Is it just me... Shreck blobs seem to be unreal now.

Yea vet 3 rifle has better vet than vet 5 volks

Well, rifles cost more, don't have support of any stock elite infantry, don't carry best handheld AT weapon and are the only infantry the army relies on.

Also, vet5, especially on volks doesn't mean they should be stronger, because you know, its a compensation for a feature that doesn't cripple okw anymore, low resources.

For similar reasons cons also have stronger vet.

Well, rifles cost more, don't have support of any stock elite infantry, don't carry best handheld AT weapon and are the only infantry the army relies on.

Also, vet5, especially on volks doesn't mean they should be stronger, because you know, its a compensation for a feature that doesn't cripple okw anymore, low resources.

For similar reasons cons also have stronger vet.

Kat why you always misunderstand I was stating the point of the one I replied face palm
And no cons don't have best vet unless they change vet 1 (with greens)
Another example is pgrens

Kat why you always misunderstand I was stating the point of the one I replied face palm
And no cons don't have best vet unless they change vet 1 (with greens)
Another example is pgrens

Cons have much stronger vet then grens for example.
Recently(last year) they got considerable rec acc bonus at vet3 to help them scale, which didn't do anything but made ppsh play actually possible.

Cons have much stronger vet then grens for example.
Recently(last year) they got considerable rec acc bonus at vet3 to help them scale, which didn't do anything but made ppsh play actually possible.

Yea but I meant vet5 volks are better than vet 3 cons(they are still strong sweet 40% ra kek)

Well, rifles cost more, don't have support of any stock elite infantry, don't carry best handheld AT weapon and are the only infantry the army relies on.

Also, vet5, especially on volks doesn't mean they should be stronger, because you know, its a compensation for a feature that doesn't cripple okw anymore, low resources.

For similar reasons cons also have stronger vet.

lol classic katty,diverting form the original post when he clearly objectively destroyed ur point....and the point he bringed was that people scream okw vet 5 op when some of the vet 5 is less or equal to many vet 3 bonuses

lol classic katty,diverting form the original post when he clearly objectively destroyed ur point....and the point he bringed was that people scream okw vet 5 op when some of the vet 5 is less or equal to many vet 3 bonuses

Well I do hope some day kat can be constructive and not destructive

Yea but I meant vet5 volks are better than vet 3 cons(they are still strong sweet 40% ra kek)

Yeah, volks have much better base stats then cons, so obviously they'll scale better.

Huge bonuses to low base values won't make a unit scale good then good bonuses on good stats.
Though, that is cons being shit problem, not volk or rifles one.

lol classic katty,diverting form the original post when he clearly objectively destroyed ur point....and the point he bringed was that people scream okw vet 5 op when some of the vet 5 is less or equal to many vet 3 bonuses

Not really.

Unit based around combined arms scales bit worse then unit that is reliant on spam of the same units because of faction design. No diverting here from anything, pure reason, which, as we all know, you're quite unfamiliar with.

There is a single unit outscaling volks in game, this unit also happens to have better base stats, can't rely on other units to support it and has higher price.
Nothing wrong with it. Just logic.

Moreover, OP talks about shrecks vs tanks, the one thing that doesn't get affected by vet at all.

volk shreck can be called homing missile now.......

Unless you've plugged yourself to the servers and have seen ALL the games happening, what you've seen is irrelevant since we have access to actual statistic, not perfect one, but as accurate as it gets.

Data>>>your point of view

Since you guys are too blinded to understand my point, here is a replay that accurately shows what i am trying to explain:

Recorded 10 mins ago.

You don't have to spend the whole 50 mins watching the game entirely, the first 20 mins are enough.
US player loses 4 rifles squads in less than 15 mins, yet stays relevant map control wise for the entirety of the game to almost mount a comeback lategame win.

Now since i am obviously talking about things i clearly don't understand, i ask you only one small thing (which should be easy, since game is balanced, y'know): provide me a 1v1 replay of a Wehrmacht player that manages that kind of feat, after losing 4 grenadiers at the 15 mins mark. I DARE YOU. If this is what you guys call perfect balance, then we are clearly not talking about the same thing.

