The overbearing balance of 4's

tl;dr: Trickle up balance doesn't work because 1v1 are played differently from team games. 1v1 balance is around dynamic map control, micro intensive isolate fighting, constant unit repositioning and teching choices. Team games focus on position fortification with little in map dynamic leading less micro intensive battle for defenders. Factions and tech influence the ability fortify or break positions. Team maps need to be refactored by removing key focus points and increasing the number low value points forcing to players spread out if 1v1 balance trickle up is to work.
All commentary is based game experience and observations of various styles. There is no data that can be reference. It is a opinion and should view as such. Subject to change based counter relevant counter arguments. Also this has limited proof reading... too tired will come back to it later.

It is my opinion that trickle up balance is failing concept for team games. The balance of 1v1 is around fluid map control and isolate pockets of fighting. There is a larger focus on balancing the micro to win small engagements early to mid game and managing larger combined arms fights late game. In 1v1 is about dealing with pockets of fighting across the map requiring careful and rapid thinking about the positioning of units for flanks, support and point capture. The mid game is about careful choices of tech to establish better control of the map. Choices such as if light armour for rapid redeployment to contested points is better option then quick deployment to heavy armour base of the current game flow need to made.

Team games is about control of 1 or 2 points at any given point of the game. Early game it is about control of the fuel, late game the VPs. The opening minutes of teams game often see the pairing of players to focus on single points on each side of the map. Early game the balance is working (sorta... *cough* kerbel) in some respects as the number of units in the engagements are limited and flanks and positioning plays a roll. Often these opening minutes decides which side controls the point for the rest of the game. After control is established the fortification phase begins with units focus on fortifying positions. This includes bunkers and short fall-back positions. Some factions are better at fortifying then others. Once fortified there is a little reason to venture out other then to harass attacking units or points, this easier to do when you have a short fall-back position (hello forward hq). It also easier for certain factions to breakup fortified positions with their toys (*cough* 7 min stukka). There is no real tactical reading of the match, it more often about holding the point till big boys can come out.

Lack of dynamic map control and fortified high value points leads to lob sided teching and armour presences. Once armour appears it easier to control the fortified positions.

One thing is clear, it takes more skill and micro to break and take a fortified position. Defenders don't find under as much pressure unless they ganged up on. Taking on fortified position requires coordinating, flanking, timing and cooperation. Defending require much less micro as the reposition distance is confined to fortified position. (Also have a feeling that certain factions require more micro to manage in order to win the game then others but without data I cannot say for sure.)

One also notes easier for certain factions to defend against assaults with better suppression tools, AT and long range inf damage.

The maps of team games encourage blob tactics and fortifying, the complete opposite of 1v1 where tactics like that cause you loose the game. If trickle up balance from 1v1 is going to work then team games have to be forced to be played like 1v1. This means spreading troops out to invoke more pockets of isolated fighting requiring micro and skill to manage. I believe the maps have to be refactored to this end. There has been suggestions to reduce the resources income but this does little to reduce the issues of point focus. The maps have to change to forces players to spread out and require reposition in order to repeal incursions of back capping. The maps should also encourage over stretching assets to gain the advantage over the enemy side.

One thing to note about team game maps is that there is only marginally more capping points then is in 1v1 maps. This means team players don't have focus on maps control with the majority of their forces, rather can use them control key points. 1v1 balance requires fair amount assets committed to taking and retaking points, certainly not the case with team games.

If 1v1 trickle balance has any change of working team game maps should have a much higher density of very low points and no high value points forcing players away from fortifying positions. Force players to stretch their forces to gain the advantage and make over commitment to a single point a burden rather then an advantage.

I have also been wondering if reducing the pop cap would help by forcing players to think carefully about tech choices. They would have to read the field and pick assets based field condition. It would also force players to be more careful with their units as a loss in units is a loss field presence to much greater extent. Resource income would have to be adjusted to reflect the popular cap. It would also require player to work closer together to get an improved combined arms approach.

+1 for Thomas!! One of the best posts on the problem of 4v4 balance I have read! I made a post akin to yours but you covered many of the key points so well!


I would also like to add that key resources like fuel are stuck really close together to VPs in a lot of 4v4 maps. This basically means a cluster of forces in a very small area. There is no incentive for strategic play because all the key points are clustered together (often in bottlenecks or chokepoints).

