Profile of coh2player

Some guesses:

M1917 Browning Heavy Machine Gun Team- Like Dish-ka? It won't be that great of a suppression tool then. US forces don't have much in the way of suppression.

M20- I just realized the early game significance of it having only a 50 cal., and not anything higher caliber.

With the Shermans are @120, according to the preview, 40 fuel more than stugs and 20 more than T-34/76s... making them less easy to pump out.

T3 or T4? teching decision is very similar to Vcoh.

I think they're good, but bleed manpower. If it was not for the panzershreck upgrade for late game, I don't think I would even build them.

The other CQB squad (Assault grenadiers) are pretty bad.

Players just refuse to actually take a moment to stop and think about what panzer grenadiers are.

Not directly, but have them follow up behind the tanks to support them. The rockets do 120 damage @ 160 to 180 pen each. Eventually they will get shot up, and you'll have to retreat them.

Am I the only one who even before the nerfs to the Panther (and german T4 in general with the rocketlauncher) never ever build/saw T4 anyways? Or are we talking about teamgames?

1 v 1 rarely has Ost T4.

In 3/4 v 3/4, the T4 AFVs are worth it after the first one is built.

The thing with balancing is that it should have most to do with the $$$$ bottom line (customers buying DLCs, expansion packs, future iterations of the game) and maintaining a loyal userbase that will stick to the franchise. They have surely have identified which of their customers are the purely transactional (buy, play a bit, then move on) and then, the relational (COH community).

Competitive players like you and tournament organizers that generate buzz are also factored into their schema.

This means that the devs (who know it better than anyone) would segment their constituents, their userbase, their potential userbase, and allocate their priorities in satisfying them in that order.

So if 3 v 3 is the most profitable game mode for them, then more of their attention will be directed there than other mode and so forth. This is what I think anyway, as a business person.

In the end this is a business.

I happen to have played a decent number of 2v2 and participated in a number of tournaments in that mode as well. Soviets are in my opinion unbeatable in 2v2 atm if players play on a high enough level with no major mistakes committed by either side. Although it has little to do with the reasons you mentioned here, and even less with the M3.

It's also too "early" to comment on the balance in 3v3 and 4v4. Since there has been practically no organized competitions to decide what the optimal strategies are in those game modes. Although that might soon be changing.

As for the game itself 3 v 3 and 4 v 4 are very much centered around how well 100 pop cap armies are used in the 'war of attrition'.

IME, the Soviets fare better here and it becomes less about intricate tactical play and more about mass and armor. Munitions drops, and artillery are more dominant. The German small squad sizes tends to work against them in 4 v 4. Some of the DLC commanders are clearly optimized for 3/4 v 3/4 modes rather than 1 v 1.

I think many who play these modes are casual players (transactional) and they are pretty important to relic as well.