Profile of Hon3ynuts

I don't think this is an end all solution, but i just think it would both more give ways to mitigate kubel damage and take out the kubel, which is sorely needed in the current meta

Also irregardless of the kubel is it so hard to ask for 0 cps on a fricken sandbag ability

A. It's much less stressful to play 4v4 than 1v1,the pressure isn't just on you and the action is going to be more condensed and less chaotic than in a 1v1. Also you can pull off really big plays in fights when you go help a teammate and you can really feel like you made a massive impact when you do

B. Obviously Axis OP, they win every game, primarily because they win the first couple engagements and snowball into the mid/late game here are some of the reasons why

1.The USF can only build infantry initially which can be shut down easily by a kubel or 1/2 well placed mgs. Putting them in a hole which exponentially expands as their units fail to scale into the late game.

2. Additionally sturmpios will be able to push the Axis front line and cap the contested points first giving an early lead.

3. Soviets are restricted to going snipers or maxims, conscripts are an instant loss especially with a USF teammate. Their infantry is just subpar to their axis counterparts but lategame they can still compete with their effective tanks and shock troops.

4. The USF midgame still struggles against campy play due to their lack of effective indirect fire. Pack howitzer is a large risk unreliable and also countered easily by a stuka with its crazy reinforce cost. Then late game you can get priests which are effective but this is at the cost of a tank force.

5. In short the axis seem to have a distinct early game advantage in this mode nowdays for whatever reason just an observation This is ridicuolous because they also have a late game advantage(at least true when vsing the USF) Also the USF lacks the firepower to dislodge campy play in the midgame.

C. Lots of maps are too cramped to flank and too punishing to retreat on, it takes a long time to go back to base then get back into the fight on large 4v4 maps. This hurts the USF especially who rely on brute force rather than support weapons.

D.
Many of the issues are with the USF being too weak. They don't have any variety of units at all in the start, so the Axis can just hard counter riflemen to win.

The Soviets also have to rely on somewhat "cheesy" strats which limit their mobility and restrict them from aiding teammates.

These complaints are similar to the 1v1 balance problems that currently exist so i feel that just balancing 1v1 and 2v2 will sufice to fix this mode of play. As i understand it OKW only wins slightly more 4v4s than they win 2v2s so even if their a little OP thats ok,but right now the mode is strait up unplayable.

One thing i will qualify is that the fewer allied players may result in more noobs being on allied teams and them losing more b/c of it. But there may be few allied players b/c they are underpowered in the first place.

Statsictics say rifles should win b/c of their cost and role which makes sense, however pio cost 40 extra manpower and the t1 building costs 80 manpower so the Ostheer player is disadvantaged in the first fight b/c of these additional costs b/c it will be 3 grens vs 3 rifles. which isn't fair

However after you get your first lmg grens obliterate rifles even if they have a bar especially if the grens are vetted, even though they cost more. This also isn't fair.

The balance between these units is silly and really hurts the matchup as both players are disadvantaged during different phases of the game because of them, needs to be fixed for the sake of USF and ostheer players everywhere

#Kubelmeta

From my experience, most players will simply stop paying for infantry after a certain point and simply churn out heavies as fast as they can. Manpower comes easy since as long as the players are cautious they can have their heavies do most the fighting while having very little bleed to resources. While those relying on tanks like the T34/76 are forced to be more aggressive as to not let the heavies build up.

I don't know exactly what needs to be done, but what i do know is that heavy vehicles are too economically efficient. They have no bleed and while this is true to some extent from mediums, they are much more likely to die. Something needs to be done to reverse this. Players relying on heavies should be economically penalized more then players using lighter choices. Strategies implementing heavy vehicles shouldn't be better then the alternatives.

You seem to assume these heavy vehicles are inherently OP and need to be nerfed, i'm not sure this is the case. As well microed medium tanks while having more risk can be more effective at destroying armor and inflicting manpower bleed(on most maps)

Though regardless of their impact i see that most games have been decided by the time the first tanks start rolling onto the field off so i don't really think it's just a late game heavy tank problem in 4v4s