[1.5] My axis counter unit theory

[Warnstaff]

Spurred by this post (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=140649), my brain finally put 2 an 2 together.

The axis do not have any hard unit to unit counters! They have multiple-unit to unit counters! :agree:

For example, vs tanks: PAK38s can not counter tanks by them selves. 2 PAKs can't counter 1 tank (unless the tank is piss poorly managed), BUT, add 1 shrekier (grenadier/storm/any 1 infantry with shrek) into the picture, and the tank, unless extremely lucky, the tank is dead (sherman, croc or M10).

Another example is riflemen. An MG42 isn't much use against riflemen tactics (i.e. riflespam), even with a squad or 2 of grens, but add a mortar or nebel into the mix, and the riflemen will go down.


By comparison, the allied counter to tanks are 57mm AT guns. The allied counter to grens are either BARs or .30 cals.

Notice that the allies don't need zookas with their AT guns to counter tanks, and don't need additional riflemen squads or mortars to counter grenadiers (though they do help).


This is all counting in costs and production times of the units, not just their combat abilities (otherwise MG42s would dominate riflespams like 57mm does to tanks).


Discuss :)


Anyone who disagrees is not valid :rofl: j/k :nana:

[fallen soldier7]

but tigers can counter pershings if they are one on one. even a panther can counter a pershing. but if you think about, with the res involved, i'd say that a pershing is a much better profit than a panther. tiger maybe, but definitely not panther.\

mp40 volks rip up para squads.

AT guns can really counter HT and m8 early on. but they can't be used alone against any type of tanks without support, especially against a croc.

[MirvShag]

So basically OP is saying Germans need to use combined arms and allies do not?

[Warnstaff]

I stand corrected on some of my post. Not all axis counters have to be combined arms :)

@MirvShag: With my revised theory, that is true of imbalances (as supposed to everything). The axis need to, but the allies do not (though it would make it a helluva lot easier for them to do so). Key word in there was NEED.

Though I have never seen the axis succeed against a good allied player by using a hard unit-to-unit counter since 1.5 (then again, haven't had much time to see everything).

[fallen soldier7]

i think you've got it pretty much down pat. just gotta combine forces more. but that, imo, is the beauty of this game. the allies are boring and the axis are a challenge [to me]. for the allies i rarely have to go away from the riflespam. on certain occasions, where an enemy has gotten me with two mg42s side by side in buildings next to each other, i have had to go to my mortars and snipers, plus my own mg42 to take more important buildings. but that rarely happens.

as axis, i have to decide where the enemy will strike first. on ango it's most likely that they'll go rifles and try to get their way on the left side. sometimes, they may go wsc and put an mg in the building, but that opening is weak and i thank God when they use that against me =D

anyways, as axis when i build the whq i have to decide which unit to go with first. volks is my usual start off. but what about my next unit? should i go with the mg42? or have another group of volks? how about a motorcycle just incase i have to chase down engies?

imo if this game could be unit-to-unit then it would not be half as fun and you wouldn't have to use half as much brainpower or strategy.




and i agree that it sucks that most axis counters are not as mobile as the allies ones.

[Warnstaff]

So......... the axis require more thinking and more combined arms to counter the allied units, while the allies require less thinking and less combined arms to have the same effect.

I think this is a nice dynamic that gives the sides 2 completely different play styles that still maintain decent balance! The axis have many more units, most of which have more specialized abilities and attributes which makes them more effective at their tasks, but this makes them vulnerable to radical battlefield changes. This makes them harder to use, but when used correctly, can overpower the allies. The allies on the other hand, have few unit types, but most are multi-purpose. They are all weaker the their axis counterparts (overall), but in this generic unit type they have the ability to rapidly react effectively to a changing battlefield :D

[fallen soldier7]

that's what i just said.

[Warnstaff]

Yea, but I have to say/post it myself or it doesn't fully sink into my skull and forget it forever :bonk:

I've found that the worst thing that can happen to me when I'm winning as axis using effective combined arms, is my opponent presses "T" :(

I supposed thats why I have started using snipers in my late game again :)

[Rust_Lord]

Combined arms is definately what you have to do but it is imbalancing; sure its a challenge and its fun but when you have to buy two or three different units to counter one allied unit then clearly you are at a disadvantage unless your mixed force can nullify enough of the opposing the units to make it cost effective. But is an allied player going to try wave attacks or attack piecemeal nice and conveniently for you? I certainly doubt it. They can combine arms themselves and turn the tables quite easily; they have all the same unit types (MGs, snipers, mortars, AT guns etc etc)

[fallen soldier7]

let me use an example.

so i was playing on hill 331, started on the left side as axis. took the fuel point, defended it with an mg, sniper, and volks. no matter how many rifles they sent at me, my mg could always suppress them, with my sniper picking them off and my volks also providing extra firepower from long range. it was awesome. of course, he tried attacking from both sides, but my volks could still take the charging riflemen. and i had another two squads of storms before he got grenades.

