Profile of Applejack

why, i dont want to waste my time on a game I know is lost, and tbh I have little sympathy with people who have 8000 games in random but still haven't gained a basic understanding of the game. It's a different story when I'm matched with actual beginners.

Again, I'd argue that its hard to call a game until at least 15 minutes have been played.

I understand that people don't want to slog through that but leaving early is annoying and you need to think of the 7 other people in the game with them.

This corresponds with my personal experience. Despite having played a lot more allied factions than axis factions my winrate with OKW (that i usually play if playing Axis) is higher in bigger gamemodes. My winrate is pretty similar at 2vs2, but going to 3vs3 and 4vs4 I tend to loose more with Allies and tend to win more with Axis. One thing is map design and ressource inflation just in bigger game modes which gives Axis an advantage in comparison to 1vs1. The other mechanic that kicks in is the unit population count. At some point of the game when you are reaching 100 popcap it is way easier to control two Panther than it is to control 3-4 M10. You end up loosing one of that M10 in the engagement, while Panther escape with low health. That is a typical scenario, simply because micro skills are limited and more bundled survivability (health+armor+speed) will lead to a higher chance to escape in that situations. At some point of the game in a 3v3 and especially 4vs4 it gets hard to beat that 2-3 Panther backed up by Brummbär.

I do think this is strange. It seems to me especially Soviet and AEF are winning more than 50% overall in 1vs1, so why allied late game units than don't play a big role in 1vs1 get nerfed in last/current patches? This heavily impacts the late game in 3v3 and 4vs4 but doesn't change a thing in 1vs1 where Allies should get nerfed.

Shouldn't allied early units like T0/T1 infantry and light vehicles getting a nerf but late game units get a buff?

- why nerf Calliope without giving AEF other late game buffs that make up for that?
- why not giving Pershing or IS-2 some more punch?
- why nerfing ISU-152 range without buffing other soviet late game tanks?
- why not making E8 and KW-1 more expensive but turn into real late game alternatives which can take on Panthers in a situation with multiple tanks on both sides?
- why not limiting Comet and Churchill to 1 tank, increasing cost and turn into a real powerful tank (sharing limit with Avre/Croc)?

Most of this are doctrinal units, making that commanders interesting for 3vs3/4vs4 picks, having no impact at 1vs1 at all. Churchill/Comet would give UKF a nondoctrinal late game choice like OKW Kingtiger. Which would be okay since UKF misses crucial units in their nondoc roster.

At the moment KW-2 is the only real powerful allied late game tank if you ask me. The only one which really annoys axis opponents (it annoys me at least if I have to play against it).

Great post.

I couldn't have described it better myself in regards to the Panther.

The Panther is such a durable and easy unit to keep alive. They trade so well in 4v4s as they're hard to kill compared to lightly armoured allied tanks. As I've said earlier, the nerf to allied tank destroyer vet pen has indirectly made Panthers more durable and thus they trade much better in team games.

I have so many team games where the game was lost simply because the enemy team traded better with their panthers than we could with our tank destroyers. By building up their Panthers, it snowballs to where Allied players cannot counter the mass Panthers on the field with their low number of tank destroyers. They are able to dive easily and not suffer any losses.

Panthers have the added bonus of being slightly effective vs infantry compared to tank destroyers which is a dedicated anti-tank unit. Being effective vs infantry and their high armour means infantry anti-tank weapons are less effective against them. Another reason for Axis dominance in team games.

I know it sucks hard, but I would absolutely hate a disconnect/leave penalty in CoH2.

Nobody should ever be forced to play out a match where your teammates are trolling or just horribly unbalanced teams (rank 5000 teammates vs top 50)



I would never want to waste my time on this

There should at least be a penalty for leaving before 15 minutes.

Too many people leave before 5-10 minute mark where it doesn't really make much of a difference.

I understand that in 4v4 if you haven't held a single fuel point for a full 15 minutes then its probably over but if someone leaves 3 minutes in just because they lost an engagement then they need to be punished for that. One leaver in 4v4 ruins the game for the other 7 people.

Agreed. The 1v1 shows that Allies are in a small lead most of the time. At least according to this: https://coh2stats.com/stats/daily/1616112000/2v2/wermacht

However, notice that in 1v1, most od the time the difference is 51/49 which is within margin of of good taster (0.5% I'd say is the acceptable margin)
Going from 1v1 to 2v2 the winrate shifts hard to axis (55+%) which is not a neglible difference. Considering the number of games played, that shows a hefty lean. Pak howi got butchered. Played a couple of games now, two of which were ranked and in both scenarios, pak howis didnt manage to wipe a low hp squad with direct hits on about 6-9 occasions. In 1v1 that is not a problem, but in 3v3 that meant the big ass blob that the two paks + AAHT tried to stop were unstoppable (volks + pgrens + spios). Direct hits with little bleed. Again, I get how in 1vq getting wiped randomly by a shell can be toxic but now its nerfed to oblivion. Also, the changes I propose would not, IMHO, break anything in 1v1. Of course, maybe I'm wrong, who knows. All I know is the previous patch gutted USF even further in teamgames and this commender is eyeing for that ultimated USF teamgame death.

