Profile of Grumpy

You complained about Axis having an alleged 60 win rate, not about Soviets being bad in 4v4. I've shown that the statistics you provided are biased because you only look at a few selected months. Soviet's win rate this may doesn't matter, the whole point of the paragraph was that win rates in single months jump like crazy. ...

This is absolutely not true. You're making up things that you think I said, ignoring what I did say, throwing out all types of extraneous arguments, then calling the things that you think I said absurd.

The 60/40 number came from the early days of the patch. I specifically said "in the range of" which tells normal people that I didn't look up the exact numbers. It turns out that I was off by about 5-7%, depending on the faction. Had I taken the time to look it up for all 2757 top 200 game, I would've averaged it to 46/54, which still isn't balanced. If my being off by 5-7% is absurd, your 5-8% error in claiming it is balanced is even more absurd.

I made a very specific complaint about the Walking Stuka, and the fact that they ignored complaints about it. I know that several of us complained specifically about the Walking Stuka and it's effect on Soviets. I'd have to question if you've ever played all three Allied Factions if you really think that it doesn't hit Soviets harder. Specifically, it hits Soviets harder in 4v4's where units are a lot more clumped together and maps are more lane-like. They could have changed it to a larger AOE while capping the number of models killed to 5 which would've had a huge effect on Soviets.

You keep trying to dismiss the effect of Soviets being worse. If you had bothered to look at all of the data, that you accuse me of cherry-picking, you'd see that teams of 4 Soviets have a win rate of 28% in 4v4 over the entire range of this patch. In general, the win rates for Allies get better with fewer Soviets, with Brits being pretty good if they're not teamed with two or more Soviets.


I seemed to have touched a nerve here. My guess is that some of the people on the balance team are your friends. I don't know who they are, or if they're actually biased. To be fair to them, the did an excellent job in balancing 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3. Most of the win rates are 50+/-1 % (exception being Soviets in 3v3) which far better than Relic ever did. They listened to a lot of suggestions, and a couple of mine even made it into patches. However, I am more than a little salty about the Walking Stuka complaints being ignored.

Marco and DevM weren't involved in CoH2 patches. They are CoH3 only devs.


On the other hand, SturmPanther and other Axis main 4v4 players were the patch guys in CoH2 end life.

COH2 4v4 is badly unbalanced now, with win rates in the 46/54 split range. {actual win rates are 45.5%-47.6% for Allies}

The Walking Stuka's ability to one-shot 7-man vet 3 con squads, or any other Russian infantry, makes it terrible to play against in 4v4's. They nerfed the Land Mattress and Calliope so that it wouldn't do that and should have done that to the Walking Stuka.

(Edited due to overstating some things and removed speculation about balance team since I don't know them or their motivations)

I do not play Coh3. So I am asking you players a question. Is Coh3 fun to play? If not, what makes it not fun?

I play COH3 because my COH2 friends are now playing it. For me, it's not a lot of fun but that depends on the faction.

Wehr is fun to play and feels normal because you always have a counter available to what your opponent is doing.
UKF is somewhat similar, just not as good.
DAK isn't a lot of fun to play. It has a lot of meh units, and a couple batshit OP units. I'm on a 12 game win streak by just spamming FallsPios into Stugs and Marders. Playing the same thing over-and-over isn't fun.
USF is shit to play in 4v4's. It has no heavy tanks, no heavy arty, no light arty, no good off-maps. It only feels okay for the first five minutes or so because the overtuned Rifles win a lot of engagements early. I played a 1v1 on an alt account and found that Rifles are stupid good against the base infantry of the other factions. They just don't scale well into larger games when facing Stug D's and 8 Rads.

The overall balance being bad is a large part of what is ruining it for me. Two days ago, my friends were playing as Axis. We have 4v4 rankings everywhere from around 200 to 1500. We played a team with 3 top 200 players and one 3000 player. It was a 12 minute base pin by us. If we switched factions, it probably would've been a base pin by them in about the same time.

I've been trying to make a mod for USF that addresses the problems it has in multiplayer without making it OP. I've been running into some problems that I can't figure out.

Pack Howie - I want to make this buildable from the motor pool but can't figure out how to add units to a building.

Battlegroup abilities

Easy 8 - how can I remove the squad from this ability?
General - how do I edit the number of CP's to unlock an ability? Spec Ops is non-competitive due to the number of CP's. An anti-tank drop at 6 CP's is way too late. Commandos are also too late at 3 cp's.

I think it's safe to say that Pathfinders along with USF is dead in teamgames now, at least for a while

It would be interesting to see where Relic is getting their balance info. Even after the last balance patch, USF didn't seem very competitive overall and crutched on Pathfinders way too much.

I think most people go Airborne because the upgrade costs for riflemen are nuts.
Infantry Support Center fuel costs 15+15+50+80
Grenades 25
Bars 40
So you spend 220 fuel to get something that has no good AT and still isn't as good a group of Jaegers or Bersas. Neither DAK nor Wehr has to pay fuel for their infantry upgrades, other than the veterancy upgrades. COH1 showed just how bad purchased veterancy was, yet somehow Relic brought it back in COH3.

Other commanders:

Spec Ops - 3 cp's to get commandoes that are about as good as Bersa's? That's really late for a mainline replacement.
6 cp's to get AT gun and MG drop? Yes, I know it gives some fuel, but the value of that is questionable and it makes it too late to be viable as a T3 replacement.
Whizbang is a joke, less range than an AT gun.

Mechanized - 11-12 CP (depending on options) for an Easy 8 that isn't much better than a P4? For 12 CP, Wehr gets Raid, the 8 Rad, and a Panther. Which of those sounds better?
Scott has no range and shoots marshmellows, while coming out at 4 cp's at the earliest.
War machine is great for comp stomps, but in an real game you've already lost to 8 Rads or Carro's.