What should Relic do to increase allies-players?

I also think people just like big, strong tanks.
I mean, who doesn't like cruzing around with a Tiger or killing tanks with a Jagdtiger / elephant.

Ok allies fanboys go like 'my gott no I like mobility (dat mobility of paper thing armor which you cannot even spam, yeah I prefer that above a KT which has 100m frontal armor).

I mean, at this moment, teamgames as allies are broken as hell.
I SAID IT.

Soviets shouldn't rely in commanders to the point of having doctrinal their main infantry and tanks.
Commander without guards/shocks and a heavy tank are totally out of the meta right now.

That's BS.

Soviets shouldn't rely in commanders to the point of having doctrinal their main infantry and tanks.
Commander without guards/shocks and a heavy tank are totally out of the meta right now.

That's BS.

That's true, but I don't think many soviets chose to go for a doctrine w/o guards or shocks & heavy.. (talking about teamgames)

Soviets shouldn't rely in commanders to the point of having doctrinal their main infantry and tanks.
Commander without guards/shocks and a heavy tank are totally out of the meta right now.

That's BS.

100% Agree. Which is why I quit playing them. Then played alot of OKW and had lots of fun. Then played alot of USF and had not so much fun.

I think the Relic gods have decided they want JHeartless to play OKW. Its like playing Soviets and having EVERY DOCTRINE all at once. Just less tanks

I dont mind that Soviets need to rely on Doctrines. I just dont like that they have to do it so much that its suicide to not have some sort of Armor Call in and Infantry call in.

Which is why alot of FUN Soviet doctrines are of 0 use in the current Meta.

Casual player here.

I almost never play as the soviets. I dislike the soviets because I don't have the micro to control 4 maxims or 2 snipers. Also I inherently dislike spamming a support weapon. Additionally, the soviets were designed from the ground up as having an air of inferiority, hence a base infantry called "conscripts" - as if US riflemen and German grenadiers were all volunteer l33t warriors. Their other stock infantry unit is penals. They were designed to not feel or play like a normal army. I know Relic has backed away from that approach, but not completely, hence why cons are generally worse than grens.

If they wanted to make the Germans feel more elite and the soviets a bit more "quantity over quality," that's fine. It's just been taken way too far. The Soviets don't even feel like a normal company of heroes army. IMO they are the "out child," the British of CoH2. The rule for them seems to be "they suck but are viable with cheese."

With the Germans I can build grenadiers with MG42; or Volks supported by sturm pios, obers, etc, and that's viable.

The US I play about as much as either of German factions. I like most things about the faction except that it's basically a count down of you gradually getting weaker and declining from your powerful start. I dislike this because it means you HAVE to push hard in the beginning, whereas as OKW, I can choose whether I want to try that or not.

I used to be a heavy Ostheer player but after they made non-Tiger commanders and T3/T4 useless I gave up. Rarely play OKW because I don't have 45 mins to wait while it finds a match.

So I play Allies now. Soviets in 1v1 are still competitive with the usually powerful commanders (Soviet Frontline, Lend Lease etc), USF is Rifle Company or go home pretty much.

In 3v3/4v4 both Allied factions bend over for KTs...

There's absolutely zero reason to include people already ingame because by the nature of the game, the split of players there is 50:50. What the constant >80% searching as axis situation shows is that people who aren't in a game already would rather play as axis than get a game faster as allies.

Imagine if 509 players line up as axis and 501 line up as allies do we really have a problem? The automatch percentages would still show 90% searching as axis, 10% searching as allies after the first 500 on each side are matched.

Imagine if 509 players line up as axis and 501 line up as allies do we really have a problem? The automatch percentages would still show 90% searching as axis, 10% searching as allies after the first 500 on each side are matched.

Its quite easy to calculate the differences if we see something like 7% or 3% allies you know, these numbers aren't rarity.

bur what if the number is hundreds more???

The Germans have a certain appeal with all the wunderwaffen they throw around, and Relic delivers. Tiger, Elefant, King Tiger, Jagdtiger, Tiger Ace, all the usual Nazi superweapon suspects are present and accounted for. They only need the Maus at this point. After all, what WW2 aficionado doesn't want to cruise around in a tracked fortress and lay waste to puny enemies?

I also think that, at low levels, they're just easier to play. They have tough infantry, can easily dig in, and the longer the game goes the stronger they get, and low level games tend to be campy.

