OKW Op.... really?

The old Hebrew word to forgive literally means to forget.
And that is the best thing to possibly do.
The sins of the past do not justify the sins of the future.
Thus, imbalance now is never justified by the imbalance of the past.
Even though it's a far more trivial and inconsequential thing than moral philosophy. Game imbalance is a pretty neutral thing, I'd say.
Still, to hate a faction, or to want some sort of 'justice' against them is an unhealthy characteristic.

The old Hebrew word to forgive literally means to forget.

But then what will they have learned!?

Good gracious I sure hope Relic doesn't ever read the endless idiotic posts made on this forum by the abundance of noobs that play this poorly designed and easy to play game.

What ever happened to the days when competitive 1v1 and 2v2 players were able to dissect the minute problems in a game and were able to provide well thought-out feedback and balance ideas to the game developers? I guess when you create a game that caters to being casual for the 80% of the players instead of the top 20%, this is what you get.

Well, Paul provided a well thought-out post where he argued to bring back truck-pushing.....

Maybe, just maybe, Relic shouldn't have designed a faction where all of the units were a little too efficient and then tried to balance it by giving that faction a resource penalty, which results in the faction being balanced for 4v4 or balanced for 1v1, but never both at the same time.

Keeping the " future " patches in mind its best to put the obers in the med bunker and reduce the mp to 320. common 50 mp for a beefier gren is nuts.

OPKW is still OP becouse of Shrek volks

OPKW is still OP becouse of Shrek volks

Let me remind of you:

- Nerfed long range acc on shrecks.
- Shocks; IS-2; Katy; 120; KV-8; M8A1; double M1919s + Def Stance; Demos; etc...

Let me remind of you:

- Nerfed long range acc on shrecks.
- Shocks; IS-2; Katy; 120; KV-8; M8A1; double M1919s + Def Stance; Demos; etc...

you forgot HE shermans. They are way too much to be in etc category.

Mines demos anyone? It is the death sentence for OKW..

It always makes me cringe to see a squad get blown up by a lost mine or demo charge

you forgot HE shermans. They are way too much to be in etc category.

I think OP doesn't have 'nough micro to kite shreck blobs.

OKW is not bad as it was last path. I am happy playing with OKW and fighting OKW. P.S. yesterday my two vet 5 Obers got wiped by a miss shot from B4 to my Panther, FML.

OKW is an ill thought out faction that decries tactics and cohesion in favour of gratuitous unit design. The feeling that no direction was formed with the faction design is totally apparent, and reinforced when one looks back on it's development which was wrought with sweeping changes.

But this is our lot, and we should all agree that such a faction is better to be left somewhat UP rather than OP, lest we see the swathes of thoughtless players that rely on the two hit Obersoldaten and Volksgrenadiere combo, that were so common until recently, back in business.

A cheesy strategy is frustrating to play against, and it can be defined as a strategy that:

-is very simple to pull off
-relies on innate unit mechanics and metagaming rather than deft play
-forces the opponent to work hard to defeat it

Which, I will argue, was the OKW playstyle in essence, and all that patches have done is diminish this, and I am extremely glad of it.

OKW is an ill thought out faction that decries tactics and cohesion in favour of gratuitous unit design. The feeling that no direction was formed with the faction design is totally apparent, and reinforced when one looks back on it's development which was wrought with sweeping changes.

But this is our lot, and we should all agree that such a faction is better to be left somewhat UP rather than OP, lest we see the swathes of thoughtless players that rely on the two hit Obersoldaten and Volksgrenadiere combo, that were so common until recently, back in business.

A cheesy strategy is frustrating to play against, and it can be defined as a strategy that:

-is very simple to pull off
-relies on innate unit mechanics and metagaming rather than deft play
-forces the opponent to work hard to defeat it

Which, I will argue, was the OKW playstyle in essence, and all that patches have done is diminish this, and I am extremely glad of it.

Honestly those three traits sound like an ideal strategy. Anyone with an interest in victory makes strategies that are simple, force your opponent to work, and can be pulled off without great difficulty. As someone who ignores meta whenever possible (to this day I avoid call-in armor whenever possible), all of my most common strategies fit your description.

Personally, I would define a cheese a strategy as something that only works because your opponent isn't expecting it, and would be easily defeated if it wasn't so far out of left field. Like for example starting with an army of all helicopters in Wargame and rushing your opponent's spawn; it's a terrible strategy that would never work in a real fight, but because a balanced army is designed to counter many different things it stands no chance against such concentrated air power.

Defining cheese is hard, because if you look at the traits that make a cheese strategy and one that makes a good strategy they're basically the same. Cheese strategies have to be effective by definition, after all. It's a fine line, but I guess the defining trait of cheese is that it just isn't fun to play against.

OPKW is still OP becouse of Shrek volks

Honestly those three traits sound like an ideal strategy.

But this is a game, and skill and effort should be rewarded.

But this is a game, and skill and effort should be rewarded.

One could argue that a strategy game should reward superior strategic decisions over "effort." Work smarter, not harder, right?

Your average meta abuser will tell you that you're dumb for not abusing the meta, and from his "win at any cost" viewpoint he'd be right. From the perspective of a battle of wits, whoever wins is smarter, because he picked the winning strategy. The most you could say to undermine him is that he lost the moral victory because he was "abusing" a strategy, but the fact remains that you could've beaten him if you'd played a little better, or allowed yourself to also abuse meta.

It's a trade-off, really. You refuse to abuse meta, and in return you get to feel superior whenever someone else embraces it.

One could argue that a strategy game should reward superior strategic decisions over "effort." Work smarter, not harder, right?

Your average meta abuser will tell you that you're dumb for not abusing the meta, and from his "win at any cost" viewpoint he'd be right. From the perspective of a battle of wits, whoever wins is smarter, because he picked the winning strategy. The most you could say to undermine him is that he lost the moral victory because he was "abusing" a strategy, but the fact remains that you could've beaten him if you'd played a little better, or allowed yourself to also abuse meta.

It's a trade-off, really. You refuse to abuse meta, and in return you get to feel superior whenever someone else embraces it.

So you are willing to argue that there should always be ways of playing that offer high reward with little risk and minimal effort, and this is just a de facto element of Company of Heroes?

I think OP doesn't have 'nough micro to kite shreck blobs.

I'm the OP and I was vouching for OKW mind you. Shreck blobs are not that hard to counter.

So you are willing to argue that there should always be ways of playing that offer high reward with little risk and minimal effort, and this is just a de facto element of Company of Heroes?

Not that there should be perse, but also not that there shouldn't be.

Some strategies are just plain better than others, and it's like that in almost every competitive game. If you pick a strategy which is weak to the meta and get beaten by that meta, you can't really blame anyone but yourself for the loss.

I'd like to add to this thread on vehicles too. Why does it feel like its so hard to get a panther out and enough of them to fight back allied armor numbers? I'm noticing a pigeon hole trend that seems to fall into panthers and volks for AT. The rakten works ok for defense but offensively its a waste of mp.I would say OKW doesnt have any issue handling infantry with its tools but there must be a better middle ground for AT than full on volks with panthers.

You are wrong storm. OKW is having trouble in terms of AI. They are solely focused on AT. Rak43, Pak43, shrecks, JpIV, Puma.


Volks don't seem to hit anything at all, obers are expensive and available too late, sturms drop like flies etc.

You don't have to worry about thonks however, just build 2 Rak43s and push back all kind of medium vehicles. Build a pak43 when you feel like it and lol at any vehicles almost getting one shotted.