3rd Time Back... observations

Never did I say anything of the sort in my post. It seems you're getting a little defensive.

You said top 400 OKW was a "pretty ez placement tbh." I'm confirming that. Top 400 is an ez placement because top 400 players lack a lot of basic knowledge about the game, among other things.

Top 400 is pretty bad. Remember that part. Don't back peddle. You think you're better and anyone not at your lvl's opinion isn't going to matter to you.

Top 400 is pretty bad. Remember that part. Don't back peddle. You think you're better and anyone not at your lvl's opinion isn't going to matter to you.

I never said that top 400 isn't bad so I'm not sure why you're trying to reconfirm this. I also never said anything regarding your opinion on balance.

Top 400 is pretty bad. Remember that part. Don't back peddle. You think you're better and anyone not at your lvl's opinion isn't going to matter to you.

This has no relevance to the actual purpose of this thread; however, seeing as how you're the creator of this thread and it appears you want to make this a discussion:

I AM better than you at this game. Theres usually no point in me saying so since it just makes me look cocky, and especially since it takes discussions in the wrong direction. You brought it up though, so there: I'm better than you at this game.

Everyone's opinion matters if it's well supported. People usually want factual evidence/stats, thoughtful explanations, or replays before accepting a point. People usually assume that high level players already understand the stats and have a good understanding of the game, therefore they may not ask these players for proof or scrutinize them as much. This is generally how I operate too. Go through my post history. Never have I made rank a part of a discussion unless the other person was the one to bring it up.

Others asked you for your rank. You posted your rank. I tried to make you aware that that rank is bad, which would hopefully give you an idea of what kind of affect you posting your rank would have on this discussion. Look through what I actually typed in this post and you'll see that it's consistent with what I just said my point was.

Sorry, what are your repeated claims?

Axis are easier to play. (I can expand) Less micro intensive, have better armor, better AT, better AT weapons.

3v3 and 4v4 are not balanced because of resource spread and strength of Axis late game units.

Now discuss this if you wish. What are your thoughts on this?

Axis are easier to play. (I can expand) Less micro intensive, have better armor, better AT, better AT weapons.

3v3 and 4v4 are not balanced because of resource spread and strength of Axis late game units.

Now discuss this if you wish. What are your thoughts on this?

I don't wish to discuss this and never did want to, which is why I never brought it up.

This is already too far off topic. I'll stop responding for my own sake, and you should stop responding so that you don't get banned or invised for excessive trolling.

Axis are easier to play. (I can expand) Less micro intensive, have better armor, better AT, better AT weapons.

3v3 and 4v4 are not balanced because of resource spread and strength of Axis late game units.

Now discuss this if you wish. What are your thoughts on this?

Second point is true: 3v3 and 4v4 basically only work if you're not looking for anything competitive. When I play those modes its for crazy stuff like 3x LeFHs or other nonsense that should (and would) never work in the better balanced modes.

The first point is very debatable. For infantry, I wouldn't agree that axis is easier. OST Grens are basically made of glass and cost an incredible amount of MP to reinforce, especially for their performance. Once they hit vet 3 they're decent, but I'd take double-barred rifles, double-brenned tommies or even penals over grens every single time. PGrens are a bit better, but are still far too expensive considering what they lose to; and they have no long-range power.

OKW has it a bit better with their mainline infantry being somewhat competitive, but they have NO long-range power. Vet 5 Volks will lose to vet 0 tommies with double brens at long range. Even vet 0 rifles w/ double bars will probably win. Close range with STGs they're a bit better, being able to hold their ground vs. most mainline infantry, but the current call-in meta means they're almost always facing shocks, rangers, commandos, etc. to which they always lose to at close range.

Compared to the availability of cheap, double-LMG squads (which can fire on the move, unlike axis LMG42 upgrade), Okw and OST infantry requires far more micro to use.

For armor, yes. Except for some outlying stuff like getting two tulip-rocket fireflys, which can pretty much insta-wipe any armor, axis armor is better.... vs armor. However, axis armor is pretty bad vs. infantry. Except for Tiger (doc callin), KT (280f, requires all tech buildings) and the P4, there's pretty much nothing that's good vs. infantry (Ostwind is debatable since it hits the ground too much). Meanwhile most allied armor is good vs. basically everything: the comet, sherman, easy 8, t34, centaur, m4C, etc. are all great vs. infantry.

