Login

russian armor

Balance Wehrmacht vs. US

Balance Wehrmacht vs. US
Option Distribution Votes
3%
10%
23%
43%
21%
Total votes: 185
Vote VOTE! Vote ABSTAIN
14 Jul 2014, 16:40 PM
#1
avatar of Z3r07
Donator 11

Posts: 1006

simple question.
14 Jul 2014, 17:00 PM
#2
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

It's bad.

The early game is just too easy for the Americans. As the Americans you can go for 3-4 rifles, followed up by a powerful lieutenant, into AA halftrack. Alternatively you can go 3 rifles, lieutenant, 50 cal, AA halftrack.

As the Ostheer you need about 600 extra manpower to counter this due to the strength of the rifles+lieutenat + teching costs to get to the Pak40.
14 Jul 2014, 17:06 PM
#3
avatar of Romeo
Honorary Member Badge
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1970 | Subs: 5

And the Ostheer totally destroy the US once they have a tiger. Weak early game, strong late game. I think some units could stand to be tweaked, but I don't think the balance particularly favors either side.
14 Jul 2014, 17:06 PM
#4
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 236

Aweful, especially in team games. My god is the balance aweful. 1v1's meh idk.

Even OKW have a tough time with the US in the early game tbh, even with having the werfer early in the game.
14 Jul 2014, 17:10 PM
#5
avatar of VindicareX
Patrion 14

Posts: 312

The fact that you need an AT gun at ~7 minutes into the game puts a severe manpower shortage on a faction that desperately needs combined arms to stand a chance against riflemen. Meaning the need for early pak gun makes it far more difficult to get enough infantry out to handle the superior riflemen. Your grens don't stand a chance in hell and you need MGs to control the rifles (meaning you must play defensively as to not let them get flanked: this defensive play is very map dependent.
14 Jul 2014, 17:19 PM
#6
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Jul 2014, 17:06 PMRomeo
And the Ostheer totally destroy the US once they have a tiger. Weak early game, strong late game. I think some units could stand to be tweaked, but I don't think the balance particularly favors either side.


Unlike the Soviets, the Americans can get both a main battle tank and a tank destroyer from the same tech structure. You can easily pump out a Sherman after your strong early game, and have enough resources for tank destroyers to deal with the tiger.

Only the Tiger ace can be a big thing for USA to deal with, because of the +10 range, sight, instant blitz and TWP. Jacksons have no issues dealing with a standard tiger.
14 Jul 2014, 17:22 PM
#7
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

Ok, nerf lieutenant, AA halftrack but give Pershing in late game and I'm cool.
Still, Rifle cannot be nerfed. They are in most cases the only infantry USF have so they need to stand in late game also.
As Ost I just use Assault Grens and that's all. They are very effective vs rifle.
14 Jul 2014, 17:32 PM
#8
avatar of CookiezNcreem
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 3052 | Subs: 15

Nerfing the AA Halftrack into oblivion would go a very long way.


The rest of the matchup is balanced,and tipped toward OST late game for reasons mentioned above.

Its just that damn AA Halftrack messes up the early game so bad.
14 Jul 2014, 17:40 PM
#9
avatar of Snipester
Patrion 39

Posts: 102

Go Sniper -> Gren -> Gren -> HMG -> T2 -> PAK
OR
Sniper -> Gren -> Gren -> Gren -> HMG -> T2 -> PAK
(Just an extra Gren, but can delay your PAK vs. early HT)

I have found this works pretty well against early rifles. It's very micro intensive because of how vulnerable snipers are, but I've had 50+ kill snipers in a couple of games.

The US doesn't really have any counters for the Sniper until vehicles come out. Finally, a use for the German Sniper?

I can't recommend more than one MG42 against the US (and that's after you have several Gren squads up) because they're more of a liability at the moment.

Your key focus should be keeping your sniper alive. Seriously, that's it. Keep Grens in green cover around your Sniper and let the HMG cover your flank. You force the US player to make a choice between trying to kill the Sniper or engaging your troops, and set it up so that he loses with either decision he makes, i.e., he will take a lot of losses chasing the Sniper and will be forced to retreat, or he will engage your troops and will take attrition from the Sniper.

Of course, I don't like that success vs. the US without the Assault Grenadier Commander relies on such a high risk unit, but if you do it properly it can work. It can also be easier or harder depending on the map, which sucks, but that's just the way it goes.

Also, it's especially important you keep Grens near your Sniper if he goes Mechanized Commander (be ready to Faust) because he's going to make that Sniper a top target with a Dodge.

That being said, I'm still not particularly happy about the current Wehr/US matchup because certain things like double HT are borderline exploitative and still need fixing.
14 Jul 2014, 17:49 PM
#10
avatar of akula

Posts: 589

this matchup is to be addressed in the next balance patch :)
14 Jul 2014, 17:50 PM
#11
avatar of CookiezNcreem
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 3052 | Subs: 15

Go Sniper -> Gren -> Gren -> HMG -> T2 -> PAK
OR
Sniper -> Gren -> Gren -> Gren -> HMG -> T2 -> PAK
(Just an extra Gren, but can delay your PAK vs. early HT)

I have found this works pretty well against early rifles. It's very micro intensive because of how vulnerable snipers are, but I've had 50+ kill snipers in a couple of games.

