Gameplay opposite of forum discussion

Aren't the tourney matches played in pairs? Each team has to play a match with each side? To me a tourney is a better gauge of the best of the best, not what we are talking about here.

Wow. Any idea that doesn't agree with your theory - you just deny.

In tourneys match-ups are pretty equal in terms of skill level.

When skill level is equal, if balance was equal, the win rates for axis and allies would be close to 50-50.

The tourneys do determine the best of the best. They are also a good indicator of balance. Allies dominate. IT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.


Try playing as OKW and Ostheer. After you get mortared, penal-ed, calliope-d and guards-ed a million times you'll see what people are complaining about.

Grens, Volks and weapon teams rely on cover and positioning in order to compete with soviet and USF infantry early game except for conscripts. Both is denied by flamer penals, mortar. So you're loosing the early game even harder. Shortly after you're looking at guards with lmgs and thompsoned-up rangers. Both axis factions have to commit at least two units to combat a single allied unit of any sort. Even though guards, rifles, penals, Infantry sections... are slightly more costly that just doesn't play out overall. On top of that you have no chance to survive without some sort of AT after like 10 minutes to repell t70s, stuarts, AECs.

Why don't you post a replay of your own where you're struggling as USF?

Mainly because I'm playing team games. Keep in mind it's not about win or lose. I'm playing coh2 Russian roulette with partners. It's really just about individual matchups and one off battles.

Grens, Volks and weapon teams rely on cover and positioning in order to compete with soviet and USF infantry early game except for conscripts. Both is denied by flamer penals, mortar. So you're loosing the early game even harder. Shortly after you're looking at guards with lmgs and thompsoned-up rangers. Both axis factions have to commit at least two units to combat a single allied unit of any sort. Even though guards, rifles, penals, Infantry sections... are slightly more costly that just doesn't play out overall. On top of that you have no chance to survive without some sort of AT after like 10 minutes to repell t70s, stuarts, AECs.

Why don't you post a replay of your own where you're struggling as USF?

I remember OP Obertruppen + Fallschirmjaegers...What the hell...+Infrared+Stuka+KT = OP

Mainly because I'm playing team games. Keep in mind it's not about win or lose. I'm playing coh2 Russian roulette with partners. It's really just about individual matchups and one off battles.

Hey I feel you there. Probably 90% of my games are matches with friends either as teammates or opponents in custom matches.

The most recent tournaments have been mostly the same people playing the same people. It's to the point that the players will concede to each other to make certain matchups. For instance, Sprice conceded to Barton after effectively winning so Barton could go on to play (and beat) Hans.

That's not really a situation where you're seeing who is the best of the best.

My impression is that the axis of players are become extremely intolerant of frustration after now having to micro units not to lose them, which the allied had to do forever since it has the most fragile units of the game. A panzerscrek can bring down a sherman easily, one obersoldate destroys rifle-man easily, granadiers had grenades ant tank from vet 0, and can upgrade without going the base, giving them great damage and accuracy. not even need to remember the indestructible panther, the fact that USF does not have landmines non-doctrinal, and the late game that axis have the best units arguably one tiger can turn a losing game easily if the player knows give support he.
PS: OKW has the best siege unit non-doctrinal the game, Stuka, and still complains.

Hm ppl tend to complain about OP stuff and use it for themselves is another kind of opposite direction. But it's the same every patch when something is totally broken and people refuse to see it because it will surely have an impact on their precious stats. :|

Axis need nerfs

I was waiting for your opinion mister nobody.



fortunately balancing games like this is made from statistical data, and statistics do not show imbalance between the indices of victory. Who can prove otherwise just so here and I and hundreds of players will be convinced, otherwise, stop whining as if all the units were superior at all. This game is not just Statistics units, this strategy, synergy in the use of troops, land use in their favor etc. If you are losing too much because they are playing badly.

I honestly, don't understand what you wrote.

You think USF mortar is fine lol?

It performs well, no doubt about it. I only play team games, and I like using it as USF. However, when I play Axis, it's not a huge problem for me. There are counters to it, and as the game draws on, it loses some of its relevance. I can see it being a problem for you if you favor a "campy" defensive style of play though.

