Balance of power has shifted to Allies in 4v4AT (imo)

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 00:30 AMOhme

It is true, that in any given game, Allies or Axis have roughly equal chance of winning. The concept I have attempted to prove here.

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 00:30 AMOhme

TLDR: Read it you dolt. This is an in depth look at problems which arise in 4v4, if you don't want to look at the issue in depth you should just move on.

Lots of great stuff

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 00:30 AMOhme

TLDR: Read it you dolt. This is an in depth look at problems which arise in 4v4, if you don't want to look at the issue in depth you should just move on.

I can't see how one could possibly conclude that Axis synergy in 4v4 is inferior to Allied synergy. It is true, that in any given game, Allies or Axis have roughly equal chance of winning. In this case we are not examining one game in a vacuum - but rather, larger trends that have profound effects on perceived and actual balance in the long run.

Perceived vs. Actual

Perceived balance is biased, affected by short-term trends, determined through anecdote, but remains nonetheless a factor in determining how balance plays out.

Actual balance, on the other hand, is quite elusive in discussions of balance. No player is objective enough to accurately determine balance.(hint: objectivity is an ideal, and not an actuality)

AT vs. Randoms - Flawed Data Interpretation

The biggest flaw in the argument of this thread lies in its assumption that win streaks are a reliable indicator of balance for AT games. Any active AT player can tell you with certainty that the most common enemy they face is random teams. Thus, any quantitative analysis of AT balance is inherently flawed. This is not to say that such data is useless, but that extreme care must be taken when analyzing and interpreting the data.

The granular nature of arranged teams is problematic in assessing balance. Due to the fact that AT's are entirely discrete combinations of players, the data is skewed because very few teams play enough games for the law of large numbers to even out the data. In this case, the only people with enough data to interpret accurately the balance of 4v4 AT, is Relic. Questions necessary to interpret such data:

• What is the win rate of Arranged Teams vs. other Arranged Teams?
  
• What is the win rate of AT vs. AT games which last longer than, say, 45m?
  
• Does each map represent roughly equal win percentages for both factions?
  
• Is there a quantifiable link between particular commander choices and the win ratios of those games?
  

This list can quite frankly, be endless. Data interpretation is an ongoing process whereby one must constantly create interpretations, test those assumptions, re-check data, re-interpret, make changes, and begin again. I have chosen these four questions in order to explore the hypothesis of this post, which is as follows:

Competitive games between Arranged Teams of roughly equal skill and coordination favor Axis teams due to the length of matches, map design, and superior commander synergy. I will explore each of these individually, and then tie them together in the end.

Length of Matches

A truly competitive game between two teams should last a long time. Although the outcome of any particular game is profoundly affected by player choices, the balance of the game as a system provides players with a set of choices to pick from. What units you choose to fight with and where you choose to fight are within the players control, but in the system, there are far fewer choices than we perceive. Freedom of choice in systems (in this case, COH2) is an inflated illusion.

As an example, lets say you want to buy a hamburger - where do you go? Taco bell won't serve you a hamburger, but McDonalds will. So will Burger King, or a local restaurant. You have the ability to exercise choice over where you buy your hamburger, but you choose from a set of options you have no direct control over. The "invisible hand" of the market is still attached to the "invisible body" of the system.

This concept is also true in COH2. You can choose to play any faction you want, from the set of choices available. You can purchase any unit you want, from the set of choices afforded to each faction by design. You can fight over any territory you like, but you choose from a set of options created by the map designer. At the end of this process, your options are far more limited than you can perceive without taking a deeper look at the system as a whole.

Having detailed the concept of choices within a system, lets circle back around to the topic of this section of my post - Length of Matches. Throughout a game, each individual as well as the team as a collective, make an incredibly large number of decisions. I have established that these decisions are all made from a set of options, and in COH2 the list of options is greater for the Axis factions than they are for Allied factions. For now, my analysis will ignore commander options (which I will fold in later). How many combat options does Axis start with, compared to Allies?

Wehrmacht - Pioneers + T1 units (Grenadier, MG42, Mortar, Sniper) - a total of 5 units.
OKW - Sturmpioneer, Volksgrenadier, Kubelwagon, Raketenwerfer - a total of 4 units.

