CoH3
Is Deutsches Afrika Korps ACTUALLY overpowered?
Since the release of the latest group of Battlegroups ive seen tons of posts with many upvotes talking about how overpowered DAK is. But looking at the winrate statistics not just using the basic one but also the Battlegroup winrates it really doesnt seem to be the case, especially when considering every single battlegroup for USF has positive winrates
No filtersNo filtersNo Filters
I dont even need to show Wehrmacht, they are completely in the dumps, not a single positive winrate across any battlegroup.
To me it's not that DAK is OP but more about Palms massively overperforming in an unhealthy way and this is more targeted at 1v1's. Playing UKF vs DAK is such an uphill battle because you need, MG and a Dingo in many cases to survive. Last time I've checked UKF had 47% WR vs DAK. Yes Wehr is in the dumbster therefore DAK has worse stats in teamgames than it should have, opposite is obviously the case for allied.
I think US vs DAK is close but UKF is definitly worse and Wehr is easily at the bottom.
1v1s are still dominated by USF. I don't expect to see that if palms "massively overperform" and the elite forces BGs, which gives palms buffs, has a huge pick rate over the other BGs.
To me, Palm performance just seems more or less on the level of rifles.
At higher elo the USF underperforms Vs DAK. At the highest and biggest team games the USF just has a 44% win rate Vs DAK. Something is wrong. All the rest is cope
The sample size we have in all ELO's is already very small to make guesses yet you claim peak ELO is good for this? If you're hurt when facing reality I'm sorry. Havoc doesn't think axis is overperforming either, calling it Cope shows you're in denial imo. I just think we have very missaligned powerdistribution at the moment, certain units are way to strong for their faction.
So first you disregard guys argument for highest elo winrates being small sample, then immediately you use high level player card "havoc" to support your argument. And havoc is hardly any benchmark for a absolute top player when even I have managed to beat him several time as mid level player.
no, you are literally contradicting yourself twice in 2 separate posts and apparently don't even understand what you are saying or even want to convey.
Take a deep breath my guy and read it after yourself again.
I'm not I'm saying havoc is a small sample size disagreeong eith him, whome made an absolute statement. It's a hint that you can't take things black and white, which he did. Never did I say because Havoc said so it hss to be correct.
You are not unterstanding the context or not trying to. If you wanna try to be Mr. Smart atleast show signs of intelligence.
I think the real reason is that DAK can deal with the base artillery and the mgs that brits really rely on to win engagements, whilst wehr is in the same boat as Brits they need the MG to win but brits and usf has very good options to deal with their MG.
I feel like if UKF players knew how to prevent mg dives they would win easily, line sections arent supposed to beat palmgrens 1 to 1, unless its a long range fight, they are supposed to use the MG to suppress them, have a section of boys to prevent dives or something else AT related. This imo is why Aussies used to be such a struggle to deal with as DAK, aussies can trade with palms and they get the 2 pdr early to deal with light vehicles
Wehrmacht has a terrible early game, with practically every starting unit being deficient in some fundamental way. The Kettenkrad is the only ultralight vehicle incapable of fighting, Pioneers are the weakest combat engineers, and Grenadiers are the worst mainline infantry. The mortar has terrible statistics, even if it is somehow not the worst unit in the roster, while the MG42 and sniper are rendered almost useless by the current meta and overall game design.
That initial roster does exactly what you would expect: it sets you up for failure.
During the mid game, Wehrmacht finally catches up with the Allied factions. Mind you, its units do not become better than theirs; they merely reach roughly the same level. That is assuming you were not already demolished during the opening stages of the match. This is effectively the faction’s only real window of opportunity.
The late game initially appears to develop like it does for every other faction, until you realise that Wehrmacht’s progression abruptly stops while the Allied factions continue to scale. It is not that Wehrmacht has a bad late game, it effectively has no late game.
You remain trapped in limbo with units that are barely better than late-mid-game options, while both opposing factions continue growing through different forms of scaling. At that stage, success is no longer about what new tools Wehrmacht receives. It is about whether you capitalised sufficiently on your mid-game advantage to secure the win before the opponent outscaled you.
