4vs4 as allied

What the fuck. The OKW fuel penalty makes every loss harder on it, not easier. At the 66% fuel income the loss of a OKW AA HT is 71.5 fuel down the drain.

it's not just about cost my simple man. should i explain more? probably not because it is clear you won't be convinced by anything.




p.s. if you are gonna bring up fuel disadvantage, bring up salvage, vet 5, resource conversion, free med/repair/AA-aerial denial, etc etc. all the shits that are there to counteract okw resource deficiency.

In a 4 v 4 game, 3 OKW and 1 Wehrmacht is the one of the best set up a competitive team can have. I have played against Go Hard clan with this set up and it is pretty difficult to beat. 1 OKW player goes defensive for Paks, 1 OKW player goes for Jagd, 1 OKW player goes for Falls (harssement) and 1 Whermact goes CAS/Tiger. Perfect counter for infantry (CAS) and rest if for all the medium and heavy tanks. OKW synergy with Wehrmacht is on point in team games.

Funny thing about 4 v 4 against competitive team, Axis will field almost/close amount of infantry squads as Allies, all thanks to OKW. (I have been guilty of spamming 4 Volks squads into Fusiliers myself to overwhelm USF/Sov).

Allies will always be hard to play in 2 v 2+ games, fuel penalty means shit.

Taller player is a streamer. You migth find him on the first page everyday.

He and his team go hard like playes has Top1 in 4 vs 4 as Soveits and One USF as arrange team.

They win 90% against all scrubs like those in this thread thou they are not that good in 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2.

Allies will always be hard to play in 2 v 2+ games

I consider double Soviets in 2v2 as the easiest and strongest combo. Their choice of units allow them to adapt to every situation pretty well including OKW blobs, especially OKW blobs (which are actually comfortable to play against since you can Katjusha/demo them to death effortlessly).

it's not just about cost my simple man. should i explain more? probably not because it is clear you won't be convinced by anything.




p.s. if you are gonna bring up fuel disadvantage, bring up salvage, vet 5, resource conversion, free med/repair/AA-aerial denial, etc etc. all the shits that are there to counteract okw resource deficiency.

You should explain more because the idea that the OKW AA HT is easier to replace than the USF AA HT is makes exactly zero sense.

How does vet 5 make up for the fuel shortage? Higher vet units don't give you more income. You have to pay for your medics and repair base. Resource conversion is stupid and does nothing but gimp you till late game, and the Schwer is AA aerial denial because it's OKW's most important tier building.

In a 4 v 4 game, 3 OKW and 1 Wehrmacht is the one of the best set up a competitive team can have. I have played against Go Hard clan with this set up and it is pretty difficult to beat. 1 OKW player goes defensive for Paks, 1 OKW player goes for Jagd, 1 OKW player goes for Falls (harssement) and 1 Whermact goes CAS/Tiger. Perfect counter for infantry (CAS) and rest if for all the medium and heavy tanks. OKW synergy with Wehrmacht is on point in team games.

Funny thing about 4 v 4 against competitive team, Axis will field almost/close amount of infantry squads as Allies, all thanks to OKW. (I have been guilty of spamming 4 Volks squads into Fusiliers myself to overwhelm USF/Sov).

Allies will always be hard to play in 2 v 2+ games, fuel penalty means shit.

Allies are harder to play because you need better coordination, not because allied units magically do less dps or have worse armor.

And the most viable set up for 4's is 2 OKW and 2 Ostheer. Tigers are irrelevant in 4's against a good allies team, what you want from Ostheer is Elefants and indirect fire support.

In a 4's game, if both sides are making fuel caches, which by the way is harder for Axis due to Ostheer being MP starved, then the tanks will be hitting the field at the same proportional time intervals than they did before. The t34/76 will come in before the Panther like always.

Hi and welcome to the club.

I agree on point that 4 players have higher chances against forward HQ, but in your theory you're putting 4 coordinated players on allied side and 4 autistic players as axis.

