Profile of van Voort

Caches: it could benefit 100% to the one who build it and proportional to your parnters (50% on 2v2, 33% on 3v3, 25% on 4v4)

That I don't like, because if one person builds caches they screw their teammates

One of the biggest problems is the amount of resources in 4v4 and shared resources. You are not punished for building fuelcaches or ammocaches plus everyone benefits from them.

The high resources makes it easy to constantly pump out tanks and making coh2 a brody tank war every game.

How many times are you floating 300 plus ammo or fuel in the later game?
Its just too much.

Well:

1) What you get for your buck is not necessarily the same across factions

2) Pop Cap tends to be the limit not resources

100 pop cap of OKH and OKW is better than 100 pop cap of USF, not necessarily Sovs


And we like tank wars, that is why we play 4v4 in the first place

I'll do you a favour and start a new thread to focus on another direction the discussion around the chaotic world of 4v4.
I will try to divide this into: appealing (why you choose to play 4v4) and imbalance.

Appealing:
Please give me an answer besides i'm playing with 2-3 other friends. I'm specially more interested for those who decide to search random 4v4.

A-Is is due to not having to focus on caping?
B-You like too see/play with a huge amount of units on screen?
C-While maps are bigger, you actually finish playing on a really small portion of the map most of the time, so you can focus mostly on that, is that what you like? (Besides some huge YOLO push on late game)
D-You enjoy being able to have plenty/steady amount of resources (caches) to be able to use any ability or field vehicles?

C - I would disagree with, 4v4 requires a higher level of strategic awareness as you have to be aware of what 7 other people are doing, not just 1 opponent.

You can turn 4v4 into a pair of 2v2 clashes, but that only works if you are winning. Decent teams and decent random players will leave a losing battle and seek to create a 3 on 2 with their other teammates

D- Is certainly true. People complain that Panthers, for example, are extinct in 1v1, that is not the case in 4v4. 4v4 lasts long enough that you will see top tier units you don't get in 1v1

You can add also:

E - There are some units, commanders and strategies you can use in team games that you cannot in small ones. 1v1 and you go Urban Defence it had better be a game winning move, 4v4 one person can do that without necessarily gimping their chances of victory

F- I find 4v4 not necessarily more realistic because that is a loaded word no one agrees on, so I shall say gives greater immersion.

Firstly, because real military commanders are not reliant on flawless micro and planning their build orders. You are on a team where Montgomery doesn't get on with any of the Americans, Patton doesn't get on with anybody, everyone wants their Army to get priority and whilst you are done with that you have to worry about the enemy

Secondly, because command is in large part the act of managing chaos, and so the more chaos the better I like it.

I suggest we compromise and go for the M6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_heavy_tank

It has almost as much right to be in the game as the Ostwind apart from never being deployed

Would be a damage sink breakthrough AI tank somewhere between a KV8 and an IS2


Turret has a 75 and a 37, so while pen won't be great DPS will be ok

In addition it has two .50cals in the front so would mess infantry up something terrible

Well it doesn't have sexy tanks, and you lose the MG34 if you upgrade Obers

Next round will be a bit of a knife fight I think