no they're not.
Hey, I can pretend, can't I? |
|
Relic, if you're reading this I have one request for CoH3. Please do not do time slice balance (games that are balanced by giving one side or the other dominance in particular phases of the game.) Thats why 3s and 4s were miserable when 1s and 2s were happy and vice versa.
That's a big ask, I know. But if you must do time slice balance, please don't miss the forest for the trees. Take a look at your faction comparison post from August 17 of 2015. Specifically, the time comparison between the Ostheer and the Soviets/USF. You built a historical ww2 game in which, by your own lights, the German player was incentivized to stall for his superior lategame. That's aggressively backwards, and it really undermines all the care that went into making sure the other historical details were correct. |
Will China make a shitty WW2 game some day? Maybe. But most countries that churn out games with content catered to the local populace are not quality AAA games. And their market is already big enough to support it btw, almost 700 million Chinese living in cities now.
A lot of people living in cities =/= a large base of video game consumers. You need a lot of disposable income for that and China's average is still sitting at ~ $7k per capita per year IIRC. But they absolutely will be competitive on the world stage eventually and then we'll get all sorts of new stuff. |
What else would they do? Last WW2 COD was Pacific/Eastern. Normandy hasn't been done in a long time in a AAA game, will be nice to revisit now with photorealistic graphics. Less iconic campaigns might be a piece of the singleplayer, (like North Africa COD2), but if one campaign is the focus of a WW2 game it will always be Eastern Front, Pacific, or Brits/Amis post D-Day. Italians in Greece? Japan in China? Never happening, get over it.
A triple A Second Sino-Japanese war game absolutely will happen--just as soon as China's market is big enough to support it. I'm guessing 10-15 years. |
|
They are balanced but they're balanced in a pretty dumb way, IMO. Their high vet performance is crazy bonkers, but it's mitigated by their high cost and the (pretty severe) difficulty of keeping them alive for long enough to get there.
I think they would make much more sense thematically if they came out strong, but did not gain much from veterancy. After all, these guys are already supposed to be elite. What are they learning in this battle that the hadn't learned in the hundred battles they'd already fought? MP cost would have to be reduced and survivability increased to make this work, but I think it'd feel much more fair for everyone involved. |
|
Evening out the power spikes is a good idea. That means nerfing USFs early game, yes but it also means buffs to their late game. A meatsheild upgrade for the Sherman seems like a pretty good option, all things considered. |
I don't think he could have taken the UK really. The British decisively won the Battle of Britain, and they had a way larger navy than the Nazi's did.
UK is covered from all sides by ocean, and then even if they made it inland. When was the last successful invasion of the UK island? 1032? Something like that.
Some country's, purely due to geography, are a lot easier to invade and take over than others. I would argue that both Russia (due to it's sheer size, and inhospitable weather patterns) and UK, were countries that were damn near impossible to invade, successfully anyways.
Necromancy!
Anyway, the last successful invasion of the U.K.was actually in 1688 by the Dutch, but they like to pretend that that one doesn't count. (TBF, William III had a lot of popular support in England, and almost all of the violence was in Scotland and Ireland.)
That kind of supports your point though--the Dutch had a great navy and they used it. Absent that it's hard to see how the U.K. falls. Even if Hitler managed to avoid the mistakes of Barbarossa, it seems likely that the U.K. would just dust off the old anti-Napoleon playbook. They'd block him off from access to the sea, and pick at the edges of his empire by supplying rebels in the various conquered states until something stuck. |
Sorry my friend, but thats not true!
Before brit came out, 3vs3, 4vs4 Axis were allways stronger!
You had a chance to win with the old forwardhq on some maps and good teamplay.
Back to the topic:
And i agree in thic cup axis could have a good chance to win now. No Vp pressure and no arty cover 
With random teams the axis were stronger. In organized play it was the other way around. Superior allied mobility meant that the Germans had to choose between losing by getting isolated and ganked or losing by grouping up and being unable to defend cutoffs/VPs. To be fair, this was only clear at the tippy top of the ladder and in tournaments. Lower down the 90% Axis winrates were real.
Basically 4v4 is/was a complete balancing clusterfuck and I pity the poor bastard who had to try to wrangle it into line. The only real way would be a dramatic flattening of power spikes and especially in the early and late game. |
Allies were OP in 4s even before the brits.
Sure, in VP mode with voice comms (or even just decent organization) allies win. Gotta say I doubt that that will hold in annihilation. Pushing all the way into base is just so hard. |
Allies > Axis in 4v4?
In anihiliation with no arty cover I'd expect that it's the other way around. The great herds of super tanks will roam free. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