Additionally, some of the maps are way to "tall". This adds to your observations on the "fortification" of objectives. Since the maps are so tall, retreats are very long and punishing. Losing the first engagement on some maps = major disadvantage. The enemy will have time to set up bunkers, MGs, mines, etc. Hill 331 is a perfect example of how a big map can really mess you up. There are long retreats and adding mud just makes it even more punishing to lose a fight.

Le Gleize is almost the perfect 4v4 map. It is wide enough so flanking and strategic play are rewarding. It does suffer from the fuel being too close to the VPS however. The map is also very tall which means very costly retreats. But it still is a decent map where flanking and pushing are very important

I really really dont understand the resistance to limit fuel and munition scaling. I have been saying this since launch. Its really a no brainer. Each player should receive the same resources they receive in 1v1 and no more no matter what map they play on.

@OP i really dont want this fixed with DLC. But hey Relic stated they wouldnt add a Pershing. So add a Super Pershing

I really really dont understand the resistance to limit fuel and munition scaling. I have been saying this since launch. Its really a no brainer. Each player should receive the same resources they receive in 1v1 and no more no matter what map they play on.

@OP i really dont want this fixed with DLC. But hey Relic stated they wouldnt add a Pershing. So add a Super Pershing

I feel that better scaling would not really fix the issue. Axis have a great advantage late game in 4v4. Providing better resource scaling would mean that tech is delayed, but the Germans would still have that advantage late game ponce they do get their units. I am not sure, but this may even hurts Allies as well.

In vCoH there were points like +5 muni, +5 fuel, +10 muni, +10 fuel, +16 muni, +16 fuel, and points that gave nothing but a few points of manpower.

In CoH2 we get VP territory now, +7 fuel, +11 muni, and 5muni/3fuel points. And that's all.

Virtually half the kinds of territory. This makes map design a heinously underwhelming task as far as resource distribution goes. The larger the map and the more players, the more this is apparent.

I feel that better scaling would not really fix the issue. Axis have a great advantage late game in 4v4. Providing better resource scaling would mean that tech is delayed, but the Germans would still have that advantage late game ponce they do get their units. I am not sure, but this may even hurts Allies as well.

I dont see why. For one what do Soviets need tons of Muni for? They really dont. Ostheers abilities and power are mainly gated by this.

On the Fuel front a heavy tank loss couldnt be instantly replaced as the resources wouldnt support it making fielding one more risk, allow Medium tanks more time to dominate, and losses of heavy fuel points and caches more punishing.

Also it would make infantry more relevant as nothing messes with Manpower income but Pop cap.

As have previous argued 1v1 trickle balance fails for because teams game are different to 1v1. I suggested the team games have to be forced to be played like 1v1 by changes to the team maps.

I put forward that map changes are the only way to force team games into line with 1v1 as the map attributes are the only way to effect balance with the trickle up balance approach.

I doubt Relic will create separate profiles for team game balance, they believe in 1v1 balance trickle. Map changes are the only attributes which can effect balance outside the unit stats. I have not done any map building for CoH2 but if I remember correctly from DoW2 population cap and resource income can be linked to maps. I am not sure the value of points in the builder can be change, naturally it would seem it should.

I have made previous arguments in other threads stating if Relic have no interest in looking at the balance of team games they should release to the community through modding. Team games are popular and undermining the balance undermines the community confidence and commitment to the CoH franchise.

What about simply doubling the effectiveness of (currently near-useless) Bazookas? This is a small change that would greatly increase USF's AT capabilities (e.g. allow for dedicated RE tank-hunter squads, give Rifles some AT oomph (at cost to AI), and allow for effective AT rifle flanks).

What about simply doubling the effectiveness of (currently near-useless) Bazookas? This is a small change that would greatly increase USF's AT capabilities (e.g. allow for dedicated RE tank-hunter squads, give Rifles some AT oomph (at cost to AI), and allow for effective AT rifle flanks).

Double is a little much. I think the best balance would be if they did the same damage as schreks, but had lower penetration. Though similiar pen and lower damage would still be better.
The problem is that with low pen + low damage and now recently added low acccuracy makes them useless.

I dont see why. For one what do Soviets need tons of Muni for? They really dont. Ostheers abilities and power are mainly gated by this.

On the Fuel front a heavy tank loss couldnt be instantly replaced as the resources wouldnt support it making fielding one more risk, allow Medium tanks more time to dominate, and losses of heavy fuel points and caches more punishing.

