Posts: 292
Dont nerf OKW too hard
Just BUFF USF more.
Posts: 3600 | Subs: 1
Posts: 1
Posts: 292
Posts: 17891 | Subs: 8
Sorry but weren't Germans strong in reality?
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
1 
Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
Posts: 123
Posts: 627
Good work with these statistics.
I see there are many people who thinks that Axis "popularity" is due to the fact that they are more "easy" to play. Let me ask you something: If a game has several factions, what would be the faction you would play the most? The most OP (strong overall, standard units and easy to play) or the one who is more challanging (high risk-high profit, cool units, etc)
That's the question you need to ask yourselves.
At 1944-45 where the mutiplayer is set?
Not really.
They were strong at the beginning of the war where their tanks and infantry tactics simply outclassed everything else at the time.
Posts: 2070
German equipment at the beginning of WWII was trash. It was trash because it had to be assembled and prepared under the eye of a world still unimpressed with what it had been doing in WWI (and it lost at).
German start of the war tanks were terrible, their infantry armament was mediocre, and their infantry no better trained than the rest of the world.
Good leadership and a modern approach to war against a France trying desperately to fight like it was WWI won them the fight. Not technological or training superiority.
If people actually spent ten sodding minutes researching history with attention to real world performance and statistics and introduction dates? This whole 'Omg Germany super engineer WIZZARDS' myth wouldn't be so prevalent.
It bugs me. Learn your history, people.
In 1945, specifically, Germany was suffering massive resource shortages, manpower shortages, poor quality and often disrupted production, and the burden of a government sinking huge amounts of cash into white elephants like the Maus project (Lol @ that hilarious waste of space). Their air superiority was gone, their indirect fire batteries scattered, their armies divided or gone.
So yeah, no. Germany should arguably be the army with the least access to vehicles and elite troops. And yet, the perpetuation of poorly understood recounts of history means we get the exact opposite. It's sad.
Axis doesn't have the best AT options in the game
Posts: 9
Because this is top-200 only, they're getting their wins off lower ranks, especially axis in teamgames where the gap between games played is absolutely huge between axis top-200 and allies top-200.
Posts: 2070
Ah I see, thanks. But then this statistics doesn't say very much, e.g. since slightly more people usually search games as axis, the top 200 of axis will be matched more often against allied players of lower skill while allied top two hundred will have an opponent of equal skill waiting in line more often, making stomps more often for top 200 axis players than vice versa.
The statistic should be filtered to count only games against other top 200 players. Of course we wouldn't have this problem if mirror matches were allowed (screw historical acurateness, we already have USF fighting against the OKW in the east, Soviets in France and so on).
Axis doesn't have the best AT options in the game
Posts: 292
Ah I see, thanks. But then this statistics doesn't say very much, e.g. since slightly more people usually search games as axis, the top 200 of axis will be matched more often against allied players of lower skill while allied top two hundred will have an opponent of equal skill waiting in line more often, making stomps more often for top 200 axis players than vice versa.
The statistic should be filtered to count only games against other top 200 players. Of course we wouldn't have this problem if mirror matches were allowed (screw historical acurateness, we already have USF fighting against the OKW in the east, Soviets in France and so on).
Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2
Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2
It seem to be a very vicious cycle.
1. 4v4 game mode
2. Axis and Allies load up a game
3. Perceived or actual balance issues force Allied players to go Axis in order to get wins/less frustration
4. An even smaller number of Allied players searching
5. Leads to more bad matchups due to matchmaking
6. Repeat step one
Posts: 692
Posts: 2070
Most popular game mode is 4v4, team games make up 78% of all games played. Time to start balancing team games relic
22% of the top 200 players are playing 1v1, but you can bet that if it were stats on ALL players, the game modes would be skewed much more in the favor of team games than it already is
Axis doesn't have the best AT options in the game
Posts: 123
Pro tip: Make arguments that support your case, not ones that highlight the weakness of it.
It's one of the most basic principles of human psychology that given enough time at a repetitive task we gravitate towards the path of least resistance, not the 'coolest looking' or 'most challenging'.
We back-dash everywhere in castlevania SotN because it's faster than walking. We use combat rolls everywhere in LoZ: OoT because it's faster than walking. We take the shortest & most convenient paths to work.