Contrast with Soviets, who have crappy basic infantry you need to invest fuel on so that they're not complete deadweight by the 10 minute mark, are much more commander dependent, and stricter teching which only allows you to realistically use half your army?

The Americans, the faction I personally see the least, who have 1 early game build (rifles rifles rifles rifles LT) and not too much variety late game (Jacksons or E8 or die, maybe some M8A1s in team games)? It gets pretty old after a while.

OKW in particular had very few gaps beyond lack of medium tanks and the fuel disadvantage. Strongest infantry in the game, very solid vehicles, cheap teching, useful trucks, useful doctrines.

Note: the above is not a balance commentary. I actually think Soviets edge out the rest a bit in 1v1 and 2v2. But I can easily see why people enjoy playing Axis more.

Pretty much. The primary reason I play allies is because the searching number is almost always >80% searching as axis when I start the game, not because I particularly want to play as them. They have lame, limited and boring gameplay compared to either axis faction. If I want to win as soviets I'd better sure as hell have one of the five competitive commanders selected (Shock rifle, Guard Motor, Guard Mechanized, Shock Motor, KV1), and if playing against OKW I have to start with sniper or maxim spam and move into spamming shocks or guards because cons and penals are worse than useless, being outclassed straight away by freaking volks and getting worse from there as the game continues.

Playing as USF I can already tell if I won or lost the game at the 10 minute mark. I might as well quit at this point if my opponent has held to a reasonable amount of territory and/or hasn't really taken any manpower losses. Build variety is limited to: 3 rifles + 1 assault engineer or 4 rifles to lt or captain to m20 or stuart to Major and sherman/m8 spam or skip major and Armor company bulldozer spam. On an open map I may be able to build one howitzer before the tank spam phase, wooh!

Lol. The scenarios you described above are so dead-on accurate it's hilarious.

You're exactly right, though. USF opening gambits are extremely limited, and Soviets are locked into a very strict tier structure and must use certain doctrines to stand a chance.

Not only do you need more micro as Allies on the whole (due to more fragile units), but you're also limited by predictable builds.

Proposals: For USF, decrease fuel cost of T1 and marginally increase cost of M20 and Halftrack to compensate. This will allow USF to field MGs at least instead of pure rifle spam. Similarly T2 cost could be decreased with stuart bumped up in fuel cost slightly. Or, you could simply not have the officers pop out of the buildings with the upgrades. Make them purchasable after upgrade. But USF needs more diversity.

Think about it... in CoH1, USA players could make, from the beginning of the game: Riflemen, jeeps, snipers, and mortars (and maybe I'm leaving something else out). In CoH2 it's Rifle spam + combat ineffective combat engies. It's just kind of boring. OKW synergy with Volks, Spios, Kubel and Rakaten is just more fun and dynamic.

Soviet has always felt like a faction where you MUST pick certain tiers or else you are completely and hopelessly doomed. Maybe for some weird reason I might want to use a SU-76. But the teching costs are so prohibitive that doing so will mean I get steam rolled if I try, which limits players to playing safe...Guards into ISU... T1 to T4 or T2 to T3 over and over and over.

Part of what made CoH1 so much fun is that you could use a variety of units and back-teching was more possible.

I think a big problem here is that the off-map call-ins all cost fuel... so theoretically as Soviets I'd be able to go T1 to T4 and then back-tech to T3 for some AA and then call in an IS2.

But right now I have to decide between the IS2 or the AA, because of the back-teching fuel costs... and that's a no brainer. Hence, linear gameplay.

Do something, Relic. The game is fun but the amount of VIABLE tactics available pales compared to CoH1.

I have seen some people saying it's more fun to use "elite" units in the Axis factions.

On that note, does anybody else think that USA in CoH1 felt more like an elite force than USF does here?

What I mean is that Rangers with Fire Up! and P47 strafes at will (superb air force, as in reality), and Pershing and Calliope all felt fearsome and intimidating. Like, yeah, USA still couldn't stand toe to toe with German armor, but you really felt their tenacity and wily ingenuity -- sandbags mounted onto shermans for protection, Riflemen able to plant all-purpose mines, global fuel BARS to make riflemen kick ass and stand up to vetted Axis squads... scary-ass howitzers that couldn't simply be reconnoitered and bombed from miles away.

Like, basically USA was obviously not as strong in a 1v1 unit-vs-unit setting as Wehrmacht in most cases, but they were still intimidating in the right hands and had very intimidating units.

