I´ve seen a lot of complaints about 80% axis players searching, 100% axis players searching..but I haven´t seen a lot of complaints about 80% or more allied players....so , do you need more proofs????
when 80% players searching are axis players, is gonna take 4x time to get a game as axis than as allied....so there a is big problem there...
yeahhh, sure than maybe there 40000 games running at a time an only 8 guys searching as axis and 2 searching as allies, but that doesn´t matter, becuause the problem is the same, you need 4x time to get a game as axis....
who cares if there are 10.000 players already in a game, if only 8 guys are searching, and all of them are axis players, the problem is the same that if only 2 games are running at that time: Not enough allied players searching, no balance at all in factions of people searching for a game...
Really funny those explanations like : "no no, there are 200 players already ingame, and only 10 players searching, so its 52%-48% balance...", ok, 52%-48% but no one is getting games because only axis players searching....is helping that 52%-48% to get a game faster?? NO!
you are blind if you don´t want to see the problem here.
Sorry for my bad english.
You do hopefully realize that it is technically impossible to have 50/50 searching with such a player base? (edit: regarding its size)
edit2: As mentioned before, by definition there are as much allied players as there are axis players (in games), this whole topic is quite useless. And as you don't have as much total players like e.g. StarCraft 2, you have fixed sides and no mirror matches (which is absolutely fine for this setting), nothing will ever change about searching percentage. |
You can't prevent that... I was once called an MG spammer for buying a second MG42 to counter his 4 shocks... wtf?! 
And btw (to keep people from believing that) : not 80% of the players play axis, it's only 80% of the people searching. Massive difference  |
|
I've got the feeling that it is a lot easier to defend your fuel when starting south. Also, too much close quarter combat where the action takes place, especially bad for Ostheer. |
|
Sectors seem to be closer to north base in general, and map is to narrow.
In case it is made wider, maybe 2v2 is ok, otherwise remove it from 2v2. |
MG facing backward, over power ability
These are not details but serious issues ^^ |
Or mechanized armor for the command tank and scope upgrade also the railway artillery.
You must have mixed something up there, this combination does not exist in any commander ^^ I guess you mean mechanized support, but it only has the poor leFh |
An early sniper works well for me, but is map dependant. I managed to get 54 kills recently in a 1v1 (Semosky Winter), but yeah, it was hard nevertheless and I had less map control than he did. I saved the replay, but I guess it doesn't work anymore after the last 2 patches (at least it's not in my replay list anymore  ). |
When Blitzkrieg was only acceleration I don't remember it causing any balance problems.
Because noone used it |
Having USF faction strong early game and poor late game, and Axis one's weak early game and strong late game is an issue in COH2. The issue lies in the fact, late game, if you play well as Axis you are rewarded by having the best infantry and best tanks. Playing well as USF isn't rewarding. You mustn't play well, no, you must play BETTER than your opponent to win the match.
That is contradicting. Stronger early game of US vs weaker early game of axis would lead you to winning the game, if you play as good as your opponent does. In this scenario, you would only lose if you fail to use your strengths in the early game. |
|
Oh yeah, on a side note: many team maps are too small for team games / bigger team games. Minsk 2v2 is even worse than 1v1, same goes for Kharkov, Rzev 3v3 and some others I can't remember now. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