USF - Riflemen, Rear Echelon - a total of 2 units.
Soviet - Combat Engineer, Conscripts, + T1 (Penals, M3 Car, Sniper) OR T2 (Maxim, Mortar, ZiS) - a total of 2 choices without a tier, 5 with.

From the on set, Axis has more potential choices. These choices create opportunities for synergy which are not available to Allies in the same degree. Furthermore, the combat value of Sturmpioneers and Pioneers means the game opens with Axis having more value. Sturmpioneers + Kubel or Pioneer + MG42 synergy make each of these units more valuable in the context of early game battles where the two units are present together. Extending past the early game, the first tech choices for Axis factions provide access to an increase in firepower for their basic infantry (LMG42/Rifle Grenade for Grens, Shrek/Grenade for Volks). In addition, OKW choices also unlock access to a tier specific bonus - a healing base with a forward retreat upgrade, or a munitions/fuel conversion mechanic.

Conversely, Allied tier choices provide less bonuses and less synergy. Although the USF Lieutenant/Captain do provide an increase in army firepower, USF grenades, BAR, and Bazookas are all locked behind additional layers of cost. Allied anti-tank options are locked behind tiers which they are forced to choose from. Conscripts must tech up to gain Molotov's or AT Grenades, both of which come as part of the natural teching process for Axis factions.

The OKW Raketenwerfer is available to every OKW player with no choices to be made, Shrek's are available to every player (as Tiering is a necessary and structural part of the game, there is no realistic choice in tiering or not tiering for any faction. The exception is tiering for tanks and call-in meta.). Similarly, Wehrmacht have access to Pak40 and PGren Shrek's as a part of their natural (and necessary) teching behavior. There is no choice to be made, T2 is a fundamental part of the faction, which grants access to AT gun and handheld AT.

At this point, the choice disparity already begins to grow. Allied players can make grave mistakes in choosing to tech down the wrong path, whereas Axis players have decidedly less potential for making fundamental errors. This problem is relevant on many levels, but at its most fundamental, is an AT problem.

The system provides Axis players with the ability to field a variety of Anti-Tank measures without adversely being effected by choice. This adds value to an army as a system because the synergy of having AT weapons (Shrek's + AT Guns) makes armor choices easier. The Ostwind, Luchs, Flak HT, Brumbar, Panzerwerfer, and Walking Stuka are afforded extra viability because it is not necessary to choose between AT and AI (especially as a first armored unit).

On the flip side, a Soviet T1 player must cover their lack of AT by choosing something whose AT capability is strongest (this is almost always an SU85). The choice to tech T1 has restricted their next choice. The same is true for Lieutenant tech choice by USF. You must tech for Bazookas, or choose a Jackson to cover your anti tank needs. The Sherman and the T34 are inferior anti-tank options, especially when confronted with the Shrek + AT Gun synergy offered to Axis without making meaningful choices.

The question then, in order to ascertain how these choices play out during the course of the game, is: How do these choices become amplified over the course of a long game?

If an Allied player loses their armored anti-tank options, they must choose to save fuel for another, or spend fuel to back tech to the other AT options. Axis armies can be supplemented with additional AT without making this choice. The problem grows wider when you consider the existence of a Tank/Tank Destroyer paradigm created by these choices. Axis players can choose generalized tanks or anti-infantry tanks (P4, Stug, Tiger, Ostwind, Luchs, Brumbar, Panther [to a degree]) because many of them are reasonably effective at anti-armor duty and can be bolstered with any one of the easily accessible anti-tank options. This problem reaches an additional level when you factor in the best tank destroyers (Elefant + Jadgtiger) can then trump the Allied tank destroyer options.

Allied tanks, being generally cheaper, with less health and armor than Axis tanks, also create more opportunities for the wrong choices to be made. If a Sherman/Jackson/Scott stumble in front of Axis anti-tank, their death can be much swifter than Axis armor. This means more losses for Allied players, and more punishment for bad choices. Over the course of a long game, poor decision making by Allied players is punished much more severely than poor decisions by Axis players. Fewer tanks to micro and more variety in Anti-tank options make it easier for Axis players to escape from a mistake, and maintain army strength.