Whereas the USF basically feel like the faction is doing the bare minimum to survive. Like yeah... a Jackson to hard counter heavies at range. Cool. Too bad a Panther can bum-rush it. Nothing scary to make Axis guys sh*t their pants like a Calliope or infantry doctrine off-map. Just little pitter patters that hopefully add up.

This makes USF feel less intimidating and less elite all around. Past the early game it feels like survival mode. It's like Allies trying to rally whatever advantage they can muster and sh*tting their pants if they let the Axis guys have fuel for a while.

Whereas CoH1 USA could make a comeback with airdropped AT guns (already manned), sticky bombs, or a manpower-only Pershing, USF is basically screwed if they give up the mid-game, making them FEEL less resourceful and ingenious (traits I think Relic wanted to stress about USA) than their CoH1 counterparts.

I know this is sounding rambly but I hope you guys are getting my point.

CoH2 USF feels less threatening overall and less elite. With Rangers you knew you had some of the very best all-around infantry and you were going to murk most Axis soldiers. With P47 you had an on-demand blob punish that made Axis weary and paranoid. M8 mines could come out of nowhere and gib squads to bits. You could create a very intimidating feeling if you used USA properly.

But in CoH2 it's like you're just doing enough to get by and win skirmishes and your only real threat is if you use your meager units properly or build up a critical mass of them.

I have seen some people saying it's more fun to use "elite" units in the Axis factions.

On that note, does anybody else think that USA in CoH1 felt more like an elite force than USF does here?

What I mean is that Rangers with Fire Up! and P47 strafes at will (superb air force, as in reality), and Pershing and Calliope all felt fearsome and intimidating. Like, yeah, USA still couldn't stand toe to toe with German armor, but you really felt their tenacity and wily ingenuity -- sandbags mounted onto shermans for protection, Riflemen able to plant all-purpose mines, global fuel BARS to make riflemen kick ass and stand up to vetted Axis squads... scary-ass howitzers that couldn't simply be reconnoitered and bombed from miles away.

Like, basically USA was obviously not as strong in a 1v1 unit-vs-unit setting as Wehrmacht in most cases, but they were still intimidating in the right hands and had very intimidating units.

Whereas the USF basically feel like the faction is doing the bare minimum to survive. Like yeah... a Jackson to hard counter heavies at range. Cool. Too bad a Panther can bum-rush it. Nothing scary to make Axis guys sh*t their pants like a Calliope or infantry doctrine off-map. Just little pitter patters that hopefully add up.

This makes USF feel less intimidating and less elite all around. Past the early game it feels like survival mode. It's like Allies trying to rally whatever advantage they can muster and sh*tting their pants if they let the Axis guys have fuel for a while.

Whereas CoH1 USA could make a comeback with airdropped AT guns (already manned), sticky bombs, or a manpower-only Pershing, USF is basically screwed if they give up the mid-game, making them FEEL less resourceful and ingenious (traits I think Relic wanted to stress about USA) than their CoH1 counterparts.

I know this is sounding rambly but I hope you guys are getting my point.

CoH2 USF feels less threatening overall and less elite. With Rangers you knew you had some of the very best all-around infantry and you were going to murk most Axis soldiers. With P47 you had an on-demand blob punish that made Axis weary and paranoid. M8 mines could come out of nowhere and gib squads to bits. You could create a very intimidating feeling if you used USA properly.

But in CoH2 it's like you're just doing enough to get by and win skirmishes and your only real threat is if you use your meager units properly or build up a critical mass of them.

heh the reason i think they are not as cool in coh2 is because those cool units u described would be doctrinal only now. Then relic would release these commander's little by little to milk our money

Soviet Remodel, USF Late-Game Tweaking.

Soviets need access to all their tiers like, while cheese strats get punished in return. Penal Troops under cover of Mortar Smoke could make short work of an Axis entrenchment. The M3 Scout Car could require T1 and T2 to build, but both cost less. T3 and T4 could be slashed as well but perhaps require Molo + AT Nade, or some other teching 'gate' so they don't come too early. Some units in T3 and T4 could get looked at as well.

Americans I'm not sure, it's another situation where Relic designed themselves into a corner. The M4 Sherman in-game is designed as an Infantry Tank. But the concept of an Infantry Tank does not mend well in CoH2's design. Only the KV-8 gets away with it because of high durability + high offensive ability. So the M4 is seldom used, and M36 or E8's are spammed instead.


