The Problem of Axis in Teamgames
- This thread is locked
Posts: 2053
Posts: 2070
That may be so,but discussion will be more realistic if established norms are taken on board. The game is currently - and historically - balanced on 1 v 1 and 2 v 2.
i agree, game devs have to start somewhere, and assuming that the mainstay of competition is 1v1, then it should be balanced there first. I just wished there was an easier way to make balance changes that would be great for 1v1 all the way to 4v4
Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9
i agree, game devs have to start somewhere, and assuming that the mainstay of competition is 1v1, then it should be balanced there first. I just wished there was an easier way to make balance changes that would be great for 1v1 all the way to 4v4
I agree
But with ESL looming, there is no reason to think the thrusters will be rediverted.
Posts: 976
Those would do the bring the balance more even by having global modifiers affecting the units in need of adjustments for those play mode.
what do you think ?
Posts: 395
I think the real problem is the maps. Conceptually, Axis are two very defensive factions where as Allies are very mobile and very aggressive. In 1v1's or on some 2v2 maps such as Moscow Outskirts Allies are able to make use of their aggressive and mobile units. However due to all of the chokepoint, cluttered and blobby maps that occupy 3v3, 4v4 and the majority of 2v2 maps, it means that flanking and outmanoeuvring your opponent is impossible so it's all about blobs vs blobs, support weapons verse support weapons, tanks vs tanks over the exact same points.
Axis by design have better defensive infantry (LMG Grens, Obers) better blob control with MG teams, better mortars and artillery, better AT guns and stronger tanks. The strengths of Soviets and Americans can be used in a 1v1 to flank, outmanoeuvre and outplay your opponent, but in the awful blob/camp/chokepoint maps of team games there just simply isn't any potential or possibility for that to happen. There isn't enough skill differentiates in team games, and especially just the unit design is so much easier and forgiving for axis especially in the late game.
For example looking in a non doctrinal call in sense, you've got the SU-85's which are super finesse because of their lack of rotatable turret and with no infantry damage. Jacksons are incredibly fragile and die very easily and also with no infantry damage. One small minor mis-plays and you can lose these dedicated tank destroyers incredibly easily. Especially when you factor is Panzerfausts/AT Grenades penetrate SU-85's and Jacksons essentially 100% of the time, compared to AT Grenades penetrating P4's and Panthers basically 50% of the time.
Axis tanks however you've got Panzer IV's, Panthers. Both are very mobile, very strong, very powerful, have great infantry damage and have Blitzkrieg to keep them alive. Where as what do Jacksons and SU-85's have going for them? Range. That's it, range.
But it's very hard to make use of the range against tanks supported by Shreks or Paks. And because it's team games with so many more people there's always going to be blobs of Shreks or Paks supporting tanks.
It's also impossible for Soviets to support their tanks with AT infantry because it just doesn't exist, and Americans have bazookas which work okay against medium tanks, but as soon as any heavy tanks come in such as a Tiger/Elefant Bazookas are pretty worthless. Not only do they have less damage/penetration than Shreks, but also Axis armour have so much more health and armour.
To allow Allies to be more aggressive and outplay the maps need to be more open, bigger and wider. Maps can't too big though, otherwise retreat timers are too punishing. Maps for team games should be rectangular with bases spawning on the long edges so distance to and from bases isn't that high, but the map is wide enough so there's lots of room to prevent choke point and clutter. The example to look at is Moscow Outskirts, it's a great 2v2 map.
TL;DR Allies are balanced in 1v1 because of the map design allows for outplays and use of aggressive play style. Due to the choke points, clutter and so many more units in team games, the awful map design of the majority of team game maps needs to be fixed and opened up to stop rewarding camping and blobbing so much, which conceptually favours axis play style compared to Allies.
The only reason why Allies are currently able to win team games is because of how ludicrously overpowered the ISU-152 is.
This man explains what I was originally trying to say. He gets it. Could you do some videos on this please and try to draw more attention?
Posts: 738
Of course once the game gets to the point where OH/OKW have multiple Tigers, Jagdtigers and stukas there is no coming back, but they are still very vulnerable past the 20min mark if you have an organized team.
Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9
I feel like allies are stronger now in 3vs3/4vs4 than they have ever been, the blitz truck nerf and panther cost increase has a lot to do with that and has made axis somewhat counterable late game. While Soviets I find are quite strong, Americans though are defiantly underpowered in 3vs3/4vs4 thanks to their lack of heavy armour, artillery (the priest is nowhere near as effective as the B4) and general teiring structure that makes early MG/Mortar cheese to lock down fuel points non-viable.
Of course once the game gets to the point where OH/OKW have multiple Tigers, Jagdtigers and stukas there is no coming back, but they are still very vulnerable past the 20min mark if you have an organized team.
^^
Replay please.
Posts: 738
^^
Replay please.
If we play any games tonight or tomorrow I will upload, but all of my replays from last week are out of date. Most games we play end up in our dedicated B4 player smashing medic trucks and any repairing armour with precision strike, preferably on open maps like steppes someone will be industry for sniper/T-34 cheese and the last two guys will have heavy armour doctrines like shock rifle.
Posts: 38
Posts: 440
Of course that is too much work for the Devs who just know how to add crap to the game but not actually make any of it work.
Posts: 308
Getting the Jagdtiger, Kingtiger, and other heavies take a long time to get. (CP and fuel wise) If they are desperately saving up fuel to get them, you can easily beat them early on.
When my friends and I play as allies (were ranked 4), we just have to beat them early on. If late game does come, don't waste munis on Zooks or jacksons (depending on the map). Just use mark target, is2s, isus and Easy 8s.
Posts: 308
Allies cant win in 3v3+, however Axis can lose game by playing bad and making a lot of mistakes.
Jagdtiger which is cheap (yes, boys and girls, you heard it right, cheap. 290fuel-80 for t3 which no sane person playing breakthrough should ever build is 210, 50 fuel less than kt. With fuel conversion and some cashes breakthrough player can build puma and stuka before jagd arrives) is bane of current 3v3 and 4v4 balance. And it is not that hard to keep jagd away from danger considering its range and ability to shoot through buildings.
Command's panther 35 muni mark target also very funny ability which let shreckvolsblob oneshot heavy tanks. Did i mention zeroing arty? He-he.
Honestly, i have no idea how to balance 3v3 and 4v4 again without destroying 1v1.
How is your team having trouble as allies. You got Noob Elite (-Unicycle-), the man who has been banned since he was using map hacks. Plenty of people currently watch his replays, it's quite astonishing that he can predict every flank and position his mg at the right time even though he can't see the enemy because of the fog of war.
Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2
I really think a lot of you guys are over exaggerating. I agree that it's easier to play as axis due to their late game advantages. But the allies make up for it during the early game. I mean seriously. We get superior support weapons (Sovs-Maxim/Snipers/Zis) and superior infantry (riflemen).
Getting the Jagdtiger, Kingtiger, and other heavies take a long time to get. (CP and fuel wise) If they are desperately saving up fuel to get them, you can easily beat them early on.
When my friends and I play as allies (were ranked 4), we just have to beat them early on. If late game does come, don't waste munis on Zooks or jacksons (depending on the map). Just use mark target, is2s, isus and Easy 8s.
Yes i do believe there are a lot of exaggeration in this thread. But i have to agree with the general sentiment.
The overall design that axis are just better late game is a slipery slope. To an extent it is fine but when playing as allies against evenly matched team (3v3+), it is like a ticking time bomb and that sucks.
This makes any mistakes made by allies at every stage of the game matter more because an early game mistake means you lose the only advantage and during late game, you need every bit of your army to deal with obers and super tanks.
P.s. jagdtiger really relic? Shooting through walls + extra damage + extra range + armor of modern tanks + a gigantic health... did we really need more super tanks? Bring ele back to the realm of relevance and banish this shit back to oblivion.
Posts: 308
Double (or more) OKW teams are "easy" too handle. As you said, the faction has a lack of certain units.
I see OKW as a faction for camping a fuel point, defending it with a couple of subpar AT units (schrecks, racketen, Schwerer Panzer Truck, etc), and trying to harass enemy points with a lot of elite infantry while waiting for the almighty KT to appear for a final push.
The issue is that Ostheer makes up for all the things OKW lacks, and then what it was a desesperate fight for holding map until the KT arrived, turns into a impenetrable wall of MG42, Paks, elite infantry, etc, against which allies can only hold until midgame.