Commander Choices

The last section was rather exhaustive, and this one won't take as much to prove. Commander choices in 4v4 AT are an essential aspect of balance that is not given enough discussion. Axis commander choices offer an additional layer of firepower and survivability that are not necessarily present in Allied options. I will outline these problems by examining some of the stand-out commanders, and their effect on the game.

Close Air Support (CAS)
This commander is the bane of Allied players. Although it is not impossible to dodge the strafes of this commander, it adds an additional layer of micro-intensive behavior for Allied players. The normal restriction on air support provided by Munitions choices is lost due to the conversion ability. If you aren't constantly watching your units, especially things like Katuyshas and Priests, you can very abruptly lose units without much warning. There is no onus on Axis players to flank or infiltrate enemy lines, especially when CAS strafes can come from an edge of the map close to Allied units. This creates a situation where bleeding of army value for Allied players is greater than that of Axis players. The dive bomb in particular creates a situation where fixed artillery positions become useless (especially the B4, which was once a very viable and often necessary counter to Axis heavy armor).

Jaegar Armor
The Elefant is a hard counter to Allied tank destroyers. One shot from an Elefant + another tank or AT gun will kill USF armor, and this commander allows self-spotting for this purpose. The dive bomb also allows this commander to hard counter one of its biggest challengers, which is fixed artillery positions.

Breakthrough Doctrine
The Jadgtiger, much like the Elefant, allows Axis to trump any Allied armor with superior range and damage. The commander also provides OKW with a potent infantry unit in the Panzerfusilier, which softens the mid-game lull of OKW manpower float.

For both this commander and Elefant commanders, the simple statement of suggesting one "need only flank them" does little to consider the fact that this unit is never alone when fighting competent players. We have already examined how easy it is to access AT options; The firepower and coordination necessary to take on these ultra-heavy tank destroyers and the generalist tanks, shreks, and AT guns which support them makes it much easier for Allied choices to lose them the game.

Wehrmacht Tank Smoke
Any Wehrmacht commander with tank smoke provides an extremely easy "get out of jail free" care. Yes, you can attack ground once the tank has smoked. It is less accurate, which also necessitates a player to be very adept with the command and predicting where the tank will be in relation to its speed and terrain conditions. This ability singlehandedly gives Wehrmacht players the ability to conserve tanks that should otherwise die. It makes negative outcome of choices less severe, and significantly alters the micro requirements of players to achieve successful engagements without losses.

Map Design

The final nail in the coffin is map design. Virtually every map gives an advantage to the greater armor and health values of Axis armor, where lane-based play allows only so many tanks to move at once through narrow spaces. The concentration of firepower in Axis tanks, being greater than Allied tanks, means flanking is a necessary tactic to overcome Axis armor. The ability to flank is severely limited on virtually every 4v4 map due to narrow passages, movement blockers, and general map design. Without spending another thousand words examining every detail of this problem, anyone who plays 4v4 regularly can understand how limited flanking really is. Mines provide easy cover from flanks, and the slow approach of tanks backed with minesweepers and infantry takes away any shock value afforded to a good flank.

The size of 4v4 maps also affords OKW players with a significant advantage in forward retreat points. Although USF can also use the Major for a forward retreat point, it is significantly less durable and more vulnerable to elite Axis infiltration units (Fallschrimjaeger, Jaegar Light Infantry, Stormtrooper) as well as the prevalence of a variety of Axis air support. If you are looking elsewhere, a well timed dive bomb will wipe out your entire retreating force. Although Allied call-ins can also perform this action against OKW bases, the base itself can take a hit without needing to be replaced. The prevalence of CAS and Dive Bomb commanders in several of the best 4v4 Wehrmacht commander choices means the tool is more readily available, where Allied call ins are limited to artillery which often takes longer to strike and is not as readily bundled with scouting planes.

