The balance in 33and 44 games-flanking is not really working

Looking at the ratio of win-lose of the top 150 players in coh2chart.com, it seems to be that the current game is imbalanced in the 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 4 games. The wining rate of the OKW is much higher than other Allies fictions. The crucial tactics of the USF and Soviet of flanking is not really working in the 33 and 44 games. If you fail the first attempt, then, when you come back you probably will find one more mgs and bunkers there, blocking the way for ‘stealing’ points (and resources). The maps are not big enough for allowing more flanking routes.

Use smoke to cover? Yes, but the problem is then you don’t have enough ammo to upgrade your infantry with bars and LGMs and don’t forget in order to destroy bunkers effectively you need at least two bazooka. Use M1 75mm? Yes, but it takes, at least, two (maybe three) rounds of bombardment to kill a mg crew given that they are so noobish that don’t even move. Controlling more resources means quick tanks or just blobbing more fully upgraded infantries.

The design of the Allies forces should be that they are potent in the early and middle game, which probably is not true now in a 33 or 44 game due to the fact there is no way for you to do flanking , stealing points and cutting resources.

On a sidenote: In teamgames, the okw advantage of resilient forward retreat points might also play into the calculation.

Now, this is a bit off-topic, but I think the loss of careless and aggressive forward retreat point placement could be punished in that the king tiger would require all 3 trucks to be alive! Currently, a okw player only needs to have had each of the 3 trucks at one point to unlock the kt and can loose trucks in the process.
I think that's a bit silly and might just aswell play into this calculation, as it might be easier to amass kts for okw teams.

I am no expert, it's just a thought that seems rational to me.

Team games are poorly balanced. Forward retreat points offer a massive advantage. The power balance between fast but fragile and slow but durable tanks becomes completely in favor of the slow but durable tanks because big team games are always about clashing heads over very few points on the map. Axis are just better suited for this type of gameplay.

I find the lack of timely siege weaponry is responsible for a lot of the early imbalance. Both axis factions get earlier weapons, as well as the soviet faction. USF and Brit have to put in a significant time and fuel investment. USF suffers most. Not only that, but as I remember the soviet mortar has a large spread, so several bombardments are needed to open up any early position and winning a mortar duel is difficult.

but as I remember the soviet mortar has a large spread, so several bombardments are needed to open up any early position and winning a mortar duel is difficult.

Soviet mortar has best accuracy but low ROF making it great for taking out the smaller squad size support weapons of the axis.

Looking at the ratio of win-lose of the top 150 players in coh2chart.com, it seems to be that the current game is imbalanced in the 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 4 games. The wining rate of the OKW is much higher than other Allies fictions. The crucial tactics of the USF and Soviet of flanking is not really working in the 33 and 44 games. If you fail the first attempt, then, when you come back you probably will find one more mgs and bunkers there, blocking the way for ‘stealing’ points (and resources). The maps are not big enough for allowing more flanking routes.

Use smoke to cover? Yes, but the problem is then you don’t have enough ammo to upgrade your infantry with bars and LGMs and don’t forget in order to destroy bunkers effectively you need at least two bazooka. Use M1 75mm? Yes, but it takes, at least, two (maybe three) rounds of bombardment to kill a mg crew given that they are so noobish that don’t even move. Controlling more resources means quick tanks or just blobbing more fully upgraded infantries.

The design of the Allies forces should be that they are potent in the early and middle game, which probably is not true now in a 33 or 44 game due to the fact there is no way for you to do flanking , stealing points and cutting resources.

There are way too many factors.

Map

Team

Armies in your team

Commander chosen.

But in general flanking and skill is punished in CoH2 which is why most people just blob up like crazy. But good flank do win game to smash one of the 3 or 4 in the game.

Ye so many maps are too bad for allies.The allies rely on more flanking play than the axis.Just ban the narrow maps like xxx forest,redball express,and hamburger port.Bad designed maps for larger team games.

A lot of high end axis players win rates are historical. OKW particularly had a major advantage in 4v4 in a lot of patches. Now it's actually not too bad with the British faction really bringing a lot of balance to the larger gamemodes, provided they're in most teamgames.

Map design is also quite important - generally tighter maps are better off for axis. Most maps in 4v4 are okay though, Port of Hamburg is the one i have the most issues with, particularly as the game goes on for a while as any meaningful resource points can be blocked off at chokepoints.

But in general flanking and skill is punished in CoH2 which is why most people just blob up like crazy. But good flank do win game to smash one of the 3 or 4 in the game.

care to elaborate? just curious

Now, this is a bit off-topic, but I think the loss of careless and aggressive forward retreat point placement could be punished in that the king tiger would require all 3 trucks to be alive!

This.

care to elaborate? just curious

Well, you can't be outflanked with a blob. In addition, combined arms play is often too ineffective against blobs. There's a reason why you don't build mortars against USF and OKW.

