Which Faction Is OP At Present & Why ?

It is not crying, moron, it is my feeling of playing Allies myself.

Do you ever say anything that isn't loaded with venom and vitriol when discussing balance? I honestly believe you have a valid opinion on most topics but you just hurt your argument by how you express yourself. Cheer up will you.

I know how we will fix the call-in meta, give back the SU-85 from the old days with focus sight ( no speed penalty) and having super reverse speed = no need for T34/85´s/IS-2 ( nerf them back to the shit state they were in COH 2 launch not to see them again )

Also Nerf the Tiger just like IS-2 and T34/85´s, and buff the panther back to 1280hp, 400armor and 60 range, while costing 150 fuel, and Give the axis armor, its old armor bonus from veterancy ( it was something like: 30% less damage from all attacks).

If we do this, you wont see any call in tanks ever again, and we all will be happy!

*Everything was better in the old days*

1) Anti-blob mechanics like negative zeal that will increase hits/suppression on blobbed units.

I agree with your post, but you would need to implement a quite a radical redesign to the came for this to be in:

1. Change all the maps to be much more open, unit's typically don't have a lot of room to move around so they are stuck in a "blob" formation regardless of if you wish them to or not.

2. USF and Soviets need radical changes: Both have numerous weak infantry to make up for a lack of concentration in force. USF especially suffers from this as it gets nothing better than riflemen unless you go air borne, so to match an Axis players more concentrated fire power you need to group your units up.

3. Having more units than another person isn't blobbing. A lot of people give me shit because I keep my units together; that's because I don't like splitting them up by themselves because of how weak single squads are by themselves if the enemy decides to group their units. Keeping your units together in one army or spreading them out is a tactical decision, it's just that in the current meta you get more reward for having 1 or 2 big armies instead of units dispersed all across the map.

I agree with your post, but you would need to implement a quite a radical redesign to the came for this to be in:

1. Change all the maps to be much more open, unit's typically don't have a lot of room to move around so they are stuck in a "blob" formation regardless of if you wish them to or not.

2. USF and Soviets need radical changes: Both have numerous weak infantry to make up for a lack of concentration in force. USF especially suffers from this as it gets nothing better than riflemen unless you go air borne, so to match an Axis players more concentrated fire power you need to group your units up.

3. Having more units than another person isn't blobbing. A lot of people give me shit because I keep my units together; that's because I don't like splitting them up by themselves because of how weak single squads are by themselves if the enemy decides to group their units. Keeping your units together in one army or spreading them out is a tactical decision, it's just that in the current meta you get more reward for having 1 or 2 big armies instead of units dispersed all across the map.

Yeah it'd require some redesigning for sure.

1. Absolutely. I was making posts from month 6 after release about map design.

2. Agreed, there's a kind of requirement for grouping the weaker infantry together to get enough punch.

3. I haven't said that sending in more units in one place is blobbing. I'm talking about 4-8 squads all together, drag-selected and walking around the map Lenny/Price style. Currently, as you said, this style of play is rewarded and therefore prevalent in the meta. The use of a larger force as you described is fine. It would be a tactical choice (leaving you a little vulnerable on the other side of the map) that isn't easy to pull off.


I didn't say they should only eliminate blobbing. They need to provide valid alternatives too.

I wanna be able to play with interesting troop maneuvers. 4/5 squads spread out attacking from different angles to flank, etc. Actual strategy instead of Blob+A-move.

There needs to be different variants of PTRS for certain units but overall I don't think any faction is OP. And change the title to strongest because it is not really OP.

The reason people disliked/dislike those things is because they all belong to one faction. Soviets have a plethora of 1 shot squad wipe weapons. All the other factions? Eh, not so much.

The only complaints coming form axis only players

"How dare i be punished for blobbing"?

Wiping units forces players to use some cerebral activity before they choose to mindlessly blob.

The only complaints coming form axis only players

"How dare i be punished for blobbing"?

Wiping units forces players to use some cerebral activity before they choose to mindlessly blob.

The argument isn't that there shouldn't be blob counters, rather, it would be nice if every faction had them.

The argument isn't that there shouldn't be blob counters, rather, it would be nice if every faction had them.

Every faction does

Usf has demos , priests. AA HT

Sov have katy, flame barrage, propaganda, maxims (early game only), demos.

Ost has Ostwind, new mg42, S-mines, wefer (if u can get to it and get close enough) and Skill strafes

OKW has.. Well.. a Bigger and Better blob!

Every faction does

Usf has demos , priests. AA HT

Sov have katy, flame barrage, propaganda, maxims (early game only), demos.

Ost has Ostwind, new mg42, S-mines, wefer (if u can get to it and get close enough) and Skill strafes

OKW has.. Well.. a Bigger and Better blob!

Ostwind, and Werfer are not on the same level as the Soviet options. While yes USF does have some options nothing can touch the efficiency of the ISU or 120.

