OP vs ez mode?

Axis units are more efficient than their allied counterparts most of the time. Since 2013 players have been successful at petitioning Relic to change the game, than to adapt. That's why we have situations where the Brumbar can bounce off all manner of ordinance, 2 shot wipe squads, then back off to get prepared. It's analoug in the US, the Scott, has constantly gone back and forth between OP and UP, yet still never retaining the speed the brumbar commands in evacuating whole armies from an area. Panthers can tank through nearly any defense in the game to reach high value targets.

You can do things as axis that would lose you the game as any faction of allies.

Just wanted to start a discussion on the perception of balance where the difficulty of a faction is the driving force for common views on how each unit performs.

From my browsing on this forum and the COH2 subreddit, I think a fairly common sentiment is that both axis factions (more so Ost, but OKW is not far behind, at least as game modes get larger) are fairly braindead to play atm. The overall design of these factions, in addition to unit philosophy and performance is what makes this seem like a fact. At the core of it, it's a lot easier to micro one very powreful unit (axis) than several weak units (allies). Additionally, axis is generally more forgiving now when it comes to losing units, since they have many backup tools that can help them stall back into the game.

When it comes to performance/cost, I don't think any faction is significantly more "OP" than another, but I think the reality of how immune a faction is to fuckups is what shapes perceptions of balance.

I think rather than discuss how to avoid making units OP, for COH3 we need to equally discuss how to make each faction relatively similar in simplicity of play, and not the huge gap like there is between axis and allies in both coh1 and 2.

The simplicity of play is a minor issue imo and trying to achieve will probably lead is making faction too similar and the game feel more like Age of empires than anything else.

When it comes to team games thing become more complicated since synergy between factions becomes an issue.

Generally speaking Axis faction have good synergy since OKW are good at early aggression while Ostheer are good at defending.

When someone designs factions one should also consider how something will effect team games. For instance the UKF M3 resupply HT was not really an issue for UKF player or UKF teams but it did become an issues when other factions become part of the team and especially Soviet. There were solution around but the would require creating a unified system when it comes to slot weapons that was simply not there.

Anybody who unironically complains about inherent imbalances in factions falls into either two categories:

• Started COH2 way too late to miss the long times where Allied factions (postlaunch UKF, ClownSniper SOV, Flame Penal SOV, Pathspamming USF etc etc) and so is shocked at how difficult allied factions are perceived.
  
• Is a plain noob and uses imbalances as a coping mechanism.
  

The only real problem with balance is the terribly broken MM matchmaking. Faction design is broken for so long I don't even remember when it was good.

Anybody who unironically complains about inherent imbalances in factions falls into either two categories:

• Started COH2 way too late to miss the long times where Allied factions (postlaunch UKF, ClownSniper SOV, Flame Penal SOV, Pathspamming USF etc etc) and so is shocked at how difficult allied factions are perceived.
  
• Is a plain noob and uses imbalances as a coping mechanism.
  

The only real problem with balance is the terribly broken MM matchmaking. Faction design is broken for so long I don't even remember when it was good.

The point of this thread is that as balance (as in, appropriate unit performance is converged) the skill gap between factions becomes more pronounced.

As a shitty example, two T-34/76 in terms of performance/cost is every bit as good as a panther it should try to match, but using a single panther is much easier, not too mention that, at least when it comes to fighting armor, 76s are a terrible RNG cannon against anything higher than a 222.

every faction has brain dead tactics like blobbing and Mg spam etc, its not something thats unique to axis. I dont agree with your statement saying axis squads are more forgiving because axis usually have smaller squad sizes, making them more venerable to being wiped.

You need to define what you mean by 1 powerful unit and weaker allied units? what units exactly.

In team games this a is a trend ive noticed, in low level games axis teams win more but in higher level games where you tend to have organised teams, allies are winning more.

The two examples you give are pretty much exclusively viable as axis. MG spam is already an unviable/cheesy strat, but if it's going to work, it's only going to work with Ostheer, because all other stock MGs are garbo.

Continuing on that point, it's much more viable to blob as axis because you won't be facing a wide-arced, fast suppressing MG to shut it down.

Smaller squads have perks - among others, building combat, less units in the open to get suppressed, etc.

Would you rather have 2 t34/76 or one panther, micro-wise?

Honestly these all sound like arguments of a low-level player, no offense.

This issue was addressed long time ago with Relic acknowledging Axis factions were in essence easier to play but Allied having an higher celling resulting in having ELO matches quite balanced but high level tournament favoring Allied. I remember there was a post from Relic dedicated to this matter and a couple of patches aimed to correct it.

That was long time ago because then the modding team took the decision to change that to where we are today. Now we have what the OP describes where Grenadiers have late game equal survivability than 5men squads while being less exposed to damage and having superior support tools and tanks around them.

I am not quite sure which time frame you are talking about. I played CoH2 only against bots for quite a while and did not care much about unit balance, so I probably missed it.

But you are raising two in my opinion different issues. There is no connection between Relic acknowledging an issue and the balance team having their vision.
Acknowledging an issue is not fixing it. Judging by my memory and Relic's general behaviour in balance patches, I highly doubt they ever fixed the issue of different micromanaging levels. Especially since this Soviets=cheap an numerous, Ostheer=expensive and outnumbered was Relics own design. Axis having high value/high population units compared to Soviets was also never fixed under Relic's patches.

The Grenadier issue you bring up is exaggerated in my opinion, but is also a singular issue. No doubt late game Grenadiers are less micro intensive than Riflemen, but at the time the damage reduction was introduced there was also no doubt that Grenadiers were very weak in the late game and needed a buff in that direction. Anyway, I don't think this would be a larger issue if Axis tanks required more micro, but they don't. And that is what my suggestion was aiming at: If your infantry is already "low maintenance", your tanks should require more input.

I am not quite sure which time frame you are talking about. I played CoH2 only against bots for quite a while and did not care much about unit balance, so I probably missed it.

But you are raising two in my opinion different issues. There is no connection between Relic acknowledging an issue and the balance team having their vision.
Acknowledging an issue is not fixing it. Judging by my memory and Relic's general behaviour in balance patches, I highly doubt they ever fixed the issue of different micromanaging levels. Especially since this Soviets=cheap an numerous, Ostheer=expensive and outnumbered was Relics own design. Axis having high value/high population units compared to Soviets was also never fixed under Relic's patches.

The Grenadier issue you bring up is exaggerated in my opinion, but is also a singular issue. No doubt late game Grenadiers are less micro intensive than Riflemen, but at the time the damage reduction was introduced there was also no doubt that Grenadiers were very weak in the late game and needed a buff in that direction. Anyway, I don't think this would be a larger issue if Axis tanks required more micro, but they don't. And that is what my suggestion was aiming at: If your infantry is already "low maintenance", your tanks should require more input.

I don't remember the exact timeframe either but yes it occured, they took actions to reduce the skill gap required to play every faction at the same level and I can tell you it brought result because it was my feeling at that time.

Grenadier's late game issue is a symptome of balance failure. Ostheer was designed around weak mainline infantry and strong late game tanks to where we are today: strong mainline infantry and strong tanks. And if my memory is correct this change was applied because arty shells wiped them with ease. So yeah today I can't remember the last time I saw a ML20 or priest on 2vs2 vs Ostheer but what I know is that tanks have harder time dealing with them while Axis armor still fence Allied's one like butter.

I don't remember the exact timeframe either but yes it occured, they took actions to reduce the skill gap required to play every faction at the same level and I can tell you it brought result because it was my feeling at that time.

Grenadier's late game issue is a symptome of balance failure. Ostheer was designed around weak mainline infantry and strong late game tanks to where we are today: strong mainline infantry and strong tanks. And if my memory is correct this change was applied because arty shells wiped them with ease. So yeah today I can't remember the last time I saw a ML20 or priest on 2vs2 vs Ostheer but what I know is that tanks have harder time dealing with them while Axis armor still fence Allied's one like butter.

The strength of the ostheer is versatility, not raw power. The okw relies on raw power, but doesn't do nearly as well. And no, grenadiers are not a balance issue.

I don't remember the exact timeframe either but yes it occured, they took actions to reduce the skill gap required to play every faction at the same level and I can tell you it brought result because it was my feeling at that time.

The question is not if it brought result, the question is if they really fixed it. How I understand your post is that Relic initially screwed up, then fixed it, then balance team screwed it up again. But to be honest, judging by Relic's patch and balance history as well as what they allowed and not allowed for community patches, I highly doubt Relic really fixed the issue. *Some* improvement, surely, but not more than that. Ostheer units were always designed for highly specialized and powerful units. Tanks like the Panther and P4 were always higher in population than their Soviet/Allied in general counter parts. This means that Axis always had less units on the field, even during Relic patching. This is obviously only one factor for micro, but it is also meant to illustrate why I don't believe Relic ever fixed it.

They didn't even allow the introduction of artillery like the land mattress to stock UKF although this is one of the most obvious issues that UKF has. If they stick that much to their old designs, I don't think they ever turned their initial design upside down.

Grenadier's late game issue is a symptome of balance failure. Ostheer was designed around weak mainline infantry and strong late game tanks to where we are today: strong mainline infantry and strong tanks. And if my memory is correct this change was applied because arty shells wiped them with ease. So yeah today I can't remember the last time I saw a ML20 or priest on 2vs2 vs Ostheer but what I know is that tanks have harder time dealing with them while Axis armor still fence Allied's one like butter.

