Profile of Esxile

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

General Information
Steam: 76561197961387624


Thread: 4vs4 has become a repetitive verdun and bataille de la Somme18 Nov 2015, 20:41 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Nov 2015, 16:20 PMpigsoup was 4v4 ever different? its in better health than moat times in the past. Yeah maybe, I remember it was (still is sometime) bloberino but you learn to counter it. ISG/Mortar near med truck + Flak truck, I'm still wondering how to counter it unless I take a really clear and net advantage in the 3-4 first minutes. And let's be honest vs a Kubel/Sturm start, it never happens if the player is good @ AchtAchter, I know it hurt you a lot when I said 2vs2 and 4vs4 are the same but to make it your signature, I didn't know your were so susceptible. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: 4vs4 has become a repetitive verdun and bataille de la Somme18 Nov 2015, 15:29 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Nov 2015, 15:24 PMPuppetmaster The majority of games are decided by MM. Pre Brits as Axis you were pretty often on the stronger team just based off ladder rank because there was a much bigger selection of players, though imo Axis generally had an advantage in randoms due to both factions having late game units. When Brits arrived, the player base shifted massively in favour of Allies, giving them the advantage as well as finally having a decent lategame. Since the player base has shifted back towards Axis favour slightly, once again they have the advantage due to MM, but I feel balance is pretty good right now in 4's unless you are too soviet heavy / have no Brits. Does eventually turn into an arty fest if there is no clear winner, which ends up being pretty boring. And what determine the amount of player Axis and Allied? The balance. Disproportion of Allied / Axis search game is a direct result of balance issue like ISG/Mortar dominance meta. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: 4vs4 has become a repetitive verdun and bataille de la Somme18 Nov 2015, 14:26 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Nov 2015, 14:11 PMAchtAchter 4vs4 winrates were never depending on balance but only on the playerbase. The playerbase with most players has more wins because the teams have a better elo. While the team with the smaller playerbase has a more diverse (worse) elo. When brits came out, everybody played brits, since allie winrates were much higher. Now more people play axis in 4vs4 and we have again a higher axis winrate. Thats random 4vs4. 4vs4 AT has probably a 90 - 100 % winrate no matter what Player base willing to search in one side also depend on balance. Someone, probably a team found that building an army around early 2x ISG/Mortar (I agree mortar are fine) is more efficient than anything else and then everyone started to do that as Axis. From there, 3 options: 1- Do the same as allied: failed, pak how are ususally too late and force you to play capt tier, Brit's mortar pit are not efficient at all vs ISG and Sov is the only faction having early mew mortar + Cp2 heavy ones. Honestly, and I'm perfectly fine with the fact Allied can't match them: but since its too good and drive the game in a Verdun style gameplay, I simply don't like it. 2- Switch Axis for the patch time being until better a better meta raise 3- Stop playing 4vs4 until next patch and a better meta 2 of the 3 options impact 100% the player base search rate. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: 4vs4 has become a repetitive verdun and bataille de la Somme18 Nov 2015, 12:28 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Nov 2015, 12:07 PM__deleted__ As you said, you play 4v4 for fun, so don't play it anymore if it isn't fun. Nothing will change any time soon My biggest fear. I like it enough to start a 4vs4 game thinking "yeah it is just for fun" and asking myself later "why did I went in that, just want to leave the game now..." @ Calliope, refering to that? But it doesn't change anything, I had more fun before the brit when Allied weren't in favor as well but the game wasn't ISG/Mortar meta. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: 4vs4 has become a repetitive verdun and bataille de la Somme18 Nov 2015, 11:57 AM Brit hype seems to be gone, Searching a match in 4vs4 random is now again 70% Axis 30% Allied since a couple of weeks everytime I connect (European time at different hours of the day). Analyzing my own feeling about it (I like to play 4vs4 for fun), the fun factor is also gone with the coming new meta mortar/ISG dominance in this mod (and in some extend 3vs3 as well). I don't want to say "spam", since having a couple of them per player isn't really a spam (but 8 of them on the field is something), but their over-impact in any game on this format is evident and spending the 15 first minutes being wipe out by indirect fire protected by early MGs, bunker or 5-6minutes Flacktruks and having to do the same with your pak howi in order to maintain the hope until late game isn't attractive. At all in my case, I really don't like spaming mortar. I guess my feeling is shared by quite a lot of players looking at how the search rate is low for Allied in 4vs4. But don't be fool thinking it is different in team game. I have play more than enough team game 4vs4, and it is probably even worst since it works so well. My opinion is that in term of gameplay this is a disaster, its not fun at all to play with and vs. I really look forward for the next patch if any is planned by Relic, but till then, the 4vs4 Allied search rate has lost another regular player. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Osttruppen > Grenadiers17 Nov 2015, 10:56 AM Jump back to quoted post17 Nov 2015, 09:36 AMiceman I've been using the Osttruppen commander alot lately and winning more games. I think because I'm getting faster map control and get a P4 tank out faster. This doctrine helps me alot against the overbearing riflemen. I go straight for the P4 and just spam Osttruppen MGs. For me, this makes Grenadiers useless.I can get more osttruppen out to put a hold on the USF riflemen spam with MGs. This makes grenadier null and void to me. Anyone else had this type of success? Thanks, It works yes, but largely counterable. The USF solution isn't a Rifle outspam but fast T1 .50 + M15/M20 + BARs. .50 works incredibly well vs ostruppen (more models per squad, suppressed faster) and by the same logic M15. Same if you don't build your T1, you'll not have the faust to counter an aggressive M20. BARs upgrade will make your Ostruppen completely outclassed around 6-7 minutes (if the USF player goes lieutenant first). Also let him equip Zooks if required to soft counter you Pz4. Now it all depends on fuel control. As USF I can also go 2x.50 and save my fuel for a fast T1/T2 capt/Stuart/Atgun. And good luck to get back a fuel point if defended by a .50, you don't have the riflenade forcing you to invest in a mortar and so build T1. So in conclusion: Works well vs USF player going fast T2 (but it is his fault for not adapting his BO same if he see your ostruppen) but you'll be stopped if the player invest in an early heavy AI units and take from you the fuel control. You'll need mortar and other AI stuff to contain him so less ostruppen on the field. It works now because the strat is quite new and people are slow to adapt. Not sure if it will be the case in a month or so. In: Lobby
Thread: Riflemen Vet breaks balance (with comparisons)16 Nov 2015, 11:51 AM Jump back to quoted post16 Nov 2015, 11:13 AMAchtAchter Relic wanted to fix the factions, but decided to fix Allies factions first or seems to have forgotten to fix the Axis factions too. This is probably why HMG42 has been moved to T0 and see its suppression increased, Ostheer teching cost has been reduced and readjusted, USF T3 delayed to the point Sherman is now out at the same time as a Pz4, 222 has see its upgrade made for free etc... Isn't enough evident that HMG42 is the Ostheer backbone unit since it has been moved to T0 and not grenadiers? What should be done to make it more comprehensible? In: Lobby
Thread: Riflemen Vet breaks balance (with comparisons)16 Nov 2015, 10:28 AM Jump back to quoted post16 Nov 2015, 09:34 AMAchtAchter The funny thing is fanboys justify this by 40 mp difference. 40 mp difference means shit, I'm sure every player regardless of faction choice would gladly pay 40 mp more for squads that perform not just by a margin, but by a giant leap better. The statement of "costing more" is not even true through this, as grens for example cost more to reinforce that allies infantry and they bleed you harder than Rifles & Sections in late game due the received vet Rifles & Sections get. The funny thing hereby is that allies infantry gets also more lethal (except for cons) due double weapon upgrades in late game. So allies infantry is more lethal and can take more hits, while becoming cheaper to maintain. This arguments become even more dull when you check what sappers get for 210 mp. Saying Axis have a late game advantage becomes due this stats comparison a joke. Right now USF have the advantage in every state of the game. Make gren 40mp more expensive and a week later we will see the usual whiners coming again because you cannot field enough units early in the game and need an additional MP advantage at start. Is it so complicated to read Ostheer gameplay? strong AI HMG42 supported by cheap long range gren but expensive to reinforce so you can't be too greedy at the beginning of the game. As a strategist can't you really see the problem of having strong grenadiers when you also have HMG42 right from T0? When around 5 minutes mark you can reinforce them anywhere in the field with a sdfk? Is it too complicated or are you too much bias to acknowledge that? Late game is exactly the same, you have the option to mix gren with pzgren + HMG42 and this is one of the many solution you have to combine your forces as Ostheer. In: Lobby
Thread: Ostheer (Wehrmacht) Grenadiers 16 Nov 2015, 07:58 AM Jump back to quoted post16 Nov 2015, 06:51 AMiceman No one said anything about 6 grens.... It would be a unit upgrade to 5 not 6 He is referring to 6 gren squads vs 5 rifle squads meta. In other word grenspam because gren are too good. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Ostheer (Wehrmacht) Grenadiers 15 Nov 2015, 18:36 PM Jump back to quoted post15 Nov 2015, 17:58 PMausterlitz So even you agree grens are not really worth building vs usf and ukf?Well its good to see we agree then. When u need doctrinal infantry present in only 1,to counter basic core infantry all is well.But ur basic premise is right,osttruppen and pzgrens are far better support troops for mg42 than grens which are no longer needed except vs 1 vs 1 soviets.More and more wehrmacht players are recognizing this. So your view is not different from ours at all.Don't build grens. No what you need is Sniper and HMG42, and Grenadiers to support them. Not the other way around. You can replace grens by ostruppen if you want a better unit effectivness/price from a commander. It is not like it is different for any other faction. In: COH2 Balance