The main go to for USF for beating blobs it to blob harder using 1919's or whatnot.

Give every faction viable blob counters, blobbing will go down.

Ostwind, and Werfer are not on the same level as the Soviet options. While yes USF does have some options nothing can touch the efficiency of the ISU or 120.

The main go to for USF for beating blobs it to blob harder using 1919's or whatnot.

Give every faction viable blob counters, blobbing will go down.

Wefer is tough

But u must have never seen high level Ostwind play since u thought it was appropriate to make that comment

About the USF M1919 blobbing "issue" u cant expect for me to take that seriously?

Contradiction:

Everybody say that COH1 was a better game than COH2. Everybody say that they hate blobs. Yet COH1 had the most nasty blobs I can remember, and punishible by so few things unlike in COH2.

Examples:
1. Paras blob. The most solid infantry in game so they could engage the best axis infantry especially if they were vetted. With upgrades, no escape for vehicles. With fire up, let's not forget = they didn't care about HMGs.
2. Ranger blob. They could eat a structure in a matter of seconds. Verry nasty on vehicles. With upgrade, verry nasty on infantry too. With fire up, too.
3. British blob. Different upgrades fro AI to Piats. With all upgrades, untouchable by vehicles or infantry. With officers, the one and only blob of doom.
4. Grenadiers blob. Verry solid, different upgrades from AI to AT. With medical bunkers and zeal from terror doctrine = prepare for the army of ants. No matter how manny you kill, they will overrun you.
5. The fragile but so lethal PE blob. STG upgrade? All infantry should run like hell. Shreck upgrade? British, don't build anything. It's in vain.

The only anti-blob weapon that was truly effective was the german nebelwerfer because of 2 features:

1. Rockets would supress every infantry squad on a huge area at the moment of impact;
2. The rockets had an incendiary effect, so if you forgot the squads there supressed, they would have burned like mice. So you needed to hit the retreat button.

Maybe we should have more weapons like nebelwerfers in game. Relic made a little try with the pack howie and OKW leigh but it's barely perceptible in game. That would be a nice feature for PZWerfer for instance which is soooo shity. Not burning rockets, but at least supression. Every faction needs a weapon old nebelwerfer style. Maybe this would discourage blobs.

These are my 2 cents. Still I want to conclude that COH2 blobs < COH1 blobs in my opinion therefore I don't find COH2 blobs so disturbing.

If PTRS must remain buffed then plz change the cost that give conscripts PTRS from munitions to fuel.

Obviously the opponents faction is OP, goes without saying.

If PTRS must remain buffed then plz change the cost that give conscripts PTRS from munitions to fuel.

Sure, slap some vehicle armor on them as well to justify that.
Add some to grens LMG for balance as well.

If we're talking about which one is objectively and out of context OP, then I would have to say OKW. A few examples:

• Walking Stukka: It's increased cost compared to the other similar units doesn't justify it's power. It can wipe stuff and you can't do anything about it.
  
• King Tiger: Why on earth is the most powerful tank in the game a non-doctrinal unit? (the Sturmtiger as well). And why do super-heavies do even have speed boosting abilities? That's ridiculous.
  
• Infiltration Grenades: 10 munitions to destroy buildings? What the hell...
  

Contradiction:

Everybody say that COH1 was a better game than COH2. Everybody say that they hate blobs. Yet COH1 had the most nasty blobs I can remember, and punishible by so few things unlike in COH2.

Examples:
1. Paras blob. The most solid infantry in game so they could engage the best axis infantry especially if they were vetted. With upgrades, no escape for vehicles. With fire up, let's not forget = they didn't care about HMGs.
2. Ranger blob. They could eat a structure in a matter of seconds. Verry nasty on vehicles. With upgrade, verry nasty on infantry too. With fire up, too.
3. British blob. Different upgrades fro AI to Piats. With all upgrades, untouchable by vehicles or infantry. With officers, the one and only blob of doom.
4. Grenadiers blob. Verry solid, different upgrades from AI to AT. With medical bunkers and zeal from terror doctrine = prepare for the army of ants. No matter how manny you kill, they will overrun you.
5. The fragile but so lethal PE blob. STG upgrade? All infantry should run like hell. Shreck upgrade? British, don't build anything. It's in vain.

The only anti-blob weapon that was truly effective was the german nebelwerfer because of 2 features:

1. Rockets would supress every infantry squad on a huge area at the moment of impact;
2. The rockets had an incendiary effect, so if you forgot the squads there supressed, they would have burned like mice. So you needed to hit the retreat button.

Maybe we should have more weapons like nebelwerfers in game. Relic made a little try with the pack howie and OKW leigh but it's barely perceptible in game. That would be a nice feature for PZWerfer for instance which is soooo shity. Not burning rockets, but at least supression. Every faction needs a weapon old nebelwerfer style. Maybe this would discourage blobs.