Most maps in 4v4 are okay though

I don't know what you really mean with "okay" but there is not a single map 4v4 that could compete with a proper 1v1/2v2 map. The best 4v4 map(s) are somewhere below the worst 1v1/2v2 maps in terms of balance. I find that far from okay.

General Mud? - mud and buildings favor northern players in every part of the map
Lanzerath? - southeast spawn = gg
Redball Express? - MG and JT/Ele madness
Lienne Forest? - Flanks? Nah! I just see chokepoints.
Hamburg? - Northern players get choked to death
Vielsalm? - Southern players have all the pretty houses
Essen? - The map where flanking is not an option (and cutting off neither)!
Lorch? - Houseparty in the north and a big fat no go area in the middle. No flanking involved.
La Gleize? - Southern fuel is pretty safe, while northern fuel can either be cut off or captured at 2 points.
Steppes? - Ele/JT say hi
Hill? - the chokepoint joke is getting old

care to elaborate? just curious

I am referring more into team games. 1v1 is a much different style.

In team games, there are so many factors that come into play. Map, teammates, factions. Commanders.

It's sad but blobbing CAN be so efficient (yet can also be completely smashed) that sending one unit or two units on a flank could just lose you the engagement due to that blob focusing each squad one by one.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't flank, never flanking, its useless! But there is a time and a place for it and other times a massed blob spearhead can crush your enemy when a flank would lose you the battle.

I bet all of us as players have done a "perfect" flank and it was crushed due to abilities (for the fatherland) or an OKW medic truck that you can't destroy so they just come back to the field and push you off.

As for the axis side, they don't have many squads that can flank well or as much as allies. Axis weapon profiles are more or less long range weapons that promote attack move tactics unfortunately Which make it better to basically blob up with 3 LMG grens for example and "mow down Ivan with our MG-42s". (falls, STG obers, Sturmpios, PGs) as kind of the only ones that can.

General Mud? - mud and buildings favor northern players in every part of the map
Lanzerath? - southeast spawn = gg
Redball Express? - MG and JT/Ele madness
Lienne Forest? - Flanks? Nah! I just see chokepoints.
Hamburg? - Northern players get choked to death
Vielsalm? - Southern players have all the pretty houses
Essen? - The map where flanking is not an option (and cutting off neither)!
Lorch? - Houseparty in the north and a big fat no go area in the middle. No flanking involved.
La Gleize? - Southern fuel is pretty safe, while northern fuel can either be cut off or captured at 2 points.
Steppes? - Ele/JT say hi
Hill? - the chokepoint joke is getting old

this is pretty accurate

care to elaborate? just curious

If you try to flank on maps like lazur you most likely to not only achieve nothing thanks to blob smashing you lone squads to dust, but even die on retreat thanks to extremely bad retreat paths. And even if you manage to get out, you will retreat all the way back to base which puts you in disadvantage of squad count for next minute.

Ironically, only faction suited for flanking in 3s/4s is OKW, they are not punished for retreats like all other factions, can choice retreat paths with med hq, more they fight more of their amazing vet they gain and if they manage to steal support weapons, it almost gg.

Also, using green cover leads to bunching and easy squad wipes from mortars (for both sides).

Thats first things which come to mind.

Flanking is almost impossible on 4v4 maps every area of map is usually covered by a player

You need to understand attacking there has to be a frontal assualt to occupy the enemy so that a few flanking units have a better effect shooting into the exposed sides of enemy

Now, this is a bit off-topic, but I think the loss of careless and aggressive forward retreat point placement could be punished in that the king tiger would require all 3 trucks to be alive! Currently, a okw player only needs to have had each of the 3 trucks at one point to unlock the kt and can loose trucks in the process.

You are 100% right, you should need ALL trucks built in order to call in the KT. It's annoying to see OKW players be extremely aggressive with their flak truck or med truck but if they called them in once then all is good.

ALSO a huge this is that if the OKW medic truck is cut off from supply lines, IT SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO REINFORCE OR PRODUCE UNITS.

This aspect is broken, only faction if cut off can still supply the front. Makes no sense, USF and UKF both lost supply on ambl and FHQ if cut off.

If you try to flank on maps like lazur you most likely to not only achieve nothing thanks to blob smashing you lone squads to dust, but even die on retreat thanks to extremely bad retreat paths. And even if you manage to get out, you will retreat all the way back to base which puts you in disadvantage of squad count for next minute.

Ironically, only faction suited for flanking in 3s/4s is OKW, they are not punished for retreats like all other factions, can choice retreat paths with med hq, more they fight more of their amazing vet they gain and if they manage to steal support weapons, it almost gg.

Also, using green cover leads to bunching and easy squad wipes from mortars (for both sides).

Thats first things which come to mind.

Hey noobinski, I got this.