For example here's what I see as result in your scenarios:

You've left your allies outnumbered. They got defeated and had to stop their push and retreat. Then enemy came for you, and you had to retreat all the way through their lines, losing couple of squads. Instead of coordination you let your enemy to beat you part by part.


Again, if allies is so coordinated (say, they playing as arranged team) then why you assume that axis can't react in same coordinated manner? I know, it is somewhat map dependent, because, for example, on Vielsam indeed it is hard throw your army from one side of map to another.
But here also comes another problem. If I play vanila faction I have to retreat to my HQ in base sector. If I'm trying to fight on flank that is far from my HQ, my army will spend 90% of game time walking rather than fighting.


Encircle how? He has healing+retreat point nearby. He will attack you constantly and get back for healing and reinforcing, while your army will go thin.
I play mostly soviet. As a soviet player I have no handheld AT and have quite crappy stock vehicles which I won't use unless I'm already ahead. So I'm very dependant on my AT guns in order to fend off Luchs or Flak HT, untill I will able to use my call-ins. Meanwhile my enemy have retreat+healing nearby and don't have to rely on team weapons with setup time and restricted arc of fire. Tell me how you call me more moblile with these AT guns?


This contradicts your scenario #1 where you was attacking their base sector.
Again. If allied players so smart that they focus 3v1 on one side, then what the hell other 2 axis players doing?

Generally, I agree with you. You have to be coordinated as Allies in order to win.
But that's just means that 4v4 format is more demanding in terms of skill for Allies. The fact that 4v4 AT is somewhat balanced is another confirmation of that.

I've used that graph in another thread, but it fits here too, I guess:

Do you mind elaborating on your graph a bit for me?

You have a bell curve with a y axis of number of players vs skill. How exactly are you measuring skill? Furthermore Gaussians represent probability so I'm not sure what your y axis is supposed to mean. Then you have a CDF over the top of which does represent a probability being chance of winning but that makes no sense at least from your CDF perspective.

I'm really lost in your statistical analysis, Some sight on your process and data would be helpful

You should explain more because the idea that the OKW AA HT is easier to replace than the USF AA HT is makes exactly zero sense.

How does vet 5 make up for the fuel shortage? Higher vet units don't give you more income. You have to pay for your medics and repair base. Resource conversion is stupid and does nothing but gimp you till late game, and the Schwer is AA aerial denial because it's OKW's most important tier building.



Allies are harder to play because you need better coordination, not because allied units magically do less dps or have worse armor.

And the most viable set up for 4's is 2 OKW and 2 Ostheer. Tigers are irrelevant in 4's against a good allies team, what you want from Ostheer is Elefants and indirect fire support.

In a 4's game, if both sides are making fuel caches, which by the way is harder for Axis due to Ostheer being MP starved, then the tanks will be hitting the field at the same proportional time intervals than they did before. The t34/76 will come in before the Panther like always.

You are forgetting how the map and space impacts the game. Allies for their early to mid and late game transition rely on map control early on and pressure. Both of these things are much easier to do when there is more space to work with. As you add players the maps only get so much bigger, and there are still only a finite number (usually not even that many) attack paths. For example on Kholudny there are many direcitons you can go for flanks and cut offs, but stack two players per side and now you are bound to run into enemy wherever you go in force. On a 4v4 map its even worse, while the map does get bigger the number of attack paths does not go up very much and so now players are forced into contact with each other. Less flanking routes and room to maneuver and exponentially expand means allies are forced into the grind of the defensive nature of axis.

In the most simple general case imagine there are 4 routes you can go around the map. in a 1v1 you can use 3 of the others to get around the 1 your opponent took. Now in a 4v4 each of those routes is filled with a player and you have to go through them. This means attacking heavily defended areas because each route has a concentrated force plugging the gap as opposed to in a 1v1 where there may be one or two units holding the flank.

