Hello! Never before have I posted in this community as I tend to be more of a lurker but things have gotten way out of hand with the latest patch and I need to vent and see if people are having a similar experience. A little introduction on my side. I've been a fan of COH since the first game, played all of them a lot and I don't remember things ever being this broken even when axis had it's op streak after the introduction of OKW in COH2. Made top 100 (63rd to be exact) in 3v3 COH2 as that's what I played the most so while I'm definitely not incredible at the game I do think I am a decent player. In COH3 I mostly play 2v2 as DAK and what I say will almost exclusively be in the context of 2v2 as DAK.

What pushed me to write this post is the insane Over-tuning of the allied factions. Why do I say this? Well... In COH2 and even 3 before this patch, games tended to have some sort of ebb and flow. A strategy put to the test by each side. Be it turtling down, aggressive, deep infiltrations, head on rushes or wide flanks. People tended to try a bunch of different tactics, often playing to the strengths of their factions or sometimes simply trying something novel and new to win the game. It felt fun, challenging and gave ideas to try out myself. After the latest patch I'm not seeing this from allied players anymore(for the most part). What I am seeing is completely braindead frontal assaults with zombie hoards of extremely OP infantry that just keep charging our lines over and over again despite taking huge losses. A third of my lost games are with stats ~1.5-3 times better than our opponents (160 v 70 killed for example) and despite mowing down the allied infantry I just can't hold ground because despite taking losses, the blobs are so huge they still overwhelm me and push me off.

Why is this happening? Let me go over some core design issues rather than obvious single cheese units as those exist in most patches.

1. The main reason for the insane blobs - the manpower cheats. This coupled with allied base units being cheaper and select elite ones being downright oppressive is the main culprit of the zombie blob issue. Allies are simply not punished for taking losses even of elite infantry. In COH2 there never was a situation were you could simply blob 6 elite units and get away with it. The straight up cost would take you out of the game itself and no infantry was as survivable as it is in COH3 so aoe damage from tanks or arty would heavily punish blobs even if they were elite inf. But the idea of cheaply reinforceable infantry is no stranger to the COH series though it never worked as it does now. Conscripts in COH2 were the right way to do manpower cheats. They were a fairly versatile unit, with many disadvantages and a particular playstyle. It had a primarily defensive role and got it's strength from it's cover bonus and vet which allowed it to scale into the late game. But this unit never dealt insane damage, never had the ability to counter everything at once and blobbing it in open fields, even with manpower cheats was not viable. But most importantly, it was worse than the more expensive, more specialized units fielded by axis or other elite infantry fielded by allies. What we have in COH3 are units that are cheaper for allies to both build and reinforce(sections, rifleman), that are so survivable, that specialist AI units can't deal with them efficiently that get manpower cheats and a ton of utility on top of that or insane elite units, that counter everything, deal extreme damage, don't die and also get manpower cheats. I think, that global manpower cheats need to go. They can't apply to units like rangers, because they significantly mitigate this units only real weakness.

2. Anti everything infantry. This can be done sensibly to an extent, but should require skill to use effectively. Guns blazing while running anti everything, unkillable, unsuppressable, debuffing anything they shoot rangers that get global inf buffs and manpower cheats are a terrible design choice. If you want infantry, that does everything it should deal much less damage like the Guards rifles in COH2 or should be glass cannons, that require setup to use and are risky because of how easy it is to lose them. Same goes for footguards though to a lesser extent, but this also goes for non elite infantry like boys sections that are way too good against infantry and armor at the same time. This form of inf also breaks the classic combined arms system, because anti everything lighting fast inf will roll over your at guns in seconds and your mg will die to one of the multitude of one click air/arty strikes available to allies. Anti everything needs to go!

3. Lack of ISR for axis. This is honestly a travesty and makes arty and counter arty play as well as simple spotting very difficult for axis. The recon tractor is good, but it requires tech that is often skipped, has a range that limits it's capability to frontline intel only, can be destroyed, doesn't really work on many maps and is a much more micro intensive and difficult way to obtain intel than the multiple flares, planes and other options the allies get. This is super annoying because of the massive amounts of uncounterable recon the allies get. If allies had a plane or two, that could actually be shot down, that would be ok. But in team games allies just push you off the map by clicking a spotting plane and then a strafing plane which get shot down close to the end of their timer or not at all by vet 3 flak... There is nothing you can do about it, you just have to back up and wait till it's over while giving away the map.