Also it would make infantry more relevant as nothing messes with Manpower income but Pop cap.

I don't mind a resource distribution change, but I think it wont really chance 4v4s much. I am all in favor of stretching the early and mid-game. What I am saying is that Axis will still have the advantage when they do get their units out. Although this may give the Allies a chance to win it in the early and mid stages, imo it feels a little artificial

Double is a little much. I think the best balance would be if they did the same damage as schreks, but had lower penetration. Though similiar pen and lower damage would still be better.
The problem is that with low pen + low damage and now recently added low acccuracy makes them useless.

Actually if you look at the DPS they are very close. Due to the Bazookas higher ROF. The accuracy and Pen hurt it alot. Accuracy makes its low Pen and OK DPS not work against light vehicles due to their target size being small and the Pen makes them suck against heavier tanks that they can actually hit.

I would like to see either an accuracy buff making them light vehicle counters that can do SOME damage against Mediums or more Pen so they can actually hurt Mediums well or Heavies. Right now they are not good at counter either class of armor.

Words. Lots of them. Did read, you should too

Very nice essay about the problem. I do agree with the core analysis and am also a noob in Mapmacking.

So, to you creaters of worlds out there: Is it possibe (and not to much work) to make a test map, just scaling the open terrain in between all the stuff on a popular teammap? So whoever wanted to, could test the thesis in live action environment? As this would be the easy and lazy way to do it, other then enlarging it with new terrain and more points.

I really really dont understand the resistance to limit fuel and munition scaling. I have been saying this since launch. Its really a no brainer. Each player should receive the same resources they receive in 1v1 and no more no matter what map they play on.

I am not sure I understand - each player DOES receive the same amount of resources in 4v4 they would in 1v1. The number of points is roughly the same.

But I think resources should be looked at. There is a qualitative difference between a single Panther in the field in a 1v1, and four panthers on the field, at the same time, in a 4v4. 4's never really devolve into four separate 1v1s, tanks of all players are usually able to support each other and move in a pack all over the map.

Yes, there is also more Allied tanks but Axis have Schrecks and PaKs. There is a critical point of Axis armour after which anything Allies throw at them gets brutalized by the Axis heavies (and Panthers, which have an armour of a heavy tank).

Typical 3v3+ engagement : two blobs of tanks meet, a few Allied tanks get destroyed, and a few Axis tanks get to 20% and are retreated and repaired with more veterancy, blocked by the other more healthy tanks. Alternatively, an Allied player attempts a flank and eats 12 Schrecks to the face. This is all true even for open maps like Steppes. Add in some choke points and the balance shifts even more in Axis favour (more availability of mines, specialized AT mines, more infantry based AT options).

I am not sure I understand - each player DOES receive the same amount of resources in 4v4 they would in 1v1. The number of points is roughly the same.

But I think resources should be looked at. There is a qualitative difference between a single Panther in the field in a 1v1, and four panthers on the field, at the same time, in a 4v4. 4's never really devolve into four separate 1v1s, tanks of all players are usually able to support each other and move in a pack all over the map.

Yes, there is also more Allied tanks but Axis have Schrecks and PaKs. There is a critical point of Axis armour after which anything Allies throw at them gets brutalized by the Axis heavies (and Panthers, which have an armour of a heavy tank).

Typical 3v3+ engagement : two blobs of tanks meet, a few Allied tanks get destroyed, and a few Axis tanks get to 20% and are retreated and repaired with more veterancy, blocked by the other more healthy tanks. Alternatively, an Allied player attempts a flank and eats 12 Schrecks to the face. This is all true even for open maps like Steppes. Add in some choke points and the balance shifts even more in Axis favour (more availability of mines, specialized AT mines, more infantry based AT options).

God damn. The truth hurts so much

Actually if you look at the DPS they are very close. Due to the Bazookas higher ROF. The accuracy and Pen hurt it alot. Accuracy makes its low Pen and OK DPS not work against light vehicles due to their target size being small and the Pen makes them suck against heavier tanks that they can actually hit.

I would like to see either an accuracy buff making them light vehicle counters that can do SOME damage against Mediums or more Pen so they can actually hurt Mediums well or Heavies. Right now they are not good at counter either class of armor.

Overall DPS is largely meaningless when it come to infantry AT weapons. Most competent players won't maintain range for more then one round to go off. Whether reload be 5 seconds or 7.

