4v4 balance problems since patch

Hi guys,

I mostly play Axis in 4vs4 but I'm a pretty decent player. Lots of experience in CoH and used to play 2vs2 in CoH1 competitively, but I've gone a more casual route with CoH2. I prefer to relax a bit more and play 4v4 in my slightly older age. (https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561197982208416)
Top 100 is usually where I sit, with a positive win-loss ratio so I clearly have an impact in games even with 7 other players. I'm currently at 53 for OKW. However since the patch I've been on a huge winning streak (not complaining too too much as Axis were an extreme challenge before the patch dropped) and I have some feedback regarding the state of balance.

One thing I *really* like about the patch is almost every match seems to make it to the late game, seems to be around 50mins or so. This is good. Wait, no. This is EXCELLENT. But there are still some problems, and Axis seem to have an edge right now. So here is some feedback:

OKW is very strong early game now. Perhaps too strong. They received a ton of really subtle buffs, but ones that when they add up, really make them very potent with not very much weakness. The Racketten buff was a huge one, too, which - it's nice to see OKW now have an AT gun that works, but there are some problems.
Sturmpioniere vet change was also nice, as it was nearly impossible to get Vet5 prior to it, but now they're super powerful since their grenade is quite potent. Fusiliers and G43s being cheaper was also totally unnecessary, they were extremely good before, and are only better now. Yes without the upgrade they're worse than Volks - except they get a long range AT rifle nade that is probably the best snare in the game. Fallschirmjager are also beasts, especially upgraded, with veterancy, and popping Valiant Assault. They just tear infantry up.

OKW suggested changes:
-Fusilier base squad cost back to 280, G43s back to 90 munitions. They were an extremely potent squad before the patch, being the most survivable Axis unit at 6 men, and having a ton of DPS at any range. Their buff was totally unnecessary.
-Fusilier Grenade cost could afford to be reduced to 25 munitions. It's not a very good grenade, but at 30 munitions it's quite expensive for something so weak. But this is their only disadvantage, and it may not be necessary. Just thinking if we raise G43s back to 90, this may be a nice tweak as well.
-Sturmpioniere Veterancy 1 and 2 requirement revert (but keep new Vet 3, 4, 5.) This will yield 580/1160/1920/2600/3150. This will slightly delay their potent stun grenade and vet2, while still enabling them to get the higher level Veterancy at an improved rate (scaling better in late-game.)
-Rackettenwerfer now should require T1 to be built, HOWEVER Volksgrenadier should receive Panzerfausts once the first Truck is on the field. This will give them a bit more defense against the Bullywagon (scout car) while not having such an incredible AT gun right off the start of the game.
-Fallschirmjager FG 42 upgrade cost should be raised to 80 munitions, slightly raising the munitions-intensiveness of using this Commander, what with its potent Valiant Assault (a munitions ability that combined with FG42s and Veterancy is devastating.)
-Fallschirmjager Vet 3 accuracy bonus (1.3) should be reverted (to 1.15.) Basically this will preserve the new, improved firepower they are getting when they arrive on the field, while reducing their insanity when they get Veterancy.
-Jagdtiger should keep its changes but have its range raised back to 80. It arrives at 15cp, which is absurdly late. Considering how late this is, it should have some improved impact on enemy units like the ISU-152 or SU85 spam.



Additionally, Tommies are no longer a threat at all. Yes, they NEEDED a nerf because the 5-man double-Bren Vet3 Tommy blob was completely unkillable, however the nerf just seems to be too much and impact their early game too severely.

UKF suggested changes:
-Received accuracy change from 0.9 to 0.85 (formerly 0.8 in previous patch.)
-Nerf one of the Tommy's veterancy bonuses slightly to compensate for this received accuracy buff, so that their late-game performance doesn't return to the absurdly-unkillable state it was pre-patch. Alternatively, raise their manpower upkeep cost *when they have the 5-man upgrade.*



As an additional change, what with all the Heavy Tank buffs to AoE and firepower, and what with Infantry being so easily able to kill AT guns, I propose that all 4-man Anti-Tank Guns receive 0.85-0.9x damage. This will help them survive a bit better in the late game, where the new heavies are basically able to fight AT guns head-on without any threat, and where infantry also wipe these small-crew AT guns with great ease. The larger AT guns (Rack and ZIS) don't have as much problem, so they may not need this change.

