OBK lategame is broken beyond all reason.

This^.

I would like to add that a lot of people only bring up resource balance for 4v4 and say that lowering resources gained would fix it, but they are over looking something: Unit design. There are units in the game that are flat out made for 1v1 to 2v2 and will never be reliable in 3v3 and 4v4. Allies rely on early game light vehicle swarms, in 1v1 and 2v2 they have room to maneuver and are fully utilized. However in 3v3 and 4v4 what happens when you have to face a line of 4-8 Pak 40 guns and Grens with Fausts? The answer is that over half the units in the game are not made for 3v3 and 4v4. Realistically even with decreased resources you are still going to see the same infantry blobs fighting until heavy tanks, because light vehicles are just too unreliable for cost in large games on the maps we have now.

To balance for 3v3 and 4v4, Relic would have to redesign maps, redesign resources, and redesign units. Relic is still having problems balancing for 1v1 and 2v2, balancing for 3v3 and 4v4 is low on their priorities list. Also to whoever said 4v4 was the most popular mode, I thought recent statistics pointed that the most popular mode was 2v2 by a large margin over the other modes?

I guarantee making losses painful through resource scaling and making things like Offmaps cost alot would be LEAPS and BOUNDS better then it is currently. And its an easy as hell fix. If there are still problems then the units could be looked at.

I wonder if one of our talented Map Makers out there can try to make a reduced resource 4v4 map to test it?

I guarantee making losses painful through resource scaling and making things like Offmaps cost alot would be LEAPS and BOUNDS better then it is currently. And its an easy as hell fix. If there are still problems then the units could be looked at.

I wonder if one of our talented Map Makers out there can try to make a reduced resource 4v4 map to test it?

I think janne already has a script that makes income dependent on territory like vcoh already.
Changing income should be very easy compared to that

I suppose Starcraft 2, Warcraft 3, CoH1, and this game are all broken products then. It just cant be done. The armies being different is what makes this game great. The only way to achieve the balance team game players desire would be to mirror the factions.

You're right, all these games are imbalanced just because without mirrored factions there is no way to achieve perfect balance.

The issue is that most of CoH2's imbalances were introduced by pay DLCs, which hurts even more because there are unneecessary most of times and are harder to fix or patch because you can piss a lot of customers that payed for them.

I suppose Starcraft 2, Warcraft 3, CoH1, and this game are all broken products then. It just cant be done. The armies being different is what makes this game great. The only way to achieve the balance team game players desire would be to mirror the factions.

There was little imbalancein COH1 3v3 and not much more in 4v4. There were some very crappy maps (all bridge maps were axis favored) but for the most part no side had to be measurably better than the other in order to have a chance to win. Bringing up COH1 just isn't a good example, in fact it is a pretty bad one considering how good of a job was done with COH1 and that COH2 had all the examples they needed in order to make a better game. But they wanted more.... difference.

What nonsense. Every faction can still at least have "heavy" classes of units without them being "mirrored." You are just using hyperbole.

You don't need 'heavy classes' of units to balance the game. Most 4v4 problems are caused by the maps not the units.

You're right, all these games are imbalanced just because without mirrored factions there is no way to achieve perfect balance.

The issue is that most of CoH2's imbalances were introduced by pay DLCs, which hurts even more because there are unneecessary most of times and are harder to fix or patch because you can piss a lot of customers that payed for them.

No these games are almost completely balanced in 1v1 and 2v2 play. It's the larger team games that start to get a little crazy in each of these titles.

4v4 will never be balanced in any RTS. Even Starcraft's balance falls apart in 3v3/4v4, because there's so much stuff going on the tightly paced game balance cannot keep up and all kinds of nonsense can pop up.

And no, this isn't ''4v4 players are subhuman cretins''. This is just a basic reality of how games are designed and balanced. 4v4 is a valid game mode, but it's not where the competitive gameplay happens because it's not balanced for it, just like, say, League of Legends competitive gameplay happens on the 5v5 map and not the 3v3 one, because the game's design is optomized to play that way. Ranked PvP in World of Warcraft is on 10 or 15 player maps, not 40 player ones. Counter-Strike competition is mostly in 5-6 player teams IIRC. So on and so forth.

Relic could do more, I guess. Ressource scaling and all that jazz. But it's obviously a lower priority behind balancing the game for 1v1, and 2v2 to a lesser extent.

not really asking for much. just don't want bs like JT, isu. you know, the units that nullify all armor(JT)/infantry(ISU)... the units that are bs in even in 2v2s which becomes a complete bs in 3v3+. AAAAAnd map balance/design.

You don't need 'heavy classes' of units to balance the game. Most 4v4 problems are caused by the maps not the units.

Nah, totally disagree, but it is a mix of both. In late game when the fuel flows like water, one faction completely not having a heavy, let alone super-heavy class vehicle is not acceptable in this game. The maps don't allow flanking, it's part of the problem, but when one side can build king tigers non-doctrinally relatively fast and has a supertank that can shoot through LOS blockers, it's a big problem when the real heavies steamroll and the game becomes quite lopsided.

Deny it all you want, but it's why teamgames are flawed and faction preference is the way it is. People like building big tanks and smashing stuff, it's a fact of life, and one side has more of them than the other.

not really asking for much. just don't want bs like JT, isu. you know, the units that nullify all armor(JT)/infantry(ISU)... the units that are bs in even in 2v2s which becomes a complete bs in 3v3+. AAAAAnd map balance/design.

TBH i think that the JT need it's terrain ignoring shot changed to normal, The ISU needs a weak spot it sill can 1 shot squads. The elephant just sucks now and needs something.
(this needs to be addressed with the upmost care as too much will destroy balance)

Range makes super heavy assault guns hard to balance, Offmaps make artillery options limited (leFH 10.5cm, ML-20 152mm) Like the IL-2 and Stuka bombing strikes.

The only really good on map howitzer is the B-4, And this is because B-4 front-loads all of its damage.
Id love to see ML-20 and leFH 18 instead of more shells in slow succession is less more damaging shells in fast fire rates.

Front load the damage more: (just throwing some numbers could be total inbal)
-50% of shells fired (3-4) +30% firerate, +20% damage.

Then it wont be just a fireworks show but have a actual use. Combined with enough health not to get 1 shot by single offmaps Howies might see some use and alleviate some of the super-heavy assault gun spam seen in team games.

Note: heavy offmaps like Railway and 240mm barrage (240+ cost) should still be effective on it.