Profile of Rocket

Pff do you know how many 85's or e8's it takes us to actually take that thing out. The way it use to be I would completely suprise it with my e8s lets say 5 of them completely surrounding it and some behind it some how it would still manage to just back its ass up against a building or something like that and boom I end up losing all my tanks because they could not pen the front or sides reliably enough that the at guns are targeting my tanks now and the shrek mobs have arrived and there always shreks somewhere nearby. The result a lot of times was even tho I caught it out of position it could still manage to survive with say only needing like one pen hit left to kill. That thing was auto loss for a heavy USF force in 4v4. Part of the reason they lowered the armor I believe was so the jackson could reliably pen it which it should its mostly the only answer the USF had for it but then they would not reliably pen it and the jackson is so susceptible to other AT. If they put the armor back to where it is then it needs to take much more dmg faster in the ass. Also there are plenty of maps where it is near impossible to properly flank with with mediums.

Throughout the patches the Soviet faction has been buffed for the lategame, while the Axis lategame has been made weaker.

Now Soviets have the advantage of survivable infantry (6 entities) and weapon crews early and get better tanks late game. The IS-2 is better than Tiger and King Tiger for cost, the ISU has a better use than the Elefant (barely loses to Elefant, yet can easily kill infantry).


Conscripts are still conscripts there is 6 of them because they have crap stats. Guards can be good but axis I believe especially okw still have on par infantry or better.


Soviet call ins are way too strong and provide too much synergy with T-34/85s and mark target or Guards + ISU-152 etc. Added to that they are dirt cheap because no teching is required.

I agree with mark target this works great with a USF partner with E8's or Jacksons. Although no teching is required soviets will have a really hard time surviving if they do not tech t3 or t4. Waiting for there 152's or IS2 in 1v1 or 2v2 I think it would be impossible not to tech 3 or 4


The worst is the ability to easily wipe any Axis infantry with expandable mines and demos, Mortars, or even lategame call ins.

Don't think the 120 is that great anymore it has been nerfed several times with its range and lethality. As for the mines that is just your own fault IMO maybe the munitions cost should be raised a bit because it can be very effective but a simple mine sweeper fixes this. As well as I have lost plenty of allied units to good axis players who like to use mines/demos

Certain maps can be easily locked down with the 120mm mortars. The Soviets have the best:

- Artillery (120mm, Katjuscha, 152mm)
- Tanks (ISU-152 is more versatile than ELefant, IS-2 > Tiger and even KT for cost, etc.)
- Explosives (cheapest mos useful mines, Demos) + usually ammo available
- survivability of infantry (6 men)

How is the katusha better than the walking stukka???? it has relatively low lethality compared to the stukka that is just non sense. Stukka there is a high chance your going to lose a squad or two even with immediate retreat. Katusha you most likely won't lose any.

Imo that´s too much. They go from early game advantage to lategame advantage.


Tl;dr: The real problems are:

1) Cheap call ins,
2) No other faction has that much of a squad wipe potential
-- a) Artillery advantage,
-- b) Mine advantage
3) Survivable units,
4) Yet a lategame on par with the Axis factions,
5) Can easily take losses, while a wiped unit as Ostheer cripples you.

This issue is especially a problem in team games, where the Soviet advantage stacks. More squad wiping, more artillery, yet equal tanks.

I still find the axis have the advantage late game there resource rates excel later on with trucks and what not seems soon as well kill one tiger or kt another one is right there to replace it and eventually we can't keep production up quite the same the axis still has far better AT options with there at guns, shrek mobs, pak emplacements, jagdtiger.

You're forgetting how the forward retreat point and the concentration of force contorts the effective map presence of an OKW player, which will also be endangered unless it's placed within the HQ which naturally doesn't exert any pressure on the map. Presuming it has been placed further forward the use requires being sound in micro, you're forced to break off engagements earlier since you can't snap retreat and you have to invest a squads worth of resources to negate that, further gimping your map presence. This is also presuming the OKW player hasn't gone mech reg, while being a superb hard counter to LT. openings, takes a little more work against Cpt's.