And in CoH2 the overall population gravitates towards the fraction that strikes the best balance between ease and power to match our play styles..
Claiming anything other than is pretty silly. As it stands, OKW is super powerful and easy to play in 4v4, ergo 4v4 is full of it and full of it winning.
There is no way to claim the bias of play being so large is anything but an imbalance issue. Stop trying.
Nonsense.
German equipment at the beginning of WWII was trash. It was trash because it had to be assembled and prepared under the eye of a world still unimpressed with what it had been doing in WWI (and it lost at).
German start of the war tanks were terrible, their infantry armament was mediocre, and their infantry no better trained than the rest of the world.
Good leadership and a modern approach to war against a France trying desperately to fight like it was WWI won them the fight. Not technological or training superiority.
If people actually spent ten sodding minutes researching history with attention to real world performance and statistics and introduction dates? This whole 'Omg Germany super engineer WIZZARDS' myth wouldn't be so prevalent.
It bugs me. Learn your history, people.
In 1945, specifically, Germany was suffering massive resource shortages, manpower shortages, poor quality and often disrupted production, and the burden of a government sinking huge amounts of cash into white elephants like the Maus project (Lol @ that hilarious waste of space). Their air superiority was gone, their indirect fire batteries scattered, their armies divided or gone.
So yeah, no. Germany should arguably be the army with the least access to vehicles and elite troops. And yet, the perpetuation of poorly understood recounts of history means we get the exact opposite. It's sad.
1 Posts: 609
Nonsense.
German equipment at the beginning of WWII was trash. It was trash because it had to be assembled and prepared under the eye of a world still unimpressed with what it had been doing in WWI (and it lost at).
German start of the war tanks were terrible, their infantry armament was mediocre, and their infantry no better trained than the rest of the world.
 | Playercard of Array | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts: 593
^Seeing nowadays players and ther mentality?
Easiest goes without saying.
Sorry, but hardly anyone except very best players are looking for a challenge, players love to have stuff instantly and effortlessly.
Developers have spotted that years ago, so let me ask you JohnnyB, why do you believe 99% of "mainstream" non indie games are extreemly easy to play and even if you do a fuck up you are either rewarded for it in some way or just game automatically loads you back just moments before the event that messed you up?
If you believe axis armies are high risk high reward and people play them for the challenge, well, you're lying to yourself.
If people wanted challenge they would play AGAINSTokw this symbol, not with it.
Posts: 3600 | Subs: 1
Have to disagree with some of this. Germany's early equipment had many of the issues you state and by 1945 I agree that much of the elite infantry was dead but at the start of the war they had a significant training advantage over nearly everyone. The army had developed its new tank doctrines by training hidden in the depths of Russia since the early 30's (thanks Stalin old pal!), and then practised these in Spain along with its new doctrines of close air support with stuka divebombing. One general captured in North Africa bemoaned that he had only managed 21 tank engagements in Africa compared to over 300 in Spain. Before it turned West its troops had taken Czechoslovakia and then fought the theoretically formidable Polish. Good leadership and tactics were the key but these need trained troops to execute. All German youth had by this point several years (military) training in the Hitler Youth. Behind all this was the fact that Germans were simply excellent material for soldiers, disciplined, educated, technically minded and frequently ideologically driven.
Compare this to Britain which, whilst it had the experienced (from WW1) but small BEF was also very badly hampered in equipment and training. In the mid-thirties the British were still carrying out maneuvers with flags to represent tanks and AT guns. One corporal was reprimanded for placing his AT gun (flag) in a tree but was able to protest that he had never seen an AT gun but didn't know. The Russians had as we know shot many of the experienced officers and were still in the process of responding to their Finnish debacle when the Germans invaded.
Were the Germans uber-engineering Wizards? I give you the magnetic mine, the 88mm, the MG42, the Fritz-X homing missile, the ME262 and of course the V1 and V2.
 |
|
|
69 | ||
|
|
|
|
52 | ||
 |
|
|
39 | ||
 |
|
|
31 | ||
|
|
|
|
21 | ||
 |
|
|
17 | ||
|
|
|
|
24 | ||
|
|
|
|
10 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