As far as US Tank Doctrine, the problem is we used Tanks to support Infantry, and only brought Tank Destroyers in when we met Armoured Resistance. The problem with that is CoH2 is far too small scale to adequately portray that. In CoH2 the chances you'll face armoured resistance are 100% unless you're winning by a huge margin. Therefore, Tank Destroyers are always going to be the go-to option. And with the M8 playing the role of infantry-killer, the Sherman is left without much of a role or purpose.

Soviet Remodel, USF Late-Game Tweaking.

Soviets need access to all their tiers like, while cheese strats get punished in return. Penal Troops under cover of Mortar Smoke could make short work of an Axis entrenchment. The M3 Scout Car could require T1 and T2 to build, but both cost less. T3 and T4 could be slashed as well but perhaps require Molo + AT Nade, or some other teching 'gate' so they don't come too early. Some units in T3 and T4 could get looked at as well.

Americans I'm not sure, it's another situation where Relic designed themselves into a corner. The M4 Sherman in-game is designed as an Infantry Tank. But the concept of an Infantry Tank does not mend well in CoH2's design. Only the KV-8 gets away with it because of high durability + high offensive ability. So the M4 is seldom used, and M36 or E8's are spammed instead.


As far as US Tank Doctrine, the problem is we used Tanks to support Infantry, and only brought Tank Destroyers in when we met Armoured Resistance. The problem with that is CoH2 is far too small scale to adequately portray that. In CoH2 the chances you'll face armoured resistance are 100% unless you're winning by a huge margin. Therefore, Tank Destroyers are always going to be the go-to option. And with the M8 playing the role of infantry-killer, the Sherman is left without much of a role or purpose.

I like your Soviet ideas... mortar smoke + Penal charge would be epic. Sadly, we never really get to see that because of linear teching.

As for Sherman... I think it's OK for the most part, but the ammo toggle hurts the unit. If you have multiple Shermans it's a pain to look at each one in the heat of combat and toggle between AT and AP. And it's also painful how whenever you deploy the smoke cannisters they completely stop to deploy them.

Allow Shermans to keep moving while cannisters deploy, have them come out with AP rounds by default, make the ammo toggle MUCH faster, and make the UI more obviously reflect which one is selected. A little icon hovering above the Sherman near its vet level wouldn't hurt.

Sherman AT potential is actually pretty good, but you have to get them in point-blank on rear armor and have the AT round selected. They are good hit and run tanks. But the 2 above issues (stopping to deploy smoke and slow-changing ammo without obvious UI indicators) makes Shermans very cumbersome and therefore make the Easy 8 a more attractive option.

They should make them more punishing to use. Atm rifle spam roflstomps all infantry Early and late game. US AA is almost insta win.

90% of players are not Axis. The true ratio is probably something like 55:45 or 60:40 at most. Since all games have an equal number of allied and axis players (in automatch), and there are far more people in-game at any one time than there are in the lobby searching (games go for 10-50 minutes, auto searching takes 1-10 minutes), the counts you see in the lobby don't represent the total number of players.

Germany is always a favored faction in WWII games. Germany is even the most popular country to play in the Hearts of Iron series, although not for exactly the same reason. In operational level games, people like playing Germany because they're this active conquering nation fighting against overwhelming material advantages enjoyed by the other countries. They're the prime movers of WWII, they have the initiative, and they win spectacular victories (historically). When you're playing a board game, or an abstract strategy video game, you can hide away the actual atrocities and excesses of the regime and just get stuck straight into your power fantasy of being this Alexander-the-Great style supreme ruler conquering the world.

In tactical level games, the appeal is a bit different. Late-war Germany gets all of these famous tanks, they get cool and unique weapons like the StG44, they get rockets, high tech stuff, and a lot of their vehicles, uniforms etc all just look cool, aesthetically. Germany has a postwar reputation of having "the best of everything" (not really deserved in many cases but the myth persists).

What about a gun upgrade for the sherman like coh1, but you lose the ability to change rounds ( AT rounds only) and comes with a decent cost?

What about a gun upgrade for the sherman like coh1, but you lose the ability to change rounds ( AT rounds only) and comes with a decent cost?

How about we replace the 57mm AT gun with a 3" AT gun that costs more but is in the ballpark of the Pak40 for AT performance.

57mm AT gun then becomes an airborne exclusive unit.