I agree with you that all allied factions feel very weak right now in regards to team games. I regularly play 4v4s and I've been losing a lot more than winning because of the recent patch. I have recently made a post why I think this is happening.

You can find it here: https://www.coh2.org/topic/108115/4v4-win-rates-disparity/page/1#post_id860315

Please feel free to add your thoughts to it.

The purpose of this post is to figure out what changes need to be made to balance 4v4s without affecting 1v1 balance.

I saw an interesting post mentioning Axis win rates and how they are skewed in team games such as 3v3/4v4 since the last patch. It cited this webpage for statistics: https://coh2stats.com/stats/week/1616976000/4v4/wermacht

Unfortunately the stats don't go far back but it shows Axis have a clear win rate advantage over Allies at a high level. Heavy tank destroyers such as the elefant and jagdtiger are dominating team games at the moment. Elefant/Jagdtiger (e/j) commanders are by far the most represented along with artillery commanders and I think I can figure out why.

1. T-34 ram nerf and removal of IL-2 bombing runs. The most popular counter to heavy tanks was the t34 and IL-2 bombing combo. The removal of the stun from the t-34 ram and the removal of IL-2 bombing runs from some commanders without offering any good alternative options has had the unintended side effect of increasing the potency of heavy tanks and to an extent, heavy tank destroyers. Lightly armoured allied tank destroyers are unable to counter e/j in a direct confrontation without taking major damage and more often than not, being unable to penetrate the armour due to the vet 2 nerf on most tank destroyers. A heavy armour push onto e/j is a huge risk and investment that rarely pays off especially if the area around e/j has been mined. The intended counter (artillery) is easily dodged by e/j's by moving and more often than not, a waste of a cooldown on the artillery piece. There is no effective counter to e/j's at the moment and it is clear.

Suggested change: Revert T-34 ram nerf and reimplement IL-2 bombing run on the commanders missing them.

Alternate suggested change: Remove spotting scope from elefant commander and remove artillery barrage from jagdtiger (which helps it counter anti-tank guns). There needs to be more counters to heavy tank destroyers.

2. Artillery over-representation. Again, the removal of IL-2 bombing run on some commanders has removed the ability of those same commanders to counter artillery. The need to use artillery on heavy tank destroyers also means that Axis artillery does not get countered barraged as often. There are less counters to static artillery. It was already an expensive option to counter them before, now its rare and expensive.

its undeniable: Axis static emplacements and artillery has become more powerful with last patches changes.

Suggested change: Reintroduce IL-2 bombing runs to more commanders (the same amount as the ones removed) or lower the potency of Axis static arty which is mainly used in 4v4s anyway. There needs to be more counters to static arty.


3. Pack howie & ISU-152 HE nerf. The pack howie nerf has completely neutered this unit. This unit is now, no longer able to counter barrage an enemy IG due to its high scatter and low damage. All the while the IG has now become supreme on the battlefield with its better accuracy and no longer countered. The ISU-152 HE nerf was not needed and has made this unit countered by j/e by exposing itself even more to use HE rounds.

With the nerf of these two tools to deal with Axis blobs, Axis blobbing has become more durable and thus more powerful. Gren/Ober blobs with non-doctrine high long range damage are becoming too dominant in 4v4s.

Suggested change: Revert Pack howie changes or lower scatter and revert ISU-152 HE range back to normal.

Alternate suggested change: Increase potency of default Allied grenades (Rifleman grenade, IS grenade and cons molotov). There needs to be more counters to Axis blobs. I think the change to land mattress in the 2021 commander update patch is a step in the right direction however.

On the topic of blobbing. Both Axis factions have a non-doctrinal tool to deal with blobbing (Stuka/Werfer) however only Soviets have a non-doctrine tool to deal with blobbing (Katy). Lowering the power of anti-blobbing tools and offering nothing in exchange has made blobbing more powerful.

4. Lowering Allied tank destroyer vet pen. While I do not have the numbers infront of me right now. I'm not a fan of lowering pen on all tank destroyers across the board. This effectively means Axis heavy tanks are more durable. If the pen bonuses are absurb or unnecessarily then they did not have to be changed. This is a blatant buff for all Axis armour. Its already fairly easy to keep Panthers alive, making it even easier to keep them alive helps Axis snowball late game with their superior number of panthers. Feel free to prove me wrong on this one though.

The fact that all Allies factions must rely on tank destroyers to deal with panthers and heavy armour means tank destroyers are over represented yes but a nerf without giving any alternative option is not good or fun. The reason why all allied factions rely on tank destroyers is because there are no alternatives. They have no non-doctrinal heavy tanks for 4v4s. The balance team is nerfing the only playstyle available.

Suggested change: Revert all previous TD vet pen changes back to previous values.

tl;dr. Axis have become very effective at controlling the battlefield in 4v4s while most/all Allied counters have been neutered in some way or another. Its easier to blob as Axis since there are less counters to them now.