allies tank spam problem

allies tank spam
need more balance,because:
some guys just building 4 tank hunter, 8 greyhound
other guy build 9 light tank and just atacking our base and we cant countering. im building maruder or other stugs but they are so slow
how we can counter this we have pop limit but they dont have also they using rangers with anti tank bazoka
they dont focusing stars just focusing our base so we are kill their all tanks 4 times but again again they atacking and dont stoping..
also if we build panzer4 or other tanks our pop limit gone..

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/2322236944764519131/66C65B34B22B1BCA8ABD9D36D585D21D247198F0/

https://ibb.co/hYsh1dz

coh3stats.com shows that axis pretty much always have a higher winrate in 2v2 on average over the last month, so seems like a massive l2p issue on your part.



Also, activate unique player colours already if you're playing a teamgame, jeez

I mean the numbers are pretty clear, Axis are in the advantage this patch

Donno, does not look imbalanced to me.
Its closer to perfect balance than we ever had in CoH history.

Donno, does not look imbalanced to me.
Its closer to perfect balance than we ever had in CoH history.

That barely gives us any real detail tho, as you urself pointed out at one point (i think)

At best you can use it dispel extreme generalizations like the one OP is making here

I mean if you remove Advanced Inf/Coastal, im pretty sure USFs/Wehrs winrate plummets. At least in team games i think it would, i cant speak for 1v1. But US seems very strong 1v1 no matter what BG

"Closer to perfect balance than we ever had in CoH history" is complete nonsense. CoH2 2v2 has been that even in winrates for a few years now. And i doubt anyone would describe that game as well balanced

CoH2 2v2 has been that even in winrates for a few years now. And i doubt anyone would describe that game as well balanced

Huh? In CoH2 you've got a lot of people complaining about "abuse" and "op strats" on both sides, as in any PvP videogame. But as a matter of fact CoH2 is very balanced actually. Every single faction has at least one fulltryhard meta strat that is capable of beating every other strat from your opponent

Huh? In CoH2 you've got a lot of people complaining about "abuse" and "op strats" on both sides, as in any PvP videogame. But as a matter of fact CoH2 is very balanced actually. Every single faction has at least one fulltryhard meta strat that is capable of beating every other strat from your opponent

You're literally typing out my exact point. Difference is i dont see that as balanced, even tho the winrates are even

The "OP strats" tend to involve ignoring most of a factions roster and focusing entirely on certain units. Either super strong individual ones in the case of coh2, or spamming certain ones in the case of coh 3

The factions likely arent balanced if ppl are doing everything they can to avoid certain units and abuse a few specific ones. Especially in games like coh2 and 3 where you have cmdrs/BGs, that can cover up for a factions stock weaknesses

That barely gives us any real detail tho, as you urself pointed out at one point (i think)

At best you can use it dispel extreme generalizations like the one OP is making here

I mean if you remove Advanced Inf/Coastal, im pretty sure USFs/Wehrs winrate plummets. At least in team games i think it would, i cant speak for 1v1. But US seems very strong 1v1 no matter what BG

"Closer to perfect balance than we ever had in CoH history" is complete nonsense. CoH2 2v2 has been that even in winrates for a few years now. And i doubt anyone would describe that game as well balanced

To add a bit more context, its all mp games for 2s(since OP posted screenshots from 2s) since 1.4 dropped, so games exclusively with current patch.

And while coastals definitely carry wehr hard, I don't think adv inf has same impact on USF as it adds more of what they already had.

Also, CoH2 is balanced around tight meta, you deviate, you lose.
CoH3 offers a variety of options, there is top level 1v1 meta, but other than that, you actually have options across all battlegroups and tiers.

In simpler words:
Units in CoH2 are balanced.

Units in CoH3 are balanced and useful/practical.

allies tank spam
need more balance,because:
some guys just building 4 tank hunter, 8 greyhound
other guy build 9 light tank and just atacking our base and we cant countering. im building maruder or other stugs but they are so slow
how we can counter this we have pop limit but they dont have also they using rangers with anti tank bazoka
they dont focusing stars just focusing our base so we are kill their all tanks 4 times but again again they atacking and dont stoping..
also if we build panzer4 or other tanks our pop limit gone..

