Devs, game needs balance patch. When it will be?

[Gilmund]

16th is very situationnal. Imo it shines more as a support deck for teammates and can only create trouble in 1vs1 engagement to players unable to use smoke or fire positionning. But you see less and less of them these days. The deck is very much confined to open grounds by its strenghts and as its confined to open grounds it will meet its counters.
To spread 88's all over the map, infantry to help teammates or give air support where needeed is interesting though. I've done one 10vs10 game playing that way where i was top kill ofboth sides (around 3800 points) and being able to have 0 loss in the end. That was fun.

 

[Alex646]

This is pretty same type of fun as arty spam non-stop. As for me it has nothing fun at all.

 

[Protosszocker]

yea this game needs balance, for me its dead.

considering that you cant play 1vs1 its a pretty obsolete "strategy" game. i mean 1vs1... and things...

before this game is balanced in 1vs1 everybody here switched to another game... if you understand what it takes to balance this game you know what i am talkin about.

This game will never be balanced up to a point where more than 3 divs on both sides are playable in meta. So switching the meta is the only way to make it fun. Or stoping to be ha try hard and play the divisions you like and love even though the winrate might not be magnificant (thats what i did back in my 1v1 times when I had holidays in summer).

 

[rust95]

This game will never be balanced up to a point where more than 3 divs on both sides are playable in meta. So switching the meta is the only way to make it fun. Or stoping to be ha try hard and play the divisions you like and love even though the winrate might not be magnificant (thats what i did back in my 1v1 times when I had holidays in summer).

What divs would you currently describe as the Big 3 on either faction then? Interested to hear your opinion.

 

[ZhukoDim]

So switching the meta is the only way to make it fun. Or stoping to be ha try hard and play the divisions you like and love even though the winrate might not be magnificant (thats what i did back in my 1v1 times when I had holidays in summer).

Indeed. But at least some little motivations is needed. And Devs can help with it. For example separate stats for each division or even better unique leaderboard for every division. It will help a lot. But I'm not sure how costly it is for Devs.

 

[Protosszocker]

What divs would you currently describe as the Big 3 on either faction then? Interested to hear your opinion.

I am not deep enough in meta atm.... just playing 3v3s

 

[PanzerMan7]

What divs would you currently describe as the Big 3 on either faction then? Interested to hear your opinion.

I'm guessing a bit here but in order of confidence: 4th armored, 15th Scotts, and Canada for the allies.

For the axis, Falschies, 12th SS, 21st

Reasons: 4th armor is simply amazing overall with the sole exception of lacking a heavy tank. While I find a methodical advance of Panthers, tigers, and jadgepanzers to be invincible against the 13 AP of the 4th armor, usually I can just trade space for time since I'll have a big lead in points. It has good amounts of infantry with the choice between halftracks and trucks. It has 105 Shermans in phase A and a vet 2 leader Sherman in phase A. The B26. I've seen a trio strafe a Jadgepanther to death and 2 of them can fend off a fighter. 600kph recon plane. Arty is a bit light but adequate with the Priest and M12 and MHC.

15th Scotts are slower but the AVRE and again, pretty good balance between tanks and stuff. I haven't played them as much. Canada less so but same reason. The Ram command tank in phase A is pretty good if light on machine guns.

Falschies have large amounts of veteran infantry with double machine guns, HS 129, panzer L6, and that fucking phase A offmap. Their Arty gun is good too. I wouldn't want to face an armored division in the open, with the 8 AP AT and all. But that AT is vet/double vet and with some air control and the 129, you could reasonably contest an armored division.

12th SS and 21st panzer are both simply well rounded tank divisions with weakish but competitive early games, large amounts of panzergrenadiers, medium armor in phase B, and some heavies in C. The 12th has the firefly, which is better for team games (200 price for an armored mobile AT piece in phase A) but can lock down, say, 4th armored in the open. 21st has to play with those halftrack pak things but they're cheaper and all. But again, it boils down to large amounts of panzergrenadiers.

 

[Herr_Robert]

I'm guessing a bit here but in order of confidence: 4th armored, 15th Scotts, and Canada for the allies.

For the axis, Falschies, 12th SS, 21st

Reasons: 4th armor is simply amazing overall with the sole exception of lacking a heavy tank. While I find a methodical advance of Panthers, tigers, and jadgepanzers to be invincible against the 13 AP of the 4th armor, usually I can just trade space for time since I'll have a big lead in points. It has good amounts of infantry with the choice between halftracks and trucks. It has 105 Shermans in phase A and a vet 2 leader Sherman in phase A. The B26. I've seen a trio strafe a Jadgepanther to death and 2 of them can fend off a fighter. 600kph recon plane. Arty is a bit light but adequate with the Priest and M12 and MHC.

15th Scotts are slower but the AVRE and again, pretty good balance between tanks and stuff. I haven't played them as much. Canada less so but same reason. The Ram command tank in phase A is pretty good if light on machine guns.

