What should Relic do to increase allies-players?

allies need a complete faction redesign so they are more fun to play. spamming maxims or snipers and relying on call in infantry might be balanced but it sure is no fun. Maybe even make t3 and t4 both accessible
Giving USF a heavy tank in a doctrine would be a stupid fix, everyone would choose that doctrine and you end up the same as soviets. dont really know what to do with it
Factions with stock units should work in every mode.

allies need a complete faction redesign so they are more fun to play. spamming maxims or snipers and relying on call in infantry might be balanced but it sure is no fun. Maybe even make t3 and t4 both accessible
Giving USF a heavy tank in a doctrine would be a stupid fix, everyone would choose that doctrine and you end up the same as soviets. dont really know what to do with it
Factions with stock units should work in every mode.

I completely agree Sarantini! USF getting a nondoc Pershing will probably never happen because Relic and Sega need that $$$ from commander-specific units

In 3vs3 and 4vs4 the Allies must be buffed a bit so people will play them more. People don't like to lose most of the time, except those who like greater challenge that the situation bring, so they picked Axis.

The unbalance is not that great, but it become more preeminent the greater the number of player there is.

Russian faction need just a bit more toughness for conscripts for starting phase (not more offense), and conscript's need a better vet bonus (+10% accuracy) for later phases.

Us faction are ok in the starting phase, But need better at-infantry and better at-guns for the later phase. Bazooka need more penetration.(15%-25% more i say) and at-guns need more toughness so they won't be one shotted. (Camo ?)

Axis factions need to have their heavy tanks (only heavy) a bit more vulnerable to infantry. So i would tone down the effect of their main gun versus infantry and make their mgs less suppressing and a bit less damaging. But I wouldn't change anything to medium armor because they should be used more. The role of each armor class would become more specific : medium armor are flexible (inf + armor) and heavy armor to fight other armored target. Axis mine field would become more interesting to fight allies infantry.

With those changes, 1vs1 and 2vs2 would not be that impacted and allies would become more interesting for 3vs3 and 4vs4.

The goal is to bring more people into the allies side of the team automatch (3vs3 and 4vs4) so their will be less waiting for Axis and more fun for the allies player. More challenging match = more rewarding victories = we play more = we buy more stuff = Relic happy = we are all more happy.

What do you think ?

I think, as I said, you should play a bit of Axis inbetween so you can get a but more of an informed perspective.

I think, as I said, you should play a bit of Axis inbetween so you can get a but more of an informed perspective.

Not an argument.
thanks anyways.

In my experience with team games (I play them exclusively), Allies usually have a good map advantage during the early and midgame (probably 60 percent). If you haven't crushed the Axis by then or made one rage, it is going to be a pain in the ass to deal with Panthers, KT, Jagdtigers, etc.

I would say that now even earlygame is painful due to Kubel+Strompio so...
None counter for it (as USF). Only spam 3-4 Rifle at once or wiat for Captain.
With Kubel, Strumpio and Volks I'm able to repel even 4 squads with very low loss, even that I'm not good OKW player.

Giving USF a heavy tank in a doctrine would be a stupid fix, everyone would choose that doctrine and you end up the same as soviets. dont really know what to do with it
Factions with stock units should work in every mode.

It would not be stupid if present doctrines would be useful. Airborne, Rifleman and maybe Infatry (cause of free M1919) are useful but the rest? Meh.
I have 14 sov commander and 18 ost while OKW and USF have only 6. That means there will be more in future.
Giving USF Pershing as call-in is not a problem. If you give it in 2-4 doctrines (like Tiger) it would spread selection between those 2-4. Then guys in Relic responsible for this should solve one question.
USF players are using doctrines with Pershing. So, what should be do to prevent that? How to encourage them to use others? It should be in the same way why Ost players are choosing other doctrines than Tiger's. Gibing us such stupid commander like Recon won't help.
Everything can be done with little effort, even making non-pershing commander more attractive than the persing ones.


I'm not enjoying 20+ streak without any problems as Axis. I'm also not enjoying games as Allies where I must ascend to the heights of my skills just to have a chance to win.

I would say that now even earlygame is painful due to Kubel+Strompio so...
None counter for it (as USF). Only spam 3-4 Rifle at once or wiat for Captain.
With Kubel, Strumpio and Volks I'm able to repel even 4 squads with very low loss, even that I'm not good OKW player.



It would not be stupid if present doctrines would be useful. Airborne, Rifleman and maybe Infatry (cause of free M1919) are useful but the rest? Meh.
I have 14 sov commander and 18 ost while OKW and USF have only 6. That means there will be more in future.
Giving USF Pershing as call-in is not a problem. If you give it in 2-4 doctrines (like Tiger) it would spread selection between those 2-4. Then guys in Relic responsible for this should solve one question.
USF players are using doctrines with Pershing. So, what should be do to prevent that? How to encourage them to use others? It should be in the same way why Ost players are choosing other doctrines than Tiger's. Gibing us such stupid commander like Recon won't help.
Everything can be done with little effort, even making non-pershing commander more attractive than the persing ones.


I'm not enjoying 20+ streak without any problems as Axis. I'm also not enjoying games as Allies where I must ascend to the heights of my skills just to have a chance to win.

Well said ! But i would wish a bit more balance before bringing the pershing in.

US doesn't need Pershing. Why keep bringing this up? The current US tanks should instead be made viable for late game tank battles. They're not.

