Faction Imbalance

Axis has ALWAYS been more heavily played. It is not indicative of balance and never has been. Likewise when I played DoW2, the playerbase was skewed as such: 35% Space Marines, 27% Chaos Space Marines, 22% Imperial Guard 12% Eldar, 3% Orks 1% Tyranids.

All factions were viable in competitive play, but most pro players favoured races like Eldar and Orks. Despite being only a pittance of the overall population in terms of faction popularity. Before Imperial Guard were added, close to 85% of the playerbase was just space marines or their spiky variants.


In terms of actual balance, from my perspective in 1v1 every faction is competitively viable. In team games I have less experience, but I tend towards any perceived imbalances being a result of bad play more than anything else.

The problem is the design of the factions.

Whermacht is designed well - its thought out - and with the exception of a useless T4 - its well rounded.

OKW is a pure blob - especially with the ammo increase - its dull but the blob wins all.

The problem with the Allies:

RU - Terrible design, so badly designed they continued to buff the faction just so people will play it.

US - As others have said - its a 15 min faction - when the real armor rolls out, the US has no counter (unless you're a pro - and even then you'll be working 10 times as hard).

Thats the problem in a nutshell really.

Well written.

Every time I play Soviets I feel that the huge lack of core infantry really kills the 'fun' of this faction. Guard Infantry and Shock Troops are both doctrinal so its hard to play a commander you want when it doesn't have something you need (Partisan and Industry are good examples here). The lack of options means you have to pick a good commander or else it will be significantly disadvantaged without the units you need for the game.
- The way Soviets are built too, is pretty bad. Its almost always better to skip some tech tiers and go straight for MGs and Tanks. What people don't realize with Katyushas is it costs an additiona 120 fuel to go for T-34s afterwards so if they have Katyushas then they don't have T-34s.

Likewise, USF lack late game options. I've written this in another post but USF players need to keep their tanks alive to be able to combat the more heavily armoured tanks like Tiger and KT. If they lose one then they will be in a slighty worse position. Axis don't have to micro as many units which makes it easier to play.

I think someone wrote this in another post but Axis is really easier to play than Allies. To play Allies you need to have love for the factions and dedication to stick with them because they are harder and lack options.

Axis has ALWAYS been more heavily played. It is not indicative of balance and never has been. Likewise when I played DoW2, the playerbase was skewed as such: 35% Space Marines, 27% Chaos Space Marines, 22% Imperial Guard 12% Eldar, 3% Orks 1% Tyranids.

All factions were viable in competitive play, but most pro players favoured races like Eldar and Orks. Despite being only a pittance of the overall population in terms of faction popularity. Before Imperial Guard were added, close to 85% of the playerbase was just space marines or their spiky variants.


In terms of actual balance, from my perspective in 1v1 every faction is competitively viable. In team games I have less experience, but I tend towards any perceived imbalances being a result of bad play more than anything else.

Also IG player here. I think the reason why people preferred Space Marines and CSM is because there were less units and less models to control.

Orks and Tyranids are built so you have to control a lot more squads than the other races (Eldar are kinda inbetween Guardian Blob OP).

Also IG player here. I think the reason why people preferred Space Marines and CSM is because there were less units and less models to control.

Orks and Tyranids are built so you have to control a lot more squads than the other races (Eldar are kinda inbetween Guardian Blob OP).

That's true. Best thing I ever did for my micro was learn to play Tyranids against Tex.

I don't think there's a massive skill differential between the Coh2 factions however. Lethality and squad count is pretty even for all sides. You do tend to see lower skill players lean towards blobbing or weapon teams strategies though where micro is simplified.

1v1 the balance is pretty good, but the larger the team games get the way more broken everything gets due to the map and faction design. Team games are all about blobbing and camping. Which is just naturally what Germans are better at due to better support weapons, artillery and then with a much stronger late game. Not only is it stronger, it's also much much easier. German tanks are strong anti everything, Soviet and American tanks are fragile, delicate and finesse units that are easy to lose with a single mistake. (SU-85 + Jackson.)

In 1v1's there is room for flanking, outmanoeuvring and outplaying your opponent. Teams games more than anything are just which teams blob and camp the fuel points, and them able to call in the most tanks.

If team game maps were actually good and properly designed, team games would be much better. For example Moscow Outskirts or Duclair from Coh1 work very well because they are properly sized. They are big enough to prevent camping and allow room for flanking and outplay, but the rectangular nature means the retreat timing and distance isn't too punishing.

okay ive cleaned up the off topic discussion. none of this thread is about (including but not limited to) which side is more evil, how many war crimes one nation committed or how bad one political ideology is.



Topic:
why you think there is more people playing axis. (not to debate the politcs of ww2.)

1v1 the balance is pretty good, but the larger the team games get the way more broken everything gets due to the map and faction design. Team games are all about blobbing and camping. Which is just naturally what Germans are better at due to better support weapons, artillery and then with a much stronger late game. Not only is it stronger, it's also much much easier. German tanks are strong anti everything, Soviet and American tanks are fragile, delicate and finesse units that are easy to lose with a single mistake. (SU-85 + Jackson.)

In 1v1's there is room for flanking, outmanoeuvring and outplaying your opponent. Teams games more than anything are just which teams blob and camp the fuel points, and them able to call in the most tanks

i'm not sure about germans being uber powerful in team games. even 4v4, a well coordinated 3 sov and 1 merica team i would argue is the strongest combo at the moment. followed by 2 wehr and 2 okw, but, that can screw you over if it chooses to set up double okw/wehr on some maps.