Conclusion

The concept I have attempted to prove here is that Allied choices are systemically worse than most Axis choices. Allied players are forced into more specific routes of teching choices, which can then be punished by less specific choices which are made by Axis players. These types of balance problems are much less prevalent in smaller game modes, as well as games where arranged teams play against random players or other AT teams which are not on the same skill level. The first part of my analysis is the most important, and you should consider in the future how your choices are decided for you, and how this plays out over time in a long game. When it is harder for one faction to make bad choices, and easier to recover from them, it creates a situation where you must examine in more depth how these choices impact the outcome of a game.

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 00:30 AMOhme

TLDR: Read it you dolt. This is an in depth look at problems which arise in 4v4, if you don't want to look at the issue in depth you should just move on.

I can't see how one could possibly conclude that Axis synergy in 4v4 is inferior to Allied synergy. It is true, that in any given game, Allies or Axis have roughly equal chance of winning. In this case we are not examining one game in a vacuum - but rather, larger trends that have profound effects on perceived and actual balance in the long run.

Perceived vs. Actual

Perceived balance is biased, affected by short-term trends, determined through anecdote, but remains nonetheless a factor in determining how balance plays out.

Actual balance, on the other hand, is quite elusive in discussions of balance. No player is objective enough to accurately determine balance.(hint: objectivity is an ideal, and not an actuality)

AT vs. Randoms - Flawed Data Interpretation

The biggest flaw in the argument of this thread lies in its assumption that win streaks are a reliable indicator of balance for AT games. Any active AT player can tell you with certainty that the most common enemy they face is random teams. Thus, any quantitative analysis of AT balance is inherently flawed. This is not to say that such data is useless, but that extreme care must be taken when analyzing and interpreting the data.

The granular nature of arranged teams is problematic in assessing balance. Due to the fact that AT's are entirely discrete combinations of players, the data is skewed because very few teams play enough games for the law of large numbers to even out the data. In this case, the only people with enough data to interpret accurately the balance of 4v4 AT, is Relic. Questions necessary to interpret such data:

• What is the win rate of Arranged Teams vs. other Arranged Teams?
  
• What is the win rate of AT vs. AT games which last longer than, say, 45m?
  
• Does each map represent roughly equal win percentages for both factions?
  
• Is there a quantifiable link between particular commander choices and the win ratios of those games?
  

This list can quite frankly, be endless. Data interpretation is an ongoing process whereby one must constantly create interpretations, test those assumptions, re-check data, re-interpret, make changes, and begin again. I have chosen these four questions in order to explore the hypothesis of this post, which is as follows:

Competitive games between Arranged Teams of roughly equal skill and coordination favor Axis teams due to the length of matches, map design, and superior commander synergy. I will explore each of these individually, and then tie them together in the end.

Length of Matches

A truly competitive game between two teams should last a long time. Although the outcome of any particular game is profoundly affected by player choices, the balance of the game as a system provides players with a set of choices to pick from. What units you choose to fight with and where you choose to fight are within the players control, but in the system, there are far fewer choices than we perceive. Freedom of choice in systems (in this case, COH2) is an inflated illusion.

As an example, lets say you want to buy a hamburger - where do you go? Taco bell won't serve you a hamburger, but McDonalds will. So will Burger King, or a local restaurant. You have the ability to exercise choice over where you buy your hamburger, but you choose from a set of options you have no direct control over. The "invisible hand" of the market is still attached to the "invisible body" of the system.

This concept is also true in COH2. You can choose to play any faction you want, from the set of choices available. You can purchase any unit you want, from the set of choices afforded to each faction by design. You can fight over any territory you like, but you choose from a set of options created by the map designer. At the end of this process, your options are far more limited than you can perceive without taking a deeper look at the system as a whole.

Having detailed the concept of choices within a system, lets circle back around to the topic of this section of my post - Length of Matches. Throughout a game, each individual as well as the team as a collective, make an incredibly large number of decisions. I have established that these decisions are all made from a set of options, and in COH2 the list of options is greater for the Axis factions than they are for Allied factions. For now, my analysis will ignore commander options (which I will fold in later). How many combat options does Axis start with, compared to Allies?

