Profile of Dullahan

Ostheer has never really been about elite infantry.

They have elite support weapons and vehicles though.

teching, not so much, units purchased, absolutely. dow2 didn't limit teching, a lot of older (and less relevant) RTS games didn't limit tech much at all (total annihilation, WC1/2, AoE). later games started to add choices. SC2 tends to have the player build roughly half their units in a given game. the difference between those games and coh2 is for whatever set of tiers you go, you have a unit for every situation.

Plenty of older games had tech paths though. Command and Conquer, for example. Any game with production structures, really. The difference here is most people in this game completely neglect building "lower tier" units and structures.

they work differently but the roles overlap; you don't get much of that with coh2, if you have it at all and that's the problem.

There's plenty of this in Coh2, OKW is full of it. That's why the Luchs comes from the panzer command and the jagdpanzer comes from the medic command. It's why the Puma is in mechanized and why the raketenwerfer can be built from HQ. Relic does actually plan this stuff fairly well. (Atleast in this game they did. DoW2 was half-assed with T1 based anti tank)

For Soviets the way this worked was thus:

T1 is the only structure with no AT potential. But it was also primarily early game stuff, so that's no surprise. Even so, Satchel charges were an option and do good AT damage if you can immobilize them first with engine damage. (At grenades?) That said, you generally wanted to either go T2 or T4 after going T1 for AT options like the ATG or Su85.

T2 had AT guns, nuff said.

T3 had T-34's which had Ram which worked well at disabling enemy vehicles for your other AT to kill them. (This got neutered though.)

T4 had Su76 for lighter vehicles and SU85 for late game tank destroyer.


I'm emphasizing AT because that's generally the thing everyone needs in this game. But vehicle wise t3 offered a light tank and a medium tank (and at one point the katyusha, but that got swapped with the halftrack because 4v4 scrubs didn't understand how "non linear" teching worked and thought halftrack came too late to be useful.) T4 had the halftrack for anti infantry and support, SU76 with some AI potential.

HQ had molotovs for anti garrison, penals had satchel charge for antibuilding, AT gun and su76 both had barrage for similar purposes. etc. There's actually a lot of such overlap, and for a reason.


In other words, they had all their bases covered and if you wanted to do risky tech like T1 to T4 you had stop gap options in the form of ATG, mines and guard rifles. Any sort of safe tech included T2 for AT guns. (Which paired nicely with shock troops)



I can understand why people wouldn't like this sort of tech structure, but it's a shame Relic bent over and homogenized it.

The real question is how does the flame hetzer compare to the Wasp, halftrack or KV8 now that incendiary damage across the board was reduced.

The key to playing Axis (and ultimately the reason I suspect people are struggling) is that your mainline infantry are simply weaker and less numerous than the allies, and thus you need to rely more on support weapons and light vehicles in the early/mid game.

It's a very different playstyle, yet there's so many people who build four volksgrenadiers or grenadiers and pretend they are playing USF. It's baffling, and not at all surprising that it doesn't meet with as much success.

Why make one player micro and the other not have to micro cuz his units are simply better and dont require the same amount of micro?

People used to said this about MG42's, once upon a time.

Balance is only relevant at the skill ceiling.