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/2322236944764519131/66C65B34B22B1BCA8ABD9D36D585D21D247198F0/

https://ibb.co/hYsh1dz

Sefa you should learn how to play with axis. they are really overpowered at this patch.

as a british (ukf) i can't even fight against a unit of axis soldiers with 3 unit of boys. (with AT and soldier upgrades.)

as a USF, 3 axis half truck with fire sh.ttin soldiers enters the my base before I produce any anti tank weapons.

Sefa kankam boş yapmışsın. bir dahakine yapma pls.

Units in CoH3 are balanced and useful/practical.

Agree, there's a lot of aspects about CoH3 that I truly appreciate.

Now if only teamgames wouldn't just be about forward reinforcement and spamming light + medium tanks and throwing everything onto the VPs, I'd actually like the game as a whole

Now if only teamgames wouldn't just be about forward reinforcement and spamming light + medium tanks and throwing everything onto the VPs, I'd actually like the game as a whole

Doesnt this contradict what you're agreeing with?

Team game meta feels extremely stale and not diverse at all

Calling units "balanced and useful/practical" is not all that accurate imo. Many of them are too useful, to the point of being cheesy

I do think most of the cheesy ones are vehicles, which is blown out of proportion by the bad movement changes, but still

I do think most of the cheesy ones are vehicles, which is blown out of proportion by the bad movement changes, but still

I think the main reason is not the new movement buff but rather how vehicles in CoH3 are not or barely affected by the TTK changes.

Infantry battles can take forever, meanwhile most vehicles shred through infantry with CoH2 TTK or even faster

I think the main reason is not the new movement buff but rather how vehicles in CoH3 are not or barely affected by the TTK changes.

Infantry battles can take forever, meanwhile most vehicles shred through infantry with CoH2 TTK or even faster

Mmm yeah thats valid. I guess i just find the movement factor more annoying, mostly cuz of how snares work in coh3 (which i actually liked better than coh2 up until last major patch)

Doesnt this contradict what you're agreeing with?

Team game meta feels extremely stale and not diverse at all

Calling units "balanced and useful/practical" is not all that accurate imo. Many of them are too useful, to the point of being cheesy

I do think most of the cheesy ones are vehicles, which is blown out of proportion by the bad movement changes, but still

Can't really throw all team games into a single bag.

4v4 always was and always will be hmg spamming artyfest.

3v3 also tends to develop a frontline with arty after early game.

2v2 is much more diverse.

Winrate has nothing to do with balance since matchmaking can always compensate the lack of balance with ELO.

Not that I'm saying the balance is off in 2vs2 but the argument isn't valid.

Winrate has nothing to do with balance since matchmaking can always compensate the lack of balance with ELO.

Not that I'm saying the balance is off in 2vs2 but the argument isn't valid.

Not at the edges of the ELO ranking, where there are no other players to match against. The question is rather if the smaller deviation in WR is true or statistical fluctuation. Also, the question is which part of the game you're comparing. If the game has one strong meta build, you're not comparing the overall faction, but just the capability to replicate that build. Which is especially true at higher ELO. Low ELO is much more diverse in play.

Not at the edges of the ELO ranking, where there are no other players to match against. The question is rather if the smaller deviation in WR is true or statistical fluctuation. Also, the question is which part of the game you're comparing. If the game has one strong meta build, you're not comparing the overall faction, but just the capability to replicate that build. Which is especially true at higher ELO. Low ELO is much more diverse in play.

Not really. At top edge, you'll get 2, 3 or even 4 times faster games as Allied. So you'll probably keep losing vs same level players but you'll always fall back on lower level players and have more games vs them (since they are more numerous) making up for your initial lose.

So at top level, I'd say winrate is even less relevant to check as a metric once the meta is settled. As Allied you have access to more games so statistically more win than Axis.
Or said otherwise the game tend to balance itself as quantity vs quality while the only metric we, as players, care about is quality.

Not really. At top edge, you'll get 2, 3 or even 4 times faster games as Allied. So you'll probably keep losing vs same level players but you'll always fall back on lower level players and have more games vs them (since they are more numerous) making up for your initial lose.

So at top level, I'd say winrate is even less relevant to check as a metric once the meta is settled. As Allied you have access to more games so statistically more win than Axis.
Or said otherwise the game tend to balance itself as quantity vs quality while the only metric we, as players, care about is quality.