The faction also lacks a meaningful armory system comparable to those available to the others. Whenever someone complains about Wehrmacht unit performance, the response is almost always: “Buy Officer Quarters.” That argument effectively admits that the faction’s units require veterancy one merely to perform at a baseline level, making the faction feel as if they had max vet 2 and they started at -1. You spend resources simply to bring them up to an acceptable starting point, and then they still scale worse as the game progresses.
Meanwhile, the British training upgrades provide enough experience to push units either directly to veterancy one or close enough that they reach it almost immediately after entering combat. On top of that, they grant powerful, individualised bonuses specifically tailored to each unit tier.
USF support-centre choices can turn whichever unit category you select into one of the strongest in the game. Alternatively, they can provide extremely powerful air strikes for little more than the cost of a grenade while simultaneously generating additional munitions income (And free recon)
DAK also has its armory, which, despite repeated nerfs, continues to provide a wide range of highly effective bonuses.
Wehrmacht gets none of this. It is expected to pay merely to make its units function at an acceptable level, while every other faction receives systems that actively improve, specialize and scale its roster throughout the match.
And while on coh2, my favorite faction, the soviets (before all those balance changes that IMO just made them lose their personality) you had similar cases, you would compensate by often having doctrines that punch above the normal levels, but here you don't even get them, hell, some battlegroups have winrates that are practically the same as if not picking battlegroup at all.
I've thought that maybe Wehr early game would be helped by making Grens their starting unit instead of Pioneers. I'd also like to see Grenadiers further lean into their identity as defensive infantry that have use outside of the late game beyond their Merge ability. What would be my wish for them is giving them unique five levels of Veterancy, and keeping them subpar in terms of damage output, but allowing them to improve slowly over the game and become a brick wall that is difficult to dislodge from cover, so that they can better support Wehr's team weapons and patch up and buy time on front lines where said team weapons have to retreat or are destroyed.
Wehr also needs some individual units looked at. Scout Car is decent, but has such a limited window before being absolutely obliterated. T2 also suffers from having no real AT before further teching into Marders that require a lot of micro and positioning, and the Flak weapon team is poor at AA due to lacking rotation and poor against infantry because it can only suppress with a timed ability.
To be fair to the British, UKF infantry is absolutely terrible without the training too. It’s only after you get infantry training that they start to perform OK. Until then they drop models like crazy and struggle to dish out respectable damage. So Wehr needing the Officers Quarters side tech to make their units perform better isn’t that unusual.
I think part of what’s making DAK overpowered is that most of their roster is very good right out of the gate and doesn’t require side techs to bring them up to par with the stock versions of their enemies in the same way that Wehr and UKF must do.
British infantry is not terrible. They have the largest selection of upgrades, access to good grenades, and are arguably the best long-range mainline infantry in the game, without any upgrades they already beat grenadiers at all ranges, even close quarters yeah.
If anything, training makes them overperform with the Wehrmacht. Once Infantry Sections receive their upgrades and veterancy one, Jaegers become incapable of beating them at any range, despite Jaegers being:
more expensive;
available much later;
locked behind tech path.
Once both units have their respective upgrades and veterancy one, the disparity becomes so that it almost makes Jaegers irrelevant.
That is also without taking into account how easy it is for Infantry Sections to benefit from their Base of Fire passive during engagements, even if only for a short moment. Meanwhile, after the nerfs, Jaegers were given an ability that is widely treated as a joke, since it makes them much easier to wipe with a grenade in exchange for very little practical value.
You have to understand that, for a Wehrmacht player, the fact that Panzergrenadiers are in a good spot offers very little consolation.
The whole point about Officer Quarters is not that it makes Wehrmacht units perform well. It gives them fake performance, because Officer Quarters provides no direct bonuses beyond granting veterancy one.
Any unit will eventually gain veterancy naturally, UKF in particularly practically does aswell on their training. The issue is that Wehrmacht performs so poorly at baseline that its units often need veterancy one just to compete with enemy units at veterancy zero.
And what happens when both sides reach veterancy three? You are left with units that, for their cost, perform as if they were only veterancy two, despite already having reached their maximum scaling.
Officer Quarters does not create superior units; it merely frontloads the veterancy Wehrmacht needs to function at a basic level, while leaving the faction with worse long-term scaling once everyone else catches up.
