Login

russian armor

1v1 balance issues.

5 Aug 2015, 05:34 AM
#21
avatar of KoufromMizuchi

Posts: 172

1vs1 ratio
coh2chart.com

Some people really need to see the win/lose ratio...
5 Aug 2015, 05:36 AM
#22
avatar of Snipester
Patrion 39

Posts: 102

Ost is fine, OKW is more or less fine too. Maybe a tad unforgiving but that's about it. USF has a weakish late game, but mainly because they bleed like crazy. I think if they fix the bleed it will get better. Soviets IMO are mostly fine except for the M5 Quad, which is hilariously cheap for how it performs.
5 Aug 2015, 05:48 AM
#23
avatar of Basilone

Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Aug 2015, 02:29 AMTobis

Whoever techs first will be down a unit, it is equal.

Not necessarily. Its not always a good thing to spend majority of mp every time you can afford a new unit in coh once it progresses to mid game and beyond for two reasons. First if you lose a bunch of men in engagement at once and have a bit of reinforcing to do you will have several units in base idling saving to reinforce, and will concede a ton of map control. Second its not good to invest everything if you aren't 95% sure what opponent is committing his resources towards. If you have one Pak and then buy a mortar or Ostwind simply bc you had spare resources for it but then the guy shows up with 2 T34s you are going to wish you had extra mp to quickly get another AT gun in a pinch. SC2 you spend everything because most units (even cheaper ones) are capable of hurting better things in mass quantity. In CoH units have more specific roles so until you have ample counter to everything its better to not spend everything so you can be flexible when you need to be.
5 Aug 2015, 10:52 AM
#24
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

USF problems are more related to

1- Rifles being dead meat on moving legs once Wherm equip his 2 first LMG on his gren squads.
2- Micro tax far more important since Ostheer has been buffed.

Months ago Relic made us a nice statement about their understanding on micro level gap between allied factions and axis factions (mostly USF vs other factions). Since then nothing has been done to reduce it. Worst, 221 has been buffed, sniper buffed, mg42 buffed, stug buffed etc... All for good reasons for sure but as collateral effect reducing the micro requirement to manage them and increasing the micro management to face them, directly affecting USF.

Rifles need badly more resilience with their vet, being toughest to hit (especially when retreating) and increasing their accuracy while moving, and this badly since the MG42 buff.
There is nothing worst than following the meta wanted by Relic like a good little boy = flanking, being repelled because Ostheer has now equal number unit than you to defend and see

1- You don't do any damage because you must move all the time to reposition out of his suppression cone.
2- His squad shred in little pieces after hitting the retreat button because you had to go behind his line.
5 Aug 2015, 11:40 AM
#25
avatar of F1sh

Posts: 521

I think USF needs some other units in tier 0. Riflemen, riflemen and more riflemen isn't very versatile.
5 Aug 2015, 11:52 AM
#26
avatar of Frost

Posts: 1024 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Aug 2015, 02:09 AMaaa

So germs will be abusing their T1 with an extra unit advantage and 4 AI unit types right from the begining.
Those who dont abuse T1 they dont care about oponents T3.


5 Aug 2015, 11:56 AM
#27
avatar of THTCookieCrumbles

Posts: 26

I love how ppl say: WELL THEY HAVE ONE UNIT MORE!!! As if they never get squad wiped ^^
5 Aug 2015, 12:00 PM
#28
avatar of TheEvilAdventurer

Posts: 188

Am I the only one who likes to face heavy t3 cause when they put all there eggs there I get massive wipes as soon as I attack with at support
5 Aug 2015, 12:23 PM
#29
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

In fact ballance is better than ever.

Ostheer has ofc one more squad and it helps them equalise early game disadvantage but they are also forced to make early pak or 1-2 222s to counter allied early vehicles. In case of pak its a unit that is necessery but doeasnt help in most early engagement, in case of 222s it's a unit that has problem to scare off anything else than maxim and is very hard to keep or scale into late game (unless you have certain non-meta commanders).

Soviets are at last interesting. Most their units are ballanced, maybe the m3 is a little too powerfull but thats just a thing of making upgrade more costly. Howitzers are more of a problem, they need scatter increase. Solid faction after all.

Okw is fine but aaht should get armour increase not to die like a fly to M5. They basically have all tools they need just this one unit is underwhelming. Camo raketens do wonders but I would love if their crew stopped shooting after prioritise vehicles is turned on.

USF, well its not as bad as ppl tend to think. Its simply not OP with its 10 minute sherman any more. On the other hand with cpt buff it has all tools to win in any 1v1 battle condition. Against mg42s? Tech nades. Against sniper? Tech LT. Against anything else? Tech CPT. Then you can safely go for armour doctrine callins and gg. Actually, that doctrine needs a nerf. Recon and mechanised could use a buff on the other hand and *puff* you have a ballanced cool faction.
5 Aug 2015, 13:22 PM
#30
avatar of Blalord

Posts: 742 | Subs: 1

USF seems to be the second best faction in 1v1 after SU, but kinda boring to play
Jeo
5 Aug 2015, 14:19 PM
#31
avatar of Jeo
Patrion 39

Posts: 9

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Aug 2015, 01:57 AMCorsin
Soviet need T3 nerf

OKW need early game buff

USF need late game buff

Ostheer is fine.


If i had to rate the current early games out of 10... it would be...