The key concept here is that now Axis have a way of forcing allies into fighting on their terms at any point because everyone knows Axis has superior late game and the only way to stop that from happening is pressure and map control. Both of these have become vastly harder to get the upper hand on as you add players.

While it almost seems like this is a different issue, this is the same logic why instant pinning mgs were even more op in higher player count games. in a 1v1 you could run to another part of the map, but ina 4v4 you're stuck running into it no matter what direction you go.

There is absolutely no way of disputing this claim. The in order for allies to have better footing in the current game state, 4v4 maps would all have to look like a 1v1 on rezhev or Moscow

The fact that a lot of team maps are basically just glorified dota lane maps is bulllshit. I agree.

1. You should explain more because the idea that the OKW AA HT is easier to replace than the USF AA HT is makes exactly zero sense.

2. How does vet 5 make up for the fuel shortage? Higher vet units don't give you more income. You have to pay for your medics and repair base. Resource conversion is stupid and does nothing but gimp you till late game, and the Schwer is AA aerial denial because it's OKW's most important tier building.

1. M15 AAHT is crucial in its role. after the initial aggressive power of allies starts waning, the aaht helps allies to keep on the pressure before sov's tanks arrive. not to mention aaht has great [aoe] suppression on a moving platform. and not to mention USF has to get his major's vehicle out asap.

okw? all you need is shreck volks and sturms/obers. so yeah.

2. doesnt make up for it directly. indirectly it does.

You should explain more because the idea that the OKW AA HT is easier to replace than the USF AA HT is makes exactly zero sense.

Without USF aa halftrack its impossible to breakthrough axis mgs and stand to obers, which come 1 or 2 minute later after halftrack hits the field (not the battle). Therefore, losing USF aa halftrack early = devastating blow, while losing even fresh p2 for OKW is like "meh, i still have upper hand with my vetted shrecks and obers", which with adequate micro can stand to all infantry and all but heaviest allied tanks

Allies are harder to play because you need better coordination, not because allied units magically do less dps or have worse armor.

WHAT?

And the most viable set up for 4's is 2 OKW and 2 Ostheer.

Yes, different reasons, which lay in OKW weakness in indirect fire, lack of phausts, decent at guns and p4s in time to protect those at guns and apply pressure.

Tigers are irrelevant in 4's against a good allies team, what you want from Ostheer is Elefants and indirect fire support.

WHAT? x 2.

Axis with equal skill can win allies with infantry alone (well, as long as pak 43 count as infantry). Yes, balance that bad. Only thing you need for certain as axis in serious game is Luftwaffe supply or cas to bomb b-4s.

1. M15 AAHT is crucial in its role. after the initial aggressive power of allies starts waning, the aaht helps allies to keep on the pressure before sov's tanks arrive. not to mention aaht has great [aoe] suppression on a moving platform. and not to mention USF has to get his major's vehicle out asap.

okw? all you need is shreck volks and sturms/obers. so yeah.

2. doesnt make up for it directly. indirectly it does.

Uh, you need a lot more than volks and obers. And when you build a OKW AA HT you can't even make Obers yet.

Veterancy in no way makes up for OKW's lack of fuel income, units are not priced based on vet bonus's.

Without USF aa halftrack its impossible to breakthrough axis mgs and stand to obers, which come 1 or 2 minute later after halftrack hits the field (not the battle). Therefore, losing USF aa halftrack early = devastating blow, while losing even fresh p2 for OKW is like "meh, i still have upper hand with my vetted shrecks and obers", which with adequate micro can stand to all infantry and all but heaviest allied tanks

Micro won't destroy buildings or kill enemy indirect fire units.

WHAT?

Allied units have the same health/armor/dps/accuracy in every single game mode.

WHAT? x 2.

Axis with equal skill can win allies with infantry alone (well, as long as pak 43 count as infantry). Yes, balance that bad. Only thing you need for certain as axis in serious game is Luftwaffe supply or cas to bomb b-4s.

You can theoretically beat allies with only infantry,. but you can saw the same for axis as well. You need tanks, that's a fact no matter what faction you are playing, you need armor support. Problem is OKW only has either heavyish tanks or light vehicles. Zero in between.

Other indirect fire in the game exists outside of the B4. If he's spamming infantry make Kat's/demos/mortars/FPs/Scotts.

Micro won't destroy buildings or kill enemy indirect fire units.

Which buildings? Those ones which die to one infiltration grenades volley? Others, which would be cleared by obers in seconds? And for indirect fire units, spreading infantry and avoiding mass-retreats greatly reduces damage impacted by it. Also, whats stops your advancing units from killing enemy indirect fire units?

Allied units have the same health/armor/dps/accuracy in every single game mode.

Same inferior health/armor/dps to their axis counterparts. Have you even seen what vet 5 stgs obers do to multiple vet 3 shock? What tiger ace could do to multiple vetted is-2s under vet 4 command panther aura? THE HORROR.

but you can saw the same for axis as well.

No. Of course, it is on paper, but this paper written by top 10 allied/okw player, who (may be) know what he is speaking about. And from my top play experience i can assure you, unless enemy team knows what exactly you doing, it is most likely to win 4v4 as axis in this patch without single tank build or called in.

Uh, you need a lot more than volks and obers. And when you build a OKW AA HT you can't even make Obers yet.

Veterancy in no way makes up for OKW's lack of fuel income, units are not priced based on vet bonus's.

pigeon holed arguments and observations. wasn't talking about only vet bonuses btw.

we will just agree to disagree and i am just gonna stop feeding the t

Which buildings? Those ones which die to one infiltration grenades volley? Others, which would be cleared by obers in seconds? And for indirect fire units, spreading infantry and avoiding mass-retreats greatly reduces damage impacted by it. Also, whats stops your advancing units from killing enemy indirect fire units?


Same inferior health/armor/dps to their axis counterparts. Have you even seen what vet 5 stgs obers do to multiple vet 3 shock? What tiger ace could do to multiple vetted is-2s under vet 4 command panther aura? THE HORROR.


No. Of course, it is on paper, but this paper written by top 10 allied/okw player, who (may be) know what he is speaking about. And from my top play experience i can assure you, unless enemy team knows what exactly you doing, it is most likely to win 4v4 as axis in this patch without single tank build or called in.

My Clan fought WokaFlocka one game as Allies Lienne Forest, they stomped as Axis. We switched sides and guess who won the second match at the same map? You guessed it, we did as Axis as well.

Which buildings? Those ones which die to one infiltration grenades volley? Others, which would be cleared by obers in seconds? And for indirect fire units, spreading infantry and avoiding mass-retreats greatly reduces damage impacted by it. Also, whats stops your advancing units from killing enemy indirect fire units?


Same inferior health/armor/dps to their axis counterparts. Have you even seen what vet 5 stgs obers do to multiple vet 3 shock? What tiger ace could do to multiple vetted is-2s under vet 4 command panther aura? THE HORROR.


No. Of course, it is on paper, but this paper written by top 10 allied/okw player, who (may be) know what he is speaking about. And from my top play experience i can assure you, unless enemy team knows what exactly you doing, it is most likely to win 4v4 as axis in this patch without single tank build or called in.

Your using hyperbole. You need at least some tanks or your opponent is just going to pistol whip you with indirect fire because allies can bring it in, in much more quantities than Axis can.

The IS2 is better than the Tiger (including Tiger ace). And just because Axis's more expensive tanks are better allied stock tanks doesn't mean that your units are worse stat wise.

Allies in 4's if your coordinated is fun, if you not it sucks. Thems the cards.

You need at least some tanks or your opponent is just going to pistol whip you with indirect fire because allies can bring it in, in much more quantities than Axis can.