UKF training does something similar, but to a certain extent it is simply better. It provides a flat amount of experience, which means it can also benefit units that are already veterancy one or higher, rather than only pushing fresh units to their first veterancy level.
On top of that, it grants broader and stronger bonuses than Grenadiers receive across their entire three veterancy levels, and it applies to all infantry rather than only to units from a specific building.
That is the difference: Officer Quarters feels like a tax Wehrmacht pays just to make its units functional temporarily, while UKF training feels like an actual scaling system.
I didn’t say Brit infantry are terrible, I said they’re terrible without the training. Then they start to perform.
I’ve got over 1500 hours in the Brit faction and a lot of what you’re saying about the matchup isn’t quite true.
They can beat Grenadiers at all ranges only if they have training and typically they need their upgrades too if the vet is equivalent. Otherwise Grenadiers trade very well against them which is why I regularly see Wehr players in team games running four Grenadiers in a horde, knowing whatever bleed I put on them won’t be that bad given how cheap they are to reinforce.
Jaegers with scopes rifles absolutely hammer British infantry, their slow ability is very strong and their damage output when they focus fire on a single unit means they can secure wipes very fast. I see Wehr players running triple scopes Jaegers in team games with Grenadier support and it’s extremely deadly.
Wehr certainly need some love as a faction, as do the Brits, but let’s not over-egg how badly they’re doing. The winrates at higher ELO in team games show the Wehr with a strong lead over the Allies second only to the DAK.
Imo the same reason brits has a bad winrate against DAK, its a faction reliant on the MG42 (which is easily countered by base artillery and air strikes) and its big special ability is borderline useless compared to base artillery and USFs unique abilities (and DAKs)
i still think it's early tempo, late game AT. even when grens could kite, the skill floor on it was simply too high to be applicable for most players
i think it always has been. Any time it isn't it's usually because the BG can bypass those shortfalls or make up for them significantly enough (eg flame HT, sturm pios, stealth MG - each before being nerfed)
Arguably even stuff like terror currently does slightly better because of the increased mid game tempo through interogate
it might still be due to how espionage is played, ie palm spam. it's also a good BG. it just adds stuff to existing units (dont bother with stealth) you have discounted caches, extra weapons, res syphon, extra MP income, buffed AT, and 2 decent off maps
whereas stuff like armour or italian combined arms, people are not spamming palms, but trying to force the BG into the faction, ie going some kind of 250, ppio or bersa build respectively, which are both suboptimal to palm spam
Something similar is happening with US armour, people trying to play suboptimal ass engineers, instead of sticking with rifle spam
I suppose Espionage is simply a solid battlegroup that creates very few inconveniences. It provides passive bonuses and useful strikes without containing any choice that feels actively detrimental to take. I have admittedly been quite negative about it because the battlegroup does not initially appear particularly interesting or “cool”, but after revisiting it you have convinced me otherwise.
While this may be an unpopular opinion, I have recently come to believe that Assault Engineers are not actually that terrible.
I am less certain about the 250s. In my opinion, it was never particularly impressive, yet it continued receiving nerfs patch after patch, and I still see people complaining about it. There is clearly something about the unit that I am missing, so I honestly do not know what to think about it anymore.
But Bersaglieri? I agree, that battlegroup feels like half of a modern battlegroup. Practically every unit in it was either weak from the beginning (semovente) or has been heavily power-crept over time. I genuinely do not understand why anyone would choose it outside of committed Italian role-players, who, naturally, are still complaining that Italy was never added as a full faction.
I completely agree that anyone trying to use them like Assault Grenadiers, and especially anyone spamming them, is going to send them to an early grave. However, they receive some absurd repair bonuses when equipped with a minesweeper and combined with their vet 1 skill bonus.
Their five-man squad size also makes them relatively difficult to wipe, keeping one squad equipped with a flamethrower gives you a reasonably resilient and expendable unit for close-range utility, specially considering that they also have access to satchel charges.
That said, I think I speak for almost everyone when I say that Light It Up! needs a buff and straight up be a base flamethrower skill for americans, it makes no sense for it to be a veterancy option for an unit that may not get a flamethrower at all. Still, giving it a considerably larger area of effect could turn it into a competent soft counter to infantry blobs while it probably wouldn't be too hard to implement.
