Appealing and imbalances of 4v4

Non-doc late heavy tanks for all sides will help ballance team games.

Yep. It would also make this game more colorful. Commanders could be selected on their fun factor rather than 'It MUST have armor or we are screwed late game'. It just has to be done right.

I like the idea of all factions having a non-doc heavy tank.

Then commander would be more about fun. instead a necessity

I really enjoy playing 3v3 with friends but 4v4 is just way too much of a shit show. Whenever a fourth friend comes on Skype well all groan at the thought of playing 4v4.

Also the U.S. late-game thread already exists here so you can talk about Pershing in there.

4v4 doesn't have to be completely balanced, but blatant problems can and should be fixed

some topics from steam About balance

In all honesty, it's not German OPness that's the issue, it's the pitiful lack of allied options to deal with them that's problem.
It's not in buffing certain allied either, it's a total faction rework, in particular for the Soviets.

I'll do you a favour and start a new thread to focus on another direction the discussion around the chaotic world of 4v4.
I will try to divide this into: appealing (why you choose to play 4v4) and imbalance.

Appealing:
Please give me an answer besides i'm playing with 2-3 other friends. I'm specially more interested for those who decide to search random 4v4.

A-Is is due to not having to focus on caping?
B-You like too see/play with a huge amount of units on screen?
C-While maps are bigger, you actually finish playing on a really small portion of the map most of the time, so you can focus mostly on that, is that what you like? (Besides some huge YOLO push on late game)
D-You enjoy being able to have plenty/steady amount of resources (caches) to be able to use any ability or field vehicles?

C - I would disagree with, 4v4 requires a higher level of strategic awareness as you have to be aware of what 7 other people are doing, not just 1 opponent.

You can turn 4v4 into a pair of 2v2 clashes, but that only works if you are winning. Decent teams and decent random players will leave a losing battle and seek to create a 3 on 2 with their other teammates

D- Is certainly true. People complain that Panthers, for example, are extinct in 1v1, that is not the case in 4v4. 4v4 lasts long enough that you will see top tier units you don't get in 1v1

You can add also:

E - There are some units, commanders and strategies you can use in team games that you cannot in small ones. 1v1 and you go Urban Defence it had better be a game winning move, 4v4 one person can do that without necessarily gimping their chances of victory

F- I find 4v4 not necessarily more realistic because that is a loaded word no one agrees on, so I shall say gives greater immersion.

Firstly, because real military commanders are not reliant on flawless micro and planning their build orders. You are on a team where Montgomery doesn't get on with any of the Americans, Patton doesn't get on with anybody, everyone wants their Army to get priority and whilst you are done with that you have to worry about the enemy

Secondly, because command is in large part the act of managing chaos, and so the more chaos the better I like it.

There is not much I would change, except maybe give the US better late game options (not necessarily different units, but buffing their off map strikes)


I would however:

Fix it that OKW do not benefit from caches

To make it worse, team games tend to leave lots of salvage lying around for those that remember to get it

Consider giving all mechanised units a fuel upkeep


But those would be across all gamemodes, I don't think there should be different stats n different modes because that is just another point of confusion


I would be very against otherwise changing resource income, because 4v4 already turns into "Lets fight over the fuel points and screw the rest of the map", you don't want to make them more important than they already are

E - There are some units, commanders and strategies you can use in team games that you cannot in small ones. 1v1 and you go Urban Defence it had better be a game winning move, 4v4 one person can do that without necessarily gimping their chances of victory

Or shall we say, let the team carry me because i want to try #YOLO commanders i hope my teammates don't follow my same steps

C: BUT you will leave that portion of the map to go to another part of the map. I'm sure you are not multitasking and spreading your troops all along the map. You focus mostly on 1/4-1/2 of the map. You are not going to cross early/mid game with your infantry through the map cause the retreat path is going to be PAINFUL!

F: increasing the level of chaos magnifies the chances of imbalance, since you can't predict neither have a control of the outcomes. If you take into account the flimsy USF tanks vs more resilient axis tanks, we see why people have problems. Margin of error is low.

THIS IS WHAT people have to realize, balancing CHAOS is not simple.
4v4 means exponentially a huge number of combinations of units and commanders which use on the right way on the especific maps, leads to "broken" outcomes.
___________________

Caches: it could benefit 100% to the one who build it and proportional to your parnters (50% on 2v2, 33% on 3v3, 25% on 4v4)

Or shall we say, let the team carry me because i want to try #YOLO commanders i hope my teammates don't follow my same steps

C: BUT you will leave that portion of the map to go to another part of the map. I'm sure you are not multitasking and spreading your troops all along the map. You focus mostly on 1/4-1/2 of the map. You are not going to cross early/mid game with your infantry through the map cause the retreat path is going to be PAINFUL!

F: increasing the level of chaos magnifies the chances of imbalance, since you can't predict neither have a control of the outcomes. If you take into account the flimsy USF tanks vs more resilient axis tanks, we see why people have problems. Margin of error is low.

THIS IS WHAT people have to realize, balancing CHAOS is not simple.
4v4 means exponentially a huge number of combinations of units and commanders which use on the right way on the especific maps, leads to "broken" outcomes.
___________________

Caches: it could benefit 100% to the one who build it and proportional to your parnters (50% on 2v2, 33% on 3v3, 25% on 4v4)

Obviously there are optimal places for you to go depending on where you spawn. However, 4v4 games benefit greatly from teamwork and support. You can lonewolf it and never communicate but communication and support helps so much.

It is true that a bunch of units clashing can create unwanted and unpredictable results. I would like to point out that some issues are quite glaring. even if they cannot fix it right away, some communication form the Relic staff would be better than nothing. But even that is unavailable

Caches: it could benefit 100% to the one who build it and proportional to your parnters (50% on 2v2, 33% on 3v3, 25% on 4v4)

That I don't like, because if one person builds caches they screw their teammates

Or shall we say, let the team carry me because i want to try #YOLO commanders i hope my teammates don't follow my same steps

That's more really an arranged team thing rather than randoms though, so probably not pertinent to your OP

Non-doc no, but more commanders with IS? Yes. Right now if you have bulletins for IS, enemy knows that you will have shock, kv8,etc while ost have same many doctrine with Tiger that you can not predict which one he s gonna use.

I love the IS-2 and it bugs me there's no Soviet doctrine that combines Guards and the IS-2. The only other doctrine that has this tank is the Soviet Armored commander and he has no special infantry, and T-34/85 call-ins as well.

The option of forward trucks to the important points, is somewhat complicated to fight this.

Like I said to Quinn during the CoH2 beta eighteen-odd months ago, we need to honour difference. 1 v 1 is extremely important - I think it is the motherlode of the game in many ways. From that high-level scene cascades all sorts of interest, strategy and ideas.

And but...

CoH2 is meant to be enjoyed on many levels. For example, I am a classic 'hardcore casual' in that (a) I'm pretty stoked about the new Ardennes campaign and (b) I love and play a *lot* of 3v3 and 4v4 (for the reasons my friend Van Voort has already outlined above).

These two extremes are no longer compatible - using the same unit metrics for such diverse game modes is (arguably) limiting both.

I see this as an opportunity rather than a problem, though.

For starters, an elite 'Trial of Iron' 1 v 1 mode could be introduced with exclusive commanders and limitations. This would be *the* aspirational 1 v 1 tourney mode for our best players.

On the other end of the spectrum, a 'League of Generals' large game mode would unleash CoH2 into the gonzo death-fests large game players love. Balance it specifically for this. Have late-game units for both sides that would screw 1 v 1 (but it doesn't matter - they won't be *in* 1 v 1).

I genuinely don't understand why having specialisms for diverse play-styles can be seen as anything else than a boon for the game.

I really don't.

I hope Relic at least engages with us in a debate about a glaring problem with a game we all love.

Like many here, I love and hate playing 3v3 or 4v4. I love prolonged games, even though it is a fact that Axis will typically win if allowed to survive into the late game. I like being able to field most of my units, i like coordinating with good team mates, and seeing a good use of combined arms. The cons are basically what everyone has already said: past the 15 min mark, it's pretty much a certainty that Axis will win. The larger games WILL stick you with noob/ incompetent/AFK team mates MOST of the time. And yes, the spam factor. My last game featured the fabled sturmpio/ kubel opening, with no less than 7 kubels and 6 sturmpios attacking one part of the map. Even this wouldn't have presented a huge problem, if it weren't for my idiot team mate, who didn't seem to grasp the basics of the game; i.e.: attack with your units. I do play Ost on occasion, just to ensure that I am not biased, and yes, it is easier to win by far. Basically survive till mid game, and win. Soviets are the only real competition at that stage, as USF will have lost any advantage they might have enjoyed in the early game. So, in larger games, another pet peeve is that there is one whole faction (USF) that is essentially useless. Past the 15 min mark, they become a minor inconvenience to Axis. I really wish I could play USF in large games and have fun, but alas...this only works if your Sov team mate understands that he needs to back you up, and support your early game aggression. See my point re: retarded team mates.

yeah, like NigelBallsworth said. It's mostly about teammate. with Random 4-4 you will team with them a lot. there are time when we play on Stepp and some guy says he will play Urban Defend and I say no, it not good on this map then he just called me noob... He play it anyway and just drop when it not work....

Now with Konigkubels have OKW stronger early game, but on another side, allies have weaker late game.

Yep. It would also make this game more colorful. Commanders could be selected on their fun factor rather than 'It MUST have armor or we are screwed late game'. It just has to be done right.

Absolutely agree.

In all honesty, it's not German OPness that's the issue, it's the pitiful lack of allied options to deal with them that's problem.
It's not in buffing certain allied either, it's a total faction rework, in particular for the Soviets.

And +1 to you