Wehrmacht - Pioneers + T1 units (Grenadier, MG42, Mortar, Sniper) - a total of 5 units.
OKW - Sturmpioneer, Volksgrenadier, Kubelwagon, Raketenwerfer - a total of 4 units.

USF - Riflemen, Rear Echelon - a total of 2 units.
Soviet - Combat Engineer, Conscripts, + T1 (Penals, M3 Car, Sniper) OR T2 (Maxim, Mortar, ZiS) - a total of 2 choices without a tier, 5 with.

From the on set, Axis has more potential choices. These choices create opportunities for synergy which are not available to Allies in the same degree. Furthermore, the combat value of Sturmpioneers and Pioneers means the game opens with Axis having more value. Sturmpioneers + Kubel or Pioneer + MG42 synergy make each of these units more valuable in the context of early game battles where the two units are present together. Extending past the early game, the first tech choices for Axis factions provide access to an increase in firepower for their basic infantry (LMG42/Rifle Grenade for Grens, Shrek/Grenade for Volks). In addition, OKW choices also unlock access to a tier specific bonus - a healing base with a forward retreat upgrade, or a munitions/fuel conversion mechanic.

Conversely, Allied tier choices provide less bonuses and less synergy. Although the USF Lieutenant/Captain do provide an increase in army firepower, USF grenades, BAR, and Bazookas are all locked behind additional layers of cost. Allied anti-tank options are locked behind tiers which they are forced to choose from. Conscripts must tech up to gain Molotov's or AT Grenades, both of which come as part of the natural teching process for Axis factions.

The OKW Raketenwerfer is available to every OKW player with no choices to be made, Shrek's are available to every player (as Tiering is a necessary and structural part of the game, there is no realistic choice in tiering or not tiering for any faction. The exception is tiering for tanks and call-in meta.). Similarly, Wehrmacht have access to Pak40 and PGren Shrek's as a part of their natural (and necessary) teching behavior. There is no choice to be made, T2 is a fundamental part of the faction, which grants access to AT gun and handheld AT.

At this point, the choice disparity already begins to grow. Allied players can make grave mistakes in choosing to tech down the wrong path, whereas Axis players have decidedly less potential for making fundamental errors. This problem is relevant on many levels, but at its most fundamental, is an AT problem.

The system provides Axis players with the ability to field a variety of Anti-Tank measures without adversely being effected by choice. This adds value to an army as a system because the synergy of having AT weapons (Shrek's + AT Guns) makes armor choices easier. The Ostwind, Luchs, Flak HT, Brumbar, Panzerwerfer, and Walking Stuka are afforded extra viability because it is not necessary to choose between AT and AI (especially as a first armored unit).

On the flip side, a Soviet T1 player must cover their lack of AT by choosing something whose AT capability is strongest (this is almost always an SU85). The choice to tech T1 has restricted their next choice. The same is true for Lieutenant tech choice by USF. You must tech for Bazookas, or choose a Jackson to cover your anti tank needs. The Sherman and the T34 are inferior anti-tank options, especially when confronted with the Shrek + AT Gun synergy offered to Axis without making meaningful choices.

The question then, in order to ascertain how these choices play out during the course of the game, is: How do these choices become amplified over the course of a long game?

If an Allied player loses their armored anti-tank options, they must choose to save fuel for another, or spend fuel to back tech to the other AT options. Axis armies can be supplemented with additional AT without making this choice. The problem grows wider when you consider the existence of a Tank/Tank Destroyer paradigm created by these choices. Axis players can choose generalized tanks or anti-infantry tanks (P4, Stug, Tiger, Ostwind, Luchs, Brumbar, Panther [to a degree]) because many of them are reasonably effective at anti-armor duty and can be bolstered with any one of the easily accessible anti-tank options. This problem reaches an additional level when you factor in the best tank destroyers (Elefant + Jadgtiger) can then trump the Allied tank destroyer options.

Allied tanks, being generally cheaper, with less health and armor than Axis tanks, also create more opportunities for the wrong choices to be made. If a Sherman/Jackson/Scott stumble in front of Axis anti-tank, their death can be much swifter than Axis armor. This means more losses for Allied players, and more punishment for bad choices. Over the course of a long game, poor decision making by Allied players is punished much more severely than poor decisions by Axis players. Fewer tanks to micro and more variety in Anti-tank options make it easier for Axis players to escape from a mistake, and maintain army strength.

