2v2 and up overwhelmingly favors defense

I came back from a month off and have been mostly playing team games for fun.

I am getting a bit tired already, as I've noticed one key aspect of multiplayer in COH2 that no one else has really mentioned: gameplay overwhelmingly favors defense, then attack. This is not really an issue in 1v1 as it is easier to switch sides of the map to focus on, but in any game mode above that, I have found that I tend to lose if I attack, but if I wait for the enemy to come to me, repulse him, then take territory, it's very easy to win games.

This mechanic seems to result from two things: 1) the scale of most maps which makes getting back to a fight, in combination with the new capping system far too difficult, ie., there is no chance to ever stop the cap. In COH1 you could probably use other units on the field or mount a counterattack fast enough before an enemy unit could finish a cap, and as capping units took more damage, it made counterattacking much more feasible, and 2) the new resource system, which rewards holding territory much more than taking territory. It's nice if you can safely deny the opponent some fuel, but given the risk of actually attacking and risking a mass retreat, it's definitely not worth it.

Believe it or not, the game actually is fairly balanced, so at higher levels of play in multiplayer, where everyone has figured out that attacking defended positions is too risky, what you get is a very campy, non-fluid game because attacking is just not rewarded. This also means that the tanks roll out faster than in COH1, because they are the only units that can really safely punch through defended positions without risking too much manpower loss and the possibility of a mass retreat.

Having thought this through, I really am starting to dislike the new capping system. the old one was much fairer and made for a more fluid game, if you agree with my logic and observations.

Pripyat 2v2 comes to mind.

*shudders*

In my experience the one who's camping almost always loses the game.

Why? because they hand the initiative over to their opponent.

I also disagree on the point that attacking is not rewarding, because if an attack is successful you most likely destroy a significant part of your opponents army as well as you take some territory off him.

In my experience the one who's camping almost always loses the game.

Why? because they hand the initiative over to their opponent.

I also disagree on the point that attacking is not rewarding, because if an attack is successful you most likely destroy a significant part of your opponents army as well as you take some territory off him.

Tactical camping is the best way to win, even with Soviets (past 5 mins or so), ie., wait for the enemy to move in then bring all your forces to bear, beat him off, and cap more territory. It works because the defender has a micro advantage - his units are probably already in ok positions, or can quickly get to them. The guy moving 4-6 units in has to micro all of them into cover while also using abilities. This is why generally Soviets are more difficult, 2-3 conscripts plus a sniper or M3 requires more APM than 2 grens and an MG.

i wouldnt say camping makes you almost always lose the game, but its not unbeatable either. defending certainly has its advantages. you can have multiple weapon teams already positioned and your infantry in cover. moving units are also less accurate, so the attackers are much less effective.

i think of this as kind of like rock paper scissors though. defending usually beats attacking, indirect fire beats defending, and attacking beats indirect fire. they all have their own strategy they are strong and weak against.

if you know your opponent is camping and you dont think youll win the fight, dont charge in. build some indirect fire and wait for him to take some losses or move.

Tactical camping is the best way to win, even with Soviets (past 5 mins or so), ie., wait for the enemy to move in then bring all your forces to bear, beat him off, and cap more territory. It works because the defender has a micro advantage - his units are probably already in ok positions, or can quickly get to them. The guy moving 4-6 units in has to micro all of them into cover while also using abilities. This is why generally Soviets are more difficult, 2-3 conscripts plus a sniper or M3 requires more APM than 2 grens and an MG.

Hmmm, I see what you mean. The fact that attacking units are always moving and thus suffer from a accuracy penalty while the defenders usually sit in yellow/green cover.