And yes, i do understand what statistics mean, yet i trust what i see by spectating more. Top 150 data only show what top rated players tend to achieve with factions, and this is NOT representative of the state of balance (it would be if those players were only facing eachother, but with every faction listed at 60%+ winrate it simply is not the case).

•  
  

  0

  VS

  Justice Rain From Above!!!

  DonnieChan

  Replay for discussion purpose in the forum.

  by: SlaYoU map: Road to Kharkov

  1

  -

Protip:

1 replay doesn't profile balance in any way that would allow any reasonable conclusions based on facts instead of empty claim.

If US player lost 4 squads in 15 minutes and wasn't dominated, then axis player played terribly passively and was utterly unable to capitalize on his TREMENDOUS advantage.

Now, following your logic, Donald Trump is an idiot american, but you hear only about him therefore all americans are idiots, right?

It doesn't matter if you know what statistic or average is if you chose to ignore it, because it doesn't support your pov.

Protip:

1 replay doesn't profile balance in any way that would allow any reasonable conclusions based on facts instead of empty claim.

If US player lost 4 squads in 15 minutes and wasn't dominated, then axis player played terribly passively and was utterly unable to capitalize on his TREMENDOUS advantage.

Watch the god damn game. I'm trying to show you how US early dominance PREVENTED the WM player to seize the definitely deserved win. That's the point, i don't buy your forum blabla anymore.

And you are not in a position to give "protips", like ever.

And PROVIDE ME the effing opposite game, with WM able to stand this kind of fight after losing 4 grens at 15 mins. But well, you CAN'T, obviously, since US players DESERVE to win those kind of stomps, but the opposite can't happen, right ?

Biased at its finest.

If a faction needs its player to be say 40% better than his/her opponent to stand a fightning chance, then something is wrong. It could very well be said (and rightfully so) a long time ago in team games, when axis was completely dominant. Now correct me if i'm wrong, the teamgame imbalance is gone, yet the 1v1 one is left unchecked ?

PS: don't get me wrong, i find this game was beautiful, this would represent a perfect state of balance, if that kind of back and forth swings were working both ways. But it simply is not the case, WM screws up in the 10-15 mins == stomped, US screws up == comeback possible, and this is very often the case.

Watch the god damn game. I'm trying to show you how US early dominance PREVENTED the WM player to seize the definitely deserved win. That's the point, i don't buy your forum blabla anymore.

And you are not in a position to give "protips", like ever.

And PROVIDE ME the effing opposite game, with WM able to stand this kind of fight after losing 4 grens at 15 mins. But well, you CAN'T, obviously, since US players DESERVE to win those kind of stomps, but the opposite can't happen, right ?

Biased at its finest.

If a faction needs its player to be say 40% better than his/her opponent to stand a fightning chance, then something is wrong. It could very well be said (and rightfully so) a long time ago in team games, when axis was completely dominant. Now correct me if i'm wrong, the teamgame imbalance is gone, yet the 1v1 one is left unchecked ?

PS: don't get me wrong, i find this game was beautiful, this would represent a perfect state of balance, if that kind of back and forth swings were working both ways. But it simply is not the case, WM screws up in the 10-15 mins == stomped, US screws up == comeback possible, and this is very often the case.

You're out of your mind dude. Not sure which game you're playing, but this is not the case in COH2. If I lose 4 RM squads in 15 minutes, I'm screwed by a large margin, especially if they already had weapons. (did they?) Actually, I'd love to do the math on this one, considering build times, resources, and lack of map presence after losing the 4 squads. I'll watch the replay tonight, and then do my own tests before I say anything else.

I watched the game, you killed his 4 or 5 rifles and he replaced them with REs. he particularly played aggressive with his shermans and almost made him to come back.
He stays relevant because he was much more coordinate with his flanking and didn't try to blob unlike you. This is how he gain map control and you lost it many times.

I watched the game, you killed his 4 or 5 rifles and he replaced them with REs. he particularly played aggressive with his shermans and almost made him to come back.
He stays relevant because he was much more coordinate with his flanking and didn't try to blob unlike you. This is how he gain map control and you lost it many times.

