Early game for Ost

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.

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?

As far as i see it the main problem are the maps. Einhoven is the perfect example of this. Left side kharkov too.

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?

I think your point is valid. Also, to compound matters, USF teching produces another unit. The LT is a powerful infantry unit in its own right starting with BARs, and the captain with their zooks helps against Ostheer's lighter vehicles. This reduces the need for purchased BARs or zooks, which can save USF players some resources early on.

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.

I think your analysis is spot on, furthermore I think having factions designed to be stronger than others in early and weaker in the late game is seriously flawed and provides more frustration than enjoyment.

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.

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.

The issue is the m20. it arrives far to quickly switch the stuart with the m20 will solve a lot of problems.

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.

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

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.

I find its strange, because OH has a lot of options in T2, yet, at the same time, it seems not strong enough. (but this is my opinion).

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.

+1I agree with OP on how OST lags behind when teching into T2. It is very difficult to destroy a well micro'd M20 with just fausts when the vehicle crew gets repair crit.

I've found T3 highly effective though if you skip T2 and wreck USF with stugs/P4's

USF tends to get 2/3 map pretty easily, but they also need to spend more resouces to get efficent army. Rifle upgrades, nades, healing costs fuel too and ost upgrades are more efficent. USF tech also has clear disadvandages. LT only has light at and units in CPT tier don't just perform very well. Although some USF companys nullfy thease weaknesses. (AB can drop at guns, rifle and inf has rifle upgrades) Maybe flamthrowers and m1919s shoud be put behind BAR upgrade? MP and fuel cost for ost teching are high but all the tiers are very well rounded.

Stop blaming maps when a faction simply dont have the tools for certain situation. What is easier, fix every map and every future map or just buff ostheers tools in their usual pressed situations? I think it is obvious...

That said i would gladly see every 2v2 map go from 1v1 map rotation.

Basically what Luvnest and Sarantini mentioned: Map design is a calamity because most maps either favours Axis (dull "Lane Maps" like Minsk Pocket which remind me of DotA 2) or Allies (like La Gleize where you can flank from almost everywhere and houses are frustrating for Axis). If more balanced maps were introduced and old ones tweaked or removed you will see how many problems disappear.

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.

Well, yes, the maps favor different factions, but that's more of an effect than a cause. The cause is the difference in the faction design, because Allies seem to be more geared towards early game (particularly USF) and the Axis is more late game.

Doesn't mean that Allies are OP or Axis is UP by any means, it's just inherently bad faction design.

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

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...?

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)