The game is way too skewed towards heavy tanks that can back out with 10% hp and repair to full for free.

Lighter tanks should be cheaper or more effective to compensate for the risk they suffer. The M36 explodes if you sneeze in its direction. Hopefully the shreck nerf helped a bit, we'll see.

US doesn't need Pershing. Why keep bringing this up? The current US tanks should instead be made viable for late game tank battles. They're not.

The game is way too skewed towards heavy tanks that can back out with 10% hp and repair to full for free.

Lighter tanks should be cheaper or more effective to compensate for the risk they suffer. The M36 explodes if you sneeze in its direction. Hopefully the shreck nerf helped a bit, we'll see.

USF need at least ONE HEAVY TANK. Pershing is a good idea.

all other factions have multiple heavies! but, for some reason giving the usf just one heavy is a big problem?

If Axis have Ostwind and Sturmtiger, such rare units, USF also could have not M26 Pershing but T26 Super Pershing... But it won't happens.
Even if we consider M26 Pershing, it's difficult to call it heavy tank.
42t vs 45t Panther, 46t IS2, 57t Tiger. Pershing was heavy tank during War but just after it was renamed for medium tank - no wonder why when you look at weight.
I guess it was heavy because it was the heaviest USF tank (but not heavy in the true sense).
Tank with power somewhere between Panther and Tiger won't make balance broken but it will pull many player to Allies

USF need at least ONE HEAVY TANK. Pershing is a good idea.

all other factions have multiple heavies! but, for some reason giving the usf just one heavy is a big problem?

I think what he means is the faction should be balanced first before adding another unit that could drastically change how the game will fucntion

Make new commanders drop only while playing with the opposite faction

Hehehe, not a bad idea.

Hehehe, not a bad idea.

haha OKAY GUYS TIME OT HOP ON THAT AXIS BANDWAGON LETS GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Axis have Ostwind and Sturmtiger, such rare units, USF also could have not M26 Pershing but T26 Super Pershing... But it won't happens.
Even if we consider M26 Pershing, it's difficult to call it heavy tank.

yeah thats the "problem" IMO. In case they are adding an heavy tank for the USF, it gets wrecked in a couple of minutes by a KT,JT or elefant

Also I find Axis has all those cool units like falls, KT, JT, sturmtiger, tiger, elefant
cool units from usf i would say are paratroopers, m8 scott aaaaand uuhhhhh bulldozer sherman I guess
medium tanks are just not interesting

Also I find Axis has all those cool units like falls, KT, JT, sturmtiger, tiger, elefant
cool units from usf i would say are paratroopers, m8 scott aaaaand uuhhhhh bulldozer sherman I guess
medium tanks are just not interesting

Yes I do not understand the design philosophy. Germans get access to these sweet units that were rarely seen/built/niche unit in real life. Although I guess KV-8 Flamethrower tanks were not that common either...

I say... BRING BACK THE SHERMAN CALIOPE!!!!!

Yes I do not understand the design philosophy. Germans get access to these sweet units that were rarely seen/built/niche unit in real life. Although I guess KV-8 Flamethrower tanks were not that common either...

I say... BRING BACK THE SHERMAN CALIOPE!!!!!

Might not be a bad idea...though you must be prepared for counter-demands for the goliath, V2, 88mm etc

I updated the threads initial post with your suggestions.

A couple of things i hope u all like, and i hope someone up in relic will see.

Rear echelon squads: upgradable strike package. increase squad to 5, vet2 squad increase to six. weapon upgrades: 5x Thompson's/ 2x Springfield's. maybe smoke grenade. conscript ability to merge with other squads. maby strike package negate there ability to build.

riflemen: permanent multirole mine, from the start. at vet three option to upgrade to ranger squad. 6 men. possible m1 scope upgrade. Sandbags at vet one.

assault engineers: replace grease guns with thompsons. 5 man squad + possible grenade upgrade close range flame thrower, 50% more damage but 50% less range.

m3 half track: purchasable on tier 1 building, upgrades with 57mm at gun with ability to dig in, increasing survivability but permanently removing mobility. or anti-infantry upgrade with either multiple machine guns or a more tortoise-style covered mg with suppression while not moving.

Sherman: buy-able upgrades: 76mm gun , but still slightly weaker than easy eight. tier 1 armor upgrade expediant Jumbo "EXJ" armor. tier 2 jumbo armor upgrade, jumbo armor requires crew to exit to manually upgrade in captured territory, they will be just as vulnerable as strum tiger reload. These should cost fuel.

Pathfinders: non doctrinal first of all. upgrade one .30 cal lmg. 5 men at vet Three. effected by grenade upgrade at hq, same as riflemen(smoke only).

Artillery. US should have build-able howitzer, all the time. homes. late-game. non-doctrinal.

major: vet 3 squad increase to five. or install ability, allows major to garrison inside base. creating at gun in base. size depending on how op this ability is....

And all together, op. but maby we mix and match. Iam sure we can find the proper power working together. I would love some feed back, improvement suggestion and the like.

For me, a big first step would be making all factions able to fight early infantry engagements on a equal footing.
Micro should be the decisive factor to win first battles.

Having factions with starting units that clearly are superior to others changes the game to a cat & mouse chase since the first minute, which is not really fun, specially for the player with the worst unit.

That is not really an allied issue only, but I think that axis early game is much more flexible and adaptable. USF only has rifles and Soviets are locked in their choosed tier.