4. Better and cheaper. This is a problem mostly with allied armor but also some inf(Like rifleman). Considering how much stronger allied infantry is, you would think axis would get a bit of respite in it's armor... This is not the case. The US is mostly fine in this department, though the chaffee could be a bit less effective against axis mediums considering how early and cheap it comes. But brits are a problem. The grant is a cheaper P4 with everything better (by a lot). It's main gun retains much more pen at range forcing the P4 to get close, where it's second gun will start penning the P4. It has more health and considering that the P4 is basically guaranteed to take a hit from the main gun when getting close, it is hard to win against a grant despite the P4 being more expensive and that's one on one. Add some at inf or an at gun and P4's become useless junk. The matilda is a tiger that can't deal with tanks for just over a third of the cost and that's not counting the call in unlock for DAK. Seriously, the matilda has the same armor as a tiger, actually a bit better even. It does have less HP and it can't deal with tanks, but the way it wipes inf if backed by a pair of at guns or some at inf it is extremely difficult to counter. Similar thing with the churchill IV which is a better armored tiger with a slightly worse gun for half the cost. The centaur is AA that actually does it's job while also being super punishing for inf and light armor. The only good tank axis have is the panther and the tiger for WH, because the way DAK's tiger is locked away it is unviable unless you are winning hard.

5. Skill planes and one-click wonder off-maps. This is just... No comment really. The axis have good air support, but it is expensive and actually counterable. I will admit, the Stuka AT strafe is the best in the game but again. Expensive, late and counterable. Meanwhile, the allies get a million different one-click arty or air call ins. The airplanes just don't die and the arty is uncounterable. This makes the blob so much worse, because even if I manage to keep it in check, my opponent just clicks the call in and I now have to retreat and let the blob take my points. It's come to the point, that as DAK I will use an off-map ability two, maybe three times in the late game and that's it while the allied player spams no skill one-click wonders with every attack starting in like the 3rd minute. This is simply cancer and is extremely demotivating. DAK really needs some more off-maps that aren't late game.

Rant over. That's most of what I think is wrong with the balance atm. Let me know if you've had similar experiences and let me know what you agree/disagree with. Thanks!

DAK has a 48.2% win rate in 2v2 this patch, versus 51.9% last patch.  So the 1.8% lower than the mean is somehow unprecedented, but it was perfectly fine when it was 1.9% more than the mean?

Grumpy21 wrote:

DAK has a 48.2% win rate in 2v2 this patch, versus 51.9% last patch.  So the 1.8% lower than the mean is somehow unprecedented, but it was perfectly fine when it was 1.9% more than the mean?

Hard to imagine you’d ever get a situation where all factions had a perfect 50% win rate in an asymmetrical game, particularly in team games where there are far more variables to consider. Plus just quoting win rates at someone doesn’t really address the fairly reasonable points made does it? Brain dead blobs are an issue for both axis and allies and there are far less counters to them than there were in coh2, particularly something like rangers which are tough to suppress or take out with anti infantry vehicles.

The Brits needed some help in the last patch and it feels like Relic hit the right units and areas where they were struggling the most, but as the OP says, the grant is a bit too strong for its cost currently. Sure it can be a bit derpy given the lack of a main turret but it manages fine regardless unless it’s a tight map with a lot of corners to deal with. It needed to be made more relevant and to make up for the lack of a tank destroyer which all other factions have access to, however it’s probably far too cheap for its performance. The p4 is probably still the best all round medium tank but given how good and cost effective hellcats, easy8’s and grants are comparatively it probably needs to be cheaper to hold any kind of relevance. It performance seems decent to me but the cost is a bit mad considering its opposition.