All factions suggested changes:
-57mm, Pak40, and 6lbr crew receive 0.875x damage.

Thoughts? Agreements? Disagreements?

And as a last remark, I would hope these changes would only prove positive for 1v1 and 2v2 as well. Would be interested to hear feedback from players who spend more time in that regarding my suggestions.

-Fallschirmjager FG 42 upgrade cost should be raised to 80 munitions, slightly raising the munitions-cost of using this Commander, what with its potent Valiant Assault.
-Fallschirmjager Vet 3 accuracy bonus (1.3) should be reverted (to 1.15.) Basically this will preserve the new, improved firepower they are getting when they arrive on the field, while reducing their insanity when they get Veterancy.

falls also need to be more pricey... and lose the panzerfaust... as of the moment theyre the only elite infantry with a snare AND they come with a nukenade AND crazy dps AND stealth... no unit... OST SOV UKF or USF holds such utility in one package

-Jagdtiger should keep its changes but have its range raised back to 80. It arrives at 15cp, which is absurdly late. Considering how late this is, it should have some improved impact on enemy units like the ISU-152 or SU85 spam.

the JT is quite dominant against SU-85 spam... the ISU-152 is the one that threatens the JT due to its ability to kill all supporting infantry at range 70... but the JT still outdoes it by outranging the ISU... this change makes the dynamic between them less uneven

-57mm, Pak40, and 6lbr crew receive 0.875x damage.

this would make AT walls and mgs even more meta... i wouldnt like this...

Increased heavy tank presence in 2v2+ with improved scatter and AOE makes AT guns underperform in their AT role vs heavies. Not only do these AT guns' shots bounce on heavy armour, but the weapon crew itself gets killed frontally by heavies. AT guns can't kite. Ever increasing presence of elite infantry like earlier Obers or Falls (due to earlier arrival) or units armed with weapons with great moving accuracy also mean that AT gun is lost the moment infantry comes within range of fire as the AT gun models drop easily. Ideally, an AT gun should never be in range of small arms fire, but with sprint abilities or camo such situations may happen and they are very punishing, maybe even too much considering AT gun cost range is 270-320 MP. AT guns are also the juciest arty target, all of us have lost some due to Katy or Pwerfer fire. AT guns being unreliable in late game is yet another reason why TDs are so popular.

You can throw your L2P at me, but AT gun preservation is the hardest form of unit preservation in this game imho. I think the damage reduction could be implemented with AT gun vet. IF grens can have it, why not the AT guns, especially that the shield was supposed to help the AT gun crew with shrapnels too. Or maybe the new heavies should be toned back down AI wise? I think that OP brought a pretty cool subject for discussion.

Also pulling back an AT gun for reinforcement or healing on larger maps takes more time.

falls also need to be more pricey... and lose the panzerfaust... as of the moment theyre the only elite infantry with a snare AND they come with a nukenade AND crazy dps AND stealth... no unit... OST SOV UKF or USF holds such utility in one package

I don't think the Falls need to lose the Faust, they had it before the patch and it was fine then. However they were outclassed by nearly all other Elite Infantry, so that was their problem. The nukenade could be replaced by regular nade; nukenade from stealth can be a real bitch. Considering they're squishier than Obers I think they need to keep the Faust to help them against vehicles, which might chase them down and butcher them retreating otherwise.

the JT is quite dominant against SU-85 spam... the ISU-152 is the one that threatens the JT due to its ability to kill all supporting infantry at range 70... but the JT still outdoes it by outranging the ISU... this change makes the dynamic between them less uneven

So you like the suggestion then? (Not really super clear) because currently they have the same range and 'less uneven' implies it'd be a better dynamic. I think it would be a good change - ISU kills infantry at incredible ranges, and beats up most tanks, while Jagd is the only unit in the game able to really scare it off, but sacrifices all performance against infantry (atleast after its most recent nerf it sure does.)

