[Feedback requested] - balancing issues in large team games

Hello internet strangers,

I'm soliciting feedback specific to the larger game modes, 3v3 and 4v4. While there may be overlap with the other game modes the balancing issues should primarily affect the larger game modes. Back in the day I made a post about the balancing of larger games modes and having seen the future, most of them will be addressed.

What does the community feel is a balancing issue unique to the larger game modes?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in my posts and topics are soley those of the original author (Napalm). These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of Relic, the developers, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Close Air Support - One of three things needs to happen. Either AA gets a buff, the runs get a nerf, or redistribute resources is adjusted so there isn't unlimited resource distribution.

4v4 is my fav gamemode by far

the unit balance is "OK"(Take that with a grain of salt)

a good allied team can beat a good axis team and vise versa. They problem lies in viable strats. With axis u can troll with stupid builds and still win. Whit allies its the same stuff over and over again....

Winning doesn't mean everything, But constantly losing isn't fun

Really hope the community could get behind some good 4v4 ideas. Sadly many on this forum just dont care..

The lack of Allied unit diversity is a key issue. I think it will be addressed in the future though.

No fuel/ammo income from caches for OKW.
Reduced fuel/ammo income from Luftwaffe for OKW.

Close Air Support - One of three things needs to happen. Either AA gets a buff, the runs get a nerf, or redistribute resources is adjusted so there isn't unlimited resource distribution.

I would rather see AA mechanizm change, rather than buffs/nerfs so CAS won't be useless

The lack of Allied unit diversity is a key issue. I think it will be addressed in the future though.

THIS

usf and sov have soo few infantry types compaired to the two axis factions

Im assuming Brits is the new faction that coming. So this could change. also new commanders are definitely coming

All the issues faced in 3's and 4's are just the issues faced in 1's and 2's but cranked up to 11 due to the added resources and unit counts.

Allied early game gets stronger, Axis late game gets stronger. If the factions were designed around being good at all points in the game then this wouldn't be an issue.

Teching needs to be standardized across all factions so certain ones don't get to their late game units faster than others, call ins need to be tied to teching. Unit power should be a logical slope upwards, not a fluctuating mess.

USF and OKW's teching is non-linear and makes no sense power escalation wise. Your going from basic units to your late game units in literally one tier.



Soviets and Ostheers teching makes more sense, but Soviets teching is still bonkers because you only ever build t1 or 2, and then on to t3 or t4 so again your going from you very first units to your very last late game units. Ostheer of all the factions is the only one that make sense with a logical progression upwards in the power of it's units



All the factions should have the same logical creep upwards in power as Ostheer, not this insane stuff we have now were you get access to your best units at the start of the game or right in the mid game leaving little point to go backwards, at least OKW gets some incentive to do this.

Once all the factions get access to their units in a more sensible fashion the issues with team games will by and far go away because everyone will be as strong as the other team at all points in the game as the game progresses.

What about call ins? They should be tied to teching.

The lack of Allied unit diversity is a key issue. I think it will be addressed in the future though.

Soviets don't lack for unit diversity at all, Ostheer is mostly just gren spam and USF has literally nothing else they can make. OKW has a lot of diversity in mainline infantry but none in any other area.

As I pointed out in my previous thread, the Allies lack a bonus granting halo units. USF forces lacks a heavy tank. OKW lack a artillery piece. etc etc

USF forces lacks a heavy tank.

You beat me to it

My main issue is with Close Air Support and how it shuts down all allied on-field howitzer play with a few simple clicks. There are more doctrines that allow for the instant elimination of on-field static artillery positions, but no other doctrine can handle so much enemy artillery all by itself.

Well I think they've said before that they won't change the "Game Profile" for larger games, and I want to say why the hell not?

If they simply change Income and unit prices through a profile for larger games, a lot of problems will be solved.
Changes like:
-More fuel cost for heavies, specially Axis.
-More CP and/or fuel price for Call-ins.
-Less Cache income in general, and even less for the team

Please make something with the T34 spam + soviet industry, 5 T34 of 4 soviets at the 14 min is just GG, no replay saved sorry.

the maps just don't work. Every map has 14 resource sectors and 3 Vps, when you add more players the responsibility for map control reduces and it also causes resource income rates to peak out faster.

Maps for the larger modes need more resource sectors and less resource per point to compensate so that the total resource count available is the same but it is distributed even further.

The maps are also very big which results in full retreats being very detrimental because it takes a really long time to get back to the action zones.

The maps are also very narrow which limits flanking opportunities.

tl;dr maps are a bigger problem then most players realise.

Luftwaffe supply doc is exceedingly difficult to defeat because of the acceleration rate it provides to teammates. In good hands KT's can start to hit the field at or before the first Jackson.

Static artillery provides few benefits, excluding the B-4 to some degree, in a game mode where it should be the most effective.

Allies do not have a strong counter to super long range TD's. They rely on swarming to defeat super heavy TD's. Allies must have other strategies open to them than just mobbing heavy TD's.

Scout cars are too ineffective in large game modes and scale poorly for Allies. In the Axis camp the AC is amazingly useful late game with vet.

In general, Allied micro requirements in large games is much, much higher than Axis micro. Leads to problems with unit preservation.

Changing maps and adjusting fuel costs won't change the fact they designed the factions to be best at only certain points in the game. The only time all of the factions are on equal footing is mid game, which lasts a very very short time in 3's and 4's.

Changing maps and adjusting fuel costs won't change the fact they designed the factions to be best at only certain points in the game. The only tame all of the factions are on equal footing is mid game, which lasts a very very short time in 3's and 4's.

Alex chill for a minute. You have now posted twice within 11 minutes. Come back in an hour and see where things have gone, please don't flood the thread. Napalm will find it easier to read if thoughts are laid out. If a bad idea appears he will know.

Alex chill for a minute. You have now posted twice within 11 minutes. Come back in an hour and see where things have gone, please don't flood the thread. Napalm will find it easier to read if thoughts are laid out. If a bad idea appears he will know.

He requested a discussion on what the issues faced in 3's and 4's are balance wise. What is wrong with taking part in that discussion?

Some very good points have been brought up. Maps tie into resources which tie into unit timing.

not a balacing issue, but a mapping issue:


Relic,

bring the other Ardennes Assault maps to the automatch.


The good guys from team games needs more maps.

@Napalm I made one recently. I hope you find interesting

Show Spoiler

edit: add spoiler