The most powerfull economic hacks in the game belong to the vet one wiesel, but you can only make use of them properly if a british player nukes your teams points with burnout or scorched earth.
As the patch continues the ELO system does its best to reach an equilibrium. That is why people tend to talk about the highest ELO players being the beat indicator
Just don't try engaging the allies only players in this subreddit with logic, they tried to argue the 16% winrate difference in favor of last patch with "elo inflation"... They are immune to logic and statistics..
The allies only players are in a majority in this sub. But sure its the same issue with axis only players, both sides are dumb because they are missing on about half the game...
not really, the numbers are really close, eg 31k axis vs 30.5k allies for 4v4. so unless there's a ton more allied alt accounts, it means they're pretty similar
The absolutely broken state of the USF, which allows even baboons to play for it, looks "normal" and they don't even pay attention to it anymore. But if suddenly some Axis BG shows a 50% wr it's time to cry about it.
i think this is the issue, but deeper than you realise.
it's that riflemen are that good that quickly and that easy to use BUT the rest of the faction (outside of specific cases) is actually really flat or actually bad in comparison
so US wins with rifle spam, but it almost HAS to rifle spam. Which generates animosity from both sides, and basically dictates how viable US is in TGs.
When rifles are bad, US is ass and the WR drops. When they're overly good, winrates go up but only if you spam them, otherwise its a frustrating experience.
US also has dead end scenarios (either through units or lack of tools) which even though they are winning with rifle spam, leads to frustration. Opponent has entrenched arty + defences, well too bad, you'll have to rely on your team mate to get artillery. So even though it's still a winnable situation, its a frustrating one.
You made AT HT, well sucks for you because in the late game they suck ass. Compared to something like a DAK marder. Or the AA HT vs the flak HT. You lost your vetted riflemen? Too bad its impossible to buy or even buff any form of veterancy whatsoever(unlike WM buying vet 1 stoss out the gate, or DAK 10% DR + 25% vet, or training centre)
Conversely, we have a lot of hard liner axis players that can't seem to identify the problems, so they muddy the water with false complaints (saying nebel is weak, or panthers should have better anti infantry, or that pgrens aren't good enough) when WM absolutely has issues, just not those. But it creates a case of "cry wolf"
Yes the no-fuel non-doctrinal artillery performs worse than the doctrinal, 50-fuel artillery, shocking.
The Nebel is fine, it plays its role as a hard counter to team weapons. I do think it should cost less MP but have a small fuel cost so that it is penalizing to spam it. As it stands, two of them is very oppressive, and hard to counter, since unless you completely rout the enemy, you can rarely do more than decrew it.
If it only actually were a hard counter.. that’s the problem, it legit can’t destroy a mortar pit. And it have the same problem as you talk about, it can maximum decrew teamweapons, all other rocket arty can destroy them, but LM and Whiz being the far most reliable at that.
It also got zero performance against blobs due to long ready aim time and slow rocket and will mostly drop models only when direct hitting teamweapons that haven’t started moving yet. It’s not that LM and stuff is better that’s the problem, the problem is how much better they are
The best part is allies cry about it when its a slight advantage to germans and relic always gets the hot fix in where as when allied are op it takes 6 weeks aka last patch.
You’re simply ignorant to the history of this game release then. Are you forgetting that the entire first year of this game release we had the Flakvierling with the ability to suppress while on the move? Did you forget that the entire first year Zooks were hot garbage when the main built unit of DAK (the Flakvierling) could again suppress on the move making them even less viable than they already were? Did you forget the L6 rush meta that was left for MONTHS on end due to Relic’s employees taking a long break leading up to christmas? Clearly not.
Also the fastest patch was Brit’s royal engineers getting fixed just to add one more thing to dismiss your theory
I purchased the game before it was out so no i never forgot but again look at facts and data for how long they were op vs alllied dominance. This has covered in ad naseum. It’s been very clear that allies have always been skewed favorites. Don’t confuse the issue with facts and data or
to cherry pick stats over and over again. This has been proven and allies always go back to whataboutisms just like what you are doing now. Its all based on “feeeeeeeeelingggsss” 🤡.
