Profile of ZombiFrancis

Shocks are helpless against any kind of vehicle. This alone wouldn't be too much of a problem. However, you can't get Guards with Shocks which leaves penal or conscript support for mobile AT. It's hard to justify committing 600 manpower for a close quarters assault or flank. Since Shocks are such close range units, they're terrible at holding the front lines as well.

Shocks are actually useful lategame units, but Soviet design typically requires locking in a commander choice long before that point.

Are you aware that most players that go Mobile Defense dont tech?

In my opinion you are all proposing things that are hard to implement and without proper testing that could go really wrong and in my experience those kind of things went really wrong with patches.
People go Mobile Defense because they dont have to tech. The enemy has to tech to get the light/medium vehicle. That puts you in a super big advantage. The solution is quite rather simple, lock the vehicles behind tech. Puma in t2, Command p4 in t3. People will move on and will try to find another form of call in meta till there is no more.

That's some forward thinking right there. I think the more changes that are made to the game to limit people from playing "wrong" they certainly will be inclined to move on.

Do people not realize that Mobile Defense loses games too? Not teching and spending all your fuel on command p4s and pumas puts ostheer at a heavy disadvantage if they end up needing those tech units.

I have been seeing many games where Mobile Defense backfires and that's not a bad thing for gameplay or the perceived meta.

Mobile Defense is one of the few functional commanders in this game.

It augments the core faction in very meaningful and supplemental ways. It counters specific stock allied strategies.

Just because theres not a large community of people trying new strategies to keep the metagame fluid doesn't mean that the existing metagame is wrong or even problematic.

Because what, are we looking at a situation where light vehicle rushes are a problem for axis or that having light vehicle rushes countered a problem for allies?

Anyone know the cause?

I'd always figured it's an issue with my mouse if there was anything on my end. I've gone through three since CoH2's release and seen no change or improvement.

However, CoH2 (in my own experiences) has always had a pretty significant input delay, which gets exponentially worse the larger the game.

It happens to me constantly in 4v4s, but I can't think of a time it's occurred when I've been playing mods or friendly custom 1v1s.

Balance directly affects map viability. Depending on patch cycle a map can go from balanced to broken and back again. To pull a random example out of pile: maps from EFA era never took into account the impact of OKW's flak HQ, or british emplacements.

The effectiveness of a mortar pit in, say, the British base also covering a VP or two, or the ability for one player to get sight of an opponents base for timely offmaps were heavily map dependent and balance issues that no longer affect how a map is played. (No offmaps in base, mortar pit/emplacement nerfs, etc.)

Balance blames maps, maps blame balance, but really, they're inextricably intertwined. Proper maps account for balance, proper balance accounts for maps.

That said: Westwall.

I actually think A_E's VP placement might stand to benefit Westwall. One one hand, the munis by the base might work (hard to contest point, easy OP point) but it is also a 1v1 map, so whatever.

The harder to contest VPs kind of balance out the easier to contest fuels. It kind of looks like leftside will initially be compelled to push south, and right to push north, with each pivoting to the other side as the VP game progresses. That, or it'll end up with each taking a side and slugging out the middle. Probably the latter though I think it'd still be more dynamic than the current territory configuration.