Is then when panzerschrecks really shine, because they are always the decisive factor in the fights between heavy tanks. So, even in the case you have an ISU-152, an IS2 o plenty of Jacksons so fight their KT, Jadgtiger and Elefant; volks and pgrens will always incline the escale to the axis side, giving extra damage from the sides.
Allies have really a lot of trouble dealing with armor lategame. They don't have specialized AT infantry, nor AT emplacements like Pak43, their AT guns are overall inferior to the axis ones, and finally their Tank Hunters lack armor.
It is not strange that axis dominate lategame with these odds against.
The impenetrable wall of mg42... The machine gun is not only buggy (deploys the wrong way and reload glitch) but it has a slow aim time (not traverse). I find the mg42 too be good but no where as good as the mg34. Elite Infantry? You mean Grens that my riflemen can get easy vet from them. They're good with the lmg42, but upgraded riflemen can still take them on.
Pshrecks shining? Against Heavy Tanks. No. Against medium armor, I agree. IS2s can still squad wipe Pgrens. ISU, maybe, if you flank it and manage to kill it's supporting infantry. You're definitely right about the jacksons and other medium Armour.
Allies do have a hard time against axis, but that's only if you allow them to get those tanks! I like the standard ZIS more than a pak but a vetted pak is by far superior.
Posts: 308
Yes i do believe there are a lot of exaggeration in this thread. But i have to agree with the general sentiment.
The overall design that axis are just better late game is a slipery slope. To an extent it is fine but when playing as allies against evenly matched team (3v3+), it is like a ticking time bomb and that sucks.
This makes any mistakes made by allies at every stage of the game matter more because an early game mistake means you lose the only advantage and during late game, you need every bit of your army to deal with obers and super tanks.
P.s. jagdtiger really relic? Shooting through walls + extra damage + extra range + armor of modern tanks + a gigantic health... did we really need more super tanks? Bring ele back to the realm of relevance and banish this shit back to oblivion.
I agree that axis have a superior late hence why I think they are the easier faction to win as. If they didn't have these late game advantages then the game would be absolutely unbalanced. But to win as allies even if you mess up, you have to play dirty. Which means FHQ, mark target, lots, lots of mines and ISU.
Posts: 971
The impenetrable wall of mg42... The machine gun is not only buggy (deploys the wrong way and reload glitch) but it has a slow aim time (not traverse). I find the mg42 too be good but no where as good as the mg34. Elite Infantry? You mean Grens that my riflemen can get easy vet from them. They're good with the lmg42, but upgraded riflemen can still take them on.
Pshrecks shining? Against Heavy Tanks. No. Against medium armor, I agree. IS2s can still squad wipe Pgrens. ISU, maybe, if you flank it and manage to kill it's supporting infantry. You're definitely right about the jacksons and other medium Armour.
Allies do have a hard time against axis, but that's only if you allow them to get those tanks! I like the standard ZIS more than a pak but a vetted pak is by far superior.
I was talking from a soviet PoV mainly.
Maxims have the deploy bug too, and for controlling blobs lategame Mg42 and Mg43 are way better.
Against soviets, gren+lmg are only kept at bay by shocks, and that is using a lot of micro (playing with covers and smoke) to get at close range. They melt every other infantry unit.
Panzerschrecks are useful against all tanks. They are a determining factor in the fights between heavy tanks. I find really unbalanced that allied factions doesn't have any kind of decent AT infantry. If you see that the soviet player went to a Shocks' doctrine then you have nothing to fear from the allied infantry against your tanks.
Even Guards' button are easily cancelled by a smoke discharge that is even cheaper than the button.
Lastly, IS2 wiping squads is not common. ISU-152 obviously overperfom, but is the only thing that keep allies alive lategame, nerfing it whitout addressing before other aspects will throw allies to the pit in teamgames.
Posts: 647
I really think a lot of you guys are over exaggerating. I agree that it's easier to play as axis due to their late game advantages. But the allies make up for it during the early game. I mean seriously. We get superior support weapons (Sovs-Maxim/Snipers/Zis) and superior infantry (riflemen).
Getting the Jagdtiger, Kingtiger, and other heavies take a long time to get. (CP and fuel wise) If they are desperately saving up fuel to get them, you can easily beat them early on.
