Profile of GachiGasm

A soft retreat goes to the nearest friendly territory (would be good for nades), and a full retreat is back to base.

I honestly wish with my full heart, that CoH3 wont have any kind of soft-retreat mechanics tbh. I mean no FHQs and no soft retreats (by that I mean not the ones that involves micro), so you either dodge by micro\prediction or enjoy full trip back to the base.

Because in CoH2 FHQ and soft-retreats just ruined everything up to 2v2+ and even 2v2 to some extend, while didnt affect 1v1. But out-side of 1v1 it just brought braindead blob retreats to FHQ and back to the fight in mere seconds.

Since any kind on retreat points which allows you brirng your forces back to the fight faster are pretty much destroying one of the fundamental coh concepts, being that you dont have to wipe squads in order to win the fight, but to knock the enemy away to the base giving yourself oportunity window and time.

I still think that the main problems of the sandbags in coh2 are:

1) Being able to build them super close to the flag point, denying enemy use of your cover, still I cant undestand why sandbag size wasnt increased to allow enemy squads always be able to use your cover.

2) Sandbags arent requiring any maintaining. Its always just easy to build new one

3) Easy to build and hard to destoy. While AT guns\arty and tanks do good amount of damage, players are still unable to do anything about them in early game (when sandbags objectively at its strongest) or untill 1st AT gun. Well unless you wire enemy sandbag

I think that the 1 is the more importand aspect of why sandbags are BS in CoH2, because they almost never backfire and considering how they are used, they are always one-sided.

On which data are your arguments based on?

Its not data and its not an arguments, its my subjective opinion based on my game understanding and possabilities factions have in early\mid\late game and how they can use them to snowball.

Random allies are harder alright. But for people who actually know how to play as allies and when they are not matched with idiots its a completly different story. Axis is easier with randoms its a known fact, and pretty much easily noticable via win rates.

...

I wasnt speaking about ranks specifically, but about player skill in general. Ranks rarely means anything, unless its like rank 18-19, anything below can contain complete shitheads who just bruteforced their rank.

I cant speak much about 3v3, dispite being 3v3 fanboy for a while. After that I gave 4v4 a try and decided to stuck with it, because 3v3 is objectively shit. Starting from the shit maps, ending up with how unpredictable it is.

But speaking of USF, just give a pathfinder spam a go, at least in 4v4.
vs OKW you can go even 3 PFs into agressive ambu and just push OKW off, since it wont be able to do anything to you.
vs Ost get 2 PFs - 1 mortar into agressive ambu. Spot MG with PFs and bomb the hell out of it or smoke it, ones you get your ambu ost wont be able to out-gun you with grens.

This is how all top USF players play pretty much, full rifles stats are either requare really good micro or really good teammate coordination to be effective, considering players are equally skilled.

Well, that's a little strange to say. You do have to play a few rounds before you get players that will actually challenge you. I have the same opinion, but I've played axis games and they were a snooze fest, especially team games. I had several games where I literally did nothing and my teamates all bezerked out 3v4 and succeeded. When faced with strong adversity my teamates will hang in there as axis. As allies, they quit quick. Talking about randoms here. If allies was easy, I'd play axis, like I did in coh1. I like the challenge.

To be fair here in 3v3\4v4 allies players are usually complete apes. While there are terminal stages of stupidity on axis side aswell, for allies its much more dangerous to be a retard.

My formula is:
Total noob axis vs total noob allies - Determened by who is more retarded
Noob axis vs noob allies - in Axis favor
Mediocre axis vs mediocre Allies - more or less fair, slightly in axis favor
Good Axis vs good Allies - more or less fair, slightly in Allies favor
Pro Axis vs Pro Allies - in Allies favor

Right now, at least from my experience of 3v3\4v4 you dont have any challenges as Axis untill you hit like rank 14 in 3v3\4v4. But it still mostly determened by who you got as a teammate, so at rank 16-17 you will start facing good allies who can play the game.

I don't play Axis because I barely have to micro. It's legit boring.

While its true that Axis requare less micro, especially in teamgames, your opinion will always be 100% biased if you mostly play one side.

I mean, you can be openminded and not a fanboy, but you still will be biased.

On a topic:
Pak43 is no different to any unit which requre commander solution to killed, like:
1) You play against Howis without picking com with offmap+recon, you will have a bad time.
2) You are playing against Axis heavy spam, without strong AT offmaps, you will have a bad time.
3) You are playing against Allies TD spam without Pak43\Ele\JT, you will have a bad time.

PaK43 is strong, but you have to anticipate based on map and commanders enemy have that you might have to fight it in this game.

Also if you dont like facing it that much, just veto maps where its super strong in 3v3\4v4 there are few maps where PaK43 is indeed super strong, on most of them its manageable.