OKW vs USF 1on1 balance

for better balance, volks need to reliably beat riflemen at long range (especially with upgrades) and USF mortor needs to be removed, they didn't need it in the past and they don't need it now

Try not to spam volks but falls.

If Volks are cheaper...why should they win at long range? The suggestions in here are very biased. Aside from the mortar request. I don't really get why the USF mortar is OP, but I'll go with the flow that it is. The thing about the stuart has to be the worst. I mean, you really come to CoH, which is about tactics, and complain that an anti-infantry light tank is countered by by an anti-vehicle light tank? Even though you have the option of a better armed light vehicle, ONLY because it would reduce your AI capability!!! This is core CoH stuff here. It's like you just want generalist kind of units where everything is effective against everything. I feel like you are in the wrong game here. This is more what you get from command & conquer. Halo Wars 2 just came out, it's like that too. You gotta have the right tool for the job and if you don't, you pay for it.

Now honestly, you've come here with these complaints and have presented no numbers. Most of the numbers are available. I play a lot of USF and I can tell you, sturms do beat rifles. Pretty badly. It's pretty unfair how badly rifle's get beat at the start of the game. Now, if you are doing something stupid, then yes, sturms will lose. I've had times where I was in heavy cover and sturms just run up and kill all the riflemen. I'm going to watch your replay, so hopefully you show me the light of how weak sturms are, because it greatly contrasts with my experience using them and being abused by them.

There are few people I would beleive when it comes to complaining about axis, and those are mainly the people high on the ladders that are truly limited through subtle balance differences. Like the list of streamers presented to you. Those people play all the factions and at a high level.

I watched that first game you posted. You got outplayed, severely. If that guy was OKW, you would have lost faster and been here complaining of OKW being OP.

Why do you think your opponent felt compelled to place his doctrinal mines, yet you did not feel any need to lay your equally powerfully non-doctrinal mines? You had more reason to do it, considering he was rolling around the map with 3 light vehicles (one of which was your own luchs that the RNG granted him). It was already mentioned, but you didn't make mine sweepers, even after triggering multiple mines. Riflemen lay those mines extremely slowly too, it's very easy to ambush them.

You won the early infantry battles, so I don't see why your complaining of rifles being too strong. Now I'm not counting the times where you weren't paying attention and left your men to continue traveling a path while under fire, you lost those. You also did it a lot more than your opponent.

I don't think your mg34 was ever in the right place at the right time. So this replay doesn't help that argument, but it is generally accepted that it sucks. The USF one is kind of crap too (for suppression at least), but your opponent didn't have access to it here, so you held the advantage there, just never capitalized on it.

I feel like your luchs was poorly managed, both of them.

Your basic CoH positioning, cover, and overall micro were poor in this match. Squads were lost unecessarily and odd tactics employed (in the later part of the game you threw a grenade at rifles, they moved out the fire, then you retreated through the fire). It doesn't matter which army you play as, if you don't improve in this aspect, you will remain very inefficient and lose in situations where you may have won.

Anti-tank. You did a poor job here. Mines go a long way as mentioned already. Other than that you relied on panzerfaust, raketen (3 of them in close proximity LMAO!), Puma, and Command Pather.



I'll start with your faust use. Worthless. Almost every single time you used the faust, it was an "Oh Shit" use that didn't benefit you. You did just because there was a vehicle close and couldn't follow up on it. Some might say you slowed the vehicle from advancing, but you were pretty much in a corner the whole time anyways, not much to delay there. This is especially worthless against USF, which has abundant repair options (especially considering he had vehicle dominance). You munitions would have gone further being invested in mines.

Raketen. LMAO you got 3 of them! These things suck pretty bad still. They usually miss the first shot, so they are only really good as a deterrent. Building 3 of them is just goofy to me. Later on when you got the perfect ambush on a pershing, they still couldn't kill it! Even though it sat there in range for a long time!

Puma. Puma is bad ass. Long range, excellent sight. Fast. Good penetration. However, you wasted yours. You didn't pay attention or something, backed it into a hard to navigate area and it was wrecked. It was an excellent choice to build one, next time manage it better.

Panther. Facepalm. Your teamgame side came out here and you Yolo command panther straight to this guys base. I really did not understand what you hoped to get from this attack. At first I thought it was just to destroy his ambulance, but you stayed after that. It was a horrible decision and you almost destroyed that Pershing with it, but the RNG got you, since it made one of your shots miss at mid range while panther was still. He had to emergency pick up a bazooka and hit your panther in the rear to save the Pershing. Still, even if the rng didn't screw you over and you destroyed that Pershing, you still would have lost that panther. You wouldn't know it, but your opponent had such a fuel advantage over you, that when he got 13 CP, he had enough fuel for 2 Pershings! Another one would have just rolled right out and blown up your panther!

I know this game may not be model for every point you want to make, but I think ultimately you have a lot of room to improve yourself before balance becomes more of an issue.

