Early game for Ost
Posts: 987
In most games I watch (med-high level) I see Ostheer with very little map control vs both US and Sovs. Who would say that this tends to be the case?
I have a theory why they struggle vs the US not connected to riflemen/gren stats. Doctrines are irrelevant.
Small disclaimer: This is not a US OP thread. The US are not OP. The units I mention are not OP. Ost aren't exactly UP. If (and it won't be I know) this situation was changed, it would require other things to be changed to keep the balance. This idea will not magically fix CoH2. Trolls, please be still. I think a change in this area would open up the early-game infantry flanking battles, which I think would be more fun.
This replay is an example of how things often (not always but often) go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgazHLXrJ1Y
(20 minutes US huge map domination with equal-skilled players)
The problem seems to be all about the way US techs.
When Ost techs, there is a lull in their strength (time to tech up + time to build T2 + time to build first unit) During this time they find it difficult to maintain map control and so, in the majority of games, Ost have a resource disadvantage vs US.
They also have a positional disadvantage. The less ground you have, the more avenues there are to flank from. The longer the enemy holds ground, the more they can dig in with fighting pits, mines, wire.
Ost has to tech quickly vs US to be ready for the AA ht or the M20. They cannot go long T1. M20 can be on field in under 5 minutes, which gives very little time to get enough units to hold off the rifles and get a hard counter to the M20 before it starts to bleed them.
The US however can go for a long T0 for these reasons:
1) Their tech gives them another infantry unit.
2) They do not have to rush their tech as the Ost AC is not so devastating. It can be pushed off with small-arms fire or the Captain's zooka.
3) US T0 is capable of handling everything in Ost T0 and T1.
In short, early game, the Ost player suffers from a tech-lull lack of units for so long that the rest of the game they are usually on the back foot and don't have the opportunity to go round making fun flanks and exciting assaults.
So my questions are:
A) Is it the case that most games US/Ost see Ost with less map control?
B) Is this because of the reasons listed about?
C) If so, is this good for gameplay or bad?
Posts: 641 | Subs: 1
Posts: 987
As far as i see it the main problem are the maps. Einhoven is the perfect example of this. Left side kharkov too.
Maps are a huge problem too, I've said the same.
Would you not say that any of the reasons I listed cause or exacerbate the OST/US issue?
Posts: 2742
But at the same time, a rushed M20 can kind of hamstring USF by delaying the crap out of ATGs, and saving for captains first can really give Ostheer the room they need early game.
However, I agree overwhelmingly with the notion that the problem with most matches, regardless of faction, in CoH2 have to do with the maps and how they're designed.
Posts: 2181
Posts: 738
But at the same time, a rushed M20 can kind of hamstring USF by delaying the crap out of ATGs, and saving for captains first can really give Ostheer the room they need early game.
Lets be honest here there is never really much of a situation in the average USF/OH matchup where USF actually need an ATG to counter anything apart from the doctrinal StuG E before they can build a Sherman due to how expensive Wehr teching is.
Even then you have your own doctrinal perks to counter (Para 57mm, m10), building an early m20 this patch has pretty much zero risk.
Posts: 1094 | Subs: 20
+ what Saratini said about factions beeing stronger in certain stages of the game.
Posts: 770
Posts: 1802 | Subs: 1
But seriously, I think the major problems are:
1. Maps
2. Teching, specially lack of MP for Ostheer.
Posts: 644
Waiting for a shitstorm to happen here...
But seriously, I think the major problems are:
1. Maps
2. Teching, specially lack of MP for Ostheer.
3. OH player is bad
Posts: 3052 | Subs: 15
USF teching is just a minor issue, the maps are really to blame. Especially Kholodny left hand side, Kharkov left hand side, Faymonville North, Stalingrad, La Gleize (removing a house or two doesn't change the fact that this map is Allies favoured), Semoisky..
+ what Saratini said about factions beeing stronger in certain stages of the game.
Yup...la gleize and semoskiy are impossible as Ost.
Stalingrad is never un-vetoed. Ever.
Idk why the hell they moved the fuel point on semoiskiy so far away...like it wasnt already hard enough to ATTEMPT to hold the middle and prevent harassment at your fuel in 1v1.
Posts: 29
Semoisky is just unenjoyable. Stalingrad I prefer to auto-surrender If I forget to veto it. But then, just then, I'm a low level player, most for fun than anything else.
Posts: 81
I've found T3 highly effective though if you skip T2 and wreck USF with stugs/P4's
Posts: 83
Posts: 927
That said i would gladly see every 2v2 map go from 1v1 map rotation.
Posts: 1554 | Subs: 7
Sarantini mentioned a problem which - as I think - was finely solved in CoH1 in the wehr versus amis matchup: USA is indeed stronger in Early Game and had an advantage in Mid Game mostly and Wehrmacht plays truly like a faction that does not dominate from Early Game on but must build up its momentum to come back which was intended I think. But when Wehrmacht players made their comeback with infantry, weapon teams and vehicles that all were hopefully preserved and had upgraded veterancy USA players could react with a "counter comeback" by adding hard counters to their army composition: snipers and AT guns. Snipers could reliably take out "elite" infantry and the same goes for AT guns versus "elite" tanks. Of course you had to have decent micro and macro to achieve this.
I do miss these mechanisms in a matchup like ostheer versus usf. USF has not the same amount of combined arms which can work together to achieve such a "counter comeback".
Hopefully my CoH1 explanation is correct. It is something I observed in many games and experienced myself.
Posts: 102
Doesn't mean that Allies are OP or Axis is UP by any means, it's just inherently bad faction design.
Posts: 307 | Subs: 3
Heyo,
In most games I watch (med-high level) I see Ostheer with very little map control vs both US and Sovs. Who would say that this tends to be the case?
I have a theory why they struggle vs the US not connected to riflemen/gren stats. Doctrines are irrelevant...
*Long Ass Post*
So my questions are:
A) Is it the case that most games US/Ost see Ost with less map control?
B) Is this because of the reasons listed about?
C) If so, is this good for gameplay or bad?
In my Ost games I tend to get one of the two buildorders:
1) (pio), pio, gren, MG, gren (T2 if USF, pak <-> MG if russians, more grens)
Use your double pios to get ground fast, wire stuff for defence so the MG will fuck up any advancement from allies. You need to try and see the bigger picture when you are using MGs on axis side. "where will he attack from, where can I wire off the best for the next engagement. Camp or cap?" Ask yourself these questions and it should be OK.
Engies also get nice view-range for defence!
2) (pio), gren, gren, MG, gren, T2(if USF)
This is a buildorder where you can get the most firepower from, so this should be used in engagements rather than simple capping. Double gren have a good chance vs 2 engaging rifle squads (if in cover)
I tend to get 40% of the map on most maps, I like to defend in the beginning (especially vs conspam, cause I read that kind of play pretty easy IMO - cause conscript-king Kappa). From here on I tend to grap a bit more territory as time passes if I'm successful, due to the enemy retreat time. Please do note that it's very important to support your MGs, because they aren't supressing like in CoH1 They are insane for the dmg output these days! + PENETRATION-rounds!
If you get 4 units the USF can get an M20 before you grap your pak, simply bait into a mine or faust if for more time. you should have your pak in time before the M20 should be able to annihilate your army.
This just tend to work for me...
Edit:
Also recommend you to:
Preserve munitions for double shreck on PGrens
Think about getting a 222
Posts: 987
In my Ost games I tend to get one of the two buildorders:
1) (pio), pio, gren, MG, gren (T2 if USF, pak <-> MG if russians, more grens)
Use your double pios to get ground fast, wire stuff for defence so the MG will fuck up any advancement from allies. You need to try and see the bigger picture when you are using MGs on axis side. "where will he attack from, where can I wire off the best for the next engagement. Camp or cap?" Ask yourself these questions and it should be OK.
Engies also get nice view-range for defence!
2) (pio), gren, gren, MG, gren, T2(if USF)
This is a buildorder where you can get the most firepower from, so this should be used in engagements rather than simple capping. Double gren have a good chance vs 2 engaging rifle squads (if in cover)
I tend to get 40% of the map on most maps, I like to defend in the beginning (especially vs conspam, cause I read that kind of play pretty easy IMO - cause conscript-king Kappa). From here on I tend to grap a bit more territory as time passes if I'm successful, due to the enemy retreat time. Please do note that it's very important to support your MGs, because they aren't supressing like in CoH1 They are insane for the dmg output these days! + PENETRATION-rounds!
If you get 4 units the USF can get an M20 before you grap your pak, simply bait into a mine or faust if for more time. you should have your pak in time before the M20 should be able to annihilate your army.
This just tend to work for me...
Edit:
Also recommend you to:
Preserve munitions for double shreck on PGrens
Think about getting a 222
While that might work for you, and while it might work for others and may improve my success rate too (or not), you didn't address the points:
1) Is it true about the tendency for Ost to lose map control to US?
2) Counterable or not, is it fun to have the game this way with map dominance being so strong for one side?
Also, feel free to post some games vs players of your level where you demonstrate what you proposed here. 7 would be a suitable quantity.
To everyone else, thanks for the replies! I agree with everyone about the maps, there are serious issues with many of them. What is needed? To spread out capture points or add shot blockers or remove cover...?
Posts: 307 | Subs: 3
1) Is it true about the tendency for Ost to lose map control to US?
2) Counterable or not, is it fun to have the game this way with map dominance being so strong for one side?
In short terms:
1) Yes, for the most part this is what I see, but I kinda like the defending part of ost nowadays, especially not vs russia; the matchup is pretty balanced!
2) I have complained about OST - USF since the very beginning, I think the matchup is redicules! First you have to defend (forced), which is often pretty hard, then you have to play the midgame. If you haven't failed yet, then you will have the best odds for winning the match from here on. As time passes the odds will tend to fall in OSTs favors.
While we might think this is dumb, we shouldn't expect things to change, because it's relic who is boss here.
For me it's totally fine to have a "good early, weak late"-army, but why does it have to be that extreme for USF!? I hate that so much
+ I rarely save replays unless something completely bs happened or if a major play was done by my opponent or myself! (So I have no proof of that other strategy of mine)
Livestreams
139 | |||||
31 | |||||
25 | |||||
21 | |||||
12 | |||||
93 | |||||
17 | |||||
14 | |||||
12 | |||||
4 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.587233.716+3
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.883398.689+5
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.997646.607+1
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.300113.726-1
- 10.717439.620+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, service
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM