What should Relic do to increase allies-players?

PD: if only we had a random army search button.

This would be awesome, but at the same time I feel like it would just be the alternate button for searching as allies, as the majority would mostly continue to search as Axis anyway. Nevertheless I would always use the random search button, as the overall balance doesn't affect my decision as to what I feel like playing when I hop on CoH2 (although Soviets are horribly boring now good God), but it comes down to how many are searching Allies/Axis.

Bottom line, add random search button please Relic.

What about a gun upgrade for the sherman like coh1, but you lose the ability to change rounds ( AT rounds only) and comes with a decent cost?

I actually liked the fuel upgrades (bars, sherman gun), but it seems Relic wants to get away from this.

I'd be in favor of it, though.

But that probably won't happen, so they need to make the AT/AP toggle more user friendly.

I don't know if anybody mentioned this here, but 90% searching axis is misleading. If you have around 6000 players online, and half of them plays online, that would mean that there are already at least 1500 playing axis and the same amount playing allies. From switching sides when there are too many axis players searching (% changes significantly when I switch from axis to allies) I am sure that there are less than 20 searching for 1v1 at the same time (I'd say even less than 10 most of the time). Even if there were 200 players searching ranked (all modes) and all of them were searching with axis, that would be 1700/3200, which is ~53% axis overall. If more than half of the online players actually play online and less are searching, you get even less %.

To your question: US is fine for me, but soviets should be redesigned to be less cheesie (to me winning with things like double/triple sniper into M3, guards and callins is just not that satisfying, because it is somehow MVGame). But I guess before that happens, hell freezes over.

edit: Another solution ignored by relic: search with random army!

How about we replace the 57mm AT gun with a 3" AT gun that costs more but is in the ballpark of the Pak40 for AT performance.

57mm AT gun then becomes an airborne exclusive unit.

M5's are sexy.



(soldiers for scale)

actually, US are fine, jacksons are very powerful, US are not inadequate in terms of anti tank weapons or late game power. though, they can do with a tiny help with sherman hp/armour upgrades.

i like the idea of them getting a non doctrinal US 3" AT gun with a slight cost increase to match other AT guns and the 57mm made exclusive to paras dropping anywhere with a crew.

the problem in team games arent king tigers/tigers. it is jagdtigers, elefants and other super long ranged units. effective allied non doctrinal anti tank options are armored and are severely outranged by jagdtigers and elefants and promptly destroyed once they hit the field. now without real anti heavy tank guns, germans heavies, infantry can go ahead and roll over allied infantry and whatever left over resistance from AT guns.

edited for GRAMMAR!

My feeling is since COH1 relic had a idea of design - that was working in COH1 but no more in COH2.

Having USF faction strong early game and poor late game, and Axis one's weak early game and strong late game is an issue in COH2. The issue lies in the fact, late game, if you play well as Axis you are rewarded by having the best infantry and best tanks. Playing well as USF isn't rewarding. You mustn't play well, no, you must play BETTER than your opponent to win the match.
And this is why many people prefer to play Axis, because you don't need to be better than your opponent, those tools Relic is giving you are already better so just use them normally, don't wast them and that's it, you don't even necessary need to take the initiative, just play on USF mistakes (because the USF player needs to take the initiative) wait 15 minutes while playing equal and you'll be rewarded in 80% of cases as the late game is for you.

This concept is balanced well at high competitive level because there, people wants to play better so USF isn't that much disadvantaged in hands of someone who know very well to use it. But in the average tier, people just don't care about being better, they may have 1 or 2 hours to play per day, even less (like me) and they just want to have fun and not being in a competitive mood in order to win a game in less than 20 minutes, or to loss 2 or 3 games so you play vs lesser skilled players and start winning games again.

I'll tell you a secret, but as USF player, I like to face Tiger and other big stuff because it's cool, you have to play well vs it, and killing those big units is rewarding a lot - flanking with jackson etc... Tigers, KT aren't the main problem. the problem is when they come, as USF you have already lost in 80% of time. So people complains about them because they are the kind of symbol of late game domination, when they aren't the issue because those units alone aren't dominating anything. They are dominating because of Axis powerful infantry that support them, Shreck + LMG in hands of Elite Infantry.

My understanding of the issue is:

Axis infantry shouldn't be that strong late game and Allied infantry should being less strong early game and really powerful late game. We should have a kind of reverse polarity.

Early game, Axis infantry should be strong.
Early game USF infantry should be average.

Mid game, kind of equal but mid tanks hit the field and see who is managing them better.

Late game, USF infantry should be as powerful as Axis one is today, but still only have mid tier tanks to support it.
Late game, Axis infantry should be weaker but with the support of heavy tanks make their job as support units.

So late game would be one side with a strong inf supported by average tanks vs strong tanks supported by average infantry.

Having USF faction strong early game and poor late game, and Axis one's weak early game and strong late game is an issue in COH2. The issue lies in the fact, late game, if you play well as Axis you are rewarded by having the best infantry and best tanks. Playing well as USF isn't rewarding. You mustn't play well, no, you must play BETTER than your opponent to win the match.

That is contradicting. Stronger early game of US vs weaker early game of axis would lead you to winning the game, if you play as good as your opponent does. In this scenario, you would only lose if you fail to use your strengths in the early game.