Commander Choices

The last section was rather exhaustive, and this one won't take as much to prove. Commander choices in 4v4 AT are an essential aspect of balance that is not given enough discussion. Axis commander choices offer an additional layer of firepower and survivability that are not necessarily present in Allied options. I will outline these problems by examining some of the stand-out commanders, and their effect on the game.

Close Air Support (CAS)
This commander is the bane of Allied players. Although it is not impossible to dodge the strafes of this commander, it adds an additional layer of micro-intensive behavior for Allied players. The normal restriction on air support provided by Munitions choices is lost due to the conversion ability. If you aren't constantly watching your units, especially things like Katuyshas and Priests, you can very abruptly lose units without much warning. There is no onus on Axis players to flank or infiltrate enemy lines, especially when CAS strafes can come from an edge of the map close to Allied units. This creates a situation where bleeding of army value for Allied players is greater than that of Axis players. The dive bomb in particular creates a situation where fixed artillery positions become useless (especially the B4, which was once a very viable and often necessary counter to Axis heavy armor).

Jaegar Armor
The Elefant is a hard counter to Allied tank destroyers. One shot from an Elefant + another tank or AT gun will kill USF armor, and this commander allows self-spotting for this purpose. The dive bomb also allows this commander to hard counter one of its biggest challengers, which is fixed artillery positions.

Breakthrough Doctrine
The Jadgtiger, much like the Elefant, allows Axis to trump any Allied armor with superior range and damage. The commander also provides OKW with a potent infantry unit in the Panzerfusilier, which softens the mid-game lull of OKW manpower float.

For both this commander and Elefant commanders, the simple statement of suggesting one "need only flank them" does little to consider the fact that this unit is never alone when fighting competent players. We have already examined how easy it is to access AT options; The firepower and coordination necessary to take on these ultra-heavy tank destroyers and the generalist tanks, shreks, and AT guns which support them makes it much easier for Allied choices to lose them the game.

Wehrmacht Tank Smoke
Any Wehrmacht commander with tank smoke provides an extremely easy "get out of jail free" care. Yes, you can attack ground once the tank has smoked. It is less accurate, which also necessitates a player to be very adept with the command and predicting where the tank will be in relation to its speed and terrain conditions. This ability singlehandedly gives Wehrmacht players the ability to conserve tanks that should otherwise die. It makes negative outcome of choices less severe, and significantly alters the micro requirements of players to achieve successful engagements without losses.

Map Design

The final nail in the coffin is map design. Virtually every map gives an advantage to the greater armor and health values of Axis armor, where lane-based play allows only so many tanks to move at once through narrow spaces. The concentration of firepower in Axis tanks, being greater than Allied tanks, means flanking is a necessary tactic to overcome Axis armor. The ability to flank is severely limited on virtually every 4v4 map due to narrow passages, movement blockers, and general map design. Without spending another thousand words examining every detail of this problem, anyone who plays 4v4 regularly can understand how limited flanking really is. Mines provide easy cover from flanks, and the slow approach of tanks backed with minesweepers and infantry takes away any shock value afforded to a good flank.

The size of 4v4 maps also affords OKW players with a significant advantage in forward retreat points. Although USF can also use the Major for a forward retreat point, it is significantly less durable and more vulnerable to elite Axis infiltration units (Fallschrimjaeger, Jaegar Light Infantry, Stormtrooper) as well as the prevalence of a variety of Axis air support. If you are looking elsewhere, a well timed dive bomb will wipe out your entire retreating force. Although Allied call-ins can also perform this action against OKW bases, the base itself can take a hit without needing to be replaced. The prevalence of CAS and Dive Bomb commanders in several of the best 4v4 Wehrmacht commander choices means the tool is more readily available, where Allied call ins are limited to artillery which often takes longer to strike and is not as readily bundled with scouting planes.

Conclusion

The concept I have attempted to prove here is that Allied choices are systemically worse than most Axis choices. Allied players are forced into more specific routes of teching choices, which can then be punished by less specific choices which are made by Axis players. These types of balance problems are much less prevalent in smaller game modes, as well as games where arranged teams play against random players or other AT teams which are not on the same skill level. The first part of my analysis is the most important, and you should consider in the future how your choices are decided for you, and how this plays out over time in a long game. When it is harder for one faction to make bad choices, and easier to recover from them, it creates a situation where you must examine in more depth how these choices impact the outcome of a game.

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 00:30 AMOhme

Long post

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 16:41 PMAlexzandvar

While informative on the nature of abilities and things Axis can abuse in 4's, it makes extremely little points about what tools Allies have in their arsenal in order to even the odds.

Things like USF pop cap abuse, call in meta fuckery, and whatnot all can swing the tide in the favor of Allies late game in order to make up for the perceived weakness in stock units. If you assume Axis players make smart choices in doctrine, and Allies make dumb choices in doctrine then of course Axis players will win, but if both sides pick the correct doctrines then the odds will be much much more even.

Picking horrible doctrines in 3's and 4's as Axis will mess you up very hard if your facing opponents using meta doctrines like IS2's, 85's or ISU with mark target, P-47's, Priests, ect.

If you want to write an actually informative post on 3's and 4's you need to come at it from a neutral perspective rather than an assumption of weakness on the Allies part and assumption of strength on the Axis part.

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 16:45 PMilGetUSomDay

His post addressed how Allies are cornholed into taking the few competitive commanders which do not synergies as well as Axis due to unrewarding trade offs Allies have to take which are non existent in Axis. He did look at the neutral ground you just dont want to see it. He started by comparing base units from each side and their cause/effects. He could if you want, elaborate on why Allies suffer more because in the commander section he only addressed Axis ones

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 16:52 PMAlexzandvar

If you pick shitty Axis commanders in a competitive game regardless of game mode you are going to get brutally owned. The commander selection for Axis and Allies is more balanced than it has ever been in the past, mostly due to the fact Soviets have 2 choices instead of one for elite infantry.

Axis "synergies" in the sense you are required to have an Ostheer team mate and or team mates because OKW cannot last on the field without indirect fire support as well as caches, because you bet your ass the Allies players (if they are not retarded) will be making caches.

There are plenty of unrewarding Axis trade offs, Ost teching being unrewarding, lack of OKW scaling in team games unless Ost player enjoys logistics work, OKW having significant weakness to buildings unless a stuka is rushed, ect.

To wit; Axis is just as much forced into a set "meta" amount of strategies and doctrines as Allies are, to pretend this is not the case is ignoring Ost's teching problems and OKW's gaping holes in it's unit list.

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 00:30 AMOhme

TLDR: Post this all over coh2.org

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 16:52 PMAlexzandvar

If you pick shitty Axis commanders in a competitive game regardless of game mode you are going to get brutally owned. The commander selection for Axis and Allies is more balanced than it has ever been in the past, mostly due to the fact Soviets have 2 choices instead of one for elite infantry.

Axis "synergies" in the sense you are required to have an Ostheer team mate and or team mates because OKW cannot last on the field without indirect fire support as well as caches, because you bet your ass the Allies players (if they are not retarded) will be making caches.

There are plenty of unrewarding Axis trade offs, Ost teching being unrewarding, lack of OKW scaling in team games unless Ost player enjoys logistics work, OKW having significant weakness to buildings unless a stuka is rushed, ect.

To wit; Axis is just as much forced into a set "meta" amount of strategies and doctrines as Allies are, to pretend this is not the case is ignoring Ost's teching problems and OKW's gaping holes in it's unit list.

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 16:55 PMAustralian Magic

Yes, because of you pick shitty commander, you are losing access to LMG Grens, Panthers, King Tigers or Obers.

And let me get this straight. Did you sa that OKW lacks of scaling in team games?

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 16:52 PMAlexzandvar

If you pick shitty Axis commanders in a competitive game regardless of game mode you are going to get brutally owned. The commander selection for Axis and Allies is more balanced than it has ever been in the past, mostly due to the fact Soviets have 2 choices instead of one for elite infantry.

Axis "synergies" in the sense you are required to have an Ostheer team mate and or team mates because OKW cannot last on the field without indirect fire support as well as caches, because you bet your ass the Allies players (if they are not retarded) will be making caches.

There are plenty of unrewarding Axis trade offs, Ost teching being unrewarding, lack of OKW scaling in team games unless Ost player enjoys logistics work, OKW having significant weakness to buildings unless a stuka is rushed, ect.

To wit; Axis is just as much forced into a set "meta" amount of strategies and doctrines as Allies are, to pretend this is not the case is ignoring Ost's teching problems and OKW's gaping holes in it's unit list.

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 16:58 PMilGetUSomDay

Please, I'll take any of the shitty axis commanders over the shitty Allies one. There isnt even a bad commander for OKW, the worst one is Elite armored and well its sure great you have solid OKW units that themselves are not bad.

Ost teching is pretty rewarding. You get these great stock units with no terrible choices in the structures unlike Allies. In addition hey, you get these glorious nukes called Rifle Grenades. Something that to get an equivalent of as allies you have to spend extra fuel.

Lack of OKW scaling? I thought you played this game. You do realize Vet 5 is un obtainable by any of the other factions? They dont scale poorly, not any poorer than other factions anyhow.

The only point you listed that is true is the OKW building weakness

Alex I was sadden to see you post here with such a poorly written post after such an amazing post from Ohme.

Suffice it to say you are not contributing to the discussion and I would request you not respond anymore because of the way in which this is effectively an attempt at trolling and will derail the thread.

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 17:07 PMAlexzandvar

The worst Ostheer doctrines are shit because they force you to tech, which is extremely expensive for Ostheer. The reason why Ostheer teching isn't rewarding is because your stuck paying insane prices for things, not because the units themselves are shit.

And by OKW scaling I mean in team games, in 1's it would be broken for OKW to have caches because OKW isn't supposed to be able to supplement it's income, but in higher game modes were your enemies can spam caches and get almost twice your income you need caches in order to not get overwhelmed, which means you need to get your Ostheer player to play logistics officer.

EDIT: The same could be said of USF's doctrine choices, vis a vis OKW's doctrine choices



lol

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 17:11 PMilGetUSomDay

OH NO!! forced to tech? what ever will you do?? I never tech up to tanks ever in my games either

So what you are saying in the logistics part is that OKW play as intended until Ostheer break the designed draw back of OKW

I dont understand how you dont get what a pro and con list is

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 17:20 PMNinjaWJ

good post ohme. you should post that on coh2.org front page.


and here comes alex....

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 17:02 PMAlexzandvar

If you pick a shitty commander you are going to lose to IS2's, ISU's, T34/85 hordes, and get pop cap abused to hell and back.

Let's not try and pretend that the Ostheer Panther isn't extremely expensive to get to, let's not pretend the KT is cheap to get to and that it wasn't nerfed literally a month ago.

OKW doesn't have the most basic form of team game scaling, caches, which is given to every single faction but OKW allowing a player to focus on supporting your team mates with resources instead of just making more units.

An Allied team can split the cost of a bunch of caches between all the players, a Axis team is forced to make 1 or 2 players make all the caches and for a MP starved faction like Ostheer that can be quite difficult.

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2015, 16:41 PMAlexzandvar

1. While informative on the nature of abilities and things Axis can abuse in 4's, it makes extremely little points about what tools Allies have in their arsenal in order to even the odds.Things like USF pop cap abuse, call in meta fuckery, and whatnot all can swing the tide in the favor of Allies late game in order to make up for the perceived weakness in stock units. If you assume Axis players make smart choices in doctrine, and Allies make dumb choices in doctrine then of course Axis players will win, but if both sides pick the correct doctrines then the odds will be much much more even. Picking horrible doctrines in 3's and 4's as Axis will mess you up very hard if your facing opponents using meta doctrines like IS2's, 85's or ISU with mark target, P-47's, Priests, ect.

2. If you want to write an actually informative post on 3's and 4's you need to come at it from a neutral perspective rather than an assumption of weakness on the Allies part and assumption of strength on the Axis part.