The manpower reductions the US have are tough to compete with, particularly for DAK. If you don’t beat them early you’ll end up losing the long game pretty decisively. Plus the changes to armoured battlegroup create a situation where you’re going to be facing a much larger, far more cost effective and powerful army than you can field. Is it beatable? Sure, but the odds are not in your favour the longer a game goes. I’ve played games as the US where I’ve been floating 1500 manpower without anything to spend it on besides filling the map with fighting positions, which are another thing that need rebalancing for that matter. No other faction has anything close to that kind of luxury. The Brits and wehr have their mp reductions in 2 battle groups but they pop cap a lot earlier if they start blobbing elite call in troops around. US don’t really need elites in my experience. Rifles will trade with anything and armoured bg has too many benefits to not almost be an auto pick. Rangers are pretty brain dead and carpet bombs are nuts, but neither compare to having a huge army that costs next to nothing to replace or reinforce. 

I honestly don’t mind the off maps all that much, but most of them do need some adjustments. AT loiters have always been an issue, huge offmap barrages etc too. The chaos is amusing though, just wish they were a bit more predictable and avoidable with proper play.

All that said, DAK and Wehr both have some pretty ridiculous cheese in their battlegroups and units also which I’d like to see addressed, but that doesn’t make the above points from the OP irrelevant any more than win rates do.

No coh game has ever been perfectly balanced, I can’t imagine how that would ever be possible given its design - which isn’t a criticism, just a recognition of how the game is supposed to work. Cheese strats can always be addressed though and effective counters to powerful units and strategies, however brain dead, can always be added. 

amateurshutin wrote:

Grumpy21 wrote:

DAK has a 48.2% win rate in 2v2 this patch, versus 51.9% last patch.  So the 1.8% lower than the mean is somehow unprecedented, but it was perfectly fine when it was 1.9% more than the mean?

Hard to imagine you’d ever get a situation where all factions had a perfect 50% win rate in an asymmetrical game, particularly in team games where there are far more variables to consider. Plus just quoting win rates at someone doesn’t really address the fairly reasonable points made does it? Brain dead blobs are an issue for both axis and allies and there are far less counters to them than there were in coh2, particularly something like rangers which are tough to suppress or take out with anti infantry vehicles.

The Brits needed some help in the last patch and it feels like Relic hit the right units and areas where they were struggling the most, but as the OP says, the grant is a bit too strong for its cost currently. Sure it can be a bit derpy given the lack of a main turret but it manages fine regardless unless it’s a tight map with a lot of corners to deal with. It needed to be made more relevant and to make up for the lack of a tank destroyer which all other factions have access to, however it’s probably far too cheap for its performance. The p4 is probably still the best all round medium tank but given how good and cost effective hellcats, easy8’s and grants are comparatively it probably needs to be cheaper to hold any kind of relevance. It performance seems decent to me but the cost is a bit mad considering its opposition.

The manpower reductions the US have are tough to compete with, particularly for DAK. If you don’t beat them early you’ll end up losing the long game pretty decisively. Plus the changes to armoured battlegroup create a situation where you’re going to be facing a much larger, far more cost effective and powerful army than you can field. Is it beatable? Sure, but the odds are not in your favour the longer a game goes. I’ve played games as the US where I’ve been floating 1500 manpower without anything to spend it on besides filling the map with fighting positions, which are another thing that need rebalancing for that matter. No other faction has anything close to that kind of luxury. The Brits and wehr have their mp reductions in 2 battle groups but they pop cap a lot earlier if they start blobbing elite call in troops around. US don’t really need elites in my experience. Rifles will trade with anything and armoured bg has too many benefits to not almost be an auto pick. Rangers are pretty brain dead and carpet bombs are nuts, but neither compare to having a huge army that costs next to nothing to replace or reinforce. 

I honestly don’t mind the off maps all that much, but most of them do need some adjustments. AT loiters have always been an issue, huge offmap barrages etc too. The chaos is amusing though, just wish they were a bit more predictable and avoidable with proper play.

All that said, DAK and Wehr both have some pretty ridiculous cheese in their battlegroups and units also which I’d like to see addressed, but that doesn’t make the above points from the OP irrelevant any more than win rates do.

No coh game has ever been perfectly balanced, I can’t imagine how that would ever be possible given its design - which isn’t a criticism, just a recognition of how the game is supposed to work. Cheese strats can always be addressed though and effective counters to powerful units and strategies, however brain dead, can always be added. 

I struggle to understand when people will get this through their thick skulls - its become a bit of a pet peeve with me so here goes.

The matchmaker uses your ELO for match making, hence the win rate will hover around 50% - since your skill has a different measure for each faction/game mode, it will adjust up or down until it hits a point where you will win 50% of the time. The balance gets upset whenever there is a balance patch, and it will bounce around a bit as strategies and counter strategies are developed.

Don't believe me - go look at the leaderboards https://coh3stats.com/leaderboards?race=american&type=1v1
Look at the top tier players, notice the top ELO ratings, DAK are about 100 points behind that USF and UKF; This is not only in the general stats max DAK elo ~1900 max USF elo ~2000, but also in the players individual stats, try picking a player, they are almost all "better" players when they play anything else than DAK. 

I mean .. you could just throw a machinegun into the mix and have that elite infantry suppressed in no time.

Or drop some walking stuka on them, that does that massive AOE damage you were looking for while giving no flare indication which can punish that blobbing.

I wish people would stop making excuses and denying the blatant and horrible imbalance, its become very simple for Me I havent played in 3 weeks and I am not going to play agian until I see for 100% the Axis factions and Players are getting a fair shake in terms of unit costs and effectiveness and also ease of use needs to be brought into consideration into costs  and etc Im sure you all  know exactly what im talking about if u take the time to honestly think about it.....

 But based on patching history and the ridiculous amount of allied favoritism I.e. buffing stuff that is already broken consistently while nerfing  Axis items that Are deemed "Too Good" becuase they give the Axis a slight....very slight chance to stay In the game....

Judging on the trends it will be a loooong time before i pick this up agian.....  And you know what Im okay with that I have so much less frustration during my day without Coh3 and its Horrible ALlied favored balance.

Koenig wrote:

amateurshutin wrote:

Grumpy21 wrote:

DAK has a 48.2% win rate in 2v2 this patch, versus 51.9% last patch.  So the 1.8% lower than the mean is somehow unprecedented, but it was perfectly fine when it was 1.9% more than the mean?

Hard to imagine you’d ever get a situation where all factions had a perfect 50% win rate in an asymmetrical game, particularly in team games where there are far more variables to consider. Plus just quoting win rates at someone doesn’t really address the fairly reasonable points made does it? Brain dead blobs are an issue for both axis and allies and there are far less counters to them than there were in coh2, particularly something like rangers which are tough to suppress or take out with anti infantry vehicles.

The Brits needed some help in the last patch and it feels like Relic hit the right units and areas where they were struggling the most, but as the OP says, the grant is a bit too strong for its cost currently. Sure it can be a bit derpy given the lack of a main turret but it manages fine regardless unless it’s a tight map with a lot of corners to deal with. It needed to be made more relevant and to make up for the lack of a tank destroyer which all other factions have access to, however it’s probably far too cheap for its performance. The p4 is probably still the best all round medium tank but given how good and cost effective hellcats, easy8’s and grants are comparatively it probably needs to be cheaper to hold any kind of relevance. It performance seems decent to me but the cost is a bit mad considering its opposition.

The manpower reductions the US have are tough to compete with, particularly for DAK. If you don’t beat them early you’ll end up losing the long game pretty decisively. Plus the changes to armoured battlegroup create a situation where you’re going to be facing a much larger, far more cost effective and powerful army than you can field. Is it beatable? Sure, but the odds are not in your favour the longer a game goes. I’ve played games as the US where I’ve been floating 1500 manpower without anything to spend it on besides filling the map with fighting positions, which are another thing that need rebalancing for that matter. No other faction has anything close to that kind of luxury. The Brits and wehr have their mp reductions in 2 battle groups but they pop cap a lot earlier if they start blobbing elite call in troops around. US don’t really need elites in my experience. Rifles will trade with anything and armoured bg has too many benefits to not almost be an auto pick. Rangers are pretty brain dead and carpet bombs are nuts, but neither compare to having a huge army that costs next to nothing to replace or reinforce. 

I honestly don’t mind the off maps all that much, but most of them do need some adjustments. AT loiters have always been an issue, huge offmap barrages etc too. The chaos is amusing though, just wish they were a bit more predictable and avoidable with proper play.

All that said, DAK and Wehr both have some pretty ridiculous cheese in their battlegroups and units also which I’d like to see addressed, but that doesn’t make the above points from the OP irrelevant any more than win rates do.