And no, I'm not saying "allies OP pls nerf"; the balance is pretty good except for some really strong, boring meta stuff (penals...). It's just a gameplay choice. If you like expensive, specialized units, play axis. If you like less expensive, generalist units, play allies.

Second point is true: 3v3 and 4v4 basically only work if you're not looking for anything competitive. When I play those modes its for crazy stuff like 3x LeFHs or other nonsense that should (and would) never work in the better balanced modes.

The first point is very debatable. For infantry, I wouldn't agree that axis is easier. OST Grens are basically made of glass and cost an incredible amount of MP to reinforce, especially for their performance. Once they hit vet 3 they're decent, but I'd take double-barred rifles, double-brenned tommies or even penals over grens every single time. PGrens are a bit better, but are still far too expensive considering what they lose to; and they have no long-range power.

OKW has it a bit better with their mainline infantry being somewhat competitive, but they have NO long-range power. Vet 5 Volks will lose to vet 0 tommies with double brens at long range. Even vet 0 rifles w/ double bars will probably win. Close range with STGs they're a bit better, being able to hold their ground vs. most mainline infantry, but the current call-in meta means they're almost always facing shocks, rangers, commandos, etc. to which they always lose to at close range.

Compared to the availability of cheap, double-LMG squads (which can fire on the move, unlike axis LMG42 upgrade), Okw and OST infantry requires far more micro to use.

For armor, yes. Except for some outlying stuff like getting two tulip-rocket fireflys, which can pretty much insta-wipe any armor, axis armor is better.... vs armor. However, axis armor is pretty bad vs. infantry. Except for Tiger (doc callin), KT (280f, requires all tech buildings) and the P4, there's pretty much nothing that's good vs. infantry (Ostwind is debatable since it hits the ground too much). Meanwhile most allied armor is good vs. basically everything: the comet, sherman, easy 8, t34, centaur, m4C, etc. are all great vs. infantry.

And no, I'm not saying "allies OP pls nerf"; the balance is pretty good except for some really strong, boring meta stuff (penals...). It's just a gameplay choice. If you like expensive, specialized units, play axis. If you like less expensive, generalist units, play allies.

At last some well thought out input. I appreciate your view.

Yes I think that Firefly Tullips can be OP but they are costly, and the rate of fire of the Firefly is terrible. It does suck if someone has 2-3 of them and wipes your panther, but that's a 20 fuel difference tank there. Panther wins 1v1 anytime. Brits lack good snaring and lockdown. Now as far as tanks go, you are right, Ally tanks can do ok against infantry, but I think that armor is the key to winning the game, and allied tanks can't hang late game. Almost all Axis infantry are equiped to deal with light tanks and medium tanks. Seeing as these tanks are paper, the axis tanks just need a shot or 2 to end them. Either you push hard and fast early as Allies, or you end up losing the late game.

I understand the game is really hard to balance 1v1 through 4v4 and they've done a pretty good job. There are just a few commanders, a few units, and a few veterancy issues that need to be tweaked. For example, I think the Pershing really needs some more HP to survive late game... it's just too squishy for it's cost. And vet 5 volks, sturms, obers, are evading many of the shots it takes until it gets vet... Pershing is in a weird spot. Heavy Cav in general needs help. Not to mention all the Russian tanks, KV1, KV2, etc need purpose.

I think it is a bad Idea that you both are talking with each other tbh.

You both are living in 2 different Worlds. J4J in 1vs1, and Cpt Blitz in 3vs3 and 4vs4.

To clear some called points out:

1) Top 400 in a 1vs1 means: you are not that good

2) Top 400 RANDOM in 4vs4 does not mean the same: Reason: Too often the matchmaking is fail or your randommates bugsplit or ragequit or leave in the first mins... So its kind of a lottery. It can but not have to mean: you are not that good.

3) If you are top 400 in 2vs2-4vs4 as Premade / AT : then you guys are not good.

4) Everyone knows, that in teamgames Axis are in favour. A) because of the Units, B) because of the maps.
Already in 2vs2 double OKW is strong as fuck on many maps. And this goes into 3vs3, 4vs4 as well. BUT as already said in B; it depends on the map. On some maps Wehrmacht are in early/ midgame way better then OKW. BUt if you go for lategame OKW is always better then Wehrmacht. They survive way better arty and other stuff then Wehrmacht.