But those Axis players at the top edge don't stop playing just because some equally skilled Allied player has downranked. They also keep playing - and winning - if their faction is OP, therefore creating a >50% win rate.

Example: Assume we're looking at a player using a weak faction that is currently being rated correctly for his skill.
1. Mid-ELO: You just lose ELO until you play against less skilled players using a stronger faction, which overall leads to similar strength -> =50% WR
2. Low-ELO: You lose ELO. However, there is no one with similar ELO to get matched with, therefore you get matched with the lowest possible ELOs on the opponent's factions. Since those factions are stronger, you will lose more often than win -> <50% WR for the weaker faction
3. High-ELO. You just lose ELO until you play against less skilled players using a stronger faction, which overall leads to similar strength -> =50% WR for YOURSELF. The opponents which play the strong faction now have no one at their ELO to get properly matched with, so they get matched with the highest possible ELOs on the other faction. Since their owm factions are stronger, they will win more often than lose -> >50% WR for the stronger faction.


The search times for Allies are not longer because of ELO issues, but because there are apparently more Axis in queue that will never find an opponent.

But those Axis players at the top edge don't stop playing just because some equally skilled Allied player has downranked. They also keep playing - and winning - if their faction is OP, therefore creating a >50% win rate.

Example: Assume we're looking at a player using a weak faction that is currently being rated correctly for his skill.
1. Mid-ELO: You just lose ELO until you play against less skilled players using a stronger faction, which overall leads to similar strength -> =50% WR
2. Low-ELO: You lose ELO. However, there is no one with similar ELO to get matched with, therefore you get matched with the lowest possible ELOs on the opponent's factions. Since those factions are stronger, you will lose more often than win -> <50% WR for the weaker faction
3. High-ELO. You just lose ELO until you play against less skilled players using a stronger faction, which overall leads to similar strength -> =50% WR for YOURSELF. The opponents which play the strong faction now have no one at their ELO to get properly matched with, so they get matched with the highest possible ELOs on the other faction. Since their owm factions are stronger, they will win more often than lose -> >50% WR for the stronger faction.


The search times for Allies are not longer because of ELO issues, but because there are apparently more Axis in queue that will never find an opponent.

They don't stop playing = they spend half their playing time in the lobby waiting for a match.

The number of game played is the same for Allied and Axis.
Each game provides 1 winner and 1 loser.

Top Axis players can win all their game, that wouldn't change much because they play less games in average. Top Allied players (which are usually the same players) can lose all their games vs Top Axis players, the superior number of games available vs lower skilled players they going to win will make it up for the W/L Ratio, which will be in favor for axis, but not that much.

Now take in condition the human factor, top players avoiding themselves on ranking matches, the fact that they aren't numerous per definition and the high probabily they are unmatched in their respective time slot etc... Let's also add that if a faction is underpowered or harder to play, mostly only good players are going to play it on regular bases.

So now I'm going back to my initial statement that W/L ratio between faction isn't an indicator of balance on itself and even more at high level.

CoH2 history and its 40-60% faction win rates at times would disagree here.

Perfect balance will never be achieved in asymmetrical game, but we're closest we've ever been across all 3 games so far.

Anti-all blobs and super heavy IWIN tanks not existing really contribute here in my opinion. Slower pace and lack of vehicle inf crush on non pinned infantry is a significant factor as well.

Overall, in CoH3 we have actual Italian forces, yet there seems to be very little cheese, even FRPs are very manageable(once coastals get across the board nerfs)

From what I've heard from 3vs3 and 4vs4, balance isn't there at all. But I'm not going to check it myself for my own sanity.
1vs1 seems to be too also too plagued by cheese at the moment to really see if the game is balanced.

Winrate has nothing to do with balance since matchmaking can always compensate the lack of balance with ELO.

Not that I'm saying the balance is off in 2vs2 but the argument isn't valid.

CoH2 history and its 40-60% faction win rates at times would disagree here.

Perfect balance will never be achieved in asymmetrical game, but we're closest we've ever been across all 3 games so far.

Anti-all blobs and super heavy IWIN tanks not existing really contribute here in my opinion. Slower pace and lack of vehicle inf crush on non pinned infantry is a significant factor as well.

Overall, in CoH3 we have actual Italian forces, yet there seems to be very little cheese, even FRPs are very manageable(once coastals get across the board nerfs)