OKW extremly OP, when a new patch will be out?

All in all i think OKW is fine.

Listen to CieZ.

Which specific unit? And I'm not complaining, I'm pointing out that OKW can be beat, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The ISG is utter fucking garbage and defending that piece of shit should be a ban worthy offense.

From my and majority posters on this forum experience, when two equally skilled players meet and one of them plays OKW, OKW player will almost always win. I had tons of games in which I could have seen my opponent being much worse than me. Worse micro, no positioning, no strategy etc. I even managed to wipe several squads and non of that mattered because in the end he was able to just flood me with his Vet5 Volks and Obers and there is nothing more frustrating than this. It wasn't the skill, wasn't my overall strategy. It was simply because he was playing broken faction. I don't mind having my are handed to me by a better player because I can learn something but against OKW that's really the case.


Also ISG is a very good unit I use almost every OKW game I play. I think you're doing something wrong if you think is useless. It provides solid MP bleed.

All in all i think OKW is fine.

Listen to Ciez.

+1 (nerf accuracy of Shrecks, and buff Raketen)

And USF could use some some sort of elite infantry in Major tech so that there are real alternatives to Rifles late game (Rangers anyone?).

All in all i think OKW is fine.

Listen to CieZ.

+1. CieZ explained well. Everything else in this thread is rather questionable.

Yet all the pro replays or tournaments I watch seems to paint a different picture.

All in all i think OKW is fine.

Listen to CieZ.

So, according to CieZ we have picture like this

Here's how it works in my opinion:[...]

At low/mid levels of skill the Axis are favored [...]

At high levels of skill the Allies have a decent advantage [...]

I'm not surprised that more player prefer Axis.
How can you call that "fine"?

Yet all the pro replays or tournaments I watch seems to paint a different picture.

L2P issue, again, according to CieZ.

All in all i think OKW is fine.

Listen to CieZ.

eh. speaking from 2v2 perspective as well almost half of the map in 2v2 rotation doesn't allow meaningful flanks/m3/m20/m15 due to clustered/bad design and sizes of the map. also, superbly designed okw base truck pushing and building crushing capabilities with well micro-ed kubel to cause first few retreats mean early game pretty much secured for axis. sure, volks and grens would get outplayed by great con/rifle micro only when axis players are spreading thin as much as normal allies early game to grab 50-50+% of the map in the first few minutes. staying relatively together, early combination of HMG, stg44, volks and grens can withstand against allies early game dominance. fear for USF mid game vehicles? get puma. it self-spots, and has 50 range that stays relative into the late game if used like a light tank.

also, i don't get how its 'allies intermediate player < axis intermediate players' but it somehow changes to 'allies expert player > axis expert player'. sure, expert allies player would flank better, execute attacks better, exploit allies early game better etc etc, but wouldn't axis expert player anticipate flanks better (defensive mines / wires), execute defense better, understand and withstand early game allies dominance better etc etc?

i do somewhat agree with his moral of the story. i guess i don't agree with some of the points he laid out to support it.

also, i don't get how its 'allies intermediate player < axis intermediate players' but it somehow changes to 'allies expert player > axis expert player'. sure, expert allies player would flank better, execute attacks better, exploit allies early game better etc etc, but wouldn't axis expert player anticipate flanks better (defensive mines / wires), execute defense better, understand and withstand early game allies dominance better etc etc?

i do somewhat agree with his moral of the story. i guess i don't agree with some of the points he laid out to support it.

I agree with his post, but that just says there's a design rather than balance issue if Allies are superior only in the hands of the top 10% of players. They are still working harder, in my opinion, at their micro than the equivalently skilled OKW player. Design considerations should include balance at the micro-level - neither side should have more work to do than the other to win.

I agree with his post, but that just says there's a design rather than balance issue if Allies are superior only in the hands of the top 10% of players. They are still working harder, in my opinion, at their micro than the equivalently skilled OKW player. Design considerations should include balance at the micro-level - neither side should have more work to do than the other to win.

It's not so much at the 'micro' level, you'll never get factions perfectly balanced at a micro-management level because micro is immeasurable. There are too many variables to 'balance' micro. Look at SC2. Protoss has barely required any micro in some match ups, much to the dismay of many players, but the game is still relatively well balanced. As long as the overall macro/meta makes sense, thats all that matters. Micro is what tips the scales of balance IMO and where the excitement of player experience, speed, skill comes into play.

Ciez is a 2v2 player though. In 2v2 i do agree that double soviets do have an advantage over axis.


Game is primaraly balanced around 1v1 why don't we listen to Luvnest, Jesulin, Cruzz and what they say about balance? They are the ones winning tournaments.

Oh wait last i heard Cruzz is an allied fanboy OpieOP

It's not so much at the 'micro' level, you'll never get factions perfectly balanced at a micro-management level because micro is immeasurable. There are too many variables to 'balance' micro. Look at SC2. Protoss has barely required any micro in some match ups, much to the dismay of many players, but the game is still relatively well balanced. As long as the overall macro/meta makes sense, thats all that matters. Micro is what tips the scales of balance IMO and where the excitement of player experience, speed, skill comes into play.

Probably.

-It is impromptu design choices which destroys balance and all other established order.

Btw, from someone who never plays 2v2: What makes double Soviets so strong there?

And for the topic on hand: Ostheer has it worse.

Btw, from someone who never plays 2v2: What makes double Soviets so strong there?

And for the topic on hand: Ostheer has it worse.

Double snipers, M3 early wipes, medium tank play keeping the pressure, into callins.

Two defamatory posts invised. Please keep it clean, thanks.

Back to topic.

So, according to CieZ we have picture like this




I'm not surprised that more player prefer Axis.
How can you call that "fine"?


L2P issue, again, according to CieZ.

good post. this situation is actually bad for the game since new players should want to play and have success with whatever faction they choose

Thing is: OKW has weaknesses which can be exploited by skilled Allies players in a 1v1 - apart from those weaknesses the majority of its units and abilities are straight OP.
Teamgames makes exploiting OKW's weaknesses exponentially harder with each teammember due to unit density on the field and synergies with OH. Which makes it absolutely broken.

Thing is: OKW has weaknesses which can be exploited by skilled Allies players in a 1v1 - apart from those weaknesses the majority of its units and abilities are straight OP.
Teamgames makes exploiting OKW's weaknesses exponentially harder with each teammember due to unit density on the field and synergies with OH. Which makes it absolutely broken.

May I ask: in your view what are the OKW's "Weaknesses"?

Sure!

- No ability to inflict engine damage
- Expensive unit replacement (which overperform per mp but losses might be underestimated in the first minutes)
- Risk tied to FQH positioning (which is a benefit per se)
- No medium tanks, time until P5

Sure!

- No ability to inflict engine damage
- Expensive unit replacement (which overperform per mp but losses might be underestimated in the first minutes)
- Risk tied to FQH positioning (which is a benefit per se)
- No medium tanks, time until P5

Mines. Not using not my problem. But they are there. If everybody didnt Shrek Blob. Like the early days of Soviet team games. Mines were required and LOTS and LOTS of them.

Sure!

- No ability to inflict engine damage
- Expensive unit replacement (which overperform per mp but losses might be underestimated in the first minutes)
- Risk tied to FQH positioning (which is a benefit per se)
- No medium tanks, time until P5

- Faust for Volks, Obers with option to upgrade double Schreck or LMG
- From my exp, OKW is floating with MP
- It's risk only while building but after it's denying cut-off mechanizm which is gardening OP
- Panzer III in HQ, King Tiger in Elite Armor.

All problmes solved