There is this little thing I like to do called thinking:
My thought goes like this: Sturm is slow and clunky to use but has great AOE and can easily nuke anything into oblivion if properly handled. Great veterancy amplifies the usage.
See?
A simple thought. Nothing fancy. No huge brainstorms or mental gymnastics. Just a simple mathematical equation waiting to be equated.
In even simpler terms:
UP - agility and price
OP - Cannon (+ vet)
Therefore, balanced. A nice bowl of OP and UP things. Not broken, not useless.
See, it's easy. Do that for other units and you'll see that the game is quite well balanced.
Want to include the "what the unit is going against?" argument? You'll find that it's even more balanced than the crybabies on this forum cry and weep.
The real problem stems from the notion that this game has some deep and profound philosophy. The variables are complex as fuck but everything can be boiled down to a statistical analysis of win-rates of the general public (all of it, not just the "pros" which constitute a small percentage and have a vastly different approach to the game).
So like Sander said. Some people cry, some people weep. Some want this, some want that, but until you get some obvious deviation from the norm, it's fine. In this case, Sturm can be useful, it can be useless, it does not stand out in any way (except that it's a super heavy tank), ergo, balanced.
Want an argument about the silliness of this forum? People complained that the 10 armor reduction on the fat bumblebee will make it useless. Try to imagine the audacity of such an expression. Just try and you'll see what I'm talking about.
In all it's audacity, that shit can be an axiom:
"This forum is filled with a constant storm of heavy shit-rain."
EDIT: "(devs) not very meaningful in terms of balance".... I agree to some extent, but it's still their game. If they wanted they could have made axis weapons do 100 dmg and Ally only 1 dmg. Nobody would buy the game, so they didn't do that obviously. Don't try to find meaning where there is none. It's a game with a plethora of variables. A final solution exists, and it's symmetrical. You will never achieve your view of balance in a game that is based on asymmetry. Eg.
This faction has this but lacks this and can counter the other faction with this. This faction has this weakness and the other faction has that weakness.
Asymmetry and balance do not go hand in hand in the traditional sense. In less obnoxious terms:
Variables be crazy, we can all go fuck ourselves and take a big large dump on our visions of this game. Not our game to design.
Edit2: "pros" are useful in a fact that they can point you in the right direction. Since ther3 is no scale to call something OP or UP (as opposed to what?), the "pros" will always abuse units they FEEL are most useful. So in terms of the everyday balance, they are useful in that way.
Let me recite a story about 'competitive' and 'asymmetrical'.
One of the problems is predisposition.
Warcraft 3. Age of Empires. Starcraft. Command and Conquer.
These are the exact same game. Different theme. They are all "collect resource" and "build base". They are all simple mathematical calculations for units.
X unit has 100 health Y unit does 20 damage. 5 Shots and Unit X is dead. Play death animation.
And there's more than just Warcraft 3, Age of Empires, Starcraft and Command and Conquer. This is 90's system design that still goes on today. Those are just the most popular ones.
So playing Warcraft 3 means you already understand the other 3. Playing any of the four means you understand the other 3. So you've already learnt the same skills but you just have to apply them to different buildings. Different units. Different races.
Company of Heroes is more unique. The only other games like it is Dawn of War 2 (specifically the second one, not the other 2) and Iron Harvest.
I can't speak competitively for anything but Starcraft. But Starcraft isn't dominantly a strategy game. To be more specific. Strategy isn't the dominant skill that determines which player wins. Anyone whose got to gold can understand the first thing you can do to rise in rank is learn how to build. If you build faster than your enemy then you'll have an army quicker and just overwhelm them in the first battle. The game even teaches you with tutorials with build orders. And it's only when two players build at a similar speed, in relation to their respective races, that then strategy and tactics come into play.
It's a lot of clicks. It's a lot of muscle memory. And there's a lot more to explore but shouldn't need to get to answer the question.
Compare this to Company of Heroes. At the start of the match you already need to get out there and control territory. One unit does not necessarily just win against the other. Especially if we are talking Company of Heroes 1, and not 2, positioning has a much larger influence.
Right out the door this means tactics and strategy come into play and this much should be obvious.
I wouldn't say Company of Heroes is harder. It's too 'easy' of an answer. But I would say after a life long time of only being exposed to C&C style games. You will find it tricky to understand that perhaps a Mortar works more like a Mortar and less like a unit that just does AoE damage. Story Time!
My Starcraft 2 Super Fan Boy friend played Company of Heroes and just sat in his base after being told explicility that is not what you do. He purchased 4 mortar squads. Ran them into melee. Said "They aren't fucking doing anything" followed by "This game is fucking dumb" and quit.
I will say though that Company of Heroes is much more REFLECTIVE or strategical and tactical ability. Where as the C&C style games have less emphasis on that.
There's a lot more the average player can do in Company of Heroes on a strategical and tactical level. There's more mind games a low level player can participate with. Where as skills like this in Starcraft are reserved more for very high levels of play where simply building faster and more units no longer cuts it.
Lure your enemies into machine guns. Get your sniper to focus on a super important unit. Hide units and surprise flanks. Charge up a flamethrower to dislodge a fortified enemy position. Protecting your flanks with mines. Maybe your enemy isn't so good at micro managing their units so you just pick more smaller fights knowing you can win 2 out of 3.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