If Volks are cheaper...why should they win at long range? The suggestions in here are very biased. Aside from the mortar request. I don't really get why the USF mortar is OP, but I'll go with the flow that it is. The thing about the stuart has to be the worst. I mean, you really come to CoH, which is about tactics, and complain that an anti-infantry light tank is countered by by an anti-vehicle light tank? Even though you have the option of a better armed light vehicle, ONLY because it would reduce your AI capability!!! This is core CoH stuff here. It's like you just want generalist kind of units where everything is effective against everything. I feel like you are in the wrong game here. This is more what you get from command & conquer. Halo Wars 2 just came out, it's like that too. You gotta have the right tool for the job and if you don't, you pay for it.

Now honestly, you've come here with these complaints and have presented no numbers. Most of the numbers are available. I play a lot of USF and I can tell you, sturms do beat rifles. Pretty badly. It's pretty unfair how badly rifle's get beat at the start of the game. Now, if you are doing something stupid, then yes, sturms will lose. I've had times where I was in heavy cover and sturms just run up and kill all the riflemen. I'm going to watch your replay, so hopefully you show me the light of how weak sturms are, because it greatly contrasts with my experience using them and being abused by them.

There are few people I would beleive when it comes to complaining about axis, and those are mainly the people high on the ladders that are truly limited through subtle balance differences. Like the list of streamers presented to you. Those people play all the factions and at a high level.

Why should Volksgrenadiere win against Riflemen at long-range? Maybe because if they don´t OKW has no counter against them whatsoever and Riflemen can just stomp any opposing infantry? And is always forced to attack Riflemen 2v1 in order to have a chance in battle while sacrificing map-control.

While it´s true that I should have build a mine sweeper this is not what this thread is about at all. Remeber my OP?

I lost the early infantry battles that´s why USF could control fuel and get two Stuarts out while I only had one Luchs.

What else should I build than Raketen if facing 2 Stuarts and 1 Luchs early game as OKW?

Command Panther rushing his base in hope of destroying a 1/3 HP Pershing while having 50 Points remaining and not controlling the map? You really want to critisize me for that lol? The game was over at that point anyways. I could have just surrendered.

If two players of the same skill level play against each other it´s balance and RNG deciding who wins. So the argument L2P is invalid. According to you there is never any balance issue in the game, you just need to play better to win. Makes no sense. Balance effects bad players just as much as good players.

Balance affects bad players just as much as good players.

Not 100% true, bad players can always improve to win more even against odds but best players cannot improve because they are already best (like in king of the hill tournament are allies winning 80% of all matches, players playing there are best of all )

^ Yep, always try to optimize your gameplay and tactics before blaming balance. People have been giving good tips here.

Not 100% true, bad players can always improve to win more even against odds but best players cannot improve because they are already best (like in king of the hill tournament are allies winning 80% of all matches, players playing there are best of all )

I don´t get that. The best players can still get better because COH2 is way too complex to play 100% perfect games. It´s not humanly possible to be perfect in this game.

I do agree however that skill is more important than balance and that bad players have more room for improvement.

I do appreciate the advice given to me but I feel that it´s kind of off-topic and not really relating to balance issues which I still feel are there.

It's on topic. The only real balance issues have already been acknowledged.

Why should Volksgrenadiere win against Riflemen at long-range? Maybe because if they don´t OKW has no counter against them whatsoever and Riflemen can just stomp any opposing infantry? And is always forced to attack Riflemen 2v1 in order to have a chance in battle while sacrificing map-control.

While it´s true that I should have build a mine sweeper this is not what this thread is about at all. Remeber my OP?

I lost the early infantry battles that´s why USF could control fuel and get two Stuarts out while I only had one Luchs.

What else should I build than Raketen if facing 2 Stuarts and 1 Luchs early game as OKW?

Command Panther rushing his base in hope of destroying a 1/3 HP Pershing while having 50 Points remaining and not controlling the map? You really want to critisize me for that lol? The game was over at that point anyways. I could have just surrendered.

If two players of the same skill level play against each other it´s balance and RNG deciding who wins. So the argument L2P is invalid. According to you there is never any balance issue in the game, you just need to play better to win. Makes no sense. Balance effects bad players just as much as good players.

hey man, check it out. several issues here. first, volks aren't meant to go toe-to-toe with anything other than conscripts. they're super cheap infantry. the STGs help, but if you're fighting squad-on-squad you're going to lose. against riflemen it won't be by much, but in this game, you shouldn't be intent with ANY 1-on-1 engagement.

i play USF and OKW a lot, and i'm no pro player, but i'll try to simplify this for you. on the surface these factions play similarly, but there are differences, especially between volks and rifles.

at long range, especially in cover, volks will win vs rifles all day. as a result, rifles need to close the distance or get help (flank or a second squad or a mortar). close range at vet 0 rifles will typically win, but RNG plays a huge role. BARs and STGs generally tip the balance unless both squads have them.