OP's post is not about the balance of one unit. In my eyes the buff was generally a good one, but that topic is very very specific and not really the scope of this thread.
Judging by PageP's stats, the even buff to Grenadiers is not an issue. 1v1 is slightly biased towards Allies, 2v2 and 3v3 overall pretty balanced, 4v4 is biased for Axis. If Ostheer were OP due to both having both good infantry and tanks, we should see it in all modes. But we only see it in 4v4, which can be either due to the maps or the player pool.
I obviously have no more data than anyone else, but I assume it is the player pool. 4v4 is the mode that is being played by your average Joes that dig up CoH2 for a game or two on the weekend. So Axis factions are either synergize better once you reach 4 players, or they are easier for beginners.

And I assume that micro is probably the biggest factor here, because that's what limits beginners the most: Being able to control and coordinate multiple units at once.

The question is not if it brought result, the question is if they really fixed it. How I understand your post is that Relic initially screwed up, then fixed it, then balance team screwed it up again. But to be honest, judging by Relic's patch and balance history as well as what they allowed and not allowed for community patches, I highly doubt Relic really fixed the issue. *Some* improvement, surely, but not more than that. Ostheer units were always designed for highly specialized and powerful units. Tanks like the Panther and P4 were always higher in population than their Soviet/Allied in general counter parts. This means that Axis always had less units on the field, even during Relic patching. This is obviously only one factor for micro, but it is also meant to illustrate why I don't believe Relic ever fixed it.

Balance isn't an on/off technology. Relic did acknowledge the skill gap issue between faction and aimed toward resolving it by reducing the skill requirement for some faction and increasing it for other and at least taking it in account every time they release a new patch . This got lost in translation years later with the succession of community members doing the balance and I my opinion especially (but not only) around the last new commanders patches and those after. What's more A-move than Grand offensive commander?

OP's post is not about the balance of one unit. In my eyes the buff was generally a good one, but that topic is very very specific and not really the scope of this thread.
Judging by PageP's stats, the even buff to Grenadiers is not an issue. 1v1 is slightly biased towards Allies, 2v2 and 3v3 overall pretty balanced, 4v4 is biased for Axis. If Ostheer were OP due to both having both good infantry and tanks, we should see it in all modes. But we only see it in 4v4, which can be either due to the maps or the player pool.
I obviously have no more data than anyone else, but I assume it is the player pool. 4v4 is the mode that is being played by your average Joes that dig up CoH2 for a game or two on the weekend. So Axis factions are either synergize better once you reach 4 players, or they are easier for beginners.

And I assume that micro is probably the biggest factor here, because that's what limits beginners the most: Being able to control and coordinate multiple units at once.

PageP's stat don't say anything about balance because you don't know the real gap between players, it just shows the win/lose ratio, the rest is interpretation. If you want to go that way you'll have to demonstrate that TOP200 faction A = TOP200 faction B but you can't.

say about balance. Can We see USF, OKW and UKF in final GCS 3 ?.
funny enough Balance team tend to use big tournament as a benchmark of balance.
Now what, Soviet and Weh all the time..

Balance isn't an on/off technology. Relic did acknowledge the skill gap issue between faction and aimed toward resolving it by reducing the skill requirement for some faction and increasing it for other and at least taking it in account every time they release a new patch . This got lost in translation years later with the succession of community members doing the balance and I my opinion especially (but not only) around the last new commanders patches and those after. What's more A-move than Grand offensive commander?

As I said, I highly doubt that Relic had a better balance towards micro than the balance team had. The balance team has done a LOT towards consistency. Vehicles for example usually got armor reduced and HP increased. These changes also reduce the overall micro load.
However, I'd rather move back to the overall topic of how micro affects balance in a not-so-obvious way. We can surely have different opinions who is the scapegoat of the current issue, in the end it is futile since Coh2 does not get updated anymore and we'll have to wait for CoH3 to maybe do a better job.

PageP's stat don't say anything about balance because you don't know the real gap between players, it just shows the win/lose ratio, the rest is interpretation. If you want to go that way you'll have to demonstrate that TOP200 faction A = TOP200 faction B but you can't.

I know that, and yet it is still the best data we have. Definitely better than purely anecdotal evidence.
But still, my last point stands regardless of win rate data: Axis factions are easier to micro, because they have less units on the field. The current mix of cost/population and performance is very well on point for most units in CoH2 thanks to the community patches, but having to take care of more squads means every unit will be managed less efficiently, and that's were late game Axis shines a bit brighter than late game Allies.

say about balance. Can We see USF, OKW and UKF in final GCS 3 ?.
funny enough Balance team tend to use big tournament as a benchmark of balance.
Now what, Soviet and Weh all the time..