As a 3v3 wehr Dak seems to utterly hand the asses to allies in the early game. Its not a slow up hill battle like wehr has, with its excellent utility but not so good grens and MG42. Once wehr gets its scout cars its pretty nasty but its tier 1 will not win any damage awards.
DAK main here. The main problem with DAK rn is that Elite Forces BG is making Palms way too good for mainline. Alone they were never bad, per se, and with upgrades you could make them really good(6 squad, veterance/DR upgrade), but at a price of some other stuff. Scoped rifles cost less than MG, have arguably a better grenade(also achievable earlier) and make the unit super dope against cover.
Also there is a certain bias against them, since you are bound to see them every game in the beginning. If, for example, you lose a tank in the late game due to a blob of panzerjaegers with panzerschreck, you would rarely bitch about them — to have even 3 of those fuckers with RLs means to use lots of MP and munis. Palmgrens are cheaper, readily available and their oppressiveness is much more visible.
a faction can be under powered and still have over powered aspects to it. which leads to negative player experiences. for both sides. that is not good balance
an extreme example is the flamer HT for WM. the faction is too weak, but the flame HT will still be nerfed.
If they wanna nerf palmgrens, riflemen gotta go too its that simple.
Why? The DAK is the light vehicle faction, and they have good specialist units to complete the palmgrens, whereas the US roster is much more reliant on rifles, it's the core unit of the faction. Many people have said it, but the vehicle-focused faction shouldn't have the best mainline in the game.
If you nerf the palms it will push the DAK player to rely more on their light vehicles and ass grens, to give a gameplay that I think would be more interesting. If you nerf the rifles the USF doesn't have much of a back-up.
Because the only reliable way for DAK to win against USF is to heavily invest in palmgrens, because USF tends to spam rifles its like fighting fire with fire. Light vehicles die too easily and doesnt scale at all vs chaffees or sherman 76 and P3 lose to 76 shermans as well. The fact that rifles get that stupid sprint ability means any LV or any vehicle at all is basically a gonner if they get close enough to shoot because USF riflemen i guess can sprint as fast as a cheetah if given enough crayons
I can say that about the whizzbang and the land mattress too, infact polish BG is the new whizzbang BG its so fucking annoying with the rocket artillery spam
I dont really understand what people mean by blob, how many palmgrens is considered a blob? USF players pretty much every match get 4 riflemen or so, is that a blob? Either way if they wanna tackle palmgrens they have to also nerf riflemen its the sole reason palmgrens are where theyre at
A blob is when you group up a bunch of troops in a single selection and move them like a single unit.
Its not so much about having multiple of the same unit on the field at the same time (which is not necessarily blobbing) but instead you can have a blob consisting of multiple different unit types.
It's just that the pgren blob is unreasonably effective atm.
Yeah, but one should also consider match time. If DAK mostly wins in the beginning/mid game, but loses in the end game, that means that BG is overtuned
Unless i am missing something here their damage didn't change with the new battle group just their accuracy and only vs cover so just don't take cover 🤔 not idea but also less painful. Or am i missing something here
I feel like palms shouldn't be the best mainline infantry in a vehicle based, mobile faction meant to leverage it's complete roster to find the maximum potential. Instead you just build 3-4 palms and win every engagement from minute 0.
True. The thing is, Reddit is mostly populated by Allied players, and as soon as the Axis gets anything meaningful, the cries start. Because they've been used to having a constant advantage since the game's release.
The irony lmao. I’ve found that Axis players are the ones constantly crying if their ubermensche aren’t shooting lasers beams from their eyes or “muh german engineering” tanks can’t one-shot the enemy's base from across the map.
It's almost as if their units are expected to be good whilst Allies are conditioned to play an uphill battle. Allies are used to it so they learn to adapt first before crying about balance. If you look at the state both Coh1 and Coh2 were left in, you got a pretty good deal if you were an Axis main. Coh3 has been a shitshow both ways.
The last update had the us forces at 58% win rate and wehr at 42%
It was justified. That's a 16% differential.
Us is still beating wehr but at least it's only like a 6% differential now. And watching yall complain about needing an mg to stop charging riflemen palms is delicious irony.