REs do more damage to kubels because of their poor accuracy but high rate of fire... the kubel is a lot bigger than a dude, so they actually hit it vs their constant missing vs individual models.

if you have decent micro, a good counter to USF early game is two kubels with sturms repairing... kite rifles with the kubels and you can bleed the crap out of them without suffering any MP drain yourself.

mortar has some issues but you should be spreading out with volks and flanking constantly so it shouldn't impact your game as much as it affects ostheer.

here's the other thing... people complain about stuart or AEC, but you KNOW it's coming. one raketen is decent, but two together in a little pack will easily force off enemy light vehicles. when the game reaches that natural pause where light vehicles are about to hit the field, get one or two. never hurts to be prepared.

finally, if the other guy is all over you and winning every engagement, consolidate your forces. pick one part of the map to focus on, keep your units together for support, and use cover... force a retreat, and push forward a bit. it's hard to do this well in 1v1 since some guys are so good at constantly harassing, but don't try to be everywhere at once and don't attack piecemeal and you'll be ok.

I don´t get that. The best players can still get better because COH2 is way too complex to play 100% perfect games. It´s not humanly possible to be perfect in this game.

I do agree however that skill is more important than balance and that bad players have more room for improvement.

I do appreciate the advice given to me but I feel that it´s kind of off-topic and not really relating to balance issues which I still feel are there.

Then why best players dnt get better to be possibld to defeat top tier (not best/) playrs using soviets.

If Volks are cheaper...why should they win at long range? .

why do my 440mp more expensive squad of fallschirmjager lose to cheaper unit like shocks at close range?

why do my 440mp more expensive squad of fallschirmjager lose to cheaper unit like shocks at close range?

For a start they are paying extra mp for the ability to spawn in a building.

why do my 440mp more expensive squad of fallschirmjager lose to cheaper unit like shocks at close range?

For a start they are paying extra mp for the ability to spawn in a building.

Second: THEY ARE NOT A SHORT RANGE SQUAD. Think about PG on steroids. They have great DPS at ALL ranges but they are glasscannons. Do not use them for assault unless you are going against support weapons or you are screening with Volks and your opponent doesn't know what is focus fire.
Stay at range against SMG/AR. Stay closer against LMG/Rifles. But mostly, sit them on cover.

Third: nuke nade

Fourth, if you sum up the reinforcement costs, it's actually Shocks that are more expensive; a lot more expensive. In fact, Shocks are the most expensive unit in the game, in that regard.

loool i was being sarcastic guys chill.

my point was that just because a squad might be more expensive then another, does not mean it needs to win at all ranges against cheaper squads.

OKW's MG34 used to be doctrinal and I still don't see them as essential OKW unit portfolio. It's good that OKW has got asuppression platform, but I like the fact that it's not as good at what it does, since OKW isn't built around having it. Same goes for the USF mortar, which I will adress below.


As with the MG34 for OKW, USF was not supposed to have a mortar. They still got one, after the community tested and agreed to have a light mortar, that was supposed to be a mobile, light damage mortar, that's main purpose was to provide smoke.

1. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

so okw gets MG but you are happy that its useless both damagewise AND surpressionwise?

2. the community did not "agree" on the mortar, a certain someone who was HARDstuck with USF in midtier rank 1v1 decided USF needed mortar cause he kept losing to defensive playing OKW and OST players.

At WFA release, the problem with USF v OST was that riflemen came out too quickly for OST T1 to hit the field. Battle phase teching couldn't keep up with Lieutenant and Captain squads hitting the field.

So the MG42 got shoved into T0, the SOV v OST matchup be damned. This crammed USF into always dealing with MGs and Ostheer always using MGs.

So then USF was given a T0 mortar to counter the T0 MG that was countering the T0 riflemen. Much strategy. Such diversity.

WFA and EFA should never have crossed paths. OKW v Soviets has likewise been a cluster.

At release, OKW v USF wasn't actually too terrible. Likewise Soviet v Ostheer remains to have the highest potential for a balanced game.

T0 MG did much else. It opened much more opening strategies for ost. If USF mortar would have been the one community tested, but no, relic goes full asshole.

2. the community did not "agree" on the mortar, a certain someone who was HARDstuck with USF in midtier rank 1v1 decided USF needed mortar cause he kept losing to defensive playing OKW and OST players.

So the MG42 got shoved into T0, the SOV v OST matchup be damned. This crammed USF into always dealing with MGs and Ostheer always using MGs.

So then USF was given a T0 mortar to counter the T0 MG that was countering the T0 riflemen. Much strategy. Such diversity.

At release, OKW v USF wasn't actually too terrible. Likewise Soviet v Ostheer remains to have the highest potential for a balanced game.

T0 MG did much else. It opened much more opening strategies for ost. If USF mortar would have been the one community tested, but no, relic goes full asshole.

Holy crap, you guys are on fire!

Still cant believe Lelic has USF turbo mortar at t0...