When my friends and I play as allies (were ranked 4), we just have to beat them early on. If late game does come, don't waste munis on Zooks or jacksons (depending on the map). Just use mark target, is2s, isus and Easy 8s.
superior support teams? apart from snipers, a well placed mg42 is difficult to dig out and every other support team just out performs soviet counter parts. pak is tons better than the zis who only has easily dodged barrage in place of half the AT dps and wehr mortar with its machinegun rate is just that much better. 120mm beats it but that is 400mp vs 240mp investment. mht is still amazing with its mobility and incendiary rounds.
maxim spam is an issue but a small one as long as people counter it properly. 1 or 2 mht shuts it down really hard. you can shell them and burn them out. 40+kills on the mht against a maxim player is quite common. and for okw, gang on him, coordinate with your ally and try to achieve indirect fire superiority. 1 goes stuka, another goes puma to guard it and give sight.
rifles being superior is also a myth. apart from m1919 lmg rifles, infantry are pretty balanced. grens have just as much chance to kill rifles at range and the early mg42 prevents rifles from getting too close, same with volks + sturms. also, grens and volks gets grenades without specifically spending resources for it. obers still shred everything.
Posts: 308
superior support teams? apart from snipers, a well placed mg42 is difficult to dig out and every other support team just out performs soviet counter parts. pak is tons better than the zis who only has easily dodged barrage in place of half the AT dps and wehr mortar with its machinegun rate is just that much better. 120mm beats it but that is 400mp vs 240mp investment. mht is still amazing with its mobility and incendiary rounds.
maxim spam is an issue but a small one as long as people counter it properly. 1 or 2 mht shuts it down really hard. you can shell them and burn them out. 40+kills on the mht against a maxim player is quite common. and for okw, gang on him, coordinate with your ally and try to achieve indirect fire superiority. 1 goes stuka, another goes puma to guard it and give sight.
rifles being superior is also a myth. apart from m1919 lmg rifles, infantry are pretty balanced. grens have just as much chance to kill rifles at range and the early mg42 prevents rifles from getting too close, same with volks + sturms. also, grens and volks gets grenades without specifically spending resources for it. obers still shred everything.
A well placed smoke nade will make the machine gun useless. A m3 scout car will make a mg useless. 2-3 shots with a sniper will make the mg42 retreat unless the opponent isn't paying attention. They're are plentiful ways to counter it even it's in a good position. Add the bugs (Deploying wrong way is more crucial to MG42 due to slow set up time)and you got yourself a gamble machine gun.
Paks being better than Zis3? At vet yes, due to target weak point. It isn't the pak's stats that's so good about, rather it's the low armour tanks that the allies have. Yes, it may have a slightly faster ROF but that's about it. I'll take the 6 man squad any day compared to the slightly faster rof. Mortars I never included in the list for a reason.
Yes, maxims have a skinnier arc and has the issue where it takes a long time to recrew it as it's retreating. It's overall better due to it's survivability, fast deploy time, and damage that it does to infantry. I prefer the maxim over the mg42 but I prefer the mg34 over the maxim.
"Rifles being superior is just a myth"....
From the stats: 0 Meters Range: Riflemen: 28.45 Grens: 23.67
10 Meters Range: Riflemen: 19.99 Grens: 17.09
20 Meters Range: Riflemen: 12.14 Grens: 13.2
30 Meters range: Riflemen: 9.64 Grens: 9.95
Very little difference DPS wise. But guess what, riflemen are a 5 man squad! Plus add a BAR in there and you can already outperform them. Before you say, "well upgrade grens to lmg42s". Ostheer is a munitions starved faction already. They need 222 upgrade in case, flamethrowers in case, teller mines in case or shrecks. Riflemen are superior, which is fine because they have a strong early game but a weak late game.
Please, look at the volk's dps and of course 2 squads will beat one riflemen... Obers are strong but they aren't that amazing anymore plus they come much later. By then your riflemen would be at vet 2 or upgunned with weapon upgrades.
Posts: 647
A well placed smoke nade will make the machine gun useless. A m3 scout car will make a mg useless. 2-3 shots with a sniper will make the mg42 retreat unless the opponent isn't paying attention. They're are plentiful ways to counter it even it's in a good position. Add the bugs (Deploying wrong way is more crucial to MG42 due to slow set up time)and you got yourself a gamble machine gun.