And, again, whats keeps you from rushing and destroying allied indirect fire units with superior combat troops? I suppose you think allied indirect fire is better (Which is not, ostheer stock mortar>all indirect fire in the game except stuka, which is another axis unit. Just example of how insane it is Show Spoiler ) because of those nasty 120mm one shot wipes, but if your opponent uses 120, which is not cheap by any means, where is your troops worth of same resources? Why they are not breaking enemy line and forcing those 120s to retreat with raw combat power advantage you have?

The IS2 is better than the Tiger(including Tiger ace).

Barely, plus tiger have superior at guns on it side, plus supporting grens have significantly more range on fausts, plus tiger have blitz on vet 1, plus... should i really continue?

And just because Axis's more expensive tanks are better allied stock tanks doesn't mean that your units are worse stat wise.

You can name it whatever you want, naming can not change fact that axis have best infantry, best tanks and even best tds(lol). Best everything. Not to mention insane synergy between all of what they have thanks to command panthers, command p4s, spotting scopes, ostheer and okw officers. Only advantage left to allies is hight shock-value of their units, which fades extremely fast in 4v4, and almost non-existent against axis who know what they do and how to counter this and that.

And, again, whats keeps you from rushing and destroying allied indirect fire units with superior combat troops? I suppose you think allied indirect fire is better (Which is not, ostheer stock mortar>all indirect fire in the game except stuka, which is another axis unit. Just example of how insane it is Show Spoiler

) because of those nasty 120mm one shot wipes, but if your opponent uses 120, which is not cheap by any means, where is your troops worth of same resources? Why they are not breaking enemy line and forcing those 120s to retreat with raw combat power advantage you have?

The Ostheer stock mortar is not better than all indirect fire in the game, it's a good mortar. It's Axis's only mortar besides the mortar HT. The best mobile shell based artillery in the game is the 120mm mortar.

And you can't rush most allied indirect fire units because they can you know just move.

Axis do not have the raw combat power advantage early game, they don't have it mid game either. At the late game when your infantry has gotten all veted up you will finally edge out ahead, but until then you will be facing LMG Para's, 1919 spam, shocks, and con/rifle hordes.

The Stuka is a good indirect fire unit because it's OKW's only indirect fire unit. And it costs 130 fuel. It's by no means the best indirect fire unit in the game, the B4 takes that cake.

Barely, plus tiger have superior at guns on it side, plus supporting grens have significantly more range on fausts, plus tiger have blitz on vet 1, plus... should i really continue?

Uh, the faust has the same range at the AT nade and is less likely to pen the IS2 than an AT nade is to pen a Tiger. Who cares if the Tiger has blitz if you have snared it, and if he retreats off the field he loses map presence.

The IS2 isn't "barely" better, it's got 75 more frontal armor. Yeah Axis has a better stock AT gun, as in it has 10 more penetration than the ZiS does.

You can name it whatever you want, naming can not change fact that axis have best infantry, best tanks and even best td(lol). Best everything. Not to mention insane synergy between all of what they have thanks to command panthers, command p4s, spotting scopes, ostheer and okw officers. Only advantage left to allies is hight shock-value of their units, which is fades extremely fast in 4v4, and almost non-existent against axis who know what they do and how to counter this and that.

Axis has exactly 1 infantry unit that is objectively better than every Allied unit, and not because the unit is good, but because the LMG the unit it is holding is good. Gren's lose out to duel 1919 or duel BAR rifles unless the rifles sit at max range (they never will), and Pgrens are just ayyy lmao.

OKW has the worst starting infantry in the game, as in it takes 3 levels of vet for a Volk squad to be able to contest a con squad 1 on 1.

Allies have all the best medium tanks, in fact, they have all the MBT's in the game except the Panzer IV Ausf G and Ausf J. They have the best medium TD, the best indirect fire, the best infantry support weapons, demo charges alone are amazing.

All of these things allies have require a player with good micro to utilize them, which is why Allies lose more, because most players have shit micro and shit coordination.

4's are hard for allies because 90% of the time the allied team won't be putting any actual effort into playing like a team.

Randoms are shit, who knew?

...

And you can't rush most allied indirect fire units because they can you know just move.

that is like saying at nade is useless because tanks can you know just move.

Axis do not have the raw combat power advantage early game, they don't have it mid game either. At the late game when your infantry has gotten all veted up you will finally edge out ahead, but until then you will be facing LMG Para's, 1919 spam, shocks, and con/rifle hordes.

just so much lies and just pure conjectures... wow.

The Stuka is a good indirect fire unit because it's OKW's only indirect fire unit. And it costs 130 fuel. It's by no means the best indirect fire unit in the game, the B4 takes that cake.

ISG? 130 fuel? oh you did that stupid okw fuel penalty shit.

...
The IS2 isn't "barely" better, it's got 75 more frontal armor. Yeah Axis has a better stock AT gun, as in it has 10 more penetration than the ZiS does.

tiger trades slightly less at for pretty decently better ai. but i agree. why does tiger need better ai? axis infantry takes care of that anyway. redundant...
target weak point? rof?

...which is why Allies lose more, because most players have shit micro and shit coordination.

4's are hard for allies because 90% of the time the allied team won't be putting any actual effort into playing like a team.

...

pure conjecture, numbers pulled out of an ass, said like a some statistics available in physics lab. lies, delusions, nit picking, non-logic, etc etc.

Do you mind elaborating on your graph a bit for me?

You have a bell curve with a y axis of number of players vs skill. How exactly are you measuring skill? Furthermore Gaussians represent probability so I'm not sure what your y axis is supposed to mean. Then you have a CDF over the top of which does represent a probability being chance of winning but that makes no sense at least from your CDF perspective.

I'm really lost in your statistical analysis, Some sight on your process and data would be helpful

Yeah, I was having flashbacks to stats classes and mirco-economics, and ... I can't comprehend any aspect of that graph.

that is like saying at nade is useless because tanks can you know just move.

If you even edge inside the AT snare range of a unit your going to get snared due to the tracking/ulimited range ability of snares once the unit begins to throw/fire the snare. It's quite a different animal than moving support weapons. Because both parties involved are just moving using legs, and once sees the other coming with an appreciable distance between the two.

just so much lies and just pure conjectures... wow.

If your not using 1919's, BARs and Shocks as well as Para's your doing something wrong.

ISG? 130 fuel? oh you did that stupid okw fuel penalty shit.

The ISG is the worst indirect fire unit in the game next to the USF Mortar HT, I don't count it because I don't count the USF Mortar HT. Both are useless and pretending like they matter is dumb.

On the other hand, pretending like the fuel penalty doesn't matter IS stupid because it has everything to do with unit cost performance and when a unit can enter the field.

tiger trades slightly less at for pretty decently better ai. but i agree. why does tiger need better ai? axis infantry takes care of that anyway. redundant...
target weak point? rof?

The Tiger actually has less chance to wipe a squad/multiple models in one shot than the IS2 does due to the IS2's higher AoE.

The only thing that the Tiger has over the IS2 is ROF, but it only has 1 more ROF, so it's not really much of a advantage.

The Target weak point stun ability 1. Doesn't work on IS2's all the time, and 2. The ROF on the Pak40 is only slightly better than that of the Zis which has anti infantry capabilities as well is less likely to be wiped thanks to a higher squad count.'

The chances of a IS2 wiping a Pak40 in one shot are quite high.

pure conjecture, numbers pulled out of an ass, said like a some statistics available in physics lab. lies, delusions, nit picking, non-logic, etc etc.

It's not pure conjecture to say that more units requires more micro. Allies have a large amount of tools in their tool box many players don't use because they lack the skill to use them.

The Jackson is the most mobile TD in the game, bar none. Most players are stupid and treat it like a SU-85. Demo charges can destroy entire armies in 1 click, most players are to lazy to even bother.

I'm actually agreeing with you, but your so determined to hate me you can't see it.