One thing that seems strange is the difference between 3vs3 games and 4vs4 in win rates. The modes are not that different nor the map pool.
It is possible that also that users county of origin, their connection and hardware might be different from 3vs3 to 4vs4 and that might somehow effect win rates.
We can do a lot of speculations for all modes, however we also don't have many hints that they are true or how exactly they should favor one side more than the other.
In the end we also have a lot of gameplay reasons that could explain the differences without needing to speculate as much. But this would lead too far from this topic about Scotts, so I'd rather leave it at that.
I am under impression that 4vs4 stat might not be very reliable since the number of dropped players before minute 5 is probably very high.
It is probably less reliable, but the question is by how much.
Games that last less than 5 minutes goes up from 4,5% to 9,5%. Games shorter than 10 minutes go from 12,6 to 16,4.
The point to prove would be though that it happens to one side more often than the other one, which I don't really see why it should be the case, unless players from far away regions with smaller player count have heavy bias towards one faction. But then again the player count is low, and so will be the influence.
Anyway, we can only hypothesize. There seems to be a trend though that Axis become stronger the larger the mode is, even despite the higher drop rates in 4v4 the data might be credible (with a grain of salt)
OST hard in 1v1? What drugs are you on? You have a couple of different builds, all work wonders. Generally you play around the MG42, and given the massive arc, you won't spend a lot of time repositioning it. OKW is "harder" to play in 1v1 because you have to make a choice in teching, but other than that, they are completely fine. Never seen an OKW player that struggled against any allied faction in 1v1. They dominate USF the most, soviets the least.
The game overall is decently balanced considering you have to have a "one fits all" solution across all modes.
I assume he meant the general tendency of Axis being worse in 1v1 and better in 4v4 than Allies, which is also backed up by the stats we have.
Now it depends what we understand when saying "hard to play": Balance wise weak or just harder to get a grasp on. But in the end when looking at top players, both will translate into a diminished win rate. USF seems to play out similarly vs both Axis factions regarding the chance to win. OKW seems a bit weaker vs Soviets and stronger vs Brits. But in the end, it all closely mirrors what we see in the general statistic: Axis in 1v1 have slightly below 50% win rate. There do not seem to be larger differences which Axis faction you play against. The main difference basically comes down to the question if you play Brits or not. If yes, your win chance is about 48%, if not, it is 52%.
He even acknowledged that by saying that an afk kick feature and dropping yourself will yield the same result.
His original post made the point that leaving yourself is already a solution to the problem. His post wouldn't make any sense otherwise. Why should you drop the game if the player would get replaced by AI anyway?
It's a bad solution for sure, but for what we have everyone can fix the problem himself by simply leaving the game. There is no need to stick to the game apart from a small amount of lost rewards. I think your suggestion would fit better to CoH3 since CoH2 will likely not see an update anymore, I hope though that they implement it along with a lot of other QoL features for multiplayer.
See post #6 he quote my response to katokuv which said that there is not auto AFK kick mechanism to say something completely different.
I saw it. He suggested that you can drop yourself to find a new game sooner since CoH2 does not support afk recognition.
Katukov's opinion has nothing to do with Esxile's response, you're jumping to conclusions here.
Yes, if your partner is afk then just leave the game, the result will be the same. If you can process this info can't do more for you.
Do you agree that contrary to what Katukov claimed there is no afk kick mechanism or do you agree with him that there is? If it the if first I suggest you stop quoting and responding to irrelevant if it is the later I suggest you provide proof.
Now if you want to claim that there is no need for a surrender mechanism because people can quit feel free to explain why in your opinion there should not be one.
Now pls stop disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing.
You're the one disagreeing with Esxile for whatever reason. He just made the point that you can drop yourself if your Ally is afk, nothing else.
When entering mid game, you need the P4 to keep up the pressure and fight off the Allied medium. The Command P4 has a too glaring weakness in AT to be used as the first vehicle.
Later on, Ostheer can transition into a very efficient T4 build. In smaller modes the unit forces you to concentrate into a small area while the mode rewards flanking and spreading out.
In larger modes, I find the unit to be okay. But this was still before they switched a lot of abilities within commanders, can't remember using it in the "new" commander lineup.
One issue I had was that it was always a bit hard to fit into your build population wise. Yes, it helps infantry as well, but one issue might be that first you don't really see it so you don't realize, and second the bonusses to vehicles are effectively much larger than for infantry. Given that you have 40-50 POP for vehicles and the Command P4 takes 12, you have roughly ~33 left. Since you just built a unit for pure AI use, you'd need to follow up with a Panther (-18 POP, 15 left). Giving you one other vehicle of your choice. The most effective way in that regard is to spam mediums, which is not the most effective way to play larger modes.
The utility buffs back then were quite nice. I think it is still a bit hard to fit into builds, especially since it always needs quite some micro to be on the front line, but safe from enemy tanks as well as always needing to target enemy infantry.
Other smg troops have a number of perks like sprint/smoke/grenades/better defensive properties/more entities/far better DPS/camo.
Pioneer are probably the worse SMG troops when it comes to combat (as they should given they cost/role/weapon).
Pioneer are not that good in fighting as suggested by OP and that can be seen by the fact that usually end the game at lower vet levels.
Yes, and no other squad is as cheap.
No one said they compare to "actual" SMG assault squads that for the most part also come much, much later in the game and cost 50% more MP. But pioneers starting at mid range beat Allied main lines in the early game, and they do that until min 5-10 as I described earlier. Or do you seriously want to debate that and stick with your 1 minute?
Since they are an smgs unit that can not really charge vs most units their main fighting role is to defend vs flanks or ambush, thus as I have posted they are combat wise useful only in specific situations.
Rifle engineer units like CE and CE can contribute mediocre even from longer ranges.
The fishing capabilities of Pioneers are exaggerated by OP.
That's not really true though.
Yes, don't charge them from max range across an open field and expect them to win. But literally all maps allow for closer range combat and have plenty of areas where you can ambush or simply manage to charge in from lower range. These are not very specific circumstances, they just work how all SMG troops work.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
