree that PFs have multiple issues, the comparison to Penals still does not make sense. Those squads, especially Penals, fight in completely different army compositions and even face different enemies.


Off topic from our discussion:

PFs need a REAL weakness. They literally are a complete squad. Acceptable static DPS at all ranges, good to very good moving DPS, very good DPS retention, grenade, snare, even a utility flare. Decent RA and reinforcement cost. The only "bad" thing about them is a relatively mediocre mid range DPS, but that is not an issue due to their mobility.
This squad needs more punishment for losing models. Afaik they have their own G43 version: Make it shittier but give them 4-5 of them. Or just nerf their RA, even if reinforcement costs have to get a bit cheaper. There must a some decision making for leaving cover and pushing in, but currently there is none. That's what makes them so blobbable.

PFs need a REAL weakness.

Their weakness is the fact that they suck ass in early game, but in teamgames its less noticable, but its still true.

Whole concept of "suffer early, kill later" was flawed from the beggining. If they were at least partly better then volks early then their G43 could have been toned down, but as it stands right now it would be unfair to nerf G43 without giving any early game buffs in return, since there would be 0 point of getting them over volks, exept maybe for snare.

Their powerspike is pretty much the single reason why they are not overlapping with volks to begin with, since you can rely less on elites using them.

Their weakness is the fact that they suck ass in early game, but in teamgames its less noticable, but its still true.

Whole concept of "suffer early, kill later" was flawed from the beggining. If they were at least partly better then volks early then their G43 could have been toned down, but as it stands right now it would be unfair to nerf G43 without giving any early game buffs in return, since there would be 0 point of getting them over volks, exept maybe for snare.

Their powerspike is pretty much the single reason why they are not overlapping with volks to begin with, since you can rely less on elites using them.

That not a real weakness since it applies to several units. Grens, Guards, Paratroopers are mediocre to bad without their upgrades. They are designed to be upgraded which allows opponent to make decisions on how to counter. Yet PF also get added utility which allows mixing with VG early to work around their "weakness" and similar cost allows OKW to completely forget about VG later.

Also according to some forum members, OKW is designed to upgun to Obers as the game progresses. Not having to do that is a massive strength by itself.

i disagree. the community balance team has done a decent job so far, considering the constraints they had to deal with, and hiring someone from the team goes to show that relic is willing to learn from their past mistakes. that alone gives me hope that the chaotic mess that was coh2 at launch won't repeat itself.

as for the good ol' 1v1 vs 4v4 balance discussion: while i do agree the game should be balanced across all game modes, 1v1 should (and always will) have priority. because, let's face it, this and maybe 2v2 is where the game is truly competitive and where it matters most.

I hope coh3 has game mod modifiers that allow different units to have different stats due to game mode. Would make balancing 1v1 and 4v4's much easier.

Whole concept of "suffer early, kill later" was flawed from the beggining.

Coh3 seems to be fixing this btw, with their new unit upgrade mechanic that changes the base unit type when upgraded e.g. gren to pgren

I hope coh3 has game mod modifiers that allow different units to have different stats due to game mode. Would make balancing 1v1 and 4v4's much easier.

I'm disagree because Game mechanic will messed up and very hard to learn and play.

I hope coh3 has game mod modifiers that allow different units to have different stats due to game mode. Would make balancing 1v1 and 4v4's much easier.

While this would fix the balance issues, I hope they'll find a different solution. Since no stats are communicated and the mechanics are fairly complex for the average player, it would be stupid to have units all work slightly differently between modes as well.

I think most issues are fixable by map design and potentially a better unit upgrade system

That not a real weakness since it applies to several units. Grens, Guards, Paratroopers are mediocre to bad without their upgrades. They are designed to be upgraded which allows opponent to make decisions on how to counter.

Thats not true. Guards, grens and paras become significantly better with weapon upgrades, but they are not weak without them considering timings. PF in early game is objectively the weakest inf in the game considering their price.

Yet PF also get added utility which allows mixing with VG early to work around their "weakness" and similar cost allows OKW to completely forget about VG later.

Yeah but why? I mean you either go full house PF or 1 Volk (for sandbag) and 3 PF. There is no reason to mix volks with PFs like what so ever, simply because you will end up with a handicapped army anyway.
The only somewhat realistic scenario is 3 volks and 1 PF later upgraded with Schrecks maybe. Ofcouse exluding situations where OKW go full retard and gets like up to 5 inf squads.

Also according to some forum members, OKW is designed to upgun to Obers as the game progresses. Not having to do that is a massive strength by itself.

This is actually funny question what is easier to deal with PF blobs or Obers. As I was saying previously obersts are uttery retarded unit, expecially in teamgames. Because the only justification of its overpowered nature - the shit DPS scaling of Volks past mid game.

I bet PFs will become meta after the Summer Patch. It is a great mainline, but
a) you can't go mechanized with it
b) you need to forget about muni spending for a bit.
yes, if you open with PFs you are vulnerable early on, but you still can play it very safe and don't get into trouble. Once you get the upgrade you can get into town.
Some people must be smoking something strong if they think PFs are "OK". They might be the best mainline after the sandbag nerf.

Thats not true. Guards, grens and paras become significantly better with weapon upgrades, but they are not weak without them considering timings. PF in early game is objectively the weakest inf in the game considering their price.


Yeah but why? I mean you either go full house PF or 1 Volk (for sandbag) and 3 PF. There is no reason to mix volks with PFs like what so ever, simply because you will end up with a handicapped army anyway.
The only somewhat realistic scenario is 3 volks and 1 PF later upgraded with Schrecks maybe. Ofcouse exluding situations where OKW go full retard and gets like up to 5 inf squads.


This is actually funny question what is easier to deal with PF blobs or Obers. As I was saying previously obersts are uttery retarded unit, expecially in teamgames. Because the only justification of its overpowered nature - the shit DPS scaling of Volks past mid game.

Assault Guards and Airborne Guards without upgrades are literal penal squad levels of damage at CP2, reg guards are penal with 2 PTRS so yes they are weak for their timings. They are literally designed to be upgraded. Paras get slightly better guns and 1 more man than rifles but cost significantly more and come at CP3. At that point your vetted Rifles would be stronger to significantly if they have Bars so the only point in buying them is to upgrade them.

Your are vastly exaggerating how weak PF are to start the game, both Isildur and Kimbo used a 2VG/2PF opening against USF and both won decisively. They did it in the AECOH tournament, which leads me to believe that these ELITE players thought that the "weak" start was worth it for later gains.
EDIT: Rewatching, they both also upgraded their PF squad first my guess being other than DPS the extra 7 sight helps immensely when screening for the FlakTrack.

Truthfully, I find Obers easier to deal with as a T1 Soviet player and USF player. I can focus down Ober squads and if caught out of position they have no snare. However it is impossible to focus down PF blobs due to the way the unit DPS is constructed along with extra long snare and sight.

I bet PFs will become meta after the Summer Patch. It is a great mainline, but
a) you can't go mechanized with it
b) you need to forget about muni spending for a bit.
yes, if you open with PFs you are vulnerable early on, but you still can play it very safe and don't get into trouble. Once you get the upgrade you can get into town.
Some people must be smoking something strong if they think PFs are "OK". They might be the best mainline after the sandbag nerf.

The problem is that they're not WEAK ENOUGH without their upgrades early game.1v1 OKWvSOV with T1 penals will win against PF.1v1 Penals will win against PF in a straight up fight, but it's not bad enough for you to get pushed off the map for using inferior inf early on.If you play defensive and survive the early game long enough to get upgrades and vet you will r**e penals and they have no counterplay to that unless they have a sniper/armor advantage.