Why Ostheer is in a bad spot

First of all, this is about 1v1 with equally skilled players.
IMO, Ostheer is really in a bad spot, for three reasons:

1. Map pool
2. Commanders
3. Playstyle

1: You simply do not have enough vetos to veto maps which favor at least one of your opponents. The worst maps are:
- Stalingrad: No need to say anything more.
- La Gleize: It's again a map with close quarter combat (CQC) everywhere you will fight. Vs Sovs you are fucked because they are best at CQC. Vs US you simply can't use your MG42 which are vital, as you will be flanked easily. Builings are also a bad idea, as riflemen can just beat you garrison vs garrison. And don't you ever think of a sniper on this map.
- Kholodny winter: Not vetoing blizzard maps is stupid, as CQC experts will just storm the fuck out of you.
- Minsk Pocket / Road to Kharkov: Who ever thought it would be fun to have such narrow maps with 3 "tunnels"? Su85 & ISU rule supreme on this map. Altough I guess Kharkov is not as bad as Minsk.

2: You almost have no choice which commanders to take with you.
- On some maps you have no chance at all to counter an ISU without an elephant, so slot 1 goes to one of these two. Even if it's a different map, going against this one-shot-wonder without an elephant is risky.
- Some of the CQC-favored maps get better, if you have Assgrens with you. Still they don't scale well into late game and are mainly useful vs US. Plus, you need to own them at first because they are paid DLC (don't hope for warspoils). But in case you own them (sadly you should), commander slot 2 goes to Assgrens.

This leaves you with one commander you can choose on your own - yay!

3: Due to points 1 and 2 and the fact the enemy can field light vehicles as their first unit (in case you see that US doc in his selection), you basically are unable to choose a build order to pressure your enemy. All Ostheer is doing in the early game is react. While the other 3 factions can try to put pressure on their enemy and force them to play their game, Ostheer must stick to play safe & defensively, keep their units togehter and hope they survive long enough.

I don't know if these points can be adressed without a massive redesign of OH, which will surely not happen, so honestly I don't know if things will ever get better for OH. A step in the right direction would be to remove Stalingrad forever, but that would be a small step and not adress the most glaring issues. Also, redesigning a big amount of the maps might help a lot, but this won't happen either.

And again (to at least prevent a part of the flaming / hating): this is my opinion, based on my experience with and versus OH. Now discuss!

from all the games i played USF against OSF, OST are super strong.
1: LMG Grens wipe the Floor
2: Ost Mortar Is a Machine Gun Mortar with pin Point accuracy
3: Mg42 can denies large areas and is easily assessable be in T1
4: i admit that Ost T3 doesn't do as well against USF due to the M36 TD
5: the pak is awesome with its long range and fast fire rate
6: the tiger is awesome against Usf, as usf armour are mad of cardboard lol

Made a post about how bad Ostheer performs awhile ago. It basically comes down to, as you noted, the map (half the map in the games are bad for Germans, a few are just hell), and weak early game.


Now if you do get a nice and balanced map (i.e. Langreskaya), your only option is to play defense. This means keep your Grens and MGs together at all times. If you don't, your grens will lose to superior Riflemen and Conscripts and MGs will get flanked. This forces you to have to play particularly cautious and strategic whereas the Allied player generally has free reign over 60% of the map for the first 15 minutes.

Now if you somehow make it past this time with decent map control as Ostheer, you're looking pretty good.

Basically Ostheer suck because Grens tend to die to RNG ("sniped") by Rifle fire whereas a conscript squad can more or less avoid this with 6 members. American Riflemen will always destroy a Gren squad 1v1, at any range, and conscripts nearly always win at close and medium range. Combine this with Soviet Cars and American Cars/AA Halftrack; you have a faction that needs large combined Arms and immobile strategy to also contend with vehicles.

As a note: the balance with Soviets isn't that bad - it's mostly vs. Americans where the Ostheer player needs a Pak ~7 min in the game to effectively contend with AA halftrack.

OKW avoids the problem og Ostheer since Volks, despite their crap damage, can hold the line well with their high durability and get a Puma out quickly to contend with AA Halftrack.

I wouldnt really blame the maps. If you think that you can create a strategy that works for every map, then the chances of the opponent abusing weaknesses is high. Also, it seems you are confining yourself to using commanders, dont do this, ive taken on ISU's without elephants before. Your commander complements your strategy, so if you want long range AT damage get an elephant, if not then dont. Part of this game is changing your strategy and being flexible, focusing on this will help alot of players.

I wouldnt really blame the maps. If you think that you can create a strategy that works for every map, then the chances of the opponent abusing weaknesses is high. Also, it seems you are confining yourself to using commanders, dont do this, ive taken on ISU's without elephants before. Your commander complements your strategy, so if you want long range AT damage get an elephant, if not then dont. Part of this game is changing your strategy and being flexible, focusing on this will help alot of players.

True to an extent, but not on maps like Le Gleize or Stalingrad.

from all the games i played USF against OSF, OST are super strong.
[...]

I did not say that OH is weak, because I don't think that OH is weak in general. There are just too many maps, which heavily favor your enemies.

1: LMG Grens wipe the Floor

LMG Grens in Stalingrad won't help you much, as this is CQC.

2: Ost Mortar Is a Machine Gun Mortar with pin Point accuracy

It's definitely great, but it will not compensate for OHs weaknesses on certain maps (if you're being overrun on CQC maps).

3: Mg42 can denies large areas and is easily assessable be in T1

It can only deny areas on maps where you won't be flanked all the time like Stalingrad / La Gleize by rifles.

4: i admit that Ost T3 doesn't do as well against USF due to the M36 TD

I think OH T3 is fine, you just need to support with PaK40 & PzGrens with Schrecks.