No coh game has ever been perfectly balanced, I can’t imagine how that would ever be possible given its design - which isn’t a criticism, just a recognition of how the game is supposed to work. Cheese strats can always be addressed though and effective counters to powerful units and strategies, however brain dead, can always be added. 

I struggle to understand when people will get this through their thick skulls - its become a bit of a pet peeve with me so here goes.

The matchmaker uses your ELO for match making, hence the win rate will hover around 50% - since your skill has a different measure for each faction/game mode, it will adjust up or down until it hits a point where you will win 50% of the time. The balance gets upset whenever there is a balance patch, and it will bounce around a bit as strategies and counter strategies are developed.

Don't believe me - go look at the leaderboards https://coh3stats.com/leaderboards?race=american&type=1v1
Look at the top tier players, notice the top ELO ratings, DAK are about 100 points behind that USF and UKF; This is not only in the general stats max DAK elo ~1900 max USF elo ~2000, but also in the players individual stats, try picking a player, they are almost all "better" players when they play anything else than DAK. 

Apologies, I was probably out drinking meths the day they taught statistics at school. Focus on the percentages if you find value in it, my point was more that just quoting the numbers in response to someone’s thoughts on unit balance doesn’t particularly help further a discussion. My point as far as the perfect 50% goes was more about how you could conceivably balance a game perfectly where each faction has completely different units, timings, power spikes etc. Seems to me reaching a game state where everyone is happy with how the factions match up is almost impossible, particularly when half the people who play it think that the devs have an allied bias and most of the other half only ever lose games because of balance issues.

amateurshutin wrote:

Koenig wrote:

amateurshutin wrote:

Grumpy21 wrote:

DAK has a 48.2% win rate in 2v2 this patch, versus 51.9% last patch.  So the 1.8% lower than the mean is somehow unprecedented, but it was perfectly fine when it was 1.9% more than the mean?

Hard to imagine you’d ever get a situation where all factions had a perfect 50% win rate in an asymmetrical game, particularly in team games where there are far more variables to consider. Plus just quoting win rates at someone doesn’t really address the fairly reasonable points made does it? Brain dead blobs are an issue for both axis and allies and there are far less counters to them than there were in coh2, particularly something like rangers which are tough to suppress or take out with anti infantry vehicles.

The Brits needed some help in the last patch and it feels like Relic hit the right units and areas where they were struggling the most, but as the OP says, the grant is a bit too strong for its cost currently. Sure it can be a bit derpy given the lack of a main turret but it manages fine regardless unless it’s a tight map with a lot of corners to deal with. It needed to be made more relevant and to make up for the lack of a tank destroyer which all other factions have access to, however it’s probably far too cheap for its performance. The p4 is probably still the best all round medium tank but given how good and cost effective hellcats, easy8’s and grants are comparatively it probably needs to be cheaper to hold any kind of relevance. It performance seems decent to me but the cost is a bit mad considering its opposition.

The manpower reductions the US have are tough to compete with, particularly for DAK. If you don’t beat them early you’ll end up losing the long game pretty decisively. Plus the changes to armoured battlegroup create a situation where you’re going to be facing a much larger, far more cost effective and powerful army than you can field. Is it beatable? Sure, but the odds are not in your favour the longer a game goes. I’ve played games as the US where I’ve been floating 1500 manpower without anything to spend it on besides filling the map with fighting positions, which are another thing that need rebalancing for that matter. No other faction has anything close to that kind of luxury. The Brits and wehr have their mp reductions in 2 battle groups but they pop cap a lot earlier if they start blobbing elite call in troops around. US don’t really need elites in my experience. Rifles will trade with anything and armoured bg has too many benefits to not almost be an auto pick. Rangers are pretty brain dead and carpet bombs are nuts, but neither compare to having a huge army that costs next to nothing to replace or reinforce. 

I honestly don’t mind the off maps all that much, but most of them do need some adjustments. AT loiters have always been an issue, huge offmap barrages etc too. The chaos is amusing though, just wish they were a bit more predictable and avoidable with proper play.

All that said, DAK and Wehr both have some pretty ridiculous cheese in their battlegroups and units also which I’d like to see addressed, but that doesn’t make the above points from the OP irrelevant any more than win rates do.