Here is somewhat of a good example. Goes kind of alright at the start, then mid game the axis troops pretty much don't take damage. A lot like the old days when they used to have that 1.5 armor, that was fun. Murphy's law is in full effect too. I had a permanently bugged m2hb that was either unable to fire or they just didn't care and ignored it. The mortar couldn't hit anything, so they can easy chase it off. My guys quickly drop like flies even with mg support. My favorite was the damaged PIV that reverses away damaged, hits an m20 mine, and doesn't blow up. I didn't see the status it got, but I heard it getting repaired in the fog. I lost my only m10 with amazingly bad timing (that's just bad stuff happening, not really relevant to the thread). I didn't know my teamate, pretty good chance the two we played were an established team, so no real surprise on the loss. Just the way some things went down, is completely opposite to complaints of Axis weakness. I don't think there is a single shitty thing that axis has right now and don't say mg34, even though it's not as good as mg42, it does it's job better than pretty much all allied machine guns.

•  
  

  0

  VS

  Vaz Rick Grimes

  Ceorl Mmmrrgghhhhh

  Struggling

  by: Vaz map: Moscow Outskirts

  1

  -

It performs well, no doubt about it. I only play team games, and I like using it as USF. However, when I play Axis, it's not a huge problem for me. There are counters to it, and as the game draws on, it loses some of its relevance. I can see it being a problem for you if you favor a "campy" defensive style of play though.

Hm it can still be a hassle in 2v2, but it is completely op in 1v1. It can counter entire early infantry and weapon team play from Ostheer.

I don't want to outright say your wrong, but I think it's kind of one sided. Now I will admit straight up, I don't have the interest of playing a lot of 1v1, but if the stats of the US mortar are exactly or almost exactly the same as the grw and they arrive as early as the start of the game, then it seems kind of one sided. Saying that 1 side has this mortar and team weapons, but the other side basically shouldn't have any access to any team weapons or only an inferior version at the same cost sounds kind of unfair to me. I know from previous mortar discussions that many people try to justify inferior performance (high scatter) for allied equipment based on squad sizes, but for the mortars it is not fair at all. Mortars are the counter to themselves, so a 4 man US mortar vs a 4 man grw team puts the US mortar at a severe disadvantage, if it were to be downgraded in performance for a future patch. I am also only talking about vet0, veterency can be tweaked for balance, but for this discussion vet0 vs vet0. The squad size justification makes more sense when talking about machine guns.

The USF mortar is completely outrageous for cost, if you have not felt it in team games it is because you are lucky. Even in 3v3 and 4v4 games I find that unit very easy to abuse. The other things you talk about are still a problem in larger game modes, sometimes not as powerfully but still there.

I am not agreeing with everything ever posted on the forums, but some of the issues you listed are real problems that I hope get addressed very soon.

The mortar that gets me is the british one, the two shells come down and wipe the squad. I must be lucky because I have not once been frustrated fighting against a US player using this mortar, that I remember.

double mortar as USF at least in 2vs2 kills the game.
Rifle,Mortar,Rifle,Mortar, medic truck, rifle or tech up works 95% of the time.

I've watched the replay and not the damaged PIV hits the mine, it was the 2nd PIV
btw your team mate played very bad!

oh that's just as disappointing(about the pIV), lol. I figured he was doing pretty badly, not that I'm all that stellar all the time myself, but sometimes I have two people pounding on me and when I'm back at my base I reflect on the battles and think "what could I have done better?". When I can't clearly answer that question, I usually suspect my teamates were not doing things that were effecting the opponents.

I will say that I did play a game and got 2 mortars before you posted that and it did work well, but I think any faction using two mortars will have a good effect if they can hold the enemy in mortar range, without letting them close. I felt my opponent was not adjusting well to it, as opposed to it being an imbalance. Throughout the game they had difficulty adjusting to challenges. They still won though, because my teamate dropped, lol.

That said, thank you for the advice, I'll try that build tonight if I play and see if it takes me farther than my current build.