On many maps IMO there are very key points that lead to control to the several other key points and some the majority of the map. Having that concentration of force to take over these key points can win the early game in my opinion. if we lose trying to contest one of these key points early game and you have time to set up defenses it takes the USF too long to get the support weapons we need to push you out of these key points. yes we could settle for other areas but like I said it will probably end up in defeat. I agree our starting infantry are better but okw can go mg34 or kubel rendering our better infantry useless when they are pinned. Especially the maps where they put two victory points and fuel close together lets say an area highly contested if we lose the first fight there and okw have time to set up we are probably done for unless we can buy time to get arty etc. I am not saying they are much better I feel a good USF player can win that first fight there are things we can do smoke garrison etc to win that but I feel right now things are pretty even compared to before.

However your not going to agree that the forward hq truck which is really hard to destroy early to mid game does not allow okw to have a better map presence from simply getting to points faster and to defend points faster? I notice this all the time. It takes USF a much longer time to get our major and a med truck up and going to do this equally but it is highly susceptible to the walking stukka or anything really unlike the hq truck even if I force you to retreat off it I would have taken loses and if its already set up what are riflemen going to do to it? You can simply take it back once you've refreshed your squad. Plus you can just reinforce defending it why i'm attacking it your going to win that fight. Even if you conservatively put the truck a point ahead of your base its going to help get your infantry back on the front line faster and key points. I guess a captain could take it out but that is going to take time and I doubt you could get him close enough with a force to do that

TLDR: Read it you dolt. This is an in depth look at problems which arise in 4v4, if you don't want to look at the issue in depth you should just move on.

I can't see how one could possibly conclude that Axis synergy in 4v4 is inferior to Allied synergy. It is true, that in any given game, Allies or Axis have roughly equal chance of winning. In this case we are not examining one game in a vacuum - but rather, larger trends that have profound effects on perceived and actual balance in the long run.

Perceived vs. Actual

Perceived balance is biased, affected by short-term trends, determined through anecdote, but remains nonetheless a factor in determining how balance plays out.

Actual balance, on the other hand, is quite elusive in discussions of balance. No player is objective enough to accurately determine balance.(hint: objectivity is an ideal, and not an actuality)

AT vs. Randoms - Flawed Data Interpretation

The biggest flaw in the argument of this thread lies in its assumption that win streaks are a reliable indicator of balance for AT games. Any active AT player can tell you with certainty that the most common enemy they face is random teams. Thus, any quantitative analysis of AT balance is inherently flawed. This is not to say that such data is useless, but that extreme care must be taken when analyzing and interpreting the data.

The granular nature of arranged teams is problematic in assessing balance. Due to the fact that AT's are entirely discrete combinations of players, the data is skewed because very few teams play enough games for the law of large numbers to even out the data. In this case, the only people with enough data to interpret accurately the balance of 4v4 AT, is Relic. Questions necessary to interpret such data:

• What is the win rate of Arranged Teams vs. other Arranged Teams?
  
• What is the win rate of AT vs. AT games which last longer than, say, 45m?
  
• Does each map represent roughly equal win percentages for both factions?
  
• Is there a quantifiable link between particular commander choices and the win ratios of those games?
  

This list can quite frankly, be endless. Data interpretation is an ongoing process whereby one must constantly create interpretations, test those assumptions, re-check data, re-interpret, make changes, and begin again. I have chosen these four questions in order to explore the hypothesis of this post, which is as follows:

Competitive games between Arranged Teams of roughly equal skill and coordination favor Axis teams due to the length of matches, map design, and superior commander synergy. I will explore each of these individually, and then tie them together in the end.

Length of Matches

A truly competitive game between two teams should last a long time. Although the outcome of any particular game is profoundly affected by player choices, the balance of the game as a system provides players with a set of choices to pick from. What units you choose to fight with and where you choose to fight are within the players control, but in the system, there are far fewer choices than we perceive. Freedom of choice in systems (in this case, COH2) is an inflated illusion.