Paks being better than Zis3? At vet yes, due to target weak point. It isn't the pak's stats that's so good about, rather it's the low armour tanks that the allies have. Yes, it may have a slightly faster ROF but that's about it. I'll take the 6 man squad any day compared to the slightly faster rof. Mortars I never included in the list for a reason.
Yes, maxims have a skinnier arc and has the issue where it takes a long time to recrew it as it's retreating. It's overall better due to it's survivability, fast deploy time, and damage that it does to infantry. I prefer the maxim over the mg42 but I prefer the mg34 over the maxim.
"Rifles being superior is just a myth"....
From the stats: 0 Meters Range: Riflemen: 28.45 Grens: 23.67
10 Meters Range: Riflemen: 19.99 Grens: 17.09
20 Meters Range: Riflemen: 12.14 Grens: 13.2
30 Meters range: Riflemen: 9.64 Grens: 9.95
Very little difference DPS wise. But guess what, riflemen are a 5 man squad! Plus add a BAR in there and you can already outperform them. Before you say, "well upgrade grens to lmg42s". Ostheer is a munitions starved faction already. They need 222 upgrade in case, flamethrowers in case, teller mines in case or shrecks. Riflemen are superior, which is fine because they have a strong early game but a weak late game.
Please, look at the volk's dps and of course 2 squads will beat one riflemen... Obers are strong but they aren't that amazing anymore plus they come much later. By then your riflemen would be at vet 2 or upgunned with weapon upgrades.
smoke nades requires teching or shocks to counter mg42, like all mg, they shine when used at max range, firing from the fog makes mg42 very powerful. given the lack of sprint, it takes a while for rifles/shocks to get close on the mg42 even if they pop smoke. in the mean time, focus on the squads attempting to rush mg42s.
i'd be glad to make that trade with you. paks dont just have a slightly faster rof, it has a significantly higher rof that makes it does about 45% more dps than a zis. allied paper thin armour makes no difference when heavy tanks come into play. a zis will struggle against a tiger before the tiger gets behind it or slugs it out, but a pak have a pretty good chance of destroying an is2 due to its much higer firing rate.
the only reason why you prefer the mg34 is the insta pin which the mg42 cannot do, that arc trumps over maxim's arc anyday.
lastly, rifles. in the vacuum, grens < rifles. but ostheer t1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> USF t1. usf has only got rifles to count on, but ostheer has got mg42 to pin rifles down. you need to take advantage of this fact, before you go into unit stat differences. 3grens + 1 mg42 > 4 rifles, all unupgraded, even when bars are thrown into the picture, grens have lmg42 and it does not screw with the equation. bars need tech, while lmg42 are free with bp1 that unlocks even more units.
and volks, they are cheaper and equally durable. its a pretty even fight with rifles as long as sturmpios are there to keep rifles from closing in. mg34 in t1 @ 210mp is also a steal, okw has no issue against infantry at all.
Posts: 129
Surely we don't play the same game...
or you've been unlucky enough never to be "auto-matched" inside a good coordinated Allied team.
I'll never forget one game against some Allied pros, it was a 4 vs 4, and I suspect we were playin' against only 3 guys while the fourth just capped behind them with one squad and plotting something.
They were that good that we didn't even realise we were playin' vs 3 players only. They mostly focused on both fuels, denying it for the 60% of the game, but we held tight n' fought and "thought" we were ok. The game went on so far I managed to unlock the Tiger but still had no fuel for it but I thought to myself, soon we're goin' places lol, when other team mate deployed couple of PZIV's AND all of the sudden - blob of 10 or so tanks drove all over the map right into our base destroying eveything in it's path. I was like WTF.. I hardly managed to build one tank, my team mates only few mediums, and we weren't that much worse during the game, and all of the sudden they have 10+ co-ordinated tanks ready for ultimate push. It was literally mind blowing.. They fourth guy was obviously just making (russian) Shermans untill had had like 6-7 of them. And they other one called in the T34/85's and that was it.
Livestreams
24 | |||||
3570 | |||||
12 | |||||
11 | |||||
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.830222.789+36
- 2.561204.733+3
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.916404.694-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.721440.621+3
- 8.14758.717+1
- 9.17046.787-1
- 10.1019662.606+4
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger