My Epiphany

that's probably because you were playing 2 2v2s.

This happens in many of the games. When im playing a 4, i dont need to pay as much attention to my build order or the map (capping order etc). I simply do what i want. Hell, i played 3's and 4's with an Ostheer mate going T0 straight into T4. Its possible.

Id rather play chess than a big chaotic battle.

4v4 requiring less skill to play and win ? Absolutely...as Axis. The strat for Axis in this case is stall for late game armor. GG. Nothing to it; I've done it a bunch of times. As we all know, the beauty of large teamgames is that if you fail, your team can back you up. In the case of Axis, this means if I lose 1,2, or 3 P4s, no matter...my team will have literally 5 more to replace them, probably with a Tiger somewhere in there. The only way to stop this is to ensure Axis doesn't get ANY fuel. Otherwise you won't win as long as they hold fuel. You WILL be ground down by endless waves of armor and infantry that has vetted up on the deaths of your men. This translates into win the game very quickly. It really is incredibly frustrating when you hold 2/3 VPs, and one fuel, and 3/4 of the map, have the game in the bag, and then can't close the deal because the armor starts coming and Allied AT sucks. Axis making a comeback like that ? Commonplace. Allied pulling off the same feat ? Nah. And the Axis players have the nerve to start with the "lol", and "noob". As if stalling requires any skill at all.

And yes, the crappy part of 1v1 (which I played a lot in vCoH), is that every map has its "trick"; this farmhouse, that intersection, etc...which , if exploited properly, will win you the game. I admit that 2v2 isn't bad, but I am still 100% behind the idea that large team games are awesome. It's something you can do with friends, and it's infinitely more complex and dynamic.

Again, I'm not a game developer, but I hope that if the large team games can't be balanced, then make a new game or an expansion pack. Separate the two, and leave 1v1, and 2v2 for "pros"; call it "Super Elite Platinum Edition Not-For-Noobs Serious Bobby Fischer Company of Heroes", and then create an expansion for larger games called "Cry Havoc ! Let slip the dogs of war !", or "Helmut Keeps Hogging the Rations".

This happens in many of the games. When im playing a 4, i dont need to pay as much attention to my build order or the map (capping order etc). I simply do what i want. Hell, i played 3's and 4's with an Ostheer mate going T0 straight into T4. Its possible.

Id rather play chess than a big chaotic battle.

i looked at your playercard... umm unless you play coh2 on another steam account, i think you played way too little 3v3s+ to write a post filled with such slanderous remarks.

your random 3v3+ games records is acceptable at best, and you barely have AT 3v3 matches that you played after playing 10 games, thus gaining an elo. and no AT 4v4.

T0-T4 as osteer possible? please either don't exaggerate/lie, or admit you did this once when you were playing against a total noobs.

As for fixing 4's, i dont think there is a good solution for it. You would need to change the armies, the balancing process and a couple of game mechanics completely...

...Thats why i dont see the point in brainstorming ideas for 4v4's. You need to change the game completely and that wont happen.

Nonsense. Just give the Americans bazookas with as much anti-armour punch as panzershreks, and that right there would close about 90% of the gap with the Germans for that faction. As for the Soviets, allow their AT guns to penetrate the frontal armour of a panther at least moderately, and/or buff their PTRS rifles so they're not utterly useless against anything more powerful than a scout car, and you've once again gone a long way to balancing the situation out.

The fact is, right now, between Sturmpios and Ubersoldaten as infantry, and PIVs and Panthers (never mind the even more powerful tanks the Germans get!), it's like the Germans are running around with guys in superman capes and frigging impenetrable M1 Abrams battle tanks, and the Soviets and Americans are equipped with slingshots, useless bazookas (Americans) and utterly useless PTRS rifles that can't even really hurt a PIV, never mind a Panther, Tiger, King Tiger, Jagdpanther, Elephant, etc. etc. I'm saying give the allies a gun of some kind, even an old revolver for crying out loud, rather than a knife at a gun fight.

Yeah, still not certain why USF suck so bad...I understand the faction design; light, mobile, flexible, etc...but that means nothing when all your weapons suck. I also can see that they would be more viable in 1v1, but even there, they get outmatched in late game. So again, the only option for USF is win fast...an increasingly difficult prospect given the current kubel situation. They're not even good as a support faction. In large team games, with USF, guaranteed the side of the map with USF will cave first. Unless, of course, you get that rare individual that can make them work, i.e. a pro. So if you're going to have an Allied "pros-only" faction, at least make one Axis faction equally difficult to play. I seriously miss the recoilless rifles for vCoH Airborne, or the Thompson- wielding Rangers. I say : give the Airborne the option of upgrading between the LMG, or RR, and bring back Rangers with Thompsons and give them AT grenades. Those two things would go a long way to making USF viable again. Provided you don't nerf the shit out of those weapons in the meantime. Which seems to be a thing with USF..."hey, you think <insert weapon/unit here> is too powerful?" "Hm...not sure...you know what, let's just nerf those fuckers into oblivion".