From what I remember, Sanders always said tournaments should be taken with a big grain of salt for balance discussions. Which is exactly on point.
The fact that Soviets and Ostheer dominate tournaments is still Relic's fuck up. Especially USF and UKF play very linearly and predictably with little deviation and easy exploits. Especially if your opponent can counter pick a faction.

Axis factions are easier to micro, because they have less units on the field. The current mix of cost/population and performance is very well on point for most units in CoH2 thanks to the community patches, but having to take care of more squads means every unit will be managed less efficiently, and that's were late game Axis shines a bit brighter than late game Allies.

Honestly its not the case, especially considering that pretty much everything, besides armor has more or less same pop-cap.

Axis inf is easier to micro, simply because besides sturmpios\ass.grens\pios axis squad can and should engage from mid\long distance. Meaning that you just need to be in cover, you dont have to push taking losses doing so and considering your movement carefully. This is main difference which makes Allies inf play harder, because you are not only preferably should be at close\mid range, but you should also understand each engagement, when to push\stay\flank\back off, its much easier for axis inf, especially in teamgames, where its generally hard to avoid face to face firefights at long ranges.

On top of that we should remember that Ost mainline and OKW mid\late game main AI unit are LMG based units, and LMGs are kinda OP in CoH2 because they focus fire models.

As for armour, only pretty much Panther\Brummbar require less micro then other stock tanks, because their armour\HP allowing them to take more beating. Could be applied to P4J, but P4J is badly designed RNG machine, it could be cosplaying panther armour or be an overpriced P4. Imo its should have been a T34\85 clone - slightly more armour and 800 HP to make in consistent.

As I said, I highly doubt that Relic had a better balance towards micro than the balance team had. The balance team has done a LOT towards consistency. Vehicles for example usually got armor reduced and HP increased. These changes also reduce the overall micro load.
However, I'd rather move back to the overall topic of how micro affects balance in a not-so-obvious way. We can surely have different opinions who is the scapegoat of the current issue, in the end it is futile since Coh2 does not get updated anymore and we'll have to wait for CoH3 to maybe do a better job.

The various balance teams, I could trust MrSmith in his ideal of balance, not Sanders. To me the balance was great around the moment Relic let the first balance team take over, then it went down.

I know that, and yet it is still the best data we have. Definitely better than purely anecdotal evidence.
But still, my last point stands regardless of win rate data: Axis factions are easier to micro, because they have less units on the field. The current mix of cost/population and performance is very well on point for most units in CoH2 thanks to the community patches, but having to take care of more squads means every unit will be managed less efficiently, and that's were late game Axis shines a bit brighter than late game Allies.

Major Arnold Ernst Toht and his fellow Nazi friends would have to have a word with you about the best data you have and the assumption you're doing with.

From what I remember, Sanders always said tournaments should be taken with a big grain of salt for balance discussions. Which is exactly on point.
The fact that Soviets and Ostheer dominate tournaments is still Relic's fuck up. Especially USF and UKF play very linearly and predictably with little deviation and easy exploits. Especially if your opponent can counter pick a faction.

From years of experience, we started seeing USF/OKW vanish from final tournament games when he and his fellow mates took the lead on the balance. Last USF stand was with the WC51 but it was an anomaly. Evidently their approach of balance unit per unit base and not faction wide cannot work since 2 of 5 factions are designed with gaps but it is easier to say it's Relic's fault cuz Relic stopped communicating.

They've just abused the Khrushchev letters method.

say about balance. Can We see USF, OKW and UKF in final GCS 3 ?.
funny enough Balance team tend to use big tournament as a benchmark of balance.
Now what, Soviet and Weh all the time..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy2gacDWvY0

As allies in team games I max out my map vetos and can safely see when a game is gg. Plus if MM decides you need more than one USF ally its going to be a struggle.

As axis I play every map and know that I have the non-doc tools I need to pull off a come back if I play right. Plus it just feels more...chill in general.

As allies in team games I max out my map vetos and can safely see when a game is gg. Plus if MM decides you need more than one USF ally its going to be a struggle.

As axis I play every map and know that I have the non-doc tools I need to pull off a come back if I play right. Plus it just feels more...chill in general.

Maybe as wehr, but urban maps and okw don't mix well.

Maybe as wehr, but urban maps and okw don't mix well.

sturmpios are decent early game and stukas can decimate any units caught in tight streets.

sturmpios are decent early game and stukas can decimate any units caught in tight streets.

Yeah, no, veto