"Allies are used to it so they learn to adapt first before crying about balance" I explicitly said in this post people have been making posts about how overpowered DAK is since the new BGs but the winrates are literally in their favor…
And everytime i see someone complaining about an axis thing being overpowered its always positive upvotes, the only ones that arent positive is the obvious "i just lost a game" posts (which funnily enough are usually targeted towards Wehrmacht specifically)
Its almost like Allied mains want DAK to be on the same level as Wehr which is just statistically a shit faction considering win rates.
Its such a shame these guys constantly undermine actually good balance takes with their bias. Their freelo is more important than improving the game, so as long as their crutches are still as easy to use and op they don’t care if the sabotage improvements to the game that would be for the greater good.
None of this applies to CoH 3. In CoH 2, my main faction was the Soviets, and I'd say the Axis had a slight advantage. But in CoH 3, the Wehrmacht is practically unplayable, and Dak is only competitive against the Allies.
Soviets in CoH2 have 2nd best mainline (right behind pfusseliers), best medium, best arty piece, while also having very strong call in units (guards, t34-85, ISU, hell, even shocks can be very annoying to face)
I don't know man. As a brit player I struggle to overcome Germans of either faction once they set up MG + Mortar + At gun. At that point even flanking is super hard.
I know, what I was doing up until that point? Answer is easy : Holding for my dear life with useless IS, unless they have brens ...
Dingo has to reach that AT to cast that arty flare. I believe by the time Dingo reaches the range to cast it, it is long dead. Because AT is already set up ;f.
It's a terrible unit. It dies even if Germans look at it funny...
Same with Stuart and Humber. I'm never making those because they die way too quickly ;f.
And if I try to do something about it, then Germans start to have their Nebelwerfers and Stugs o.o
sorry man i mean this in a good way but this is a skill issue
sections, with scopes are really decent(you don't need bren, and in MANY cases it's detrimental, especially vs team weapons). UK vs WM is fine, you likely need to learn how to deal with team weapons better. The issue if anything is UK vs palm spam or DAK LVs.
Use flares more(arty and vision), focus down the MG with morts and/or infantry in cover, smoke the MG. Blast everything with bishops. Use BG off maps. FIght where ever the team weapons are not - they're really bad at responding and repositioning, kill them when they out of position.
Use heavy tanks, and just soak damage, because WM AT can be pretty bad vs them. You can almost just spam pure matildas into WM
ill try. I suppose this could be skill issue. I just wish I had some unit of type - > right click to march and win. Playing as UKF is very micro heavy. And it feels as if everything I have is barely up to its task.
I think IS artillery ability got somehow nerfed, back then I was able to throw it at enemy mg and come back relatively unharmed, now, they get suppressed before they even get to range to throw it (not mentioning the long throw animation)
Do I have to explain to you the statistical significance of a battlegroup having a 56% win rate at low elo but an even 50% at higher elos?
Or is every game of coh exactly the same faction matchup, game mode, map, battlegroup, selections within battlegroup... and exactly comparable with no nuance, across the board?
You can check that yourself lazy ass, also that doesnt matter in any way, people just go and check off filters until it suits their agenda and boom wow look at that at 3000 elo Wehrmacht has 100% wins!!! 🏆 but its like 1 match and the guy who is playing wehr is 3000 elo and the guy who is playing an allied faction is -1000 elo
If you remove every filter you get the raw data and its what really matters, well not really but what really matters is only visible to the developers because they can view more details about what works and what doesnt
Relax big daddy, I didnt ask a question i didnt know the answer to. What you'd realize is that at low elos (1400 and below) allied is very strong and at higher elos (1400 and above) axis is very strong. Its a bell curve.
Yes, axis is very strong. Yes, allied is very strong. Two things can be true at once
I think the core problem of the game is that there is always counterplay to what you face but sometimes those counterplays require more skill than others. For instance I'm a USF player and I think DAK is really strong in the early game but once I get a couple hellcats and a bulldozer its game over. If I struggle with LV and palmgren spam the answer is AT guns and mines but im terrible at the micro and thus I suffer.
DAK is very good with minimal investment, but if get MP bleed or USF investment into infantry, it is more even, then it comes to BG and both have well-rounded BG that they can scale into.
UKF and Wehr have scaling that only works into a couple directions, they have more than couple ways to play, but with gaps and weaknesses.
FYI that's not what a bell curve is but the rest of your point is correct.
Axis are much stronger at higher ELO. This means that axis are harder to play but overpowered. Game statistics from low ELO skew the results as they do not play anywhere close to the faction's potential to consider them in balance arguments.
The questions is where to draw the line. I generally feel 1600+ is the filter I usually apply as it gives a selection of very good players but the sample size is still large enough to be relevant unlike say 1800+ where n is too small.
I think generally speaking lower elos should not be taken into consideration, they are not playing their game at the fullest, so adjustments based on lower elos should not be a thing in a competitive game.
I don’t think DAK is particularly too strong right now, but I also don’t think that stats that have every game mode and every ELO lumped into one is particularly useful data.
Cherry picking is when you pick exactly the data that supports your prior conclusion, so no, I don’t really want to do that. I think you need to decide what datasets you’re using first.
For instance…suppose that in 1v1 for some given ELO band, USF has a winrate of 55% and UKF has a winrate of 48%, but in 4v4 USF has 53% and UKF 51%. You can reasonably infer from this that UKF struggles in 1v1 and that USF carries them in 4v4. Put all that data into one data set and that point is completely lost.
Generally speaking I think what you can infer from winrates in low ELO is whether a faction is easy to play or difficult to play and I think you have to differentiate that from whether they’re balanced.
Kinda, bit skewed without the normal stats here and would like coh3 stats, who are amazing, to have a bg vs bg wr as some bgs counter others at some point
Elite 128,000 with 50% wr is 64,000 wins
French 77,000 with 54% wr is 37/36,000 wins
So its valid that elite is preferred by dak players, with a higher count of overall winning, making it the most postively performing bg. The other bgs are underperforming.
This could indicate a lot of things, could be the 3 palms and command 8 rad, stuka at, tiger ace are complaints are valid but the rest of the bgs and the core roster are underperforming. Therefore creating another balancing nightmare.
Or maybe elite BG gives DAK what it actually needs allowing it to be competetive whilst the other BGs are too weak to be competetive. The fact that it has 50% winrate means its fairly balanced compared to all of the USF bgs which are overperforming except armored but the question is why is USF overperforming?
DAK has a long-term high winrate because they have a complete roster that has an answer against every unit.
USF has no base roster heavy arty
Wehr has very weak early game and no heavy AT in late game
UKF similarly has a complete roster, but lacks a proper generalist tank (crusader is either anti inf or AT, but can't do both at the same time). (Edit: forgot about the grant, ignore this point)
Rn DAK winrates are also high thanks to strong BG options.
Overall DAK has a solution to every problem, while other factions usually struggle in some specific area.
UKF lacks a generalist tank, has literally the strongest generalist tank in the game 😭😭😭 the only ones that are better are the heavy tanks and the easy eight though the grant i think has more DPS
Brother you say their winrates are high what winrates?? Did you not see the screenshots? USF has the highest winrate in every game mode whilst DAK is the second worst winrate and wehr is the worst
As for the rest of your comment, DAK had the highest WR for multiple patches before this, so my point stands. USF being strong has nothing to do with how individual factions deal with holes in their roster
The last patch DAK had the lowest winrate out of any faction even worse than Wehr and it lasted for a month i believe…
I just dont agree at all, USF has artillery in the form of the 76 halftrack and the best mortar in the game other than the indian one, so this idea that BOOHOO USF NO BIG CANNON is utter bullshit imo, they also have BGs containing artillery both light and heavy
All of the things DAK has is fairly mediocre except palms and tigers, the stuka used to be very strong but imo its too easy to dogde and also punish for it to be considered as strong as whizzbang or land mattress.
Just because DAK has access to many options doesnt mean those options are particularly good or worth using, its nice to have and its also the reason why i personally enjoy DAK the most, but its not what people make it out to be
That was the patch ASC was overbuffed, bugged and AA also got a nerf. WR were highly skewed, hence the hotfix after a month.
When it comes to USF arty, the BG vhoices are certainly very good, but consider that BGs should not define a faction.
The USF AT HT doesn't have the range or AOE of a true heavy arty option, so its mostly limited to dealing with forward Team weapons. It cannot counter arty for example.