[Warnstaff]

I've found that axis units are superior to their allied counterparts (when used "correctly"), though it is annoying to be put at that kind of disadvantage as axis. The pay off though is that (in my experience) the axis counters can kill off most of the allied "countered" targets faster then the allies can do the same :D

As axis, fighting new combined arms against me is much harder to do as suppose to the allies, but if the axis get their counters to the allied counters that just arrived, then the allies will start to lose again. At this point though it's all down to better microing, tactics and production to succeed - which means an even battle. Now those can get interesting :D

1 minute slow :bricks:

[DrunkenOne]

I still dont think I have ever built a pak, ever

[Frosty]

I've found that axis units are superior to their allied counterparts (when used "correctly")

That one just gave me a good laugh.

Show me one axis unit apart from the Mg42 and the Tiger that is "superior" to allied units. Even if you micro your Volksgrenadiers extensively, they will easily loose any battle if the allied player is just as good at microing.

Basically, both sides should be forced to utilize combined arms. I think that there are 2 different concepts of combined arms:

The "specialized combination" and the "versatile combination".

Let me tell you what the differences are:

Specialized combination is based on units that serve a definitive purpose each, and excel at doing it. However, they are very bad at what they aren't designed to do. So you will need to combine them with other specialized units to compensate for their weaknesses. This is basically the concept of traditional RTS.
Example in the game:
Grenadiers equipped with Panzershreks. They are excellent at destroying tanks, but also very vulnerable to infantry, which requires you to guard them with Volksgrenadiers or an MG42.

Versatile combination on the other hand is based on units that are capable of doing a range of different things, but don't excel at them. This means, that they need to be combined with other units in order to use their abilities at full efficiency.
Example in the game:
Fully upgraded riflemen. They can fight everything except structures. Stickybombs give them a way to counter tanks, but still require the support of an AT gun to most effectively destroy tanks. Stickybombs damage the engine and therefore are extremely useful to support AT guns.

As we know, allies are focused on versatile units like riflemen and shermans. They seem to prefer the versatile combination.

Axis is heavily dependant on specialized units like Grenadiers. They clearly utilize the specialized combination.

Both approaches play different and have their own strenghts and weaknesses. The actual balance problem lies in how they are applied.

I've already talked about the combination of stickybombs and 57 mm AT guns, which is deadly for any axis tank. The problem is, that 57 mm AT guns and stickybombs are too effective on their own already, without supporting each other. Stickybombs guarantee 100 - 150 damage per hit, which is more than every other AT-weapon in the game. 57 mm AT guns on the other hand are ridiculously effective against tanks on their own, thanks to AT shells. Okay, they seem to be a specialzied unit that has no good chance against infantry, but combine them with riflemen and they are nearly untouchable.

Look at axis Pak38 and Volksgrenadiers. Both of them are specialized units and therefore supposed to be very effective against their intended target, but very vulnerable if they don't defend each other. However, it is a fact that none of both units is effective enough to be a specialist. You can basically forget Paks, because they aren't even nearly effective enough to be a hard counter to allied tanks.

This leads me to the conclusion, that allied units are very effective at what they do and can do a lot of different things with a minimum of effort, while axis units are not effective enough, need a special unit for each situation and can therefore be easily countered. This CANNOT work and ISN'T balanced.

[Warnstaff]

I've found that un-upgraded volks will consistently beat un-BAR'd riflemen on 1 on 1 terms (I usually get a high, but not perfect success ratio on this). All they have to do is run up to them like they were carrying MP40s (read: Like they were, not that they actually are carrying them). If the riflemen run, chase them. All I have to do is watch the riflemen like a hawk for someone pulling out a grenade. Of course, one mistake on my part, and my volks will almost certainly loose. If I pull it off right, I will almost certainly win.

Now, when the riflemen get BARs, they become better (I consider BAR'd rifles to no longer be the same class as volks), and thus, no longer the volk's counterpart ;) They become the KCH counterpart :rofl:

Of course, that is a specific scenario, and doesn't really reflect the multiple squads involved - and my volks will loose over half their numbers. They can still win, but it's not much of a victory.

The rest, pretty close on ;) Though things like the PAK are one of those combo-counters. A couple volks + shrekier + PAK38 = dead tank = infantry protection. Won't work against mortars or even snipers though.

