Profile of AvNY

The point is that every faction should be different, so.. Yes!

you could put Ostheer in trucks and the factions would behave and be played differently. There is too much difference for difference's sake.

But anyway, as Hagen said, each faction is a little unique.

See i think the problem is that they are TOO unique.

In comparison to factional differences in COH2, in COH1 the differences were there but were smaller. A med tent didn't = or come close to a med bunker even though they sort of served the same function. MGs looked similar, behaved similarly (both did damage, both had suppression) but came in different tiers. There were similarities (price and function) and differences (armor/mobility/veterancy, etc) to StuGs/M10s, etc. The biggest was veterancy, which was also sort of broken (but much less so) in big games.

The two factions played VERY differently. That is because an accumulation of little changes mean people will use tools differently. Each faction also had a viable way to play with mostly or all infantry (Paks/AT included) as opposed to going just for armor.

In COH2 they hit each faction with some sort of huge Difference bat. They will have different weapons, different teching, different veterancy, different late, mid and end game strengths, different things that commanders do for them. It is all TOO much difference. And to dig in and say that "difference" is the point means they are keeping themselves from adding some fixes. Adding a Pershing is not going to make the USF play like Ostheer or OKW or the SOviets. Nor is giving them some sort of elite infantry.

(this is not a recommendation but an illustration) If you had mirror image units but different teching or different ways to heal/reinforce you would still have the factions played differently and with a different feel, but the developers are so enamoured of the idea of "difference" that they apply it to everything they can find.

Added: Wehr was still easier for newer players to play because it is easier to understand positioning than mobility and because "defensive" buffed emplacements and units on the defense. It had weaknesses but the other player had to learn them then learn to execute them. Wehr had more "invisible" units which is easier for a noob to use effectively (Paks, Storms, & Goliaths). And some mechanics were Wehr favored; a medtent needed 6 (27 mp) bodies to give you one un-vetted rifle (270 mp) while a med bunker gave you a Grenadier at whatever your veterancy level for 4 (usually 22mp) bodies and was more durable.

OTOH most people came in having played the missions so they had some understanding of the US units (and some bad play habits to break as well).

but I dont think this will ever change so we will just have to away to deal with the up hill battle of the late game.
if there is a will, there is a way;-)

It probably won't change. SOmeone in development has a hardon for late game supertanks and a blind side for bad game design.

But you are wrong that people have to learn to deal with it... They can also opt not to play.

Guess which one seems to be the gaming community's response...

The problem I think the OP is addressing is multi-fold and I think highlights a flaw in the game, which is worse because the designers have expressed that the current design is not an accident but intentional.

One SHOULD NEVER design balance asymmetrically over time. Just don't. It can't work and it can't be satisfying to the players. If OKW is designed to ROFLstomp the US (only the highest level of play and in 1v1 can US hope to stop this) then the design says that US is stronger early game. But if that is the case then US must will ROFLstomp early, which is unsatisfying to the winner and frustrating to the loser. This will lead to (and has) axis saying US is too OP early, and it will seem that way because their wins will look like early game ROFLstomps. So US gets nerfed a little. Not so bad, still stronger early game, but now you have to know how to win fast or mid game while axis still ROFLstomps in end-game. But end-game stomps won't feel like they were cake walks since you had to get to that point by playing well early on. (you don't need to play THAT well since all you have to do is survive. Few factions can deal a killing blow in early game, they have to attain an adcvantage AND know how to keep and exploit it.)

If USF is so hard to play, don't sell it by itself. Don't sell it without a tutorial that teaches strategies needed for PvP. And since most people join to play with friends, don't design around 1v1 and not 3v3 4v4 since most of the community, particularly new players, play those.

They could easily have unit stats seperate for 1v1/2v2/3v3/4v4 takes more work but it'd be doable. Or change income rates or some such. There are many ways of balancing team games.

In COH1 the 4v4 maps had +5 fuels at best and if there was ever a +10 or +16 it was singular and designed to be a focus of combat. So even upgrading them got you at best another +3 fuel. But in COH2 the big maps still have fuel points and every cap point is like in 1v1s.

This doesn't make sense. Teching SHOULD be slowed in bigger games. They last longer by their very nature. More to the point, if factions are designed to be asymmetrical in strength at different points in the game then you HAVE to slow it down in bigger games and/or maps.