These are my 2 cents. Still I want to conclude that COH2 blobs < COH1 blobs in my opinion therefore I don't find COH2 blobs so disturbing.

People call blob anything that beat them. 2, 3 or 4 squads spread or not doesn't matter in fact. People prefers to say it was a blob and he played better but there is nothing he can do vs a blob.

I think the skill level in Coh2 is far lower than in Coh1, simply because Relic made really clear they wanted it that way and removed a lot of natural counter to low skill mechanisms such as blob.
You cannot play sneaky, you cannot rely on high risk / high reward units to base your strategy because it would suppose to be a way to quickly seal the fate a match. And this, Relic doesn't want it, Relic wants match that goes to end CP units and wants those end CP units being able to reverse the fate of a match. This is the reality of the game today.

Peoples want to debuff Blobs, but it is never going to happen because Blob is a concept without a clear definition.
When, during a match, I decide to monumentally blob my units to push in a strategic point. What, apart from my idea of what a blob is, define the blob? Who can say, apart from reading in my mind, how many units I decide to use to do so? 2, 3, 4?.
And why should I be debuffed for that? We all blob spontaneously during a match when the situation requires it, why should we be debuffed for that?. what people want is to debuff people playing blob as a global strategy all games long.

The only way to tone down strategic blobs efficiency but saving spontaneous tactical blobs is for Relic to set back those mechanisms and re-increase the general skill level require to play the game.

People call blob anything that beat them. 2, 3 or 4 squads spread or not doesn't matter in fact. People prefers to say it was a blob and he played better but there is nothing he can do vs a blob.

I think the skill level in Coh2 is far lower than in Coh1, simply because Relic made really clear they wanted it that way and removed a lot of natural counter to low skill mechanisms such as blob.
You cannot play sneaky, you cannot rely on high risk / high reward units to base your strategy because it would suppose to be a way to quickly seal the fate a match. And this, Relic doesn't want it, Relic wants match that goes to end CP units and wants those end CP units being able to reverse the fate of a match. This is the reality of the game today.

Peoples want to debuff Blobs, but it is never going to happen because Blob is a concept without a clear definition.
When, during a match, I decide to monumentally blob my units to push in a strategic point. What, apart from my idea of what a blob is, define the blob? Who can say, apart from reading in my mind, how many units I decide to use to do so? 2, 3, 4?.
And why should I be debuffed for that? We all blob spontaneously during a match when the situation requires it, why should we be debuffed for that?. what people want is to debuff people playing blob as a global strategy all games long.

The only way to tone down strategic blobs efficiency but saving spontaneous tactical blobs is for Relic to set back those mechanisms and re-increase the general skill level require to play the game.

Well, these are my thoughts too. Again, COH1, "the better game" even rewarded you for blobbing, as crazy as it sounds. Remember the passive zeal of grenadiers in terror doctrine. Remember the zeal at Panzer Elite, which was an offensive ability and remember the experience share mechanics at the same faction. Remember the passive bonuses of british officers. All these were BLOB REWARDING. But then you had artllery which realy ment something. And the nebels. And the flames. The only thing that received a negative zeal mechanic was the flame pios blob at Wehrmacht. To cheap, to deadly. But flames were affecting the units differently. Paras and Rangers had elite armors which made them extremely vulnerable to flames.

So when you ask for blobing nerf ask yourself, as Esxile said "What is a blob in fact?" and "Do I realy want blobs disappear?"

I don't see the fascination with blobbing honestly. No matter which faction I play as, I have counters available for anti-blob duty.

Defeating blobs can be annoying, but I would rather deal with 4 rifle squads coming at me in a horde, than 4 rifle squads using intelligent use of smoke and cover to close the distance.

Honestly, I don't usually blob. But if I do, it is because I have discoered a weak point i the enemy's defense, and figured that just walking through the opening without micro is much easier than bothering with micro. Either way I will win the engagement with minimal losses, the only difference is that by just moving my infantry in one clump, I can spend my micro on more important things like my armor.

Also, to people saying that the mg42 can't beat rifle blobs, please try using two of them in cover, spread apart in such a way that they can-accurately suppress a large field of fire, while covering each other in case of smoke. A single 251 HT and an mortar behind them will make it impossible for a blob to assault you, and you don't even need supporting units! (Though a pio flamer or two is advisable.) If your enemy outflanks you and hits you in your blind spot, where you had forgotten to place mines or a scout squad at least, that means that you got outplayed, not OMFGOPBLOBWOW.

As a matter of fact, if one likes axis more, he/she tends write here one of the allies factions is Op, and vice versa.

BUT I'm sure we all know that atm Soviet is the strongest, while Ost being the weakest.

Specially in 1v1s and 2v2s, allies are considerably stronger, that's for sure.

Why the hell do you repeat that ost is weakes like it was some kind of holy mantra?

Update your game already and comp stomp with new buffs, early game was fixed, mid and late game was never a problem.