Profile of Hon3ynuts

I think there are a few reasons, but a major one IMO is that the game is hard to learn, which may discourage some marginal players from becoming better or frustrate or drive away even someone who has a natural talent for the game.

This is exacerbated by the fact that so much information such as weapon statistics, armor and penetration ect. cannot be found out in game. More popular games like Starcraft and DOTA are much more helpful in providing meaningful in game statistics to the casual player which makes it easier to see what units are good or bad at what, and how they can best use these units. What would people say in DOTA if you never knew how many hitpoints your hero has or how much damage he does? How can you make a big play when you can't tell if your tank will die in 1 or 2 AT gun shots b/c there are no numbers on the HP bar? Relying on trial and error to learn these things slows individual player growth.

I understand COH uses some complicated formulas compared to these other games, but giving players more information on the units they use in game would make the game easier to learn, creating a bigger player base and therefore more good players.

Right now bazookas are like cheaper crappier versions of panzershrecks, If they are going to balance the two factions asymetrically bazookas should have some advantage over Shreks, but presently shrecks are much better vs every variety of vehicle because their high Alpha damage makes them good vs light vehicles and their high penetration makes them good vs heavy ones Something should be adjusted to give bazookas their own niche

It needs a few things
-AP rounds, so it can actually kill light vehicles like its supposed to
-Mg retreat bug fixed
-Manpower reduction on reinforce cost(its 35 to reinforce right now which is stupid as rifles are 28)
-more HP on the gun, it seems to die from like 2 grenades

If they change these things then at least the unit will be more usable and we can better evaluate if it needs any stat buffs.

I think Relic accuratley assumes that 1v1 balance will mirror 4v4 balance. When 1v1s were balanced to an acceptable degree before WFA so were 4v4s IMO with the exception of the Tiger being OP and Blitz trucks being broken.

Presently i think the issues that plague the game mode are twofold and they extend to the 1v1 landscape

AT- Axis anti tank weapons are vastly superior to the allied ones With no real benifit or advantage to the allied weaponry. Additionally the Axis tanks are generally better armored. Most allied tanks fail to bounce Shrecks or Pak fire where as even medium Axis tanks will consistently bounce Bazooka, PTRS, and 57mm AT fire. This makes it highly dangerous to manuever and flank with allied armor, but much easier with axis armor because The axis support weapons are far more deadly than the much less reliable Allied ones.

The infantry advantage-Generally speaking Axis infantry units at this time greatly outperform all soviet units(except for shock troops who are effective in certain situations) and most American Options cost for cost, especially in the late game. This makes It necessary for the allies to devote more fuel resources and support weapons towards dealing with Infantry when they already have inferior AT support to begin with.

Veterancy- Axis units have better vet in many cases. Grens outperform other infantry primarily because of their Vet, Volks get 5 levels of combat bonuses where as most infantry get 2 bonuses and Armored skirts and blitz is far better than secure mode and an increased rate of fire. These are Just some examples, But i think many would agree that veterancy equally distributed seems to favor axis units in many cases(though precision strike is clearly better than counterbarrage)

In Jake we trust