(AT guns bad late game)

Totally agree, especially the smaller-crew ones paired with the new Heavy buff makes them really useless.
AT gun wall will always be vulnerable to artillery, which I'm fine with, even with the proposed change and they'd be more akin to the 5-6 man AT guns. Also, 4/0.875 is still only 4.57, not even the health of 5 men (and remember the 4 are generally more clustered up than larger AT guns too), so that kind of change isn't really enormous. Could even be made larger.

I don't think the Falls need to lose the Faust, they had it before the patch and it was fine then. However they were outclassed by nearly all other Elite Infantry, so that was their problem. The nukenade could be replaced by regular nade; nukenade from stealth can be a real bitch. Considering they're squishier than Obers I think they need to keep the Faust to help them against vehicles, which might chase them down and butcher them retreating otherwise.

Falls need to lose the faust since no elite infantry have snares... if you want falls to perform as elite infantry then remove both the faust and the nukenade... otherwise kick them out of elite infantry status and heavily nerf their combat ability...

obers and falls afaik will die to HE regardless since target size is irrelevant for HE rounds vs infantry

So you like the suggestion then? (Not really super clear) because currently they have the same range and 'less uneven' implies it'd be a better dynamic. I think it would be a good change - ISU kills infantry at incredible ranges, and beats up most tanks, while Jagd is the only unit in the game able to really scare it off, but sacrifices all performance against infantry (atleast after its most recent nerf it sure does.)

What i meant was before the JT nerf the JT had an advantage over the ISU since its range outdoes the ISUs support killing ability... rebuffing its range gives the JT an advantage over the ISU

Now with both units having the same range a JT cant sit 10m behind the supporting infantry and feel completely safe...

Totally agree, especially the smaller-crew ones paired with the new Heavy buff makes them really useless.
AT gun wall will always be vulnerable to artillery, which I'm fine with, even with the proposed change and they'd be more akin to the 5-6 man AT guns. Also, 4/0.875 is still only 4.57, not even the health of 5 men (and remember the 4 are generally more clustered up than larger AT guns too), so that kind of change isn't really enormous. Could even be made larger.

Uhh if you think AT walls should be stronger and more viable then youre creating more cancer to this game... absolutely not

I don't think the Falls need to lose the Faust, they had it before the patch and it was fine then. However they were outclassed by nearly all other Elite Infantry, so that was their problem. The nukenade could be replaced by regular nade; nukenade from stealth can be a real bitch. Considering they're squishier than Obers I think they need to keep the Faust to help them against vehicles, which might chase them down and butcher them retreating otherwise.



So you like the suggestion then? (Not really super clear) because currently they have the same range and 'less uneven' implies it'd be a better dynamic. I think it would be a good change - ISU kills infantry at incredible ranges, and beats up most tanks, while Jagd is the only unit in the game able to really scare it off, but sacrifices all performance against infantry (atleast after its most recent nerf it sure does.)



Totally agree, especially the smaller-crew ones paired with the new Heavy buff makes them really useless.
AT gun wall will always be vulnerable to artillery, which I'm fine with, even with the proposed change and they'd be more akin to the 5-6 man AT guns. Also, 4/0.875 is still only 4.57, not even the health of 5 men (and remember the 4 are generally more clustered up than larger AT guns too), so that kind of change isn't really enormous. Could even be made larger.

I played several games as Soviets after the patch until I ran into someone who rekt me using Luftwaffe Ground Forces. He/she parachuted in behind MG's, dropped Falls on retreat paths to get wipes, etc, etc.
After seeing that, I've mostly been playing OKW with LGF and been enjoying the game much more.

