I said Tunisia because I’ve barely played in the last 3 months, and its only been Tunisia that I’ve played so I can’t really comment on other campaigns balancing since I’d be talking about something that I haven’t played for a while and thus couldn’t comment on how balanced it is.
Balance-wise I would have to say Moscow > Tunisia > Berlin > Normandy
But Normandy has always been a clown show in general since day 1.
3 Likes
I actually did a test on that back during Berlin and found pretty much the same results
The PzIV J is perfectly capable of killing either T-34-85 variant in Berlin, if all other things are equal. T-34 has a good gun, and decent armor on the front of the turret, but it’s still a t-34 from the neck down. In this engagement, the player who shoots first or is smarter about positioning wins.
normandy is pretty good balancewice currently
2 Likes
I really can’t imagine how you could have come to that conclusion.
i usually dont lose that much more or less than i win, wins are rarely if ever steamrolls, matches are hard but not absurd (as long as me/my team dont get stuck at the first point in the bunkers of d-day and ver-sur-mer), im likely no more than slightly better than average, and i dont have great equipment (unless u include the few m1 carbines i have)
allright, I see how you came to that conclusion.
I’ll have to revisit normandy soon. I maxed Allies, haven’t played axis there yet, and last time I tried playing there my winrate was abysmal, so I left to level Berlin Soviets some more. Perhaps something has changed.
idk if something did, but ever since i started working on normandy allies its been as i described. i like it as long as im not getting cross-map sniped by mgs
1 Like
ive nmotices something(at least about moscow)-the games are genreally very defender sided
im not sure about accurate stats, but i notice that almost always the defending side wins(in moscow russians are usually the ones defending-which is why the usually win, but when the germans are defending they are usually victoriuos)
Because defending requires less effort than attacking, especially defending from an advantageous position. A fortified position is a force multiplier. If they wanted to be more realistic with the invasion, assault, and destruction game modes, the defenders would also have a limited number of respawns, and the attackers would have a different number of respawns, more or less depending on historical troop stregths for the battle their trying to emulate. That way, all other things being equal, the side that won the historical battle, would win the battle in game, for example if the whole game was bots with no players.
2 Likes
The defenders also have the advantage of infinite lives, so they can just throw theirs away. While the attackers have to remember they have limited lives. Its something that has been brought up multiple times since launch and the devs are still yet to do anything about it.
1 Like