No coh game has ever been perfectly balanced, I can’t imagine how that would ever be possible given its design - which isn’t a criticism, just a recognition of how the game is supposed to work. Cheese strats can always be addressed though and effective counters to powerful units and strategies, however brain dead, can always be added. 

I struggle to understand when people will get this through their thick skulls - its become a bit of a pet peeve with me so here goes.

The matchmaker uses your ELO for match making, hence the win rate will hover around 50% - since your skill has a different measure for each faction/game mode, it will adjust up or down until it hits a point where you will win 50% of the time. The balance gets upset whenever there is a balance patch, and it will bounce around a bit as strategies and counter strategies are developed.

Don't believe me - go look at the leaderboards https://coh3stats.com/leaderboards?race=american&type=1v1
Look at the top tier players, notice the top ELO ratings, DAK are about 100 points behind that USF and UKF; This is not only in the general stats max DAK elo ~1900 max USF elo ~2000, but also in the players individual stats, try picking a player, they are almost all "better" players when they play anything else than DAK. 

Apologies, I was probably out drinking meths the day they taught statistics at school. Focus on the percentages if you find value in it, my point was more that just quoting the numbers in response to someone’s thoughts on unit balance doesn’t particularly help further a discussion. My point as far as the perfect 50% goes was more about how you could conceivably balance a game perfectly where each faction has completely different units, timings, power spikes etc. Seems to me reaching a game state where everyone is happy with how the factions match up is almost impossible, particularly when half the people who play it think that the devs have an allied bias and most of the other half only ever lose games because of balance issues.

Priceless :D

Anyway, I agree on the balancing point, its never going to be perfect - main reason being that 1v1 balances very differently from 4v4 - Reason being (I think) that when there are more players involved - DAK particular can more freely specialize on the units in their side techs/battle groups without being easily countered. In 1v1 your choices can severely hamstring you.

I would absolutely love it if the focus was shifted to balance 1v1 primarily instead of 4v4, doing it the other way round makes seems to create blob-centric strategies too strong. 

Koenig wrote:

amateurshutin wrote:

Koenig wrote:

amateurshutin wrote:

Grumpy21 wrote:

DAK has a 48.2% win rate in 2v2 this patch, versus 51.9% last patch.  So the 1.8% lower than the mean is somehow unprecedented, but it was perfectly fine when it was 1.9% more than the mean?

Hard to imagine you’d ever get a situation where all factions had a perfect 50% win rate in an asymmetrical game, particularly in team games where there are far more variables to consider. Plus just quoting win rates at someone doesn’t really address the fairly reasonable points made does it? Brain dead blobs are an issue for both axis and allies and there are far less counters to them than there were in coh2, particularly something like rangers which are tough to suppress or take out with anti infantry vehicles.

The Brits needed some help in the last patch and it feels like Relic hit the right units and areas where they were struggling the most, but as the OP says, the grant is a bit too strong for its cost currently. Sure it can be a bit derpy given the lack of a main turret but it manages fine regardless unless it’s a tight map with a lot of corners to deal with. It needed to be made more relevant and to make up for the lack of a tank destroyer which all other factions have access to, however it’s probably far too cheap for its performance. The p4 is probably still the best all round medium tank but given how good and cost effective hellcats, easy8’s and grants are comparatively it probably needs to be cheaper to hold any kind of relevance. It performance seems decent to me but the cost is a bit mad considering its opposition.

The manpower reductions the US have are tough to compete with, particularly for DAK. If you don’t beat them early you’ll end up losing the long game pretty decisively. Plus the changes to armoured battlegroup create a situation where you’re going to be facing a much larger, far more cost effective and powerful army than you can field. Is it beatable? Sure, but the odds are not in your favour the longer a game goes. I’ve played games as the US where I’ve been floating 1500 manpower without anything to spend it on besides filling the map with fighting positions, which are another thing that need rebalancing for that matter. No other faction has anything close to that kind of luxury. The Brits and wehr have their mp reductions in 2 battle groups but they pop cap a lot earlier if they start blobbing elite call in troops around. US don’t really need elites in my experience. Rifles will trade with anything and armoured bg has too many benefits to not almost be an auto pick. Rangers are pretty brain dead and carpet bombs are nuts, but neither compare to having a huge army that costs next to nothing to replace or reinforce. 