That is contradicting. Stronger early game of US vs weaker early game of axis would lead you to winning the game, if you play as good as your opponent does. In this scenario, you would only lose if you fail to use your strengths in the early game.

Hum... not. A strong early game make you domination the early game, not winning it instantly and this is exactly what's happening today. If you player Better, you'll probably make him surrender if you play as equal as him, you'll cap 70% of the map as the game is design for and he will have the resources to wait till late game with his elite infantry and big tanks.

As Axis player, you know the early game isn't favorable for you so you play safe, you do not need to be that aggressive and outplay him. And when come mid/late game, you still don't need to outplay him because your units are simply better now, elite infantry and best tanks on the field.

Everyone can feel when he has been outplayed. I'm feeling outplayed as USF when I lost early game-mid game (except when I give him the win by doing mistakes), not really when I lost late game, that just game mechanics.

I like the idea of giving soviets flexible initial tiering..t1 and t2 both available..but one lategame tiering.In return some of the cheese like maximspam and sniperspam be restricted.Give penals buff.Fix isu.

For americans i believe main issue is rifles only gameplay..wait for some more commanders.A rangers one.A commander with late game AT option other than E8- like a armor commander with a global sherman AT gun upgrade.Or one with a Heavy AT gun or sherman firefly call-in.Their stock 57 mm should get a buff too.In return tone down the 1919 long range dps and aa halftrack arrival time.They lose some of their early game thrashing potential and gain much better late game durability.

Its always funny when people think their own subjective view on the matchmaker % is some sort of indicator of faction preference, and even funnier when they try to argue balance from it.

Didn't think about if this would have any unwanted side-effects, just throwing this idea out there, add the, so wanted, RANDOM ARMY possibility and if you win, your rank increases by 15% more then it normally would and the opposite if you lose.

Sounds interesting!

Also speaking for myself;
I don't like soviets because they are so limiting. You'll rarely ever be able to build more than 2 tiers. Their commander dependance also adds to this feeling. I also find their stock units to be uninteresting compared to what you can get as call-ins. Gamplaywise they really bore me because you're bound to a handfull of strats if you wan't to win.

The USF on the other Hand I really like, but I think they still need some tweaking. Their AT-departement relies too heavily on Jacksons and I think their weapon unlocks also need some changes.

I really like the flexible design of the OKW and also think, that thy are the most interesting faction to play atm. They offer a variety of uniqe and strong units and have access to very diverse commanders.

Ostheer would probably be my favorite Faction if it wasn't for the inaccessebility of t4 and the low viabilty of t3. Unfortunately it's all about getting that Tiger out.

Of course I also prefer Axis because I'm a passionate Nazi

Random button would be good.

actually, US are fine, jacksons are very powerful, US are not inadequate in terms of anti tank weapons or late game power. though, they can do with a tiny help with sherman hp/armour upgrades.

i like the idea of them getting a non doctrinal US 3" AT gun with a slight cost increase to match other AT guns and the 57mm made exclusive to paras dropping anywhere with a crew.

the problem in team games arent king tigers/tigers. it is jagdtigers, elefants and other super long ranged units. effective allied non doctrinal anti tank options are armored and are severely outranged by jagdtigers and elefants and prompted destroyed once they hit the field. now without real anti heavy tank guns, germans heavies infantry can go ahead and roll over allied infantry and whatever left over resistance from AT guns.

+1

Its always funny when people think their own subjective view on the matchmaker % is some sort of indicator of faction preference, and even funnier when they try to argue balance from it.

Not only that, but the amount of fan boy hyperbole in this thread is hurting my brain.

The suggestions in the thread are quite dramatic. Give soviets some new commanders and the usf a Heavy tank then maybe some more players will go allies.

yeah pershing will definitely help. I think Soviet is just kinda boring for people to play, even for me

allies just need more late game options. not necessarily better tanks, but more options. after the mid game point i always get a feeling of "now what?". whereas with axis i get the feeling "ok call in panzer ivs, panthers, and tigers!"

The suggestions in the thread are quite dramatic. Give soviets some new commanders and the usf a Heavy tank then maybe some more players will go allies.

Soviets don't need new commanders. What they need is a funny infantry play.

Conscripts and penals should be changed someway to make the faction appealing.

My post is about large maps : 3vs3 and 4vs4

One of the big disadvantage of OKW is greatly mitigated when playing with a 1 or more Ostheer teammates. So they are a lot less vulnerable in the match first phase.

When Axis is 2 OKW and + 2 Ostheer : they build fuel caches and they bring Stuka a lot faster. (8-12 mins) or sooner. ( for normally good players)

Getting at the Stuka is nearly impossible at that stage for Allies... mines, packs, shrecks and bunkers... With the stukas, they rip all the at-gun or emplacements easily.


But for the Allies what advantages do they get when they mix ? An all Russians team won't missed Americans very much... But an all Americans team will sorely missed the Russians.

What do the Allies have for recon that is as good as the infra red half-track ?

Something must be done to bring back the fun (balance) and more people playing as Allies in the 3v3 and 4v4 automatch.

Maybe the solution would be to disable or reduce resources sharing that come from caches ? Or to disable caches ? in those modes of play.


Thank you !!!!

Comments ?

i don't know man. the future is bleak for 3v3 and 4v4