Falschies have large amounts of veteran infantry with double machine guns, HS 129, panzer L6, and that fucking phase A offmap. Their Arty gun is good too. I wouldn't want to face an armored division in the open, with the 8 AP AT and all. But that AT is vet/double vet and with some air control and the 129, you could reasonably contest an armored division.

12th SS and 21st panzer are both simply well rounded tank divisions with weakish but competitive early games, large amounts of panzergrenadiers, medium armor in phase B, and some heavies in C. The 12th has the firefly, which is better for team games (200 price for an armored mobile AT piece in phase A) but can lock down, say, 4th armored in the open. 21st has to play with those halftrack pak things but they're cheaper and all. But again, it boils down to large amounts of panzergrenadiers.

It's important to know whether you are talking about 1v1, team games or a combination of both. I think you are spot on when it comes to the Allies. 4AD, the Scots and the Canadians are the best choices by far in 1v1 and solid for team games as well. However, when it comes to 1v1 12SS is bad, and effectively gets hardcountered by 4AD. On the other hand, 12SS is probably one of the best divisions for team games.

Personally, I would say that 3FJ, 91LL and 17SS are the best German factions for 1v1 games, and for team games 3FJ and 12SS are more or less mandatory. 91LL and 17SS are still solid and have a place if you play 3v3 or play custom games rather than ranked and can see what divisions your opponents pick. With the addition of 4AD and the B26 Marauder you simply need the 2x vet ME 109 as a cost-effective counter unless you know the Allies don't have a 4AD player.

 

[PanzerMan7]

Speaking of balance, Attack/Defense desperately needs a defender buff. I play attacker and either I rush mass HT/AC/Light tank at the point and camp it, which is no fun. Or I just concentrate a bunch of medium and light tanks on one section of the front and 15v2 the AT guns. I lose 5 tanks but I don't care because I simply slaughter everything in my path. Attacker gets to concentrate his forces. Defender needs a buff. Happy to provide replays!

@EUG_MadMat please consider!

 

[Alex646]

I play attacker and either I rush mass HT/AC/Light tank at the point and camp it, which is no fun.

You can also find AT-guns by recons and arty them to the ground one by one. No one defender (at least from german side) has enough good artillery to counter this. AC rush is viable too.

 

[Protosszocker]

Speaking of balance, Attack/Defense desperately needs a defender buff. I play attacker and either I rush mass HT/AC/Light tank at the point and camp it, which is no fun. Or I just concentrate a bunch of medium and light tanks on one section of the front and 15v2 the AT guns. I lose 5 tanks but I don't care because I simply slaughter everything in my path. Attacker gets to concentrate his forces. Defender needs a buff. Happy to provide replays!

@EUG_MadMat please consider!

1000 p more is just tooo much, even if he positions his at guns well, you can jsut arty them do death (as all attackers have armored arty and all defender just soft arty they are not able to counter arty effiecently enough). also 3000 kill points is to hard to get, 2000 sound much more realistic ( i mean I wouldnt stop attacking as an divsion leader after I lost 50% of my man more like 30%

 

[DarkCruor]

16th is terrible 1v1. They are completely shattered to any decent artillery and smoke spam and their infantry can lose to 2 strength Canadians even at full strength. They can't do anything but be miserable if you play properly.

4th Armored is a good division all around, but there's usually plenty you can do to punish as far as actual game goes. I just think Hellcats should have a slight price increase and maybe a slight 1-2 reduction in amount on some of their other cards. Or they could have a 80-120-130 Economy or 80-130-120.

Speaking of balance, Attack/Defense desperately needs a defender buff. I play attacker and either I rush mass HT/AC/Light tank at the point and camp it, which is no fun. Or I just concentrate a bunch of medium and light tanks on one section of the front and 15v2 the AT guns. I lose 5 tanks but I don't care because I simply slaughter everything in my path. Attacker gets to concentrate his forces. Defender needs a buff. Happy to provide replays!

@EUG_MadMat please consider!

I agree on this tho. Defense needs more money in phase A or alternatively more trucks.

 

[Ktonos]

I think that either the objectives must be 3 or no objective should be present (meaning maybe conquest rules?).

With 3 objectives the attacker is forced to play with the entirety of the map. With no objective and conquest rules the defender starts with huge land advantage, which is easy to collapse.

I really like the breakthrough scenarios, but unfortunately they are just that; scenarios. They will never become a norm in multi, and the separated battlegroup decks only reinforce this feeling.
This isn't what most people had in mind when thinking of attack/defense. Introduce a regular conquest game, with regular battlegroup compositions, have X people in defense and X+2 in attack, the attackers deploy as in conquest, the defenders deploy as in closer combat. Let people play it for a couple of months and balance it afterwards according to the aftermath.

 

[PanzerMan7]

I really like the breakthrough scenarios but they're trivially easy to cheese for an attacker. I am incapable of beating someone who knows what they're doing on the attack and I can beat anyone regardless of skill when I'm on the attack.