|
|
[code][/code]
If someone still can do this, would be nice. Because of the 30 MB patch...
+1. 3v3s are hard to cast but it looks like this one would be worth it. |
|
Would like to see this video casted. |
|
It's incredibly slow; easily flanked; 13 CP and by the way costs the equivalent of well over 300 fuel.
I think it's fine as is. Given the aforementioned cons, nerfing it would make it go the way of the Elephant (i.e., the Dodo)
|
I agree that imbalances in 1v1 can become huge issues in big tema games. I think it is time to figure out if OKW are OP in 1v1 and 2v2 matches
Here's a hint: It's not.
The game is remarkably close to balance in 1v1 and 2v2. Soviets have a slight edge in 1v1, but other than that we're close to where we need to be. Some tweaks are needed, yes, but we're very close. |
what I wnat to see:
Nurf kubel
nurf flak hq penetration
make okw pay for their lmg's for falls and obers
nurf stuka
give okw the 66% munitions back. IM TIRED OF SHREK BLOBS
make t34/85 non-doc
make priest non-doc
give usf elite troops equivalent to paras in t4 building
give usf pershing commander
buff zooks
buff Jackson pen
buff BARS
Wow, just wow.
Perfect example of why Relic balance team should largely ignore balance suggestions on community forums. Put the top players in closed beta and simply go from there. |
|
I'd be shocked if more than 10% of the people who voted they were taking a break are actually leaving. Just crybabies.
And of those 10% really leaving, most haven't been playing for a long time, often since launch. |
OKW has the best infantry and tanks throughout the game. But if you think this is an advanage, think again.
Start game it's the only point where OKW is advantaged, because of kubel.
From Middle game the fuel problem begins to be serious untill late-game and end-gam.
Virtualy, in early game you don't need vehicles, you're doing fine with good infantry and kubel.
In middle game you will begin to lose the race related to tank building and you will have to compensate with infantry and team weapons as raketen. Now those from you who played vCOH know that infantry in COH2 it's not vCOH infantry, no matter the faction. When the map begins to be filled with tanks, infantry will be torn to pieces. Volksgenadiersw with a single schreck plus raketen cannot compensate enough the lack of AT as pzgrens and PAK 40 can compensate for Ostheer. A Puma must be added. But with every vehicle you build, you delay your teching and building of others (more powerfull) vehicles. Puma it's ok, but it's not for late game. Cannot realy fight with IS2, SU-85, T34/85 and so on. So you struggle untill late game to build one or two vehicles and (remember!!) keep them alive! I can lose a T34, I will build other in 2 minutes. I lose a Puma I will build other in 5 maybe 10 minutes.
More than this choises you make are particulary more important for THIS faction because flexibility it's not its strongpoint! Which makes it quite predictable on the battlefield.
Since beginning I have to make a choice: build T2 or T3? What should I do? If you make the rong choice that will cost you dearly. No T2 start (by T2 we understand the leigh + searchlight + jgdpanzer building) will keep you safe from a tank storm. On the other hand, if you chose T3, you will have some great options good for all but your infantry will suffer because you cannot heal it. T4 it,s usefull no doubt, but you have to put it somewhat in an advanced position (this is its purpose) and therefore exposed to all kind of artillery weapons and AT weapons. I don't want to mention here how efficient is soviet howitzer or katiusha against any OKW build. Or how B4 can kill your havies or buidings from such a safe distance whithout the possibility to retaliate.
Your heavies will be expensive, verry expensive. Panther is still possible but if you manage too build 2 you are a champion. However, by the time you do that, your opponent will most probably have 4 T34/76 plus one IS2 or plus 2 T34/85.
If you want to build a KT you will wait forever while not building vehicles at all or building just one which is VERRY RISKY from reasons stated above.
So yes, OKW it's a verry nice faction to play and it's quite hard not to like it due to it's elite units, but make no mistake related to difficulty. If you are a soviet or american only player and didn't try OKW yet, you will have a shock when you will try it for the first time. I remember what a (soviet only) guy said on this forum not verry long ago. Something like: OMG begun to play today with OKW and I found myself in middle game with to few infantry and with almost no vehicles, wtf?!
As a conclusion, the specific of this faction it's "high reward - high risk" and it was like this from the beginning. That is why it's so addictive and special, and not because it's "easy to play" as some people said here. Au contraire, I realy think that only truly skilfull players can be good with this faction. The rest of players if you want to reach the top, play soviets  .
On a more serious note, a faction comparable to OKW as difficulty (though totally different) it's currently USF, but it wasn't allways like that.
+1. Soviets are definitely the strongest faction in 1v1. 2v2 things are pretty balanced with some tweaks needed.
3v3 and 4v4 are not and should not be considered for balance purposes. It ruins the game. I've been playing RTS since the mid-1990's. Everything from Warcraft 2, to Close Combat, Sid Meier's Gettysburg, Battle for Middle Earth, CoH1, DoW2. Whenever you mess with balancing based on team games you screw it up. Relic has avoided this mistake by in large with it's earlier titles, I hope all the crying on this forum doesn't change that. |
We won't be isolating ourselves from you guys, the relationship with we have with our community is important. It will simply be evolving, and it's clearly evident that needs to happen.
I'm heading home for the evening, hopefully we can all agree that we want to move on and establish a strong mutual relationship built from respect.
Thank you to those that have taken the time to share their thoughts in this thread 
Some very valid points have been raised, and we've got nothing but opportunity to grow from here!
Cynthia, I really hope this isn't a knee jerk reaction to what BreakingBrad said in a replay thread. Honestly a lot of people have thin skins and cry too much on these forums. Relic is not running for political office nor should it pander to every complaint on these boards. I see it reflected in balance patch notes as well -- pandering to a few vocal crybabies.
You don't have to publically support or condone certain actions, but you don't also have to apologize for trivial posts -- it just encourages more whining. |
Thread: 4v418 Sep 2014, 13:13 PM
I know you hate to hear it, but it's true. You can't balance the game for 3v3 and 4v4 without ruining 1v1 and 2v2.
For those of you who are CoH1 vets, you'll remember that 1v1 and 2v2 were very well balanced. 2v2 was actually a little to difficult for Axis because the Brits boost in resources made it too difficult to win early game.
But 4v4 games in CoH1 favored axis, b/c axis could actually drag out the game and get heavy tanks and buy vet 3.
It's always been like this and unless you want to homogenize the factions and make them exact mirrors of each other, you have to accept the fact that the lion's share of the balance teams efforts has to remain on 1v1 and 2v2.
|
wow
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