Balance aside, Germans are so much easier, more forgiving and less punishing. At top tier play balance might be okay, but Allies are so much more challenging.

Not just you, terrible faction design IMO. You're basically in mid game before you can build anything but riflemen. I feel they tried to solve this by giving you some 0 CP commander options (Assault Engineers, Jeep) but being that they are 0 CP units they are marginally effective early game and ineffective mid-late game. This also makes most of the only 6 US commanders lackluster at best.

US is so boring to play maybe just for me...

I think more people play axis because they are easier to play as and have an advantage in team games

Balance aside, Germans are so much easier, more forgiving and less punishing. At top tier play balance might be okay, but Allies are so much more challenging.

Yes of course, because is the same losing the AA as OKW, and losing the AA as US...

Axis are easier to win with in team games because their late game is far more impressive. Assuming they can hang on (which at low skill levels is easy) they get, ounce for ounce, better tanks.

The only tank I currently fear when playing as Axis is the Jackson, and only until I can get a tank destroyer (elephant or Jagdtiger) on the field.

I hate playing Soviets now. It feels like a chore to baby sit conscripts until you get so late in the game they cannot do anything and they melt away in moments. More importantly they suffer from a complete dependence on commanders.

Americans are great until the late game begins to appear and they do not have a break through tank available. Artillery could take this place, but it is not powerful or plentiful enough to do so now. Either their artillery needs to be better or they need a tank to break open the door and allow their faster armor to flank in and deal damage. As it stands now as the late game progresses they either build up a critical mass and win before the late game, or they lose armor slowly until the game ends with their complete destruction.

Germans are always more popular in WWII strategy games. WWII fans are often German enthusiasts, not in the sense that they support the bad things they did, but they think there is a certain "coolness" about all the German tanks, aircraft, and their military accomplishment. They're sort of underdogs in WW2.

I'm not sure how Soviets hold up lategame but USF has a *very* low margin for error. All the stock units are fragile and a single mistake will often lead to their destruction. You "only" lose 110-135 fuel, yet it is much more likely for you to use this compared to a German using a Tiger or Panther in comparable circumstances. Tank battles where you're using 4 vehicles, all of which are fragile, are extremely micro intensive and small bugs like the Jacksons charging headlong into the thing you tell it to attack instead of kiting it at max range will often result in the death of that tank.

ill just sayit: its probably all of the reasons you mentioned here

ppl prefer faction A over faction B because...

... its easier to play faction A
... its not as easy as playing faction B
... faction A looks awesome (look at my sexy units, arent they cute??)
... the faction design is more fun
... they feel inclined to despise the other factions due to some backwards political ideology
... lolwutijustplayallofthem

In 1v1's there is room for flanking, outmanoeuvring and outplaying your opponent. Teams games more than anything are just which teams blob and camp the fuel points, and them able to call in the most tanks.

If team game maps were actually good and properly designed, team games would be much better. For example Moscow Outskirts or Duclair from Coh1 work very well because they are properly sized. They are big enough to prevent camping and allow room for flanking and outplay, but the rectangular nature means the retreat timing and distance isn't too punishing.

This! +1000.

It's the maps more than anything that spoil the game. Semoisky... Why Relic, why!? Why not Duclair??? Why give us a tiny choke point right outside our base, why!?

A lot of the fun of CoH comes from sneaking into a great position (True sight really ads to the fun in coh2) then attacking behind support weapons for a good flank.

Unfortunately, most of what I see now is a slug fest. Face to face hammering from the front. Not much opportunity to sneak around and get behind in a clever way. Either slug it out toe-to-toe blob v blob or camp and slug it out with indirect fire vs indirect fire.


Only a few maps offer an opportunity for dynamic play. I really think that bigger, wider maps would reduce the impact some of the "OP" units have on the game and thus reduce that OP feeling.

This! +1000.

It's the maps more than anything that spoil the game. Semoisky... Why Relic, why!? Why not Duclair??? Why give us a tiny choke point right outside our base, why!?

A lot of the fun of CoH comes from sneaking into a great position (True sight really ads to the fun in coh2) then attacking behind support weapons for a good flank.

Unfortunately, most of what I see now is a slug fest. Face to face hammering from the front. Not much opportunity to sneak around and get behind in a clever way. Either slug it out toe-to-toe blob v blob or camp and slug it out with indirect fire vs indirect fire.


Only a few maps offer an opportunity for dynamic play. I really think that bigger, wider maps would reduce the impact some of the "OP" units have on the game and thus reduce that OP feeling.

But larger maps would mean that your Grenadier/Conscripts will only reach a place after walking for half a day. CoH1 your troops were always running while in CoH2 your troops are like taking a stroll through Russia/Belgium.

Soviets are easier in 1v1 than Ostheer/OKW. It's all about maxim or m3/flamers with guards or shocks. You can rely on a lot of cheese/abuse tactics at mid-high level matches. Plus their call ins are superior (ISU, IS2, t34/85... ).

Ostheer is a harder faction overall. Although most players rely on the broken strategy of only getting tigers, if players don't choose this path it's much harder.

In DoW 2 I played Imperial Guard and Eldar because I liked them. Everything else was not important.

In CoH2 I play Ost because I am not a fan of US, and I play Soviets when I have to just so I could play with some mates since they are mostly playing allies.

Being hard or easier to play has no meaning to me, I just follow my personal preference and try to enjoy the game.