Just some stats

I agree with the OP. We SHOULD care how ALL Game modes are balanced.

I got plenty of my friends to buy WFA (for usf) Big mistake

4v4's should be where the fun is at. At the games current state i cannot recommend this game to anyone.

I dont want to insult the devs. But, dont put in a 4v4 mode if u are unwilling (or possibly incapable) of properly balancing it...

I can hop onto a game of Sc2, get high, and have a great time.. When i play coh2 4v4 ,even if im high as fuck! the game still manages to piss me off.

Allies are currently avoided. the only reason people play them is for short search times.

Ive simply had enough of the users on this forum defending relic and their poor design choices..

I am forced to play other games...

Well i think that most of posters don't have understood the problem.

The allies side of 4vs4 is nearly empty, we used to play around 5 to 10 (4vs4) games a day, now, we don't don't play anymore.

Why : Because wining on allies side is now nearly impossible unless you play vs axis noobs. Before we were able to win at least 50% in great epic matches.

Now, the fun is over. The new meta in (4vs4) favored Axis too much. We don't want a perfect balance, but just a bit more then now.

Stop talking about ranking in 1vs1 or 2vs2 it's not relevant to the actual problem.Those modes are balanced but 4vs4 is not balanced enough to still be fun.

Reasons of the imbalance in 4vs4 (I've made many posts about that topic) :

In sort:
-German have overall better units.

-Fuel resources being shared bring heavy tank to fast into the game on the Axis side. If we tech for tanks to fast then Axis inf. will crush us.

-OkW flak base + howitzer can defend a zone easily permitting concentrate attack elsewhere.(By the time US or SOV have the units to kill it, heavy tanks roll out)

-German Strafing is powerful forcing allied to spend fuel (AA def) delaying their tanks. Strafing cost munitions only...

-And many more...

Maybe i'm all wrong and only a small number of people play 4vs4 so we don't really matter. Anyway i won't play COH2 anymore, until meaningful changes are made to improve 4vs4 balance.

Thank you.

No no no ...I think most of us do feel the pain you in 4v4s feel...and I, like others before me here, have tried to suggest you downsize to 1v1 or 2v2, where balancing is (and always has been) concentrated. And at the risk of repeating myself: there is a case for balancing 3v3 and 4v4 differently. But,at present,we have what we have.

And I suspect that Relic know the 3v3 and 4v4 players need to be accommodated....but it is for them to give you the reassurance that they can do this.

Its not as easy to balance team games as you think guys. The minute we have a perfectly balanced 4v4 matchup (as if ), we will probably have a glaring imbalance in 2v2. But if we have a perfectly balanced 1v1 and 2v2, or close enough to it, balance will trickle up. Simply put, as long as we also have good maps to boot, if 1 Sov + 1 US vs 1 OKW + 1 OST is perfectly balanced, double the count of plaeyrs shouldn't be too different balance wise, so long as exceptional 3v3 and 4v4 maps are played.

thats not true. many units perform different against different concentrations of units. a t34 vs a panzer4. could be pretty close.

5 t34's vs 5 panzer4s.. the panzer4s will win by a rock slide

same thing with the tank destroyers. 1 su85 vs a panther. could be closer lots of chances fo micro. 5 su85s vs 5 panthers.. panthers will have a rockslide victory.

if resources were rarer in team games thered be less amassing of tank armies and more focus on early/mid game armies. Which imo is where team games are the most balanced.

Fox, you do know that 5 panthers =/= 5 su 85s? Cost must be added into consideration. 5 panzers would probably go up against 6 t34s, which makes it a lot more even of a fight. Currently, the matchup between a T34 and P4 is fairly even, but the superiority of the P4 is reflected by the cost. Of course, 5 vs 5, the P4s will win, but the reflection of teching and cost makes t34s slightly more numerous to balance out the equation.

Sorry, I think I interrupted Dusty's line to mean nobody cares about the 4v4 game mode. That grinds my gears!

This community is pretty on edge lately, me included.

No no no ...I think most of us do feel the pain you in 4v4s feel...and I, like others before me here, have tried to suggest you downsize to 1v1 or 2v2, where balancing is (and always has been) concentrated. And at the risk of repeating myself: there is a case for balancing 3v3 and 4v4 differently. But,at present,we have what we have.

And I suspect that Relic know the 3v3 and 4v4 players need to be accommodated....but it is for them to give you the reassurance that they can do this.

Your advice being? Play 1v1's and 2v2's and just imagine im playing a 4v4? (the game mode i actually enjoy)

Nope, ive waited too long. Im moving on to another game.

If 3v3 and 4v4 are in the game in a ranked capacity, then they deserve to be properly balanced instead of just being ignored.

If Relic's plan is to ignore 3v3 and 4v4 then 3v3 and 4v4 should be banished into the custom match sewers and begone from ranked.

That's of course the inferior option. The better option is to actually balance the game on all levels of play. Those who say this is an impossible goal do nothing to further the game and make it enjoyable for a wider audience.

I'm actually of the mindset that most of the "imba" stuff we see in 3v3 and 4v4 is actually imba in a 1v1 and 2v2 setting. It's just that when the imba stuff proliferates, it becomes far more obviously imbalanced. So while KT might be "kinda" imba in 1v1, when we see 4 players with 4KTs, the problem gets a magnifying glass put over it.

Same if pre-patch 100 range ISU 152 was imbalanced. In 1v1 it's only a bit imbalanced. In 4v4 it's very imbalanced, but the fact that it's imbalanced in the first place doesn't change.

Same thing with stuka strafing runs. "Kinda" imba in 2v2, but super imba when they can be called in non-stop in 4v4.

But nobody will say "zomg Conscripts are imba in 4v4" because Conscripts are not imba in 1v1. Same for SU-76. The units that are fundamentally imbalanced can be produced en masse in a 4v4, to make the opponent's life more miserable several fold.

hello arnold, the game is not optimized for 4vs4 and will never be.

I want to show a middle finger to the people like you, how uncivilized of me

If 3v3 and 4v4 are in the game in a ranked capacity, then they deserve to be properly balanced instead of just being ignored.

If Relic's plan is to ignore 3v3 and 4v4 then 3v3 and 4v4 should be banished into the custom match sewers and begone from ranked.

That's of course the inferior option. The better option is to actually balance the game on all levels of play. Those who say this is an impossible goal do nothing to further the game and make it enjoyable for a wider audience.

I'm actually of the mindset that most of the "imba" stuff we see in 3v3 and 4v4 is actually imba in a 1v1 and 2v2 setting. It's just that when the imba stuff proliferates, it becomes far more obviously imbalanced. So while KT might be "kinda" imba in 1v1, when we see 4 players with 4KTs, the problem gets a magnifying glass put over it.

Same if pre-patch 100 range ISU 152 was imbalanced. In 1v1 it's only a bit imbalanced. In 4v4 it's very imbalanced, but the fact that it's imbalanced in the first place doesn't change.

Same thing with stuka strafing runs. "Kinda" imba in 2v2, but super imba when they can be called in non-stop in 4v4.

But nobody will say "zomg Conscripts are imba in 4v4" because Conscripts are not imba in 1v1. Same for SU-76. The units that are fundamentally imbalanced can be produced en masse in a 4v4, to make the opponent's life more miserable several fold.

The thing is, KT is not really unbalanced in 1v1 because you need a crapload of fuel to access it, and your opponent can easily cut off your supply. Unless you really outmatch your opponent by a large margin, you will need to build vehicles, each of which delays the KY by that much more fuel. Same for the ISU to a lesser extent, albeit that one is more map-dependant than anything else (you probably won't get it on Langreskaya, Semois is another matter). Point is, there is a consequence to getting heavies in 1v1, it's harder to maintain map control and your opponent won't let you rest easy if he's decent. If you're at 100 fuel towards a KT and your opponent's 2 T-34s drive you off the map and take all the fuel, you're in a very bad position.

So overall, these units are fine in 1v1. What changes in team games is that one player can focus on teching while the other(s) hold the enemy back. Build caches, get mostly support teams to provide backup, and save fuel for the big heavies while the others get the mid-game tanks. Doing that in 1v1 will get you crushed before you can secure the needed fuel. But in team games, you have backup that can save your ass.

Mind you, this is the same in Starcraft; the (say) Battlecruiser is a meh unit at best in 1v1 because it's too expensive, in teams games a player that focuses on them can create a victory fleet if properly supported. And this is the most balanced RTS in history. Balancing units in 1v1 by cost inevitably means that in team games, which are much more forgiving ressource wise, the unit's balance will change. You can't really cure that, unless you start adjusting all unit prices per gamemode, in which case you probably open a gigantic can of balancing worms what you will never be able to close.

A possible solution would be a flat ressource rate reduction in team games, I guess. But that's still a lot of playtesting to find the right percentage, and it's still pretty damn arbitrary.

Resource reduction would hurt players who are buying units/tanks more often though, right? It's easier on average to keep Axis tanks alive than Allied tanks. What if you're at 50-70% fuel income in a 4v4 and you lose your t34-85s? Aren't you just that much more screwed?

I think map design has a lot to do with it. Give us more maps that are easier to flank on. So many 3v3 and 4v4 maps are mazes of straightaways and choke points. Easier for Germans to hold imho.

The question is why can't Relic make "Profiles" for each mode. So that way they can tweak each one and adjust accordingly. For example you can have in 1v1 a 145 fuel panther that the player can access and for 4v4 it could be 200 fuel so it can't be spammable. That way more people will be happy.

The problem with 4v4 is not that you can't balance it. Or that balancing it would ruin 1v1. It is that 1v1 isn't very balanced. And due to the lack of any effort to take 3v3 and 4v4 into account any of those imbalances are magnified in 3v3s and 4v4s.

The problem is that they want difference for differences sake. To an outside observer each faction looks completely different. And they are. Too much so. To an outside observer of COH1 the US and Wehr looked almost exactly the same until you took into account the doctrines. And yet, if you never used a doctrine for either, they still behaved and felt completely different. Sure there were imbalances and those were magnified over 3v3 and 4v4, but they were small enough that what map you played and relative skill mattered more. It is only now, with COH2 as an example of how things can get messed up for the sake of a design IDEA, that we see the elegance and brilliance of COH1s design.

(This is coming from someone who still thinks there are major disparities in the COH1 US/Wehr design that favor Wehr in all but the highest levels of play. But after playing COH2 I can forgive all of that in COH1.)

Another example of balance and game design going wrong is the USF vehicle repair mechanic. Supposedly it was there to counter the weaker armor and HP of US units, which is interesting and different. But it in fact makes US vehicles HARDER to use except on the very highest of skill levels.

If an OKW super tank needs to be repaired it retreats and you click a unit to repair it. You can shift click the repairing unit to repair something else, to do something else, to move somewhere else. A few clicks and you can move to some other part of the screen. When you come back your vehicle is repaired and waiting for order and in the meantime can defend itself with its super armor and the repairers are off on their next tasks. If you see the repairing unit is being attacked you click it somewhere else and it goes with the repairers following.

Now compare that to the USF vehicles. You need more of them to attack, which means each vehicle has to be pathed by you taking into account dangers for each. Then you retreat them (hopefully all survive). You can't de-crew until they get to the destination and can't repair until the de-crew is complete. You have two extra commands that each have a minimum of time (de-crew and crew) and can't be stacked, and have to wait until units are in position, in addition to the orders to retreat and repair. (What!? I just lost another squad while trying to repair these three glass cannons?! F-ing "different" faction design!)

During this time, the crew and its veterancy is now exposed to fire and to GTFO they have to jump back in and only then can you retreat them.

And you have to do all of this extra micro to more units than the axis does. That is as bad in 1v1 for a player as it is in 4v4, it just gets compounded.

And remember, additional micro is not a matter of arithmetic or geometric increases in difficulty but an exponential progression. Every person can handle only so many APMs (actions per minute). Every action you add to a task reduces the apms available. If US vehicles already have more micro requirements than axis (and they do since they are both more fragile and you have to use more of them) then adding a "balancing" mechanic with EVEN MORE actions gives the veneer of balance. In the hands of the average player they are just plain harder to use, easier to lose, and require more work.

I agree it is hard for us casual gamers right now ... Kubels are tough, you need to be ready, retreat bug on maxim is frustrating ... but then I watch a higher skilled streamer use just engineers and defensive tactics ... no call in tanks and win.
I see that and I think .. yes the game is tougher for me now but if I keep at it I can lift my game play and start winning. Think outside the box ... I'm still in the box

I agree it is hard for us casual gamers right now ... Kubels are tough, you need to be ready, retreat bug on maxim is frustrating ... but then I watch a higher skilled streamer use just engineers and defensive tactics ... no call in tanks and win.
I see that and I think .. yes the game is tougher for me now but if I keep at it I can lift my game play and start winning. Think outside the box ... I'm still in the box

Part of the problem in allies/axis balance is that axis doesn't have to think outside the box. And when the US does, and finds some strength they can use or weakness they can exploit the axis fanbois shout to mommy that it should be hit with the nerf bat (goodbye assault engineers, hello Kubel).

It is like the crying about the ISU-152. Is it OP? Quite possibly. But fix it and the only SOviet doctrines you will see will have IS-2s because you just have limited ways to counter the axis.

Introduce Mirror-Matches. I'm serious. No more balance complaints or 'lol 99.99% searching Axis'.

Also, I think all income should be severely throttled in 4v4, it sounds like it devolves into super heavy tank battles in minutes. Cut resources so you can't start mass producing King Tigers and whatever.

A 4v4 on a map like Faceoff at Rostov is very different from a 4v4 on Steppes or City 17.

So much of Company of Heroes is dependent upon the map design the factions are fighting over. Almost all of the 4v4 maps have critical and glaring flaws that make them exceedingly problematic.

But that's almost inevitable, because in map design for 1v1s and 2v2s, there is much more room for balancing. The constraints and limitations of what the players can feasibly do on the map is more manageable. Once you reach 3v3s and 4v4s the sheer amount of units each team is fielding makes things rather unwieldly. Faceoff at Rostov has two territory points cutting the entire team off from the map. With the new commander, and four players, just basic amounts of cooperation can result in incredible advantages. (Close air support stukas so Close the Pocket can be fired at the same time, etc).

A lot of it has to do with how things scale. In 2v2s the crippling flaws of the allied factions are, as a whole, mitigated if the players coordinate in the slightest. At 3v3 and 4v4 it's hard for a team NOT to have a full variety of counters and abilities available at their disposal.

Solutions? Well, there could be more 3v3 and 4v4 maps for one. Also, the way CPs and resources are scaled and spread out in 4v4s compared to 1v1s could also be balanced out.

But so much has to do with the maps and map options. No one in their right mind can play a match on City 17 and then a match on Lanzerath Ambush and feel like they played on an equally balanced battlefield. The strategies and design can be absolutely and unequivocally altered by map variation.

Another example of balance and game design going wrong is the USF vehicle repair mechanic. Supposedly it was there to counter the weaker armor and HP of US units, which is interesting and different. But it in fact makes US vehicles HARDER to use except on the very highest of skill levels.

If an OKW super tank needs to be repaired it retreats and you click a unit to repair it. You can shift click the repairing unit to repair something else, to do something else, to move somewhere else. A few clicks and you can move to some other part of the screen. When you come back your vehicle is repaired and waiting for order and in the meantime can defend itself with its super armor and the repairers are off on their next tasks. If you see the repairing unit is being attacked you click it somewhere else and it goes with the repairers following.

Now compare that to the USF vehicles. You need more of them to attack, which means each vehicle has to be pathed by you taking into account dangers for each. Then you retreat them (hopefully all survive). You can't de-crew until they get to the destination and can't repair until the de-crew is complete. You have two extra commands that each have a minimum of time (de-crew and crew) and can't be stacked, and have to wait until units are in position, in addition to the orders to retreat and repair. (What!? I just lost another squad while trying to repair these three glass cannons?! F-ing "different" faction design!)

During this time, the crew and its veterancy is now exposed to fire and to GTFO they have to jump back in and only then can you retreat them.

And you have to do all of this extra micro to more units than the axis does. That is as bad in 1v1 for a player as it is in 4v4, it just gets compounded.

And remember, additional micro is not a matter of arithmetic or geometric increases in difficulty but an exponential progression. Every person can handle only so many APMs (actions per minute). Every action you add to a task reduces the apms available. If US vehicles already have more micro requirements than axis (and they do since they are both more fragile and you have to use more of them) then adding a "balancing" mechanic with EVEN MORE actions gives the veneer of balance. In the hands of the average player they are just plain harder to use, easier to lose, and require more work.

Personally I prefer having a vehicle crew that is always with your vehicle. In this case, your echolon troop can cap or plant demos or whatever. You don't need a rear echolon squad to survive to be able to repair, that is a huuuuuuge advantage over other factions. I find myself often spending nearly 400 additional manpower or even more with other factions, simply to have a unit to repair 1 vehicle. Not to mention it saves time.

Also, I don't quite understand how you need more micro to repair vehicles as USF than as Ostheer or Soviets. You just reverse them out and order them to decrew. Once your vehicle is repaired, you recrew and you are good to go again. That is so damn easy.