FYI i am not posting games i am playing in, i'm trying to remain as neutral as possible (while obviously defending Wehrmacht 1v1 weak balancing).

Here is a second one, same kind of game, this time Jove (if you come and claim this is a PEBKAC issue, i'll just laugh at you).

US losses at 15 mins mark: 3 rifles, 1 captain, 2 RE
WM losses at 15 mins mark: 1 gren, 1 mg42, 1 222

US losses at 20 mins mark: 4 rifles, 1 captain, 1 major, 2 RE
WM losses at 20 mins mark: 1 gren, 1 mg42, 1 222

Length of the game: 43'48
Final VP count: 89 - 64

Let's call it balanced, ok. Goddamn allied biased forum.

This just proves my point that you have to outskill your opponent greatly to even have a fighting chance as WM in 1v1s. And now to adress your point about the previous replay: you realize you are just proving my point when you say that the WM player was "wrong" to blob, when in fact that's the direct consequence of WM weak infantry ? You have to blob, because every squad is losing their fight against opponents of equal value. That or you have to play cats and mice all game long, which is ridiculous. Where is the tradeoff for US early game dominance ? Lategame weakness ? I fail to see it. Next time i'll upload a replay of Jove playing US vs WM, and we'll see how long the game goes on after this kind of start. Until then, hf in your bubble.

•  
  

  0

  VS

  Jove

  DonnieChan

  second replay for forum discussion purpose.

  by: SlaYoU map: Semoskiy Winter

  1

  -

What I say do not prove your point in any ways. Blobbing was the last thing to do while the WM already has the advantage since Donnie knew how to counter it.
You also forget to count the sniper lost in your review. He was badly micro and die like a WTF.
The WM could have build more minefield, bunkers or a another HMG to protect his cutoff and be less blobby and more coordonate his squads.

Anyway, just a question. How can WM infantry be so weak that it manage to kill 5 RMs squads in 15 minutes?

•  
  

  0

  VS

  Justice Rain From Above!!!

  DonnieChan

  Replay for discussion purpose in the forum.

  by: SlaYoU map: Road to Kharkov

  1

  -

Protip: don't watch TV while playing like i was


there you have your representative balance talk lol

What I say do not prove your point in any ways. Blobbing was the last thing to do while the WM already has the advantage since Donnie knew how to counter it.
You also forget to count the sniper lost in your review. He was badly micro and die like a WTF.
The WM could have build more minefield, bunkers or a another HMG to protect his cutoff and be less blobby and more coordonate his squads.

Anyway, just a question. How can WM infantry be so weak that it manage to kill 5 RMs squads in 15 minutes?

Player messing up ? And frankly saying he was watching TV while playing ? I am just saying that mistakes are not punished the same way across factions, and those replays show it the most. As i said, WM screws up == stomped, and US screws up == game is still winnable (in this match up, i'm not talking about anything else). Anyway, you are just another knowitall too happy to see WM stomped in 1v1s, and are not worth my time answering you. You are asked the same task than your spiritual master Katitov: find me a game where WM loses 4 squads by the 15 mins mark, and manages to hold the game 40+ mins. I know you can't, and this alone proves what i am saying is closer to truth than anything you can say.

•  
  

  0

  VS

  Justice Rain From Above!!!

  DonnieChan

  Replay for discussion purpose in the forum.

  by: SlaYoU map: Road to Kharkov

  1

  -

Protip: don't watch TV while playing like i was


there you have your representative balance talk lol




I'm sorry man, i used 2 of your games to highlight my point, it was pure coincidence. And what's your input on the matter ? Do you feel it is normal to mount that kind of comeback after such awful starts on both games (you are good, i do not question that)? Maybe better phrased: do you feel it is normal that WM had to work so hard to win those games after having such a good early game (because of your TV, whatever).

probably not great representation but it seems UKF and OKW are doing the best after hotfix patch.

http://coh2chart.com/

USF dropped after hotfix and poor SU has dropped even lower... nobody cares about poor SU

Oh, I'm looking at 1v1s post hotfix btw for those who are curious.

Love coh2 patching that makes replays useless

They're all within .04 of each other though, which is remarkable and surprises me.