As an example, lets say you want to buy a hamburger - where do you go? Taco bell won't serve you a hamburger, but McDonalds will. So will Burger King, or a local restaurant. You have the ability to exercise choice over where you buy your hamburger, but you choose from a set of options you have no direct control over. The "invisible hand" of the market is still attached to the "invisible body" of the system.

This concept is also true in COH2. You can choose to play any faction you want, from the set of choices available. You can purchase any unit you want, from the set of choices afforded to each faction by design. You can fight over any territory you like, but you choose from a set of options created by the map designer. At the end of this process, your options are far more limited than you can perceive without taking a deeper look at the system as a whole.

Having detailed the concept of choices within a system, lets circle back around to the topic of this section of my post - Length of Matches. Throughout a game, each individual as well as the team as a collective, make an incredibly large number of decisions. I have established that these decisions are all made from a set of options, and in COH2 the list of options is greater for the Axis factions than they are for Allied factions. For now, my analysis will ignore commander options (which I will fold in later). How many combat options does Axis start with, compared to Allies?

Wehrmacht - Pioneers + T1 units (Grenadier, MG42, Mortar, Sniper) - a total of 5 units.
OKW - Sturmpioneer, Volksgrenadier, Kubelwagon, Raketenwerfer - a total of 4 units.

USF - Riflemen, Rear Echelon - a total of 2 units.
Soviet - Combat Engineer, Conscripts, + T1 (Penals, M3 Car, Sniper) OR T2 (Maxim, Mortar, ZiS) - a total of 2 choices without a tier, 5 with.

From the on set, Axis has more potential choices. These choices create opportunities for synergy which are not available to Allies in the same degree. Furthermore, the combat value of Sturmpioneers and Pioneers means the game opens with Axis having more value. Sturmpioneers + Kubel or Pioneer + MG42 synergy make each of these units more valuable in the context of early game battles where the two units are present together. Extending past the early game, the first tech choices for Axis factions provide access to an increase in firepower for their basic infantry (LMG42/Rifle Grenade for Grens, Shrek/Grenade for Volks). In addition, OKW choices also unlock access to a tier specific bonus - a healing base with a forward retreat upgrade, or a munitions/fuel conversion mechanic.

Conversely, Allied tier choices provide less bonuses and less synergy. Although the USF Lieutenant/Captain do provide an increase in army firepower, USF grenades, BAR, and Bazookas are all locked behind additional layers of cost. Allied anti-tank options are locked behind tiers which they are forced to choose from. Conscripts must tech up to gain Molotov's or AT Grenades, both of which come as part of the natural teching process for Axis factions.

The OKW Raketenwerfer is available to every OKW player with no choices to be made, Shrek's are available to every player (as Tiering is a necessary and structural part of the game, there is no realistic choice in tiering or not tiering for any faction. The exception is tiering for tanks and call-in meta.). Similarly, Wehrmacht have access to Pak40 and PGren Shrek's as a part of their natural (and necessary) teching behavior. There is no choice to be made, T2 is a fundamental part of the faction, which grants access to AT gun and handheld AT.

At this point, the choice disparity already begins to grow. Allied players can make grave mistakes in choosing to tech down the wrong path, whereas Axis players have decidedly less potential for making fundamental errors. This problem is relevant on many levels, but at its most fundamental, is an AT problem.

The system provides Axis players with the ability to field a variety of Anti-Tank measures without adversely being effected by choice. This adds value to an army as a system because the synergy of having AT weapons (Shrek's + AT Guns) makes armor choices easier. The Ostwind, Luchs, Flak HT, Brumbar, Panzerwerfer, and Walking Stuka are afforded extra viability because it is not necessary to choose between AT and AI (especially as a first armored unit).

On the flip side, a Soviet T1 player must cover their lack of AT by choosing something whose AT capability is strongest (this is almost always an SU85). The choice to tech T1 has restricted their next choice. The same is true for Lieutenant tech choice by USF. You must tech for Bazookas, or choose a Jackson to cover your anti tank needs. The Sherman and the T34 are inferior anti-tank options, especially when confronted with the Shrek + AT Gun synergy offered to Axis without making meaningful choices.