[ugordan]

Wait, wait... your run smack in the middle of vanilla rifles with your regular volks and still WIN at point blank range?

[Chris]

Frosty pretty much nailed it. Simply put, the 2 races don't play by the same rules. Trying to balance a game with just 1 type of counter system is hard enough but having 1 race work with soft counters while the other supposedly uses hard counters is just asking for trouble. If you look at the Dawn Of War games you can see Relic has a history of trying to be inovative and push the boundaries) in regard to balance (and possibly common sense...) with 7! races. unfortunately any points gained through inovation are void if the end result fails. Which it does in my opinion. In a hard counter vs soft counter situation you'd expect the hard counters to win by design and I expect Relic knew this so they tried to 'balance' it out... and made the classic mistake of beefing them to the point where they can still perform multiple tasks but are only slightly weaker at any of them.

[LTSearchEngine]

Ugordan: he's hallucinating.

[AntiCommie]

I agree with Frosty also, that Relic attempted to use units that were a mix of hard and soft counters. I dont think however, that Relic had in mind "Axis is hard counter" "Allied is soft counter". I think its more of Axis counters Armor with Armor, and Infantry with Infantry. Allies Counter infantry with Armor, and Armor with infantry. This isnt clear cut, and you can counter each, but looking at Axis armor and infantry.

Axis Armor: (No MG42)
Panther - Hard AT, no real AI - Specialist
Stug - Cheap AT, no real AI - Specialist
P4 - Medium AT + AI
Ost - Medium AI + Light Vehicle
Puma - Medium AI *OR* Medium AT upgun
Tiger - Hard everything

Allied Armor:
Croc - Hard AI - Specialist
Sherm - Medium AT + AI
M3 .50 - Hard AI
M10 - Medium AT
Pershing - Hard Everything

Axis Infantry:
Volks - AI - Specialist
Grens & Storms - Depends on ups, Medium both, or Hard either
KCH - Hard AI - Specialist
MG42 - Hard AI - Specialist
Pak - Medium AT

Allied infantry:
Rifles - Good everything with ups.
Rangers - medium everything
Airborne - medium AT
57mm - Hard AT - Specialist
.30 - Hard AI - medium light vehicles

Arty:
Axis - Generally better at killing/supressing infantry
Allied - Superior AT then Axis arty

My feeling is the allied armor is cheaper (Easier to access) because its needed to counter early axis infantry that are superiour (Also why LMGs are T3). BARs are also their for this. Early axis AT can hold off 1-2 shermans/MP units, but when Allies begin spamming armor, 88s/Axis armor is needed to counter. When Axis begin spamming armor + KCH, they become almost unstoppable. This leads to the seesaw advantages in the game.

Earlygame Axis>Allies Rax or WSC Vs WQ
Middlegame Allies>Axis KB+SA Vs MP
Lategame Axis>Allies PC Spam Vs TC Spam

The problem is the Axis early game isnt much better, in reality they are about equal, especially after 2-3 combat units are built. Then the allies get the middle game advantage, where they choose how the game is going to progress. This leads to defeat before the Axis advantage returns, since T4 is usually never seen, or comes to late. The allies in this stage have full control of the game, since they can force the Axis to react.

Obviously, this isnt true of all games. A good Axis will beat a poor allied player. Advantage also doesnt mean instant win. It means a small window where you dont have to play as hard. As most people realize, everything is counterable, its just how easy and efficient it can be done.

[Warnstaff]

Where did my quoting option go?

Anyway, I'm not imagining it. I've seen my volks go 1 on 1 with riflemen, using MP40 tactics without the MP40s, and win. It's a narrow win, and it doesn't always work, but my volks tend to win more consistently. Unfortunately, after the volks are so badly weakened, they are combat ineffective - which means that most variations will make the 1 vs 1 not possible (if the riflemen had 7 men instead of 6, they'd win).

It sounds like we are all of pretty much the same opinion on the counter-units though :)

[LTSearchEngine]

Warnstaff: I guess I'll do some quick double checking, but if the volks charge stationary rifles without MP40s, I'd would say their chance of winning is between none and 0%.

If the rifles charge immobile volks, the volks will normally win.

If both charge/they happen to be on top of each other at full health, generally (90%) the rifles.

That was the result of my own labbing, and some well known old labbing. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't think so.

[Hamburglar]

Some good points made. I agree with the fact that axis has to combine arms more to win than the allies. The odd thing is that I have played with the axis for so long now that the "easy" allies I cant play properly anymore. :dunce:

[calvin2032]

You are correct LT. I could see the tactic working if the symbol never showed up above their heads that they were carrying the MP40, as in faking them out and making them run, but that isn't the case.

The best bet is to get behind the heaviest cover the instant you see the rifles, they will charge to get in close because they excell in that situation, and you hope to knock down their HP enough or drop a man so you then have the advantage up close.

==========================================

But in general for the whole counter thing, it is pretty dumb if you ask me. Yeah the Axis may be more powerful when used correctly, but that is more of an if and not when. With the Allies being so flexible, that it would take you to predict an entire game plan to effectively counter.

There are the games where you get your Storms out quick with shrecks armed and ready for the almost garunteed Quad 50/M8 rush...but then you get the guy who does something entirely different and messes up your whole game because you picked the wrong doctrin. Waiting to get Storms out until you see a Quad 50 or Croc will lose you the game, you need to have them out there waiting, to send it to the grave so they have to change their plans to counter you...but even then because they are so flexible it isn't to hard to actually change, unlike you who went Blitz to get Storms with shrecks in time, who are now ineffective against Paras.

[Lunar100]

Well the thing that kills me really is how allies, no matter WHAT the axis do, ALWAYS have some sort of counter on hand a push of a button away. Seriously.

I did a combined arms assault on an Allied players base, this was a 4v4 mid-high level game with everyone atleast rank 5 and some rank 8s but anyway..... I rush his base with a Tiger, 3 squads of shrecked storms, 2 volks with MP40s and backed up with my ally who had 1 Tiger, an MG42 and some grens with shrecks. Now that sounds like a very good assault force balanced to counter EVERY threat right? Well the moment we enter his base a plane does a bombing run and immediatly wipes half our infantry force along with damaging our tanks. Next comes the strafing run which ends our infantry assault totally, NEXT comes the airdropped 57 with sherman-M10 backup to finish what was left of our once mighty assault force. BS straight up if you ask me.

[eggbert]

IMHO that just proves the original point: Axis combined arms beats Allies combined arms, Allies versatility beats Axis versatility.

@Lunar: If he airbombed you near his base, that means his planes need to fly almost across the whole map before dropping the bombload (there is a video tutorial on Tales of Heroes about airstrikes that explains the flightpaths very good, I think it's a must-learn for Axis). Put two Ostwind in his flightpath, that should hamper his airdrop-defense strategy. (In a 4v4, I think it's always a good idea to have a few ostwind behind your lines, as at least a few of the allies are going to go air.)

[MonsterRain]

Actually Allie only needs Bars and Tanks.

They dont need the 30 cal for suppression. If they want 30 cal just drop from sky.
They dont need Mortars either, right , just drop from sky. AT guns ? Nope drop from
sky.

They have suppression , grenades , stickies all in one unit.
Need to beat suppression? Just drop some Grenade toting Satchel charge tossing Fire up using Airborne.

Dont need to build anything but Crocs and Shermans besides barracks.

Axis has to go up a tier to get Mortars plus build a building. Grenades also need a tier up. Shreks? Ditto. AT Ditto. so on and so on. Ludicrous how the game is set up.
Perhaps next time they could spend less Development time insuring that Allie side was correct and could beat the axis in the campaign and instead Balance Axis against Allie too.

[Warnstaff]

Warnstaff: I guess I'll do some quick double checking, but if the volks charge stationary rifles without MP40s, I'd would say their chance of winning is between none and 0%.

If the rifles charge immobile volks, the volks will normally win.

If both charge/they happen to be on top of each other at full health, generally (90%) the rifles.

That was the result of my own labbing, and some well known old labbing. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't think so.

Guess I've only been with the lucky 10%, eh? I still stand by my claim though.

[AxisHammer]

i cracked up when i read ur tactic, do you play blind old people?:stick: you can even hear the difference....

[Ashmole3110]

The best defense against Riflespam is mg in the window,mortar,and volks+mp40s. Especially if its the type of riflespammer who takes his rifles everywhere all in the same spot.

[ugordan]

Guess I've only been with the lucky 10%, eh? I still stand by my claim though.You know, a replay would really go a long way adding credibility to that claim.

[Warnstaff]

If only I had any in which my opponent didn't come at me with more then 1 rifleman at a time........... (seriously, I don't have any, I thought this topic was dead some time ago, though I am willing to put that to a test with you online ;) ).

[Quasit]

The solution is to make Axis wins count for 1.5x the value of Allies wins for ranked games, till both sides are balanced. :Loco:

[Death Merchant]

Totally OT:

lol, actually, in Go, doesn't the second player get a point advantage because going first is that much better...? If Axis got 1.5x wins for every Allied...

[Quasit]

...then you might actually get players other than those who prefer 'underdog' status playing as Axis! *shock horror*