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

So many people are willfully ignorant about some of the very core design mechanics used to balance CoH games: Allies need to win early game while axis need to survive early game aggression and win late game.

This is one of the most fundamental ideas around which CoH games are built. The balance of ally strength early game to axis strength late game is at least as important (i would argue it is more important) to relic as is the balance of any given unit against its counterpart on the other side. If you can't see this as a core principle of the game they have built then you don't understand the game enough to even participate in a balance discussion. In short, the asymmetrical balance of units (of which axis basically always has the stronger, better options long term) is counter-balanced by the asymmetrical balance of power over time (where allies are stronger early game, and can generally get their units faster, while axis units are much stronger after tech once they come out).

When you put 8 players into a game on a big map,multiple commander synergy, additional resource availability, and map size basically break the power balance over time that they try to balance in 1v1, and what you have left is the asymmetrical balance of units without the needed counter-balance of time. This shifts everything to favor axis by definition. It isn't impossible to win as allies, obviously, but you have to work against the very mechanics of the game to do so, and everything needs to go your way. As axis you can rely on game mechanics to pick up quite a bit of slack for you.

The only real way to eliminate this issue would be to A)give units different performance statistics or costs and population requirements for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 games (an unrealistic option) or B)make allies and axis equally powerful at all stages of the game, early, mid and late game. This would require a much more symmetrical balance of units, something relic has repeatedly stated they are against and it would destroy a lot of the actual flavor of the game.

Does anyone play 3v3?

...

Very good post.

One could have gone into the disparity in necessary micro required to handle one super heavy unit versus the requirement to micro the plethora of units required to successfully counter it (which applies to both sides of course but to different degrees).

NShow Spoiler

already!

I dont know if there is, or how it sounds, but in my language we say that "there is an exception which confirms general rule" which is perfect in this cause. Casue winning agasint overpoped USF is not impossible, but it does not change the fact that most of the time you wont win. But it applies to something you cannot change (you dont have control over it) - 8-10 E8s charging in front of Pak43 & JT supported with schrecks won't do a pudding, so it must come with an idea how to use it. Give 10 E8s to someone new and you will wreck him. Give 10 E8s to someone experienced and he will wreck everyting

Does anyone play 3v3?

Here! Got 2 defeats due to crashes.

Does anyone play 3v3?

3v3 and 4v4 are the most popular game modes. Team games have normally been the most popular game modes across almost every Relic game, at least in Dawn of War.

3v3 and 4v4 are the most popular game modes. Team games have normally been the most popular game modes across almost every Relic game, at least in Dawn of War.

Someone did some analysis of the stats and 3v3 or 1v1 was definitely the least played mode. 4v4 is indeed the most popular and then 2v2.

Someone did some analysis of the stats and 3v3 or 1v1 was definitely the least played mode. 4v4 is indeed the most popular and then 2v2.

If we're thinking about the same analysis, 3v3 was the least played mode, and 4v4 was the most played. Quite frankly, I think 3v3 (on maps which are not sized for 4v4) is one of the most fun game modes.

So many people are willfully ignorant about some of the very core design mechanics used to balance CoH games: Allies need to win early game while axis need to survive early game aggression and win late game.

This is one of the most fundamental ideas around which CoH games are built. The balance of ally strength early game to axis strength late game is at least as important (i would argue it is more important) to relic as is the balance of any given unit against its counterpart on the other side. If you can't see this as a core principle of the game they have built then you don't understand the game enough to even participate in a balance discussion. In short, the asymmetrical balance of units (of which axis basically always has the stronger, better options long term) is counter-balanced by the asymmetrical balance of power over time (where allies are stronger early game, and can generally get their units faster, while axis units are much stronger after tech once they come out).

When you put 8 players into a game on a big map,multiple commander synergy, additional resource availability, and map size basically break the power balance over time that they try to balance in 1v1, and what you have left is the asymmetrical balance of units without the needed counter-balance of time. This shifts everything to favor axis by definition. It isn't impossible to win as allies, obviously, but you have to work against the very mechanics of the game to do so, and everything needs to go your way. As axis you can rely on game mechanics to pick up quite a bit of slack for you.

The only real way to eliminate this issue would be to A)give units different performance statistics or costs and population requirements for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 games (an unrealistic option) or B)make allies and axis equally powerful at all stages of the game, early, mid and late game. This would require a much more symmetrical balance of units, something relic has repeatedly stated they are against and it would destroy a lot of the actual flavor of the game.

IS-2? Double M1919 rifles and paras? P-47? Katy? M36? Allies are very potent in every stage of the game...only with limited strats.

I don't see the point how axis units are stronger as allies have more squad wiping tools. I had countless times when my 4 man squads got insta-raped.

The problem is that allies almost always win early-mid game unless they garden something up or get a retarded pro-axis map (Langres)....and this translates into an insta-win for the allies in mid-late game (unless Soviets decide to go for NKVD )

Sorry, but when a faction is outgunned in early-game it's superb late-game isnt gonna save it if gets raped by mid-game. Right now USF breaks the mechanism of:

"Allies need to win early game while axis need to survive early game aggression and win late game."

USF got M36, P-47, super infantry all day, pretty much the best core army...
OKW is broken as hell...
Soviets are gimmick scrubs with their commanders, but the core army is just trash.
Ost is nearly the on spot...

Clearly Relic's system not working as intended.

Someone did some analysis of the stats and 3v3 or 1v1 was definitely the least played mode. 4v4 is indeed the most popular and then 2v2.