Having falls parachute in at 2 cp is a problem. You can often parachute in behind a MG and if they don't notice and retreat right away, you can launch the tactical nuke for only 40 muni's and end up with a gently used MG. There are a lot of maps where you can shut down team weapon play. Falls has always had the faust and I don't think that taking it away would make much of a difference. Before the patch I thought they were overpriced and squishy. Now they seem too good.

I’d agree that heavies are too good against AT guns, but giving them a flat 20% damage reduction would make them to resilient to indirect fire and infantry.

Why not just use target tables to tone down heavy tanks’s performance vs. AT guns?

What i meant was before the JT nerf the JT had an advantage over the ISU since its range outdoes the ISUs support killing ability... rebuffing its range gives the JT an advantage over the ISU



Uhh if you think AT walls should be stronger and more viable then youre creating more cancer to this game... absolutely not

So the problems I see are that now that JT arrives later than ISU and deals 0 damage to Infantry, it should for no reason have the same range as ISU. It should therefore have either more range, or get damage vs. infantry (I would prefer more range for asymmetry - to keep the game interesting), because otherwise it's just going to remain a more expensive, later arriving, less versatile ISU.

As to the AT Gun wall, even with a damage reduction of 0.875x on only the 4-man teams, they're still going to be weaker in health than a Racketten gun wall (let alone a ZIS), and we all know that Rocket Artillery will continue to be the hard counter to AT gun walls. That will be unchanged by this. It is the proper counter right now and Racketten health is not high enough to survive Rocket Arty so this wouldn't be affected. It just might help with the super-rapid wipes that Heavy Tanks and Infantry have been able to do on these 4-man Gun crews, which was worsened very heavily by the most recent update. x0.875 may not even make enough of a difference. Hard to say without testing.

I’d agree that heavies are too good against AT guns, but giving them a flat 20% damage reduction would make them to resilient to indirect fire and infantry.

Why not just use target tables to tone down heavy tanks’s performance vs. AT guns?

AFAIK the problem is the target is the infantry crew on the AT gun, not the AT gun itself, and that's harder to distinguish apart from regular infantry. Another issue is that Heavy Tanks have also had their scatter greatly improved, so that attack-grounds are super precise and easily to manipulate against an AT gun crew (especially a very small one.)

So the problems I see are that now that JT arrives later than ISU and deals 0 damage to Infantry, it should for no reason have the same range as ISU. It should therefore have either more range, or get damage vs. infantry (I would prefer more range for asymmetry - to keep the game interesting), because otherwise it's just going to remain a more expensive, later arriving, less versatile ISU.

well hard countering armor is a much more efficient proposal than hard countering infantry... thats the real tradeoff between the JT/ISU and why it comes later than the ISU

As to the AT Gun wall, even with a damage reduction of 0.875x on only the 4-man teams, they're still going to be weaker in health than a Racketten gun wall (let alone a ZIS), and we all know that Rocket Artillery will continue to be the hard counter to AT gun walls. That will be unchanged by this. It is the proper counter right now and Racketten health is not high enough to survive Rocket Arty so this wouldn't be affected. It just might help with the super-rapid wipes that Heavy Tanks and Infantry have been able to do on these 4-man Gun crews, which was worsened very heavily by the most recent update. x0.875 may not even make enough of a difference. Hard to say without testing.

a 0.875 DR reduction means rocket arty will be substantially affected along with all forms of indirect fire AND infantry... if heavies are the problem then nerf heavy performance against AT guns... NOT a DR reduction

a DR reduction makes all AT gun counters including infantry and rocket artillery... units that are supposed to counter AT guns... much less efficient against AT guns... and this is completely unacceptable as AT walls are SUPPOSED to be countered by infantry and indirect fire

a 0.875 DR reduction means rocket arty will be substantially affected along with all forms of indirect fire AND infantry... if heavies are the problem then nerf heavy performance against AT guns... NOT a DR reduction

a DR reduction makes all AT gun counters including infantry and rocket artillery... units that are supposed to counter AT guns... much less efficient against AT guns... and this is completely unacceptable as AT walls are SUPPOSED to be countered by infantry and indirect fire

Again, I don't think 0.875 would affect Rocket Artillery much if at all. The damage they deal and the radius of their AoE is quite good and it may have 0 effect; what does it matter if you deal 81 damage or 999 damage when your soldier has only 80 hitpoints?
And as to Infantry being worse against AT guns.. they need it. The 4-man AT guns are basically only 3 men, and against the blobs popular in 4v4 they don't stand a chance. The only AT guns that can survive are Soviet ones (that's plural since they can crew other faction's weapons and turn them into 6-men) and the Racketten.

Also, how would you nerf the Heavies against AT guns? The crew are target table type of just 'infantry', so any nerf to that would also affect every other infantry man in the game. It's not the gun itself that's the problem, its the scatter vs. the crew. Heavies are reliably two-shotting AT crews right now, and it's very unfair.

Nerfing Heavies such as through Scatter or Target Table will affect their performance against regular troops, which is not desirable. They finally have a good role right now being specialized against Infantry, but they are just too powerful against the really low-crew size AT guns. So there has to be a buff to all 4-man AT guns. That or some new target table created just for them and just reducing damage from Heavies.

Again, I don't think 0.875 would affect Rocket Artillery much if at all. The damage they deal and the radius of their AoE is quite good and it may have 0 effect; what does it matter if you deal 81 damage or 999 damage when your soldier has only 80 hitpoints?

uhh heavies rely on aoe too in order to kill AT gun crews... any nerf in terms of aoe and aoe damage is going to hit rocket arty aslwell

And as to Infantry being worse against AT guns.. they need it. The 4-man AT guns are basically only 3 men, and against the blobs popular in 4v4 they don't stand a chance. The only AT guns that can survive are Soviet ones (that's plural since they can crew other faction's weapons and turn them into 6-men) and the Racketten.

ive played plenty of 4v4s and i can preserve my zis/57mm/pak 40 well enough until the rocket artillery comes out (the intended counter)... and if you havent moved your AT gun away from the incoming blob then losing it is only appropriate...

Also, how would you nerf the Heavies against AT guns? The crew are target table type of just 'infantry', so any nerf to that would also affect every other infantry man in the game. It's not the gun itself that's the problem, its the scatter vs. the crew. Heavies are reliably two-shotting AT crews right now, and it's very unfair.

this is perhaps the more important question... but a question i cannot answer only the balance team can fix this problem

Nerfing Heavies such as through Scatter or Target Table will affect their performance against regular troops, which is not desirable. They finally have a good role right now being specialized against Infantry, but they are just too powerful against the really low-crew size AT guns. So there has to be a buff to all 4-man AT guns. That or some new target table created just for them and just reducing damage from Heavies.

your proposal will significantly change 2v2 dynamics as well as substantially nerfing all AT gun counters further promoting AT walls... lets see if the dev team can think of a different dynamic

The problem with 4v4 and 3v3 is the lack of proper maps, not unit balance.

The problem with 4v4 and 3v3 is the lack of proper maps, not unit balance.

3v3 isn't so bad but you can really feel it in 4v4.

There are some truly terrible 4v4 maps. Many of them are stuffy messes where the already struggling vehicle pathing ruins the chance of any clean flanking or fluidity of movement.

Hill 400 is my least favourite.

Some more 3v3/4v4 maps would be fantastic. Especially as its the game mode which seems to draw the most players.

Maps wise I'd like them to re add all the maps and add more vetos. It would be nice to play a map other than redball and port at least 1/15 games.

Maps wise I'd like them to re add all the maps and add more vetos. It would be nice to play a map other than redball and port at least 1/15 games.

Every time this is asked, vetos are hard coded to be added automatically based on number of maps on rotations.

Every time this is asked, vetos are hard coded to be added automatically based on number of maps on rotations.

So... If we add all the maps we get more vetos?