And in the case of Pschreks it's usually their high alpha damage that is so powerful.

Lot's of stuff

This is a spot on analysis. Great explanation on the difference between teamgames and 1v1 and why the scaling will never work without changes.

Unfortunately I have to disagree on you solution. Not because it wouldn't balance team games but because it would require far too much work and would leave the games in a far less enjoyable state.

To balance the maps for team games like they are in 1v1s you would have to essentially scrunch all the maps down so that the time to arrive in the battle is similar, and then spread out the map large enough for more flanking and harrasing to take place, essentially spliting up the players. All you will left with is a long but shallow looking map with every fighting their own 1v1s and slightly interacting with their neighbors. And that doesn't leave much room for variety in maps.

Besides I don't think there is anything wrong with the 4v4 meta and maps. I think it's perfectly fine as is and both sides are able to succeed depending on teamwork and skill. That is until the late game hits and the axis side get's a variety of extremely powerful weapons that are easy to support with extremely effective support units and maintain even while taking losses, while the allied side either has to depend on doctrines to compete or simply unperformed compared to their opponents.

The problem is in the late game, there is no need to change how 4v4 works in general. That's why I have been such an advocate for fuel upkeep. Which would help keep the resources flowing around in the late game under a much more controllable state.

Overall DPS is largely meaningless when it come to infantry AT weapons. Most competent players won't maintain range for more then one round to go off. Whether reload be 5 seconds or 7.

And in the case of Pschreks it's usually their high alpha damage that is so powerful.

This is the point to which I was alluding, so thanks O_W for pointing it out.

In vCoh, you could use Airborne and, to a lesser extent, Rangers to flank Where armor while your tank and AT guns plinked at their frontal armor. And while fire up was gimicky, it forced Wher to pull back their tanks or eat some noticeable damage. In short, like the other best parts of US strategy, flanking was a viable option, even against armor (with both infantry, wolverines, and even greyhounds). While this advantage was mitigated slightly in 4v4s, M10 trains and sticky or airborne flanks were still totally viable.

Here, rifles have very little value against armor. And they need to at least be a threat in order to counter later-game Axis armor. Because right now, the later Axis heavies can just ignore them. A potent Bazooka might change this.

Overall DPS is largely meaningless when it come to infantry AT weapons. Most competent players won't maintain range for more then one round to go off. Whether reload be 5 seconds or 7.

And in the case of Pschreks it's usually their high alpha damage that is so powerful.

Sure if the tank isnt snared. But expecting it to be similar to performance to a Pshrek is just never ever going to happen. I am OK with this if it got a buff in another area. Be it accuracy or Pen. Because they can be on every USF unit if you have the muni. You dont need a dedicated unit to use it. Just the muni and ANY squad at all.

Unfortunately I have to disagree on you solution. Not because it wouldn't balance team games but because it would require far too much work and would leave the games in a far less enjoyable state.

To balance the maps for team games like they are in 1v1s you would have to essentially scrunch all the maps down so that the time to arrive in the battle is similar, and then spread out the map large enough for more flanking and harrasing to take place, essentially spliting up the players. All you will left with is a long but shallow looking map with every fighting their own 1v1s and slightly interacting with their neighbors. And that doesn't leave much room for variety in maps.

I only suggest this because I doubt Relic will create separate balance profiles for team games. If they stick to their 1v1 trickle up balance then team game will have to be forced to play like 1v1. Maps are the only direct impact the community can have on balance. Perhaps a community made map forcing players into a 1v1 style may produce better win/loss ratios.

Besides I don't think there is anything wrong with the 4v4 meta and maps. I think it's perfectly fine as is and both sides are able to succeed depending on teamwork and skill. That is until the late game hits and the axis side get's a variety of extremely powerful weapons that are easy to support with extremely effective support units and maintain even while taking losses, while the allied side either has to depend on doctrines to compete or simply unperformed compared to their opponents.

The problem is in the late game, there is no need to change how 4v4 works in general. That's why I have been such an advocate for fuel upkeep. Which would help keep the resources flowing around in the late game under a much more controllable state.

I agree with you that resource flow is major contributing factor to state of the team games. In team games I have encountered stukkas at 7 mins and KTs at 20 mins. Ideally it should be looked at but if I remember resources are tied to the maps. Fuel upkeep would a solution in part if done correctly but that is tired to the units stats and would require Relic to introduce into 1v1 balance without a separate profile.