CoH2.org fucked me up again and deleted my message.
I think this argument is flawed.
I've checked OKW stats from Jan to Sep, during the ST abuse. As expected ST was in top 2 comander picks, while compared to live, OKW had around 3% more W\L across the board.
Now if we look at USF (and we can throw UKF here aswell). We can see that W\L for mentioned factions is increased by around 3-5% now across the board. Path meta was popularised for USF and UKF received buffs for AVRE, Rec.suppers and mobile assault. UKF now has a clear picture of mentioned commanders being top 2 picks in everything but 1v1. At the same time, soviets W\L didn't change almost at all, dispite OP axis stuff being nerfed.
After that we can ask a question. If we consider the fact that Axis in general has an advantage in 3v3\4v4 and we also consider that stock USF\UKF roster didn't receive any major changes and also considered much weaker in teamgames. Does it means that commanders\meta alone is OP, because it can give additional 3-5% W\L for a factions with stock options being weaker?
Its not about making game more balanced, mind you. Simply because USF\UKF without commanders still remain at those ~45% W\L (since again stock options are the same), but commander\meta changes pushes them to 48-49% W\L. If the commander\meta can carry as much, with old stock option, it kinda implies that it might be OP, simply because in order to carry as much you have to be way too stronger then you should be.
So yeah, maybe USF win rate will plummet if path meta is nerfed. Sure. But at least it wont cover up the fact that faction need ajustments. Right now you can clearly say that those W\L are not because faction suddenly became balanced more, but because cancerous or OP metas being used, which require more skill to actually beat them, then to win with them. In the end making the game just frustrating to play.
And this is even without considering players who can master mentioned strats and simply dominate with them.
Along my posts, this one is the most non-retarded reply to this whole matter.
Maybe a strategy of the norm pushes a faction to a meager 2-3% more victorious so fucking what? USF has 1500 problems other than mainline infantry sucking balls, namely a tech tree that can only be fixed by a doctrine, no artillery options (I am not talking about that idiotic "artillery mortar" and Calliope is priced like a fucking PzIV/T34/85 give me a fucking break ) and microintensive upgrades. |
Yes because you just bleed to death against snipers or go for a sub-optimal build with a mortar before 3 rifles and officer against MG42s. Pathfinder fixes both problems.
I thought the MG42 whining was done when they gave REs Smoke.
Just enjoy the cheese while you can and don't try to reason this out. Pathspam is fun I guess and gives you a fair chance at victory against some opponents. That's that. Don't try to paint it as an essential answer to every USF problem.
Early MG42 were fixed by giving REs smoke.
Early Gren is never a problem since the usual matchup is 2 Riflemen + 1 RE vs 1MG (Smoked) 1 Gren 1 Pio.
Early 222 is fixed by giving Riflemen snares.
|
Lacking core units at the right timing always makes you rely on doctrines to fill gaps. OKW had similar issues, but they have been relieved for example back when they got the MG stock and more recently with easier access to medics. USF still has some core issues that are not as easy to forgo, that's why we're seeing the current commander selection.
(edited typo)
Agreed on everything you said except this part. OKW is not relieved of these issues at all, it just bypasses them with the retarded system of skipping Light Armor to gain access to medium-heavy armor which means that if you play against USF for example and want to bring a Puma to deter Scott or E8 or whatever you have to skip the heal truck. Criminally retarded, but thankfully not a huge deal considering the options of Opel truck which heals and transports troops (Doctrinal though). |
Tried this today in 3 games (2v2) and I had 3 back to back victories against USF and UKF.
Against SOV I have yet to use this shit. |
As if any of you clowns has a better understanding of balance. I am glad nobody on this forum (including me) had any influence on the balance. The balance team did a good job, especially when you look on how many things relic locked as unchangeable.
Bill "Cringelarp" Gates when asked about the current state of USA politics. |
I use this build against expert bots. I go
1.MG
2.Pio
3.MG
4.BP1
5.Pgren
6.T1
7.Scout Car
8.Pgren
And then usually it depends if I want to play Festung Armor or Defensive Doctrine because I'll either go full retard and put concrete bunkers on the fuel point and upgrade pgrens with shreks or I'll skip T3, rush T4 and build a P4J because I think it's funny you can do that.
kek |
They didn't get brutally murdered by a T-70 how?
0 clue, honestly.
Maybe it was against noobs. |
What mode and against which faction?
2v2 against double SOV was the first one and the second was 2v2 again going against Brit-SOV combo.
Seemed to work like a charm ngl. |
Build order:
- MG
- MG
- BP1
- T1
- PzG
- PzG
- PzG
- PzG
- Muni cache
- Upgrade G43 PzGrs
- Victory???
Is this shit legit or was my teammate just a lucky cheeser? |
The IS-2 would definitely be in a better position if it wasn't for only two commanders, of which one is viable in the game. Either make the IS-2 an analogue of the King Tiger due to exclusivity, or you to give the IS-2 to as many commanders as possible, just look at the Tiger in how many commanders is it? Five, six? Then remove the KV-1 in T4 and replace the KV-1 in the commanders with the IS-2.
Good idea, given how idiotic and useless KV is in almost any role. |