The question then, in order to ascertain how these choices play out during the course of the game, is: How do these choices become amplified over the course of a long game?

If an Allied player loses their armored anti-tank options, they must choose to save fuel for another, or spend fuel to back tech to the other AT options. Axis armies can be supplemented with additional AT without making this choice. The problem grows wider when you consider the existence of a Tank/Tank Destroyer paradigm created by these choices. Axis players can choose generalized tanks or anti-infantry tanks (P4, Stug, Tiger, Ostwind, Luchs, Brumbar, Panther [to a degree]) because many of them are reasonably effective at anti-armor duty and can be bolstered with any one of the easily accessible anti-tank options. This problem reaches an additional level when you factor in the best tank destroyers (Elefant + Jadgtiger) can then trump the Allied tank destroyer options.

Allied tanks, being generally cheaper, with less health and armor than Axis tanks, also create more opportunities for the wrong choices to be made. If a Sherman/Jackson/Scott stumble in front of Axis anti-tank, their death can be much swifter than Axis armor. This means more losses for Allied players, and more punishment for bad choices. Over the course of a long game, poor decision making by Allied players is punished much more severely than poor decisions by Axis players. Fewer tanks to micro and more variety in Anti-tank options make it easier for Axis players to escape from a mistake, and maintain army strength.

Commander Choices

The last section was rather exhaustive, and this one won't take as much to prove. Commander choices in 4v4 AT are an essential aspect of balance that is not given enough discussion. Axis commander choices offer an additional layer of firepower and survivability that are not necessarily present in Allied options. I will outline these problems by examining some of the stand-out commanders, and their effect on the game.

Close Air Support (CAS)
This commander is the bane of Allied players. Although it is not impossible to dodge the strafes of this commander, it adds an additional layer of micro-intensive behavior for Allied players. The normal restriction on air support provided by Munitions choices is lost due to the conversion ability. If you aren't constantly watching your units, especially things like Katuyshas and Priests, you can very abruptly lose units without much warning. There is no onus on Axis players to flank or infiltrate enemy lines, especially when CAS strafes can come from an edge of the map close to Allied units. This creates a situation where bleeding of army value for Allied players is greater than that of Axis players. The dive bomb in particular creates a situation where fixed artillery positions become useless (especially the B4, which was once a very viable and often necessary counter to Axis heavy armor).

Jaegar Armor
The Elefant is a hard counter to Allied tank destroyers. One shot from an Elefant + another tank or AT gun will kill USF armor, and this commander allows self-spotting for this purpose. The dive bomb also allows this commander to hard counter one of its biggest challengers, which is fixed artillery positions.

Breakthrough Doctrine
The Jadgtiger, much like the Elefant, allows Axis to trump any Allied armor with superior range and damage. The commander also provides OKW with a potent infantry unit in the Panzerfusilier, which softens the mid-game lull of OKW manpower float.

For both this commander and Elefant commanders, the simple statement of suggesting one "need only flank them" does little to consider the fact that this unit is never alone when fighting competent players. We have already examined how easy it is to access AT options; The firepower and coordination necessary to take on these ultra-heavy tank destroyers and the generalist tanks, shreks, and AT guns which support them makes it much easier for Allied choices to lose them the game.

Wehrmacht Tank Smoke
Any Wehrmacht commander with tank smoke provides an extremely easy "get out of jail free" care. Yes, you can attack ground once the tank has smoked. It is less accurate, which also necessitates a player to be very adept with the command and predicting where the tank will be in relation to its speed and terrain conditions. This ability singlehandedly gives Wehrmacht players the ability to conserve tanks that should otherwise die. It makes negative outcome of choices less severe, and significantly alters the micro requirements of players to achieve successful engagements without losses.