I honestly don’t mind the off maps all that much, but most of them do need some adjustments. AT loiters have always been an issue, huge offmap barrages etc too. The chaos is amusing though, just wish they were a bit more predictable and avoidable with proper play.

All that said, DAK and Wehr both have some pretty ridiculous cheese in their battlegroups and units also which I’d like to see addressed, but that doesn’t make the above points from the OP irrelevant any more than win rates do.

No coh game has ever been perfectly balanced, I can’t imagine how that would ever be possible given its design - which isn’t a criticism, just a recognition of how the game is supposed to work. Cheese strats can always be addressed though and effective counters to powerful units and strategies, however brain dead, can always be added. 

I struggle to understand when people will get this through their thick skulls - its become a bit of a pet peeve with me so here goes.

The matchmaker uses your ELO for match making, hence the win rate will hover around 50% - since your skill has a different measure for each faction/game mode, it will adjust up or down until it hits a point where you will win 50% of the time. The balance gets upset whenever there is a balance patch, and it will bounce around a bit as strategies and counter strategies are developed.

Don't believe me - go look at the leaderboards https://coh3stats.com/leaderboards?race=american&type=1v1
Look at the top tier players, notice the top ELO ratings, DAK are about 100 points behind that USF and UKF; This is not only in the general stats max DAK elo ~1900 max USF elo ~2000, but also in the players individual stats, try picking a player, they are almost all "better" players when they play anything else than DAK. 

Apologies, I was probably out drinking meths the day they taught statistics at school. Focus on the percentages if you find value in it, my point was more that just quoting the numbers in response to someone’s thoughts on unit balance doesn’t particularly help further a discussion. My point as far as the perfect 50% goes was more about how you could conceivably balance a game perfectly where each faction has completely different units, timings, power spikes etc. Seems to me reaching a game state where everyone is happy with how the factions match up is almost impossible, particularly when half the people who play it think that the devs have an allied bias and most of the other half only ever lose games because of balance issues.

Priceless :D

Anyway, I agree on the balancing point, its never going to be perfect - main reason being that 1v1 balances very differently from 4v4 - Reason being (I think) that when there are more players involved - DAK particular can more freely specialize on the units in their side techs/battle groups without being easily countered. In 1v1 your choices can severely hamstring you.

I would absolutely love it if the focus was shifted to balance 1v1 primarily instead of 4v4, doing it the other way round makes seems to create blob-centric strategies too strong. 

100%. I think 1v1 would be the only game mode where you’d have any real hope of balancing the factions. Maybe high level 2s at a push, but the less variables the better. I can barely follow a 4v4 game so I’ve no idea what useful information you’d be able to get from one, it’s just wall to wall chaos. Just get the 1s game as close as possible and let Darwin sort out everything else. 

play axis is the original sin 

Lot of people playing brits now and they blob engs and dingo and it's an indestructible comb early game.. wehr have nothing that can damage it really, completely sweeps them and dak HT loses to dingo

Most people who main allies can't accept they don't have the skill the factions require.

"What is the win rate of axis on top 100, In tournament games mostly allies wins with dominated state... " - youtubecomment

"Always been the same in most coh games, it's due to the skill usually needed to use the more mobile factions." - AE's reply

"So basically it's a design choice that playing mobile factions(Allies) need more skill than Axis side ? Or my english is failing me ?" - youtubecomment reply

"I think so yes, it's always been that way, with Wehrmacht expected to defend more and allies mainly USF and Soviets expected to attack more. It's not always the case but is a general rule of thumb that applies to all three games. Brits do tend to do better on the defense in all three games, and OKW, PE, and DAK are more offensive minded in the early game. But yes it's the general rule of thumb that Allies = mobility and trickiness of play and Axis = heavy defense enjoyment. " AE's reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytlj9USRohE


There are still a couple of axis units that are still good relic, please nerf Flakvierling Half-track truck, Brummbar and Fallschirmpioneer Squad. Once this is done your mission will be complete.

MrDominicDuffy wrote:

Most people who main allies can't accept they don't have the skill the factions require.

"What is the win rate of axis on top 100, In tournament games mostly allies wins with dominated state... " - youtubecomment

"Always been the same in most coh games, it's due to the skill usually needed to use the more mobile factions." - AE's reply

"So basically it's a design choice that playing mobile factions(Allies) need more skill than Axis side ? Or my english is failing me ?" - youtubecomment reply

"I think so yes, it's always been that way, with Wehrmacht expected to defend more and allies mainly USF and Soviets expected to attack more. It's not always the case but is a general rule of thumb that applies to all three games. Brits do tend to do better on the defense in all three games, and OKW, PE, and DAK are more offensive minded in the early game. But yes it's the general rule of thumb that Allies = mobility and trickiness of play and Axis = heavy defense enjoyment. " AE's reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytlj9USRohE


There are still a couple of axis units that are still good relic, please nerf Flakvierling Half-track truck, Brummbar and Fallschirmpioneer Squad. Once this is done your mission will be complete.

What mission do you think they have?

Reddit mains allies and just doesn't have the skill, the cope comes mainly from there and perpetuates throughout the communities.

Once you get to the higher elos 3v3, 4v4 you'll get creamed as the axis, but most never do.

DAK is broken as they need a 250 for early healing and the buff it provides (Not to mention early clown carring to remove garrisons). 250 is countered by the dingo so hard and is so weak due to nerf you are basically a squad down from the start.

Ok so we'll skip the 250 go motorcycle (doesn't give light vehicle buff), what's this all our squads are on low health. Bad luck my friend you need to wait for an ambulance or commit to losing more MP. This MP is desperately need for vehicle up grades if you P3s want to stand up to allied armour. You can skip T3 and stay T2 but your late game is going to be a struggle.

DAK reminds me of a Tyranid army's with synapse creatures, except in this case the synapse creatures all kinda suck. If you are fighting the good fight against top tier opponents the tiger will not see the light of day. (It's frontal armour could also use a buff to 320 instead of 300)

Everyone is bias one way or another, so I could be completely wrong. :)

MrDominicDuffy wrote:

Reddit mains allies and just doesn't have the skill, the cope comes mainly from there and perpetuates throughout the communities.

Once you get to the higher elos 3v3, 4v4 you'll get creamed as the axis, but most never do.

DAK is broken as they need a 250 for early healing and the buff it provides (Not to mention early clown carring to remove garrisons). 250 is countered by the dingo so hard and is so weak due to nerf you are basically a squad down from the start.

Ok so we'll skip the 250 go motorcycle (doesn't give light vehicle buff), what's this all our squads are on low health. Bad luck my friend you need to wait for an ambulance or commit to losing more MP. This MP is desperately need for vehicle up grades if you P3s want to stand up to allied armour. You can skip T3 and stay T2 but your late game is going to be a struggle.

DAK reminds me of a Tyranid army's with synapse creatures, except in this case the synapse creatures all kinda suck. If you are fighting the good fight against top tier opponents the tiger will not see the light of day. (It's frontal armour could also use a buff to 320 instead of 300)

Everyone is bias one way or another, so I could be completely wrong. :)

You lost me at mains lol. Never had much time for the axis/allied cults in the community, just seems bad for the brain cells. Appreciate some of the pretty unique issues DAK have, all 4 have their weak points. I don’t understand what that has to do with Reddit threads or how that’s part of a plan though? 

Buff the 250

The dingo needed a buff but the nerf was too much on the 250

Fix the 250 you fix DAK IMO :)

just remove this piece of shit! and there will be no problems with balance) what kind of game did you want? from clowns))

Also P3 is in a really bad stop, smoke feels cheap but really these things are like pop corn to real allied tanks,  two chaffees can cream a P3. I'm going to stop building them and try something else. 

I'd like to see more versatility in DAK maybe put the P3 in tier 2 and P4 in tier 3.

They need a main tank

Hate to double post, but DAK is broken because that they start with infinity as their last viable option (they need a mortar) (250 is currently paper)

It was balanced before with a strong 250 flame car coming out the same time as british anti tank and american zooks.

You cannot remove garrison anymore with the state of the 250 or flank mgs. you just have infinity coming up against mgs motors and dingos. Once you are pushed back the americans usually plant their becons or motor pits (with your less reasources you are coming up against a bigger and bigger army)

This game clearly isn't balance for team games :(

Allies who know what they are doing will destroy DAK. DAK need more initial versatility.