Teamgame dominant meta

I see. And what would the meta be for 4v4?

Pinging the map non-stop and blaming your teammates for losing you the game even though you held your lane and even sent support his way. Also some maps are hilariously Axis sided like Red Ball so veto that as Allied, not too mention there's NO ADDITIONAL MAPS FOR 4V4

I see. And what would the meta be for 4v4?

Either win decisively within the first 15 minutes, or be prepared for face...

... as Allies:
- Brummbar/KT wrecking your infantry/AT guns
- JT/Elefant wrecking your TD's off one by one (which are the only things that can hold Brummbar/KT back)
- Stuka Dive Bomb/Walking Stuka wrecking your support weapons and howitzers
- Dodging CAS-loiter skill-clicks with your tanks
- Vet5 OKW infantry (if you didn't pick Calliope)

... as Axis:
- Calliope and Crocodile wrecking your infantry/schrecks/support weapons
- Fireflies & Tulips picking your tanks off, one by one
- Sim city (if you didn't pick howitzers)
- An eventual, all-in with medium tanks trying to take out your OP JT/Elefant

By the point any of the above enter the game, veterancy and unit preservation skills no longer matter. You will eventually fail a dodge, anyway.

While I'd say half of the 4v4's I play are basically "won" within 10 minutes (aggressive starts lead to holding both fuels and all/most VP's) even if they last longer the other half is usually very fun and balanced play. Both sides get their own fuel point, or maybe one side can adapt to doing without and a fun back-and-forth ensues with a game typically lasting about an hour or even longer.

Good changes.

About JT/Elefant I would say they are fine, but they should have their veterancy buffs on
maneuverability removed imo.
Because the problem of vetted JT/Ele and JP4 is that they shut down half or even the entire map (example: Crossing in the Woods, Hamlet) way too easy, forcing allies to rely on arty spam or cheesy brit offmap barrages. A vet 2 JT/Elefant for example can escape allied flanking attacks way too effective.

About Howitzers being too fragile vs off-map barrages how about just change all off-map barrages so that they no longer can finish the Howitzer gun, instead dealing damage to a maximum of 99%? (while still being able to finish the crew ofc)

Either win decisively within the first 15 minutes, or be prepared for face...

... as Allies:
- Brummbar/KT wrecking your infantry/AT guns
- JT/Elefant wrecking your TD's off one by one (which are the only things that can hold Brummbar/KT back)
- Stuka Dive Bomb/Walking Stuka wrecking your support weapons and howitzers
- Dodging CAS-loiter skill-clicks with your tanks
- Vet5 OKW infantry (if you didn't pick Calliope)

... as Axis:
- Calliope and Crocodile wrecking your infantry/schrecks/support weapons
- Fireflies & Tulips picking your tanks off, one by one
- Sim city (if you didn't pick howitzers)
- An eventual, all-in with medium tanks trying to take out your OP JT/Elefant

By the point any of the above enter the game, veterancy and unit preservation skills no longer matter. You will eventually fail a dodge, anyway.

as someone who is in the top 50 4v4 for like 4 months, you are so wrong...

people don't use CAS, stuka loiters are also very rare.
same thing about crocodiles, brits normally go for air supremacy or arty cover.

axis is always spamming MG/mortars(leigs) then rush WM T4/stug spam and OKW goes for panthers and KT.

and in some open maps like hill 400 and steppes shit like AAHT is also used (and the thing is damn near impossible to take out before flaktruck arrive) effectively closing a big chunk of the map.

OKW lefhs are also widely used. and the thing is a direct counter to katyushas.

also, sniper spam on both sides are really effective now that all light vehicles are shit against snipers.

as someone who is in the top 50 4v4 for like 4 months, you are so wrong...

people don't use CAS, stuka loiters are also very rare.
same thing about crocodiles, brits normally go for air supremacy or arty cover.

axis is always spamming MG/mortars(leigs) then rush WM T4/stug spam and OKW goes for panthers and KT.

and in some open maps like hill 400 and steppes shit like AAHT is also used (and the thing is damn near impossible to take out before flaktruck arrive) effectively closing a big chunk of the map.

OKW lefhs are also widely used. and the thing is a direct counter to katyushas.

also, sniper spam on both sides are really effective now that all light vehicles are shit against snipers.

That was why I posed the question, there is no real meta. I also agree with zerocoh, Mr. Smiths' list of OP units is very far out of whack and seems outdated.

The people who plan a strategy, employ that strategy and work as a team will typically prevail. The majority of people playing 4s aren't even playing with a set team let alone voice comm. There are many ways to win in team games and certainly there is no meta.

The game is designed around 1v1 and that can not be forgotten. There are ways to improve team games without changing the values of certain units you deem too OP for 4v4. You can improve these modes by tweaking things like map design, unit and ability totals without disturbing the core of the game.

as someone who is in the top 50 4v4 for like 4 months, you are so wrong...

people don't use CAS, stuka loiters are also very rare.
same thing about crocodiles, brits normally go for air supremacy or arty cover.

axis is always spamming MG/mortars(leigs) then rush WM T4/stug spam and OKW goes for panthers and KT.

and in some open maps like hill 400 and steppes shit like AAHT is also used (and the thing is damn near impossible to take out before flaktruck arrive) effectively closing a big chunk of the map.

OKW lefhs are also widely used. and the thing is a direct counter to katyushas.

also, sniper spam on both sides are really effective now that all light vehicles are shit against snipers.

Uhm, actually he's pretty much on point. Those are pretty much our "strategies" that get us into the Top3 usually.

Can we also please look into the OKW's Schwerer Panzer Headquarters and the Bofors?

Compared to a Bofors, it has much higher value and greater risk when it comes to deploying.

Canceling a truck will lose you the manpower and fuel you put into purchasing the truck. Having it destroyed after you put it down literally puts you in the stone age (huge resource setback and blocks off an entire tier).
A bofors can be canceled for a full return of resources and losing it is not the end of the world as it does not block off any tiers. In some games, multiple bofors are built (one at each major point such as a VP or fuel point).

You can't even force it to target a specific unit. One of the worst things I have seen is a tank run up to the HQ to soak whatever the little damage it does while Penals run up to it and throw a few satchel charges at it (or soviet/usf engineers with demo bombs).
Bofors on the other hand, does consistent damage against medium tanks and can kill a pz4. You can use a Stug for example, but the bofors can brace to buy a lot of time for AT to reach up (something you cannot do with the hq).

The bofors easily kills infantry and light vehicles with minimal effort and can thwart multiple infantry squads attacking from different directions by rapidly killing them and allowing the player to manually target and shoot specific squads (kill the one thats about to throw a flame nade etc).

HQ is much more susceptible to indirect fire.

The only thing the hq offers over a bofors is suppression. But, why suppress when you can shred infantry?

Bofors offers too little reaction time. Ever sent in a luchs or a flame halftrack and had it destroyed within 3-5 seconds? Any light vehicle that meets the hq has ample time to reverse/change their path.

Last, but not least, the hq is much more forgiving if an enemy unit's retreat path is in range. Bofors will straight up wipe a full squad (or multiple smaller squads) on retreat because pathing algorithm picks the shortest path (which sometimes happens to be the most deadliest).

I am not saying we should make the HQ like the bofors since HQ's are typically built further back from the front lines. I just want to see the both of them looked into.

I also posted this on Reddit (hopefully we will get some more opinions): https://www.reddit.com/r/CompanyOfHeroes/comments/691v1k/does_the_okws_schwerer_panzer_headquarters_need/

For what it's worth I can vouch that Smith's list is correct (I would also add Comet spam and triple Schrecked PzGren blobs to the list of things seen in most 4v4s). I mostly play 4v4 AT with mates, and we hover around top 20-top 50.

I completely disregard experiences from 4v4 solo queuing, since it's a fucking wilderness out there, where strange beasts lurk and few men return sane enough to tell the tale.

I think nerfing the Elefant and Jagdtiger damage slightly is as good a way to balance them as any. It will double the time to kill a medium (3 shots instead of 2 means two reload cycles instead of one) while still basically keeping their formidable DPS.

Can't the Sturmtiger be a one time call-in only? That should solve a lot of problems.

Also, someone on reddit had some comments too:

This will go as well as making the SU-76 an anti-infantry platform (remember that?). The weapon is what the weapon is. I counter that a better balance approach is to make the strumtiger more vulnerable to close in infantry & tanks, increase aim time, increase minimum range, increase max range, significantly increase scatter at long range. Possibly decrease responsiveness a bit, decrease rotation. High frontal armor, lower HP, Critical on penetration - reset gun if firing.
Now the ST can do what it's supposed to, from a safe range like it's supposed to. Yes, a buff in many respects, but needed to shift ST into it's actual role. Staying mobile keeps you safe, especially at long range.
ST vulnerable to fast infantry & armor due to slowed rotation & enlarged minimum range. Won't be able to follow the infantry enough to shoot/bluff and force a retreat. The reset to the main gun on a penetrating hit adds vulnerability & can be a key part in closing inside the minimum range w/ AT support keeping the ST from firing.
Edit: lastly, make it a tiger ace style call in. You only get one. Don't think economy penalty is needed.

Ways to improve 4v4:


- Focus on wider maps rather than lengthier maps.

- Limit the number of 'tank x' that can be on the field at any given time.

- Limit the number of abilities that can be called concurrently.

- Stay away from attempting to balance the game for the sake of 4v4.

I love 4v4, but balancing the game with 4v4 in mind (even the slightest bit) is lunacy. There are simply too many factors in team games to create a balanced match (its hard enough to balance 1v1). Quality of life changes for 4v4 are more realistic, easier to implement and have less of an overall impact on the game.

Ways to improve 4v4:


- Focus on wider maps rather than lengthier maps.

- Limit the number of 'tank x' that can be on the field at any given time.

- Limit the number of abilities that can be called concurrently.

- Stay away from attempting to balance the game for the sake of 4v4.

I love 4v4, but balancing the game with 4v4 in mind (even the slightest bit) is lunacy. There are simply too many factors in team games to create a balanced match (its hard enough to balance 1v1). Quality of life changes for 4v4 are more realistic, easier to implement and have less of an overall impact on the game.

Why limit number of tanks? I understand callins or heavies but mediums too?

Why limit number of tanks? I understand callins or heavies but mediums too?

Not mediums but certain call-ins and heavies.

there are several problems with 4v4:
1-as you have 3 mates that can support you, you can always build specialist units like long range TDs, because their weaknesses can be complemented
2-ressource inflation means faster late game which favours axis
3-more enemy troops means more targets for your artillery, therefore arty is stronger
4-decreased chance for flanks increases effectiveness of unturreted TDs

1 and 3 can't be fixed without decreasing balance and or variability in 1v1 and 2v2

2 could be fixed (points give slightly less fuel, caches are less effective)

4 could be fixed with better map design

Not mediums but certain call-ins and heavies.

Which callins need to be limited that aren't already?

Which callins need to be limited that aren't already?

I was referring to limiting the number of certain tanks (ie: Elephant) that can be on the field at once per 4v4-team.

I was referring to limiting the number of certain tanks (ie: Elephant) that can be on the field at once per 4v4-team.

Hmm I think you'll have fairness problems there. People on the same team fighting to be allowed to use their own commander callins lol. Good idea but an unfair one I think.

Hmm I think you'll have fairness problems there. People on the same team fighting to be allowed to use their own commander callins lol. Good idea but an unfair one I think.

i can see people using attack ground to kill their mates JT to call-in their own. sweet chaos...

Hmm I think you'll have fairness problems there. People on the same team fighting to be allowed to use their own commander callins lol. Good idea but an unfair one I think.

Which is why most teams wouldn't pick the same commander. Promotes game diversity and limits cheese.

Side note: No one feels bad for people who play 4v4 random.

smith are all these things u thought about? or thing relic thought about maybe both?