Map Design

The final nail in the coffin is map design. Virtually every map gives an advantage to the greater armor and health values of Axis armor, where lane-based play allows only so many tanks to move at once through narrow spaces. The concentration of firepower in Axis tanks, being greater than Allied tanks, means flanking is a necessary tactic to overcome Axis armor. The ability to flank is severely limited on virtually every 4v4 map due to narrow passages, movement blockers, and general map design. Without spending another thousand words examining every detail of this problem, anyone who plays 4v4 regularly can understand how limited flanking really is. Mines provide easy cover from flanks, and the slow approach of tanks backed with minesweepers and infantry takes away any shock value afforded to a good flank.

The size of 4v4 maps also affords OKW players with a significant advantage in forward retreat points. Although USF can also use the Major for a forward retreat point, it is significantly less durable and more vulnerable to elite Axis infiltration units (Fallschrimjaeger, Jaegar Light Infantry, Stormtrooper) as well as the prevalence of a variety of Axis air support. If you are looking elsewhere, a well timed dive bomb will wipe out your entire retreating force. Although Allied call-ins can also perform this action against OKW bases, the base itself can take a hit without needing to be replaced. The prevalence of CAS and Dive Bomb commanders in several of the best 4v4 Wehrmacht commander choices means the tool is more readily available, where Allied call ins are limited to artillery which often takes longer to strike and is not as readily bundled with scouting planes.

Conclusion

The concept I have attempted to prove here is that Allied choices are systemically worse than most Axis choices. Allied players are forced into more specific routes of teching choices, which can then be punished by less specific choices which are made by Axis players. These types of balance problems are much less prevalent in smaller game modes, as well as games where arranged teams play against random players or other AT teams which are not on the same skill level. The first part of my analysis is the most important, and you should consider in the future how your choices are decided for you, and how this plays out over time in a long game. When it is harder for one faction to make bad choices, and easier to recover from them, it creates a situation where you must examine in more depth how these choices impact the outcome of a game.

Wow could not agree more!


I would like to add also my fav commander is USF Rifle Commander which I choose somewhat for the vet rifles and late game replacement but even more for the E8's I am really good with them. If i can yes I will take advantage of the decrew pop cap to get up to 5 e8's at times I think there was one time I had like 8 but it does not really matter the game was already far decided by then.

To the point it is necessary to have AT LEAST 3 e8's to possibly kill a tiger of any sorts if you can get behind it. We need the popcap decrew ability to have a chance. USF needs a lot of tanks just to take down 1 tiger. Axis have just one tank they have to micro that is FAR easier than trying to micro 5 shermans to get behind a tiger to take it out and try to escape with out losing all of them and trying to use their smoke to block at guns { which sucks compared to axis that fires almost instantly and can be fired on top of their tank shermans have to be fired a ways away from it which i've never understood why.} All the micro the Axis player has to do is back their tank so the ass is facing a building or just hit the get out of jail speed button and kt goes backwards as fast as my shermans forwards. If a p4 or panther hit the get out of jail smoke button.

I disagree with zooks being a viable USF AT though anything past a puma is just going to laugh at your zooks and you spent munitions to get them and mp and fuel to unlock them and lost a little inf dps. Although your often forced to get them anyway if you go the lieut route.

As far as 3v3 and 4v4 go this is the best patch yet IMO since western front armies were introduced. Obers and Volks got proper nerfs they are still plenty durable late game but allied infantry now actually has a chance to go toe to toe with them before there was just no chance against blobs of okw inf even with arty supporting your inf. KT and Panthers can actually be punished for getting out of position that has been needed forever and they can't just simply back there tank up with there rear facing a building if they do get caught cause we actually have a chance to pen the front now. This use to lead allies into potentially losing all our tanks as it would literally bounce 10 shots off the front with us only needing like one more pen hit to kill but by a miracle it still survived. It gave axis too much time to react with shrek mobs trying to kill one.

They gave Wermacht proper buffs which they indeed needed.

My only complaint is they put a lot of time into balancing counterpart units and decreasing lethality on both sides as far as arty goes but they did not touch the stukka that thing still IMO wipes squads like crazy and can sometimes be unavoidable even if you insta retreat they might still guess your retreat path which can be easy to do on some maps. It is far better than the katusha is.