5: the pak is awesome with its long range and fast fire rate

Will die to flanks in CQC maps like La Gleize / Stalingrad etc. in no time.

6: the tiger is awesome against Usf, as usf armour are mad of cardboard lol

Indeed, it is probably OHs best anti-US weapon. But the game is probably already decided before it hits the field if automatch chose the wrong map.


This is not a "OH weak, buff plz" thread, but about the maps that in too many cases favor the other side in OH matches and thus force the same lame gameplay over and over again.

I wouldnt really blame the maps. If you think that you can create a strategy that works for every map, then the chances of the opponent abusing weaknesses is high. Also, it seems you are confining yourself to using commanders, dont do this, ive taken on ISU's without elephants before. Your commander complements your strategy, so if you want long range AT damage get an elephant, if not then dont. Part of this game is changing your strategy and being flexible, focusing on this will help alot of players.

I don't think that there exists a single strategy that is successful on every map and I did not state this in OP. And I also don't try to rely on commanders that much, but you can't tell me that on certain maps you can deal with your enemy without certain doctrinal units. Stalingrad without Assgrens against an enemy on your level is basically gg, no matter if it's Sov or US.
And concerning ISU: I once managed to kill a full health ISU with a Stug3G 1v1, but guess what: the other player did not play well. You can't tell me that an enemy of equal skill with an ISU on Minsk can be beaten without an Elephant roughly half of the times. In most cases the ISU will bleed you, while pois mine the few choke points and other untis protect the ISU.

As a note: the balance with Soviets isn't that bad - it's mostly vs. Americans where the Ostheer player needs a Pak ~7 min in the game to effectively contend with AA halftrack.

Well I think you wouldn't disagree that Stalingrad is just plain stupid and Minsk / Kharkov vs ISU without an Elephant... MVGame.

I agree that the maps are making it difficult to play as Ostheer. Last few games as Ostheer I can tell I'm outplaying my opponent but due to map imbalance I easily get flanked by Rifles. One successful flank and it's a steep climb to secure a decent amount of territory again.
I don't even know why Stalingrad is in the rotation again, it's the shittiest map in all of COH2.
LaGelz and even Faymonville are heavily US favored because of buildings and several avenues for flanks. I used to veto Kharkov, Minsk and LaGlez but thanks to Stalingrad being back I have to contend with 2 Allied favored maps (LaGlez and Faymoville).

Tiger is best anti USF weapon? It's the best anti everything weapon. It's carrying ostheer, and therein lies the problem. Remove the tiger and Ost are broken, so we can say at least they need a bit of a redesign.

Now if you do get a nice and balanced map (i.e. Langreskaya), your only option is to play defense. This means keep your Grens and MGs together at all times.

You mean, your only option is to play reasonably well instead of raging across the map, gibbing riflemen left and right, while floating 1000+ MP and teching?

Yeah.

What's next, actual consequences to your tech choice and timing? Don't be silly.

a lot of issues of the ostheer can be resolved if the bp 2 cost 20 fuel less. to compensate bp 3 cost 20 fuel more.

bp 1 should cost a bit less (30 fuel), so ostheer can actually get a 222 out before 6 mins to counter m3flamer start spams (can arrive as early as 2:30).

Diverting fuel from T3 to T4 won't fix Ost. teching. It's mainly that T4 is way too expensive, as getting a tiger is cheaper than getting a panther, presuimg you teched to T3 and are getting panzer 4s.

LMG Grens in Stalingrad won't help you much, as this is CQC.

You can veto stalingrad.

It's definitely great, but it will not compensate for OHs weaknesses on certain maps (if you're being overrun on CQC maps).

Again, you can veto stalingrad.

It can only deny areas on maps where you won't be flanked all the time like Stalingrad / La Gleize by rifles.

I've got an idea-why won't you veto stalingrad and La Gleize?

Will die to flanks in CQC maps like La Gleize / Stalingrad etc. in no time.

Not if you veto them. Single map is not an indicator of faction strength, especially if you can exclude said map from your personal map poll.

Indeed, it is probably OHs best anti-US weapon. But the game is probably already decided before it hits the field if automatch chose the wrong map.

You can veto the maps you feel are "wrong".

This is not a "OH weak, buff plz" thread, but about the maps that in too many cases favor the other side in OH matches and thus force the same lame gameplay over and over again.

Yes, by now its "I need someone to tell me how to veto maps" thread.

*sigh*
Katitof, if you could for once try to read everyting people write, this forum would be a better place...

You simply do not have enough vetos to veto maps which favor at least one of your opponents.

You can still veto this one if you don't like it so much.
I keep this map on veto since forever. Just as both semoisky maps(because every fucking game with them not vetoed is on them).

Yes, Stalingrad is also my veto #1 (I tried it 1 time after its reappearance), but after this it's just a question of pest or cholera with the current map pool, which penalizes OH most.

edit: This is not about not liking Stalingrad or certain other maps, it is about the imbalances regarding the factions.

Oh believe me, the generally unpleasent maps are nuisance for all players.
I know only a single player who likes stalingrad for example.

I think you have made whatever abstruse point it is you wished to be made,katitof? Let's try to move forward.

This thread is not confined to map veto, so in its totality, to respond on map veto alone, only deals with 33% of the issues raised.

(@ op: without making a judgment on issues in the totality, or any one part of your argument, I fear that taken as a whole - all the issues you identify, may well be too wide for one thread )

I think most of us would agree that ostheer is to hard to play at the moment. Non of the tier 1 units is viable.

I think most of us would agree that ostheer is to hard to play at the moment. Non of the tier 1 units is viable.

Grenadiers with LMG's are quite viable imho