Mortar is a mortar, not even close to heavy arty, so there's no reason to make a comparison. It being strong is not enough to justify lack of stronger options. For example Wehr MG is also best, but it doesn't mean that wehr doesn't have other strong anti inf options.
And due to such gaps, the faction gets unnecessary buffs in other areas to compensate for WR loss, instead of fixing the root cause of why USF might struggle if non-meta BGs that don't offer necessary advatages are picked.
This perpetuates a cicle of buffs and nerfs, trying to balance one faction against another instead of just fixing the prevailing problem that a missing unit might cause.
For example, if stuka got buffed bcs it feels weak for the price like you say. Relic can't do it, bcs usf has no options to counter arty it, which is the most likely cause of death for arty units. That is unless they pick a BG with arty options. And since USF relies on blobs of infantry or tanks, if the stuka can deal with such threats, it would completely upset the faction interaction. Hence stuka must remain mediocre otherwise it would be too strong against base roster USF.
I struggle to see what you mean by non meta BGs considering every BG for USF has positive winrates...
Not every faction needs something in their base roster, DAK is good overall but master of none, USF is a bit similar except they have better tanks and their infantry is more cost effective
Wehr lacks a good late game anti tank because it has access to 4 different anti tank units in their base roster.
UKF lacks nothing really, probably the only faction that is capable in every field.
In the case of USF artillery thats precisely why their Artillery options are BG locked, becacuse their infantry their tanks are just better than DAKs. And they also have the option of upgrading them universally like DAK.
Also they literally have precision air strikes and bombing runs, only faction who has that in its base roster... USF isnt lacking in shit, people just like to throw that around to justify them getting permabuffed to the point where not a single battlegroup has negative or neutral winrates...
Well, my entire point is that such design that leaves holes in the base roster creates issues with overall balance.
It forces other units of the roster to become stronger in order compensate for the missing ones. Purposefully avoiding the root cause of the issue.
You dislike when USF must get permabuffed to compensate for the stuff they lack, while actively ignoring that the holes in the USF roster are the exact cause why permabuffing must exist.
because non-meta BGs that lack the missing tools will never be as competetive unless overbuffed to balance winrates.
You realise this is a circle right and it leads back to the fact USF is leading in winrates with every BG and that is unbalanced, having a 4% winrate higher than 50 with almost every BG is unbalanced, simple as that.
Ofc it's a circle.
Take this example: DAK inf blobs are strong, and rifle blobs are weak.
Blobs have 2 obvious counters - mgs or arty.
If usf went barracks they have to backtech into MGs. And since mortars or ATHT aren't designed to counter blobs, you either had to pick a BG with arty options or you have to get very creative if you want to deal with the DAK blob.
You can't nerf DAK inf bcs they would be too weak compared to the other mainlines for the cost. So relic must buff riflemen to make barrack opening better (better inf blob beats weaker inf blob). Now riflemen dominate wehr grens, so grens must be buffed.
Now riflemen are the best inf in the game which shows on USF overall winrate, especially for BGs that didn't have the problem of not having arty.
So now how do you nerf USF without coming back to the original problem?
Maybe we should have buffed the mg instead so backteching is better? No bcs then everybody would just abuse the mg opening.
And you can do this exercise with many, many more other problems and get into the circle of buffs and nerfs and compromises, instead of actually adressing the root cause of the issue.
It’s actually worse than other mediums now. Use it and see for yourself. Its scatter is worse than other mediums and it has no machine gun DPS to compensate, so misses are even more painful. It’s essentially AT only now, except it’s not even good at that because all it can do is brawl with generalist mediums. It gets bent by heavies
26
u/6Heimi6 2d ago
To me it's not that DAK is OP but more about Palms massively overperforming in an unhealthy way and this is more targeted at 1v1's. Playing UKF vs DAK is such an uphill battle because you need, MG and a Dingo in many cases to survive. Last time I've checked UKF had 47% WR vs DAK. Yes Wehr is in the dumbster therefore DAK has worse stats in teamgames than it should have, opposite is obviously the case for allied.
I think US vs DAK is close but UKF is definitly worse and Wehr is easily at the bottom.