Although we have to take into account that this only applied to the top200. Maybe at lower levels the behaviour is different.

Anyways, Relic release data plox.

So many people are willfully ignorant about some of the very core design mechanics used to balance CoH games: Allies need to win early game while axis need to survive early game aggression and win late game.

coh1's phase based balancing is awful. This game is much better now that the USF and SOV can fight the axis on a somewhat equal basis into the late game.

admittedly the axis early and mid is a bit rough. Hopefully that will improve.

A couple of colleagues have been invising defamatory posts on this thread, but some follow-ups citing the invised stuff were left untouched, so I have completed the exercise.

Robust discussion is fine, but stay within the parameters of the Site Rules, please

Ohme talked a lot about axis synergy. I think you could easily make an argument that allies have much better synergy or fluidity, especially the soviets. The obvious, super call ins, how much more fluid do you need to be when you can call in everything elite at a whims notice. Second I would argue squad size of base infantry, if a grenadier squad picks up an mg42, you're left with 1 model on your grens; if a script squad picks up a mg he can continue fighting with 3 models left and neither squad has to retreat. If a grenadier squad loses 1 model he takes a 25% decrease in dmg output - scripts take a 17% decrease dmg output. Scripts allow you to recrew a beat down maxim without retreating or the use of a halftrack; allowing you to continue fighting without investing in a mobile reinforcement unit.

Yeah. I am one of the players who mainly play 4v4 random. Usually Ostheer only.

It's a fucking circle, because you can not win Tank vs Tank fights anymore.

You need Tanks to defend your troops against the superior blob.

But at some point there is a critical mass of Tank XY backed up by Jacksons. So you gonna need like 4 Paks to stand your ground. But hey, let me just spam a shitload of offmapstuff in your highly needed support weapons.
You are just getting fucked over sooner or later.

i just wanna say that any side will win if they have a critical mass of units. So we need to exclude those incidents where someone had like 5 tanks and you only had one.

Me thinks you have never faced Jacksons + mark target or IS2's support by Jacksons. Or people using Priest pop cap abuse.

supported command panther says hello

I can assure you winning with an Allies AT versus a top ranked Axis AT is just as easy as the reverse.

Pls

The Jadgtiger is a waste of time

Kay?

lack of OKW scaling in team games

I dont even...

OKW doesn't have the most basic form of team game scaling,

U can get ur caches once USF gets; mines, non-doc elite infrantry, and a pershing. Until then, you are just making urselft look silly

all the OKW player can do is float MP and twiddle his thumbs while everyone else is actually playing a team game.

This makes no sense, OKW doesnt bleed because they dont have caches. they bleed cus their units are very cost effective. All the other factions can still bleed more than OKW, even without building caches. Do you even think about what u uggest before you write? OKW with increased resources would be awful in soo many ways.


Ahh alex and his OKW apologist syndrome. one can only hope he get cured

UNTIL THEN

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.

Wow could not agree more!


I would like to add also my fav commander is USF Rifle Commander which I choose somewhat for the vet rifles and late game replacement but even more for the E8's I am really good with them. If i can yes I will take advantage of the decrew pop cap to get up to 5 e8's at times I think there was one time I had like 8 but it does not really matter the game was already far decided by then.

To the point it is necessary to have AT LEAST 3 e8's to possibly kill a tiger of any sorts if you can get behind it. We need the popcap decrew ability to have a chance. USF needs a lot of tanks just to take down 1 tiger. Axis have just one tank they have to micro that is FAR easier than trying to micro 5 shermans to get behind a tiger to take it out and try to escape with out losing all of them and trying to use their smoke to block at guns { which sucks compared to axis that fires almost instantly and can be fired on top of their tank shermans have to be fired a ways away from it which i've never understood why.} All the micro the Axis player has to do is back their tank so the ass is facing a building or just hit the get out of jail speed button and kt goes backwards as fast as my shermans forwards. If a p4 or panther hit the get out of jail smoke button.

I disagree with zooks being a viable USF AT though anything past a puma is just going to laugh at your zooks and you spent munitions to get them and mp and fuel to unlock them and lost a little inf dps. Although your often forced to get them anyway if you go the lieut route.

That is still not really reliable source.

Streaks can be completely different tomorrow or in an hour.

Win ratios doesn't show such fluctuation.

And I doubt that axis suddenly got weaker/stronger over the night based on the streaks alone.

And here comes the allied white knight of the conscript rambo dream.

Ratio means NOTHING as it is over multiple states of balance....

Streak means ALOT more since it is during current state of balance....


jesus...


yeah the allies are far better currently in everything in 2v2 and above... simply because of

1- Marked target
2- Jacksons....


Together they 3-4 shot tiger tanks.... (and obviously overrun other big tanks).

This has been an issue in 2v2s for some time, with the overwhelm of allied blob... Ive literally had games where ive killed 3x more allied units, yet they still make a comeback.

But now the issue has apparently overflowed into 3v3 and 4v4 too....


1v1 is fairly balanced. however OKW need some buffs for 1v1.

defensive factions will generally have an edge as games expand and the larger maps turn into lane-based monstrosities.

IMO this is about as balanced as it has ever been in 4v4. Although I do hate playing with randumbs against good AT allied teams. I do remember vCoH team games larger then 2v2 being completely dead and requiring you to play "basic" matches with stackers, so I don't complain too much. I am getting in my fun in 4v4s and 3v3s now before it dies out like in vCoH.