4v4

Ok, it is not funny anymore. With every single patch it's harder to play this mode as Soviets. I'm newbie as OKW yet I have 41W/5L. I also have a lot of experience with Allies but I have 106W/108L (soviets).
I have no tactic as OKW. Just making units I want. Stuka, Puma or maybe Strumtiger. No matter. I always have very high damage at the end of the game.

As Soviets? Well... I just had a game where my 3xSU85 made 32k dmg. ML-152 had 628%, 2xShocks around 500%, Katyusha 350% and 120mm mortar over 1200%. Yet we got crushed by KTs, Obers, Stukas, Tigers and Panthers. No matter how good we are, it's very, very hard to win.

As OKW? I simply give a f**k and I win anyway. No effort in fact. As Soviets? I do my best yet the game is not rewarding me for this.

Some of you will say that 4v4 should not be balanced.I would say if 2v2 would be balanced, 4v4 also would be cause it's 2x 2v2 most of the time. Ok, you dont see Jadgtiger in 1v1 but you also don't see 3x SU85, right?

I do not have any pleasure in 1v1. I love big games, but 4v4 is simply unplayable as Soviets or USF.

Relic, make Allies playable in team games, I'm begging you!!

I don't think they really care about team games buddy. TBH, they should just take 3v3 and 4v4 out of the game altogether and maybe not advertise the game as a multi player game next time...

My advice to you is play 2v2 (though this mode still heavily favours axis teams) or 1v1, or find another game to play that is balanced for such big teams. I would recommend wargame for such personally, though it's not nearly as action packed.

Come add me on steam

id: ninjawj

Ive got a good group of guys that play a lot of 4v4

I don't think they really care about team games buddy. TBH, they should just take 3v3 and 4v4 out of the game altogether and maybe not advertise the game as a multi player game next time...

My advice to you is play 2v2 (though this mode still heavily favours axis teams) or 1v1, or find another game to play that is balanced for such big teams. I would recommend wargame for such personally, though it's not nearly as action packed.

If they took out 4v4 this game would be dead overnight. The majority of players are large team game players and relic needs to start making the balance changes that the mode deserves.

@australian

You will probably get a lot of hate here because this forum is mostly inhabited by elitists who don't play anything more then 1v1s and don't want to see relic to take time doing things they don't care about and don't personally play (Campaign as well).

If they took out 4v4 this game would be dead overnight. The majority of players Large team game players and relic needs to start making the balance changes that the mode deserves.

Oh I totally agree with you.

But as it stands, they may as well take it out. It's just a bad advertisement for their game, as it's so unbalanced. I don't think they have any intention of balancing team games, considering they can't even balance 1v1, and seem to have little understanding of their own core game mechanics. Anything other than 1v1 is a big mess, though it's not so noticeable in 2v2 scenarios.

This is coming from a guy who enjoys team games a lot more than 1v1.

4 vs 4 is a joke. I'm not great at this game but my AT-team was #1 axis and #3 allies for some time. 4 vs 4 requires way less micro and thinking compared to 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2.

People like to play it because they find it more enjoyable since it's easier. Hence why all the casual crowd plays it. They can try their best to balance it but honestly it's near damn impossible because it would ruin the other game modes.

4 vs 4 is a joke. I'm not great at this game but my AT-team was #1 axis and #3 allies for some time. 4 vs 4 requires way less micro and thinking compared to 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2.

People like to play it because they find it more enjoyable since it's easier. Hence why all the casual crowd plays it. They can try their best to balance it but honestly it's near damn impossible because it would ruin the other game modes.

speaking as an exclusive 4v4 only player, i don't think it is exactly easier. A lot of people blob but i think this comes from not having to pay attention to the entire map. However, i think 4v4 does have its difficult moments. Since the maps are bigger and there are more units, flanking is a lot more potent and effective.

If they took out 4v4 this game would be dead overnight. The majority of players Large team game players and relic needs to start making the balance changes that the mode deserves.

Speaking on behalf of The Angry Bears, we agree.

Speaking on behalf of The Angry Bears, we agree.

I'm thinking the same.

The real problem with 4vs4 (and 3vs3 to a lesser degree) is simply that the time to recover from a rout/retreat in the early capping stage can be crippling. The time provided between a retreat and a return in force is more than enough time for the victors to dig in and defend until they obtain enough fuel to tech their end game tank spam.

Considering this with regard to balance, I can't really say why allies have such an issue with the early game in larger matches. I tend to think it's a player and teamwork problem more than anything else, and I think the boring nature of the allies tends to exacerbate the problem, causing them to be played more by newbies than anything else in 4vs4. As allies, I've held sections of the map without issue in 4vs4 all while I watch my entire team fold before the axis players, only to be the last man standing; at which point the entire enemy team moves in on my portion of the map and sweeps me aside. By the time we all return to the fight it's too late. Bunkers, MG42s, etc hold their line and soon after you see the tank spam starting.

Despite all of this, I don't find 4vs4 to be so terrible to play, and in many ways I think it is MORE challenging than 1vs1 simply due to nature of the all or nothing early game; you have to stay in the fight much longer than is comfortable, and if your team mates don't help you, or at least share the burden, it's easily game over in the first 5 minutes. You've really got to fight that urge to retreat.

How do you fix/balance this? I have no clue, but I'd like to see someone have the courage to run a 4vs4 tournament to see what high level play can look like.

If they took out 4v4 this game would be dead overnight. The majority of players Large team game players and relic needs to start making the balance changes that the mode deserves.

@australian

You will probably get a lot of hate here because this forum is mostly inhabited by elitists who don't play anything more then 1v1s and don't want to see relic to take time doing things they don't care about and don't personally play (Campaign as well).

It definitely has nothing to do with with elitism. Even in Starcraft 2, large team games arent balanced. You cant balance asymetrical armies in this game. Coh 1 wasnt close to balanced in team games and neither is this one. Why people refuse to accept that is beyond my level of comprehension, apparently. Unfortunately for team game players, there isnt a whole lot that can be done.

It definitely has nothing to do with with elitism. Even in Starcraft 2, large team games arent balanced. You cant balance asymetrical armies in this game. Coh 1 wasnt close to balanced in team games and neither is this one. Why people refuse to accept that is beyond my level of comprehension, apparently. Unfortunately for team game players, there isnt a whole lot that can be done.

You can always embrace the challenge of carrying your team as an allied player, but don't go into a 3v3+ expecting an even match. You are going to have to outplay your opponent pretty hard. I enjoy 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3 all for different reasons, and I get a lot of satisfaction out of winning in team games as americans. The victories feel much more rewarding.

lol @ admins

Efforts should be made to balance out your most popular game modes. 1v1 has so few people playing them that ignoring team games, like people around here want, is just bad business.

What do you think about making call-in limited units?
It would push players to use basic units and make call-in very, very valuable.
I'm thinking about making all 10+CP units limited to 1, 7-10 to 2. This would prevents 3 Tigers spam from 1 player, 3 ISUs and so on...
Game would be more tactical cause you won't have 3 Tigers (in team games it could be 6-7) to crush enemy.You'd have to use many different units to break the line, not just one type units in a large number. Or just make colddown, let's say 10mins (then bulletins 10% faster would make sense).
T34/76, PzIV etc. were seen more often than Tigers, IS2 and others. Such change would provide that. One tiger with PzIV, IS2 with T34/76 etc.
What do you think?
I just woke up, and this might be bad idea but at this time of the day it looks really nice for me ^^
This may also fix entire call-in system. No need to tie with tiers since you can have only 1 or 2 units.
This would also affect KT

3v3 and 4v4 have always been difficult and less balanced to play since CoH1 and CoHo. First of all they're a bit more of a gamble in terms of tactics and second of all it is obviously much easier to overwhelm with units.

However I'm inclined to agree with the OP, it seems with each patch playing as Allied faction is getting harder and harder to play and win. I'm no expert (in fact I'm embarrassed at how poor I am after so many years of playing!) but I seem to win matches with a lot less effort and even with more mistakes when playing as the Axis. This is especially the case in 3 & 4 a side games and since the last patch.

I don't know but it seems as if because of the large competitive player base of Axis players, Relic are listening to their naturally 'louder' Axis player base cries and moans on their forum and nerfing an already twitch faction even further. For me you only have to go to the auto match system and see that ridiculously unbalanced percentage of players to see that there's clearly a balance issue somewhere that needs addressing....

I have played ALOT of Random 4v4s in coh 2. Before WFA balance was great, but simply put 4v4 Coh 2 balance is the worst i've ever seen in any game i've played.

I've won ~50 of my last 53 games as OKW(conservative estimate) where as i win under 60% of my games with allies. And its not a late game issue, most games i play as axis you push the Allies off the map within 10 minutes then steamroll them from there.

Mabye its the player base, mabye its b/c USF sucks in team games or b/c OKW is OP, but all in all 4v4s are a joke right now

What do you think about making call-in limited units?
It would push players to use basic units and make call-in very, very valuable.
I'm thinking about making all 10+CP units limited to 1, 7-10 to 2. This would prevents 3 Tigers spam from 1 player, 3 ISUs and so on...
Game would be more tactical cause you won't have 3 Tigers (in team games it could be 6-7) to crush enemy.You'd have to use many different units to break the line, not just one type units in a large number. Or just make colddown, let's say 10mins (then bulletins 10% faster would make sense).
T34/76, PzIV etc. were seen more often than Tigers, IS2 and others. Such change would provide that. One tiger with PzIV, IS2 with T34/76 etc.
What do you think?
I just woke up, and this might be bad idea but at this time of the day it looks really nice for me ^^
This may also fix entire call-in system. No need to tie with tiers since you can have only 1 or 2 units.
This would also affect KT

Instead of heavys, you will see multiple hordes of panthers which are faster than the tigers and with more armor ^^

What do you think about making call-in limited units?
It would push players to use basic units and make call-in very, very valuable.
I'm thinking about making all 10+CP units limited to 1, 7-10 to 2. This would prevents 3 Tigers spam from 1 player, 3 ISUs and so on...
Game would be more tactical cause you won't have 3 Tigers (in team games it could be 6-7) to crush enemy.You'd have to use many different units to break the line, not just one type units in a large number. Or just make colddown, let's say 10mins (then bulletins 10% faster would make sense).
T34/76, PzIV etc. were seen more often than Tigers, IS2 and others. Such change would provide that. One tiger with PzIV, IS2 with T34/76 etc.
What do you think?
I just woke up, and this might be bad idea but at this time of the day it looks really nice for me ^^
This may also fix entire call-in system. No need to tie with tiers since you can have only 1 or 2 units.
This would also affect KT

I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but that would just solve the cause not the true problem. The real problem is that heavy vehicles and advanced mediums to lesser extent are just too cost-efficient. It's just more noticeable in large team games due to the higher resources. And no I'm not talking about the call-in issue, a small one time fuel advantage.

Heavy vehicles can operate and push without worrying about the vehicle suddenly dying to a well placed at defenses due to their high durability and sometimes range, and as long as they pull back before death and this will cost them nothing, especially since the dedicated AT can't give chase against even minor support. Medium tanks on the other hand are forced into attempting high risk maneuvers if they want to succeed against these vehicles which even in the best of cases will cause casualties for them.

They need to add some sort of cost to USE heavy vehicles so that cost effectiveness of the medium tanks actually evens out with the heavies