The US doesn't really have any counters for the Sniper until vehicles come out. Finally, a use for the German Sniper?

Your key focus should be keeping your sniper alive. Seriously, that's it. Keep Grens in green cover around your Sniper and let the HMG cover your flank. You force the US player to make a choice between trying to kill the Sniper or engaging your troops, and set it up so that he loses with either decision he makes, i.e., he will take a lot of losses chasing the Sniper and will be forced to retreat, or he will engage your troops and will take attrition from the Sniper.

Of course, I don't like that success vs. the US without the Assault Grenadier Commander relies on such a high risk unit, but if you do it properly it can work. It can also be easier or harder depending on the map, which sucks, but that's just the way it goes.

Also, it's especially important you keep Grens near your Sniper if he goes Mechanized Commander (be ready to Faust) because he's going to make that Sniper a top target with a Dodge.

That being said, I'm still not particularly happy about the current Wehr/US matchup because certain things like double HT are borderline exploitative and still needs fixing.


Like i said,its a balanced matchup honestly until that aa halftrack comes flying in reverse through the fog of war blasting your sniper to pieces at max range on retreat and then mowing down the gren squad that dare tries to fire a faust
14 Jul 2014, 17:52 PM
#12
avatar of Romeo
Honorary Member Badge
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1970 | Subs: 5



Unlike the Soviets, the Americans can get both a main battle tank and a tank destroyer from the same tech structure. You can easily pump out a Sherman after your strong early game, and have enough resources for tank destroyers to deal with the tiger.

Only the Tiger ace can be a big thing for USA to deal with, because of the +10 range, sight, instant blitz and TWP. Jacksons have no issues dealing with a standard tiger.


That's not true, jacksons have plenty of issues dealing with a standard tiger. A sherman stands no chance. I'll admit that it's possible for three (maybe even two) jacksons to beat a tiger, if properly used. Which means that the deciding factor was player skill
raw
14 Jul 2014, 17:54 PM
#13
avatar of raw

Posts: 644

Keeping a single jackson in a game where a tiger eventually rolls up the field from behind is madness in itself, try 3.

I doubt there are more than a handful of people that are able to do that.
14 Jul 2014, 18:04 PM
#14
avatar of Snipester
Patrion 39

Posts: 102

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Jul 2014, 17:52 PMRomeo


That's not true, jacksons have plenty of issues dealing with a standard tiger. A sherman stands no chance. I'll admit that it's possible for three (maybe even two) jacksons to beat a tiger, if properly used. Which means that the deciding factor was player skill


If you're having trouble with supported Tigers, that's understandable. The US should have trouble with them considering their strength in the early and mid game. If you are having trouble with unsupported Tigers, you need to work on your positioning and kiting.
14 Jul 2014, 18:09 PM
#15
avatar of dasheepeh

Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1

the balance breaker is the US halftrack. Im for putting it in another tier or..hell i dont know. Its just so difficult to balance it without overnerfing it. It certainly does need to come later.
14 Jul 2014, 18:11 PM
#16
avatar of Sarantini
Honorary Member Badge
Donator 22

Posts: 2181

I dislike the idea of a faction's strong early game being "balanced" by a weak lategame. The more players the faster the game transitiotns into the lategame, thus making the US very weak in teamgames and very strong in 1v1s.

The US and Wehr had this dynamic in vcoh and in teamgames at lower skill you couldnt compete with all the prevetted tanks at some point
and
14 Jul 2014, 18:18 PM
#17
avatar of and

Posts: 140



If you're having trouble with supported Tigers, that's understandable. The US should have trouble with them considering their strength in the early and mid game. If you are having trouble with unsupported Tigers, you need to work on your positioning and kiting.


How do you intend to kite someone who does not intend to follow you? Once you're in the late game, US got no chance of winning back map control.

The strong early game, weak late game is a horrible and frustrating design. It needs to go ASAP.
14 Jul 2014, 18:21 PM
#18
avatar of Snipester
Patrion 39

Posts: 102

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Jul 2014, 18:18 PMand


How do you intend to kite someone who does not intend to follow you? Once you're in the late game, US got no chance of winning back map control.

The strong early game, weak late game is a horrible and frustrating design. It needs to go ASAP.


I don't enjoy it either but that's just the way it is at the moment.
14 Jul 2014, 21:22 PM
#19
avatar of Romeo
Honorary Member Badge
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1970 | Subs: 5



If you're having trouble with supported Tigers, that's understandable. The US should have trouble with them considering their strength in the early and mid game. If you are having trouble with unsupported Tigers, you need to work on your positioning and kiting.


That's exactly what I'm saying. It's not a matter of game balance. I agree that some units need to be tweaked, but currently a more skilled Ostheer player will defeat a less skilled US player, and vice versa.
14 Jul 2014, 21:27 PM
#20
avatar of Bidet

Posts: 9

this poll can't be faire because there more than 80% of german player on this forum
0 user is browsing this thread:

Livestreams

United Kingdom 304
Peru 25
New Zealand 7
unknown 3
United States 1

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

951 users are online: 951 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49107
Welcome our newest member, Falac851
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM