OBK lategame is broken beyond all reason.

So I should just accept the gameplay and balance flaw?


If relic ties call-in with research cost. then I think it will fix many problems. it would give players a chance to use most units in-game.

Its a design decision, not a gameplay flaw and yes, you should accept it, because it will never change.

It never changed in coh1, it won't in coh2, because it is impossible to balance 1v1 and 4v4 when you have asymmetrically balanced armies. It was impossible when we had 2 armies, its even more impossible now that we have 4.

You could just as well ask for war elephants for germans.

Its a design decision, not a gameplay flaw and yes, you should accept it, because it will never change.

It never changed in coh1, it won't in coh2, because it is impossible to balance 1v1 and 4v4 when you have asymmetrically balanced armies. It was impossible when we had 2 armies, its even more impossible now that we have 4.

You could just as well ask for war elephants for germans.

There are obvious steps that can be taken to ameliorate the situation and that did in COH1:

- limit resources on the map to slow tech. (you just didn't find high fuels, or lots of them, in COH1 4v4s, and when you did it was one to be fought over).

- give the allies (particularly USF) SOME sort of reasonable AT and ability to buff the late game play.

- get rid of the supertanks. (Pershing is more of a Panther than a super).

Its a design decision, not a gameplay flaw and yes, you should accept it, because it will never change.

It never changed in coh1, it won't in coh2, because it is impossible to balance 1v1 and 4v4 when you have asymmetrically balanced armies. It was impossible when we had 2 armies, its even more impossible now that we have 4.

You could just as well ask for war elephants for germans.

Resource scaling. Since resources are a limiting factor for heavies and super units if you make it so the larger the game mode the less each point is worth and scale it so that each player roughly gets the SAME resources they would get in 1v1 then YES it could balance.

Relic seems to either not care or are very dense in this regard. I deal with scaling issues professionally.

@OP

The OKW T4 has less HPs then the other buildings and is quite easy to take out with the USF of all factions. Just get site on it with a unit and fire a few ATG rounds at it until you get Vet 1. Then your ATG can spot for itself and other units. Keep a blob near it to protect it while the HQ goes down. Be mindful if he has a StukaZuFuss however.

[quote post6"]Welcome to Coh 2. This is a learn to play issue.

Thanks for the great contribution!!!

Back on topic. I feel like OKW late game favor get even worst against USF. As usf i feel like its a massive snowball effect, if you dont win in the first 20mins or cause a large amount damage and drain vp as fast as you can, you have prity much lost the game. I think the MECH truck (one with the fuck off big AA GUN on top of it) could do with a small health decrease or its range decreased, as it feel like it has no drawbacks to placing it forwards in the battlefield

but I dont think this will ever change so we will just have to away to deal with the up hill battle of the late game.
if there is a will, there is a way;-)

but I dont think this will ever change so we will just have to away to deal with the up hill battle of the late game.
if there is a will, there is a way;-)

It probably won't change. SOmeone in development has a hardon for late game supertanks and a blind side for bad game design.

But you are wrong that people have to learn to deal with it... They can also opt not to play.

Guess which one seems to be the gaming community's response...

Its a design decision, not a gameplay flaw and yes, you should accept it, because it will never change.

It never changed in coh1, it won't in coh2, because it is impossible to balance 1v1 and 4v4 when you have asymmetrically balanced armies. It was impossible when we had 2 armies, its even more impossible now that we have 4.

You could just as well ask for war elephants for germans.

it is nice that there are a plethora of condescending/don't-give-a-shit people who are giving this "big team games will never be balanced" shield for relic so they will never have to feel guilty about leaving 3v3+ players out in the russian blizzard.

maybe that is why opel got fixed in a very timely manner (1 year), and at one point there was only 4 4v4 maps, although most people play that mode. how sweet of people to stand up for relic to tell 3v3+ players to go f themseleves

i think it is just cynicism over a lack of speedy change. Obviously we can't expect things to be magically fixed overnight, but any small change , or an official update is better than complete silence.

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.

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.

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?

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.

i don't mind if 4vs4 isn't competitive, i just want it to be fun !! not just being crushed as allies no matter how good we played....

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?

If i'm to believe, you the game is doomed, cause without 4v4 that game has no appeal to many of us...

Its a design decision, not a gameplay flaw and yes, you should accept it, because it will never change.

It never changed in coh1, it won't in coh2, because it is impossible to balance 1v1 and 4v4 when you have asymmetrically balanced armies. It was impossible when we had 2 armies, its even more impossible now that we have 4.

You could just as well ask for war elephants for germans.

Why are you saying such things, it can be balanced.
It's people making comments like that that kill a good game. you must be a kid.

If i'm to believe, you the game is doomed, cause without 4v4 that game has no appeal to many of us...

That may just be the case because he has a point. Unless Relic starts mirroring armies, 4v4 will never be and cannot be balanced.

id rather have unbalanced 4v4 than different unit stats for each mode. Itd be really confusing to be playing a 1v1 and getting used to some unit beating another, but then you go into another mode and now the same unit sucks in the same situation.

However i wouldnt be against altering the resource income some for team games.

That may just be the case because he has a point. Unless Relic starts mirroring armies, 4v4 will never be and cannot be balanced.

Its people like You. that justify relic having a broken product. Until team games are fixed players shouldn't be satisfied. relic needs to be pressured into finishing their damn game. don't add mode like 3v3's and 4v4's if you are incapable (or lazy) to properly support them.

This game is at Serious risk of dying.

Its people like You. that justify relic having a broken product. Until team games are fixed players shouldn't be satisfied. relic needs to be pressured into finishing their damn game. don't add mode like 3v3's and 4v4's if you are incapable (or lazy) to properly support them.

This game is at Serious risk of dying.

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.

In starcraft every faction has heavy lategame units at least, battlecruisers, carriers, ultralisks, etc. Soviets get none that are not callins and USF flat out gets nothing at all.

There are absolutely solutions to this problem that are not that drastic.

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.

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

i don't mind if 4vs4 isn't competitive, i just want it to be fun !! not just being crushed as allies no matter how good we played....

I play 4x4 as allies when I want to play around with build orders and tinker with some new units/doctrines, I play 4x4 as axis when I want to curb stomp and play with all the big heavy tanks that we never get to see in 1v1/2v2 games