Profile of Vaz

Exactly, the Leig may not be as good, but it can get the job done just fine. It will put up a better fight than a mortar too. Even before the Pak nerf, I've faced plenty of people that have had success against me.

So no one knows about the server？sometimes connecting lost when the game loading.
i think this problem is important than balance.

agreed, but it's completely off topic. Just make a different thread to talk about the connection issues.

There isn't any arty imbalance, I don't know why that's in here. Aside from the non-doc rocket arty issue, the other stuff works. The panzerwerfer causes a tremendous bleed and is an excellent blob control tool. Honestly, as axis it's 100% your skill if you have difficulty in 4v4. There isn't a situation that you'll face as axis and not have an efficient and effective tool for the job.

If you don't understand scaling, I will simplify it.

The main thing you'll be looking at is how well a unit does as it's numbers increase. That's the main difference between 1v1 and 4v4, the numbers are far larger.

So for example, in 1v1 or at the start of a 4v4, a conscript squad may fight grenadiers. 1:1. This game is built on asynchronous balance, but it is still supposed to achieve a balance. So the idea is 6 men vs 4, but the 4 men get a lot of damage in while the 6 get to their most efficient range(close) and by the time this happens, the 6 are so weary that the engagement could go either way. You modify that with weapon upgrades, sight tactics, cover, and other support.

The scaling in a 1v1 will pretty much top out about what 4 allied squads vs 4 axis squads? Even at that point you'll likely start seeing the poor infantry scaling. Based on the upkeep costs alone, with axis squads costing 35-45 per model, you want each model to drop at least 2 enemy models before dying/retreating.

In 4v4 it's not uncommon to see large blobs greater than what you would see in 1v1. Sometimes they aren't even blobbed, but you still have to fight for control. Most of them you can pretty easily see you won't win before any engagement happens, but inaction isn't an option. Attempting to close can result in such an unbalanced engagement that you can see maybe 1 or 2 models drop off of an axis blob compared to an entire 3 or 4 squad allied blob mass retreat or complete elimination. This is an extreme situation I'm highlighting, but it has happened. Composition changes much of this. No you can't use heavy mg, it is much quicker to focus an hmg as axis than allied, maybe 1 squad gets suppressed, hmg won't even be able to change men after 1 dies.

When I ask other successful players how to deal with that, they always say you need a vehicle of some sort. Which of course has at least 2 tragic problems I can think of right off the top of my head. 1 is that you and your team need to be able to secure enough fuel for a vehicle(typically possible with an AVERAGE skilled team), the second is the methodical reduction of allied anti-blob tools' efficiency. Units like the scott have been finely tuned to ensure survival for axis squads. Meanwhile, the brumbar at twice the scott cost cannot be engaged by any infantry, including at guns. Scott has great smoke though, I hear.

The point of this is not to talk about vehicle balance, it's that when you scale up the unit count, axis units receive such an increase in efficiency that in the case of infantry, often times can no longer be engaged with infantry. Which isn't asynchronous balance, it's just imbalanced. The infantry alone would not be a big deal, if it weren't for the same thing happening with the tanks. The tanks are expensive, but eventually you reach a point where you have a blinged out fleet and an unstoppable set foot soldiers. Yes it can be beat, you just have to be better than the other guy, by a lot. Again, it's not balance.

In 1v1, it's all good, you aren't dealing with these scale issues. In 4v4 it leads to a lot of crazy stuff, like a general feeling by people that you can't win as allies unless you win in the first 20 minutes. If you play as axis and a teamates game crashes, you still have a chance to win. I've had some unbelievable losses to a really good stubborn axis player with an above average partner and 2 AI. Never happened playing as allies. I can kill and kill and kill, but no matter how good I am it doesn't make up for the ai being unable to do much with allied tools. It's been like this since 2013.

Every time I see stats on this game, 3v3 and 4v4 have the most players, which tells me that for the health of coh2, these two game modes are the most important by population. That said, I wouldn't want to see changes that screw up what has been done for 1v1, because it seems like most that play 1v1 are happy with the balance, and typically play all the factions. Except UKF?

Anyhow, that's my short explanation of what scaling means, it's about efficiency.

I don't really find a problem with caches, regardless of the team you are on, if you are engaging your opponent, they won't have the mp to spare for early cache to get 12 min kt. It also can't help address the difference in infantry scaling.