Sov - 8/10
USF - 9/10
OKW - 6/10
Ost - 8/10

keep in mind the early game is where most battles are won or lost.

Thoughts?


this is like the IGN method of grading with regards to CoH balance.

"everything is broken game is shit, 9.6/10"

oh and i'm not commenting on balance because i'm in no position to do so, but if USF is the best early-game faction and "early game is where most battles are won or lost", why is USF struggling so much?
5 Aug 2015, 14:34 PM
#32
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

USF struggles due to maps and predictability
5 Aug 2015, 14:58 PM
#33
avatar of Bryan

Posts: 412

The most pressing, long term issue in 1's I believe is currently the maps themselves in rotation. The random element of which map & spawn you get on any given matchup is a really big deal.

USF, North Langre Spawn, vs Ost in the South spawn? Gl Hf Yank.

Ost, West Khlodney Winter, vs Usf in the East Spawn. Gl Hf Kraut, especially if they grab *that* house in front of your spawn!

Stalingrad? Cool map and thematic, but auto veto for Axis players generally speaking. It is not a balanced 1v1 map.

North Road to Kharkov..Gl to whoever spawns there!

Just some wee examples. Plenty more floating about in the annual threads on map balance that we get once in a while. I think Relic is aware, but progress on the map front has being pretty slow I feel, whilst faction balance is improving.


5 Aug 2015, 15:42 PM
#34
avatar of CelticsREP

Posts: 151

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Aug 2015, 14:58 PMBryan
The most pressing, long term issue in 1's I believe is currently the maps themselves in rotation. The random element of which map & spawn you get on any given matchup is a really big deal.



I think this is essentially the issue here. Certain maps are just completely biased, my favourite being Winter Langre West and all that glorious deep snow :luvDerp:


As for faction balance its the best its been for ages, if people put more effort into improving at the game rather than whining on forums then I reckon balance would miraculously improve :sibHyena:
aaa
5 Aug 2015, 17:12 PM
#35
avatar of aaa

Posts: 1487

USF seems to be the second best faction in 1v1 after SU, but kinda boring to play


statet by best 1v1 players that USF is worst fraction. It esp. in bad postion vs OH.
Winn\loss stats are kind of strange. Maybe it just shows difference between players not factions.

OH does not have overall disadvattage vs any faction. SPrice after he won a game stated that Axis is OP.

Vs OKW its not easy too. Im having problems with their leig builds. I predicted just after patch notes that leig builds will be cancer of this game - now its reality
5 Aug 2015, 19:38 PM
#36
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4


Not necessarily. Its not always a good thing to spend majority of mp every time you can afford a new unit in coh once it progresses to mid game and beyond for two reasons. First if you lose a bunch of men in engagement at once and have a bit of reinforcing to do you will have several units in base idling saving to reinforce, and will concede a ton of map control. Second its not good to invest everything if you aren't 95% sure what opponent is committing his resources towards. If you have one Pak and then buy a mortar or Ostwind simply bc you had spare resources for it but then the guy shows up with 2 T34s you are going to wish you had extra mp to quickly get another AT gun in a pinch. SC2 you spend everything because most units (even cheaper ones) are capable of hurting better things in mass quantity. In CoH units have more specific roles so until you have ample counter to everything its better to not spend everything so you can be flexible when you need to be.


I meant building the Ostheer T1 or the Soviets T1/T2 in the early game. I assumed this guy was talking about field presence in the very early game.
5 Aug 2015, 19:47 PM
#37
avatar of BeefSurge

Posts: 1891

I think that besides bland map specific opening that the biggest USF problems are commanders. USF relies on commanders just like the Soviet Faction, and all except Rifle Company have weaknesses.

1) Armor company vehicle crews upgrade is a waste, could be given to REs or something. 240mm arty is good cracking sim cities but not much else.

2) infantry company M1919 and Priest is good, but TOT barrage is bad, MHT sucks, and field defenses is semi pointless due to timing and defensive stance.

3) with fast Stuart air droppable AT gun is a moot ability. Air drop HMG is redundant with Paras and Pathfinders. IMO air dropping team weapons should come crewed with Paras.

4) Recon support company...yup. Wow. Good for cheese.

5) Mech company half track call-in really needs an HP buff or price buff, the WC51 needs an HP buff to reflect price. Recon overflight could use a cost buff.

Plus basic things like fixing grenade animation time and fixing the .50 cal reinforce will make the USF more attractive.
5 Aug 2015, 20:05 PM
#38
avatar of Rollo

Posts: 738

I'm not really surprised allies are leading so far in the 1vs1 stats. If you take a look at things only Allied light vehicles were really changed, flak track still has the same fuel price while both allied light tanks feild faster thanks to the T3 adjustments.
5 Aug 2015, 20:26 PM
#39
avatar of JoeH

Posts: 88

1vs1 ratio
coh2chart.com

Some people really need to see the win/lose ratio...


Top 200 players stomp not Top 200 players with every faction. MORE NEWS AT 11!
6 Aug 2015, 06:21 AM
#40
avatar of Array
Donator 11

Posts: 609

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Aug 2015, 20:26 PMJoeH


Top 200 players stomp not Top 200 players with every faction. MORE NEWS AT 11!



They appear to be stomping them in roughly equal amounts
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

620 users are online: 620 guests
0 post in the last 24h
2 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49388
Welcome our newest member, KETTA
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM