OKW back to stone age?

Super TDs completely ruin balance.

JT/Ele on Hill 400? sucks to be allies "gg"
JT/Ele on Redball? sucks to be allies "gg"
JT/Ele on Minsk? sucks tob be allies "gg"
JT/Ele on Rhzev? sucks tob be allies "gg"
JT/Ele on Crossing? sucks to be allies "gg"
JT/Ele on Hamburg? sucks to be allies "gg"
JT/Ele on Lanzerath? sucks to be allies "gg"
....

...Your streaks say otherwise.

Who says his win rate is when the Heavies are out? Allies can win games prior to the OP heavies coming out. Just when the Heavies come out, the chances of Allies winning plummet. Out armor-ing and out-sighting, Axis just has to camp with the heavies and wait for the Allies to charge, then just mop up. It takes hella amount of skill and teamwork on the Allies part to win after that. Axis just has to attack-move.

Wait, they're even going to take away vet 5 on OKW units? Goddammit, Relic should never have handed balance over to the community. Guys, stop trying to radically change the game.

actually if high tier players were doing it would have been fine,but they just gave it modders especially to those who had a clear pro allies favour from every comment in the past,i am scared for okw its just the allied fanboys are most vocal on the forum thats why we the axis are in this state for past 1 year to begin with

Seems like you play too much 3v3s and 4v4s. Those game modes are hopelessly lost anyways.

I used to think about that too, but to be honest, 3v3 is still the most fun-safe team game mode in this game imo.

What i hate in CoH2 is that it allows arranged teams to play against random teams. I can't even tell how frustrating a bad/dropper/afk teammate can be in 2v2.

I used to think about that too, but to be honest, 3v3 is still the most fun-safe team game mode in this game imo.

What i hate in CoH2 is that it allows arranged teams to play against random teams. I can't even tell how frustrating a bad/dropper/afk teammate can be in 2v2.

I think 3v3s and 4v4s are fun with friends, but those modes are noob modes frankly and just broken overall. Guess you need the best micro in 1v1s and maybe a good strategy in 2v2s.

About arranged teams versus random teams, it's true, but you have to consider that the playerbase is pretty low. Otherwise you would never find a game.

I used to think about that too, but to be honest, 3v3 is still the most fun-safe team game mode in this game imo.

What i hate in CoH2 is that it allows arranged teams to play against random teams. I can't even tell how frustrating a bad/dropper/afk teammate can be in 2v2.

But it is sooooo satisfying when you have managed to cooperate with random teammates (spontaneously or through chat) and fight harsh battle agaist arranged team until you eventually win!

Probably worth all those losses against AT because those games usually don't last for too long.

...Your streaks say otherwise.

Well spotted buddy. No wonder he is acting the way he is.


@People saying the GCS results are irellevant. So who should we listen to when making balance changes then? People who have like 1000 4v4 games as allies and zero games as axis?

Well spotted buddy. No wonder he is acting the way he is.


@People saying the GCS results are irellevant. So who should we listen to when making balance changes then? People who have like 1000 4v4 games as allies and zero games as axis?

No, we should let people who have like 1000 4v4 games as axis and zero games as allies.

In the EFA revamp mod, okw still gets two additional bonuses via veterancy and gets access to obers and jp4 earlier.

@People saying the GCS results are irellevant. So who should we listen to when making balance changes then? People who have like 1000 4v4 games as allies and zero games as axis?

As the guy that posts this stuff (and you'll get a more thorough breakdown once the tournament concluded):

They are not irrelevant, but they are only one data point based on a small and specific sample; you can't just glance over the winrates and make balance decisions solely based on those. Apart from the disparity in skill in a lot of matchups, other issues include the very small map pool with fixed starting positions and the fact that we only look at 1v1 here.

Going back to winrates, one thing that you can certainly say is that it is possible to win with every faction against all other factions. And that's not necessarily a given; even the players that did not so good in this tourney still are likely better than about 95% of all players. Yet, most rounds were 3:0, so it seems like at least side balance is decent. But I guess that's as far as you can get.

If you want to look at only a few numbers: I typically find picks more interesting as actual win-rates given that players will pick the faction they think gives them the best chance to win.

Some facts to think about:

• Soviets have the worst winrate as allies, OKW has the worst on axis side. Still, both are the most picked faction on their respective side. Why were they picked?
  
• If we look at only the top 4 players, we have 18:9 games for OH vs. OKW and USF is the most played faction on allied side.
  
• DevM is known for basically only playing OH and USF. However, he actually started playing OKW before the tournament and even did so in the tournament.
  

What do you make out of those?

As the guy that posts this stuff (and you'll get a more thorough breakdown once the tournament concluded):

They are not irrelevant, but they are only one data point based on a small and specific sample; you can't just glance over the winrates and make balance decisions solely based on those. Apart from the disparity in skill in a lot of matchups, other issues include the very small map pool with fixed starting positions and the fact that we only look at 1v1 here.

Going back to winrates, one thing that you can certainly say is that it is possible to win with every faction against all other factions. And that's not necessarily a given; even the players that did not so good in this tourney still are likely better than about 95% of all players. Yet, most rounds were 3:0, so it seems like at least side balance is decent. But I guess that's as far as you can get.

If you want to look at only a few numbers: I typically find picks more interesting as actual win-rates given that players will pick the faction they think gives them the best chance to win.

Some facts to think about:

• Soviets have the worst winrate as allies, OKW has the worst on axis side. Still, both are the most picked faction on their respective side. Why were they picked?
  
• If we look at only the top 4 players, we have 18:9 games for OH vs. OKW and USF is the most played faction on allied side.
  
• DevM is known for basically only playing OH and USF. However, he actually started playing OKW before the tournament and even did so in the tournament.
  

What do you make out of those?

Rip OP.

Other than the panzer 2 rush and fusilier spam, OKW is in a weird spot at the moment. Raketens are easy to take out, and enemy artillery/medium armor is able to counter OKW's infantry units it with mg support.

Thanks for your input VonIvan.

Other than the panzer 2 rush and fusilier spam, OKW is in a weird spot at the moment. Raketens are easy to take out, and enemy artillery/medium armor is able to counter OKW's infantry units it with mg support.

You've forget the kubel spam that comes before pfuss + luchs spam. Especially in open maps against USF or UKF.


But yeah, it's mostly these 3 units for the OKW ATM

You've forget the kubel spam that comes before pfuss + luchs spam. Especially in open maps against USF or UKF.


But yeah, it's mostly these 3 units for the OKW ATM

I am puzzled..?? if you agree with this

then how the heck you agree with efa okw changes lol

Rip OP.

Rip loopdlop

I am puzzled..?? if you agree with this

then how the heck you agree with efa okw changes lol

Because they make sence and remove cheese from the game. Once all faction units get viable and balanced toward each other, we can enjoy this game much better. And you have to start somewhere, and sov and okw seems a good start for me, because they are the cheesiest factions while yet easy to fix (unlike brits).

Just reviewed the changes that have not been offically aproved. Gotta say they are excellent, hope they get implemented soon.

I think fixing this game will take more than adjusting some damage values and price values here and there. I think the problems in the game are due to how factions are designed. The game feels to be designed in a way to make it as easy as possible for all factions to get to late game, and making sure all factions have fairly equivalent tools for all scenarios.

Fuel is spend to tech linearly for basically all factions. The only choice of what to spend fuel on is either: more shitty vehicles, or tech to better vehicles, or wait to spend on vehicle call ins.

There are not enough options to dump fuel into upgrading existing units. All factions are designed around dumping fuel into creating new units, not making an existing army better.

I think more global upgrades would have multiple benefits:

• add more strategic diversity
  
• help balance infantry combat
  

For example, for a game that has been out for 5 years, and whose developers have pushed the "we balance to increase strategic diversity" slogan, why then is the only viable soviet strategy seen amongst people who play this game seriously the same T1 + lend lease?

The only obvious option for soviets is to rush T70, and save fuel for sherman. They can be confident in the fact that their Penal squads will get stronger passively as the game goes on. There need not be any thought or decisions put into how will my infantry scale. The infantry will scale, since vet requires 0 skill to gain (just use the squad in combat, and push T when it's unsafe)

Imagine then, if say, instead of balancing conscripts usefulness as the game progresses by changing their vet and rifle damage, you added a global upgrade. Then at all stages of the game, you could have the option to invest in the performance of your units. Are your conscripts performing poorly? Maybe don't spend 80 fuel on another T34 and instead spend 80 fuel to upgrade all conscripts with SVT40s. As the game is right now, all that can be done is keep your conscripts alive, and buy more tanks.

It is so frustrating to me that this is how the game works. All the interesting fuel dump options have been removed too. Elite troops' veterency ability, CAS's fuel to munitions conversion. These were the abilities that made the game interesting. They added the choice between "okay I made a P4, do I make another, or save for Tiger" to, "do I delay my P4 for 5+ minutes to put LMG42s on all my squads".

The balance team, in my opinion, is completely missing their chance to make a mod that turns CoH2 into an interesting game. I feel as if I'm a broken record, and pretty sure I'm just repeating an opinion that's been floating around forever. But how come literally every RTS (SC2, CoH1, AoE franchise) has global upgrades for units, while CoH2 is stuck with only a few, inexpensive options.

I want more options than "build 4-5 grens, give them LMG42 or G43, and keep them alive". Where is the fun in that? Where is the decision making? All wehrmacht games are just "rush P4" or "stay alive till puma". Imagine if you had the options for more global upgrades, like CoH1 had. Veterency upgrades (basically requesting elite troops to assist your combat), global weapon upgrades, more smaller upgrades (group zeal, vet sergeant, AT nades, incendiary nades, base healing, grenades, increased squad sizes, increased veterency gain, decreased unit upkeep). So many options for play to improve an army, rather than expand it.

I feel as long as the game revolves around purchasing tanks, and having all infantry scale into late game via free veterency, and easy to buy, fuel free weapons, the game will forever be riddled with linear play, and limited strategic depth.

TL;DR: game cannot be fixed by adjusting mosin nagant damage and giving cons -50% accuracy at vet. Give the game more global upgrades to fix unit deficits, to give the player more options, open up strategic diversity, and make commanders more interesting.

Adding ways to improve existing units/abilities with fuel should have been done pre-release. Totally agree. SVTs on cons is a great idea. I also think certain units that struggle to be useful without vet like PGrens could be helped with making an option to purchase veteran infantry that has an additional fuel (and maybe MP) cost.

I think fixing this game will take more than adjusting some damage values and price values here and there. I think the problems in the game are due to how factions are designed. The game feels to be designed in a way to make it as easy as possible for all factions to get to late game, and making sure all factions have fairly equivalent tools for all scenarios.

Fuel is spend to tech linearly for basically all factions. The only choice of what to spend fuel on is either: more shitty vehicles, or tech to better vehicles, or wait to spend on vehicle call ins.

There are not enough options to dump fuel into upgrading existing units. All factions are designed around dumping fuel into creating new units, not making an existing army better.

I think more global upgrades would have multiple benefits:

• add more strategic diversity
  
• help balance infantry combat
  

For example, for a game that has been out for 5 years, and whose developers have pushed the "we balance to increase strategic diversity" slogan, why then is the only viable soviet strategy seen amongst people who play this game seriously the same T1 + lend lease?

The only obvious option for soviets is to rush T70, and save fuel for sherman. They can be confident in the fact that their Penal squads will get stronger passively as the game goes on. There need not be any thought or decisions put into how will my infantry scale. The infantry will scale, since vet requires 0 skill to gain (just use the squad in combat, and push T when it's unsafe)

Imagine then, if say, instead of balancing conscripts usefulness as the game progresses by changing their vet and rifle damage, you added a global upgrade. Then at all stages of the game, you could have the option to invest in the performance of your units. Are your conscripts performing poorly? Maybe don't spend 80 fuel on another T34 and instead spend 80 fuel to upgrade all conscripts with SVT40s. As the game is right now, all that can be done is keep your conscripts alive, and buy more tanks.

It is so frustrating to me that this is how the game works. All the interesting fuel dump options have been removed too. Elite troops' veterency ability, CAS's fuel to munitions conversion. These were the abilities that made the game interesting. They added the choice between "okay I made a P4, do I make another, or save for Tiger" to, "do I delay my P4 for 5+ minutes to put LMG42s on all my squads".

The balance team, in my opinion, is completely missing their chance to make a mod that turns CoH2 into an interesting game. I feel as if I'm a broken record, and pretty sure I'm just repeating an opinion that's been floating around forever. But how come literally every RTS (SC2, CoH1, AoE franchise) has global upgrades for units, while CoH2 is stuck with only a few, inexpensive options.

I want more options than "build 4-5 grens, give them LMG42 or G43, and keep them alive". Where is the fun in that? Where is the decision making? All wehrmacht games are just "rush P4" or "stay alive till puma". Imagine if you had the options for more global upgrades, like CoH1 had. Veterency upgrades (basically requesting elite troops to assist your combat), global weapon upgrades, more smaller upgrades (group zeal, vet sergeant, AT nades, incendiary nades, base healing, grenades, increased squad sizes, increased veterency gain, decreased unit upkeep). So many options for play to improve an army, rather than expand it.

I feel as long as the game revolves around purchasing tanks, and having all infantry scale into late game via free veterency, and easy to buy, fuel free weapons, the game will forever be riddled with linear play, and limited strategic depth.

TL;DR: game cannot be fixed by adjusting mosin nagant damage and giving cons -50% accuracy at vet. Give the game more global upgrades to fix unit deficits, to give the player more options, open up strategic diversity, and make commanders more interesting.

I just wish this wasn't still being said in 2017 when it was bleeding obvious in 2013.