5) But like when you are a 400 Premade axis team in 4vs4 you will get raped! from other allies team. Because then the own skill is >>> then the balance. But if both teams have almost the same skill then yes--> axis wins in the most cases in teamgames.

6) About Ladder: When you look in the top 10 ladder you often see new teams with 10/0 ... That is sadly broken. New placementsgames gives WAY TO MUCH ELO. (Another reason, why people started to create smurfs for 1vs1 ladder). The best way to look who is better is: Play customgames bo3 vs each other


About the even top200 sucks in 1vs1. Thats hard and kind of too general. But yes the ladder in 1vs1 changed. For a year or something top 100 was only with good players. Now you find people there, who just spammed games and played alot of in NA time or vs noobs in special EU time, when no good players were searching. There is always a chance to get easier higher ranks when you have enough time for that.

Funfact: Sometimes I win easy vs a top 50 guy, and then in the next game i play vs a 150 and it is an hour game.

I wonder if strafniki blobbing works in 1v1, where you need to control the whole map on your own. In 4v4 you can easily deny 1/4 of map just moving your blob around and it actually works (depends on mates, 1/4 still not enough to win, you know). Just don't play allies like you play axis. And cheese strats... rofl, allies play 200% consists of it (forward hq + dshk/120mm etc etc). The problem here that if every player went penal/rifle spam [and you still haven't won] what all of you gonna do next. Usually randoms desynchronize here, but you play with mates so try explain them that all of you shouldn't make same units.

I wonder if strafniki blobbing works in 1v1, where you need to control the whole map on your own. In 4v4 you can easily deny 1/4 of map just moving your blob around and it actually works (depends on mates, 1/4 still not enough to win, you know). Just don't play allies like you play axis. And cheese strats... rofl, allies play 200% consists of it (forward hq + dshk/120mm etc etc). The problem here that if every player went penal/rifle spam [and you still haven't won] what all of you gonna do next. Usually randoms desynchronize here, but you play with mates so try explain them that all of you shouldn't make same units.

Strafniki spam into dhkas from one of the 2 commanders or kv1 is the best meta in 1vs1 so yes its working

Meant exactly 'blobbing': select all, a-move from one point to another, retreat, repeat. I remember a post from someone saying something like 'mortar pit is pudding just because of it you need more time to deal vs low-skilled player'. As for me, same with 'blobs'.

Invissed some posts for excessive flaming and offtopic. Invissed other posts quoting these said posts.

I thought i should come back in as the thread was not closed because i commented. But, given how far this thread has derailed i thought i would bring it back to this...

So my friends and I have played the game for a long time. Since coh1. We love the game and think it's fun but we always stop playing due to one thing... the imbalance of 2v2+ matches. Allise are woefully underpowered in this game in anything but 1v1.

Automatching is a joke because you only get matched against cheese strat axis players.

They haven't fixed buildings, abilities are still buggy.

We gave it another go, but nothing has changed after all these years.

1v1 is playable as allies, but Axis factions are super favored in this game for the other modes.

Those are just my observations after taking long breaks from this game over the years.

Cya when CoH3 releases... maybe

So, you are talking specifically about team games. 1v1 can be ignored. The fact that you have or have not gotten a certain rank in 1v1 is immaterial right now.

Automatching is a joke: Yes it is, and always will be because the community is small, but also because the higher up the ladder you get, the more competitive and try-hard your opponents will become.

Whats wrong with buildings? Which abilities are buggy? We are, rather uniquely, at the moment able to (as a community) directly change or fix any bugs in the game.

A huge amount in the game has changed, but not the essence of the game. If you want that to change then yes, you might well have to wait for Coh3.

Now here is the crux of it, you think Axis (as a whole it seems from this first post) is OP in team games. Axis, in team games, may well have an advantage sometimes. However, you are not asking for help to improve your play, or asking whether or not axis really are OP in team games, but in fact seem to be signalling your departure from the game. I am therefore reluctant to offer much in the way of advice or balance discussion as you might never play the game again, or, the advice will simply be thrown back in my face.

If you want advice on how to improve, ask nicely. If you just want a moan, and to vent your anger, please take it elsewhere.