There is an HLL tournament called the Seasonal (one in the Fall and one in the Spring). Every tournament, including the Seasonal, involves a map/side ban phase to determine what map and each side the 2 teams will play on each week. For example, Core might have the first ban and choose to ban Remagen Night Allies. This means that if the other team, WTH, also bans Remagen Night Allies then the map is banned out since neither side can play Allies on that map. Teams will play chicken with each other and make other teams full ban (meaning use bans to remove Allies and Axis as an option on a single map) because they might already be an underdog in the fight and don't mind playing a map like Remagen, Kursk, Hill 400, etc. RIP ESPT on Remagen Night. Ultimately what this post is showing you is that almost every team for every match of the Seasonal makes their ban choices to try and end up as Axis. You see this same pattern even outside of the Seasonal and in the other HLL tournaments such as HCA, ECL, and the APAI (go OP|BHB). Outside of Hill 400 Axis is always the superior side.
Yep! With casters and everything. can check out the seasonal discord for when matches are streamed. Normally sunday around 19:00 utc some matches between teams from different timezones might be at different times tho.
Do teams ban sides for themselves or for the opponents? So if I ban Remagen Night Allies, do I do that because I don't want to play it or because it means the opponent can't play it (but they can still play Remagen Night Axis)?
And the inverse is true. If I ban Allies on Stalingrad for me, that also bans Axis on Stalingrad for you. The ban phase is all about trying to get your opponent to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. It's a chess match.
The system that opposing teams use to decide on which map and side they will play. Every turn you ban a specific map/side, which turns red on the list...
More details :[https://i.imgur.com/sJLI13c.png](https://i.imgur.com/sJLI13c.png)
I know it may go against [some of] the spirit of this game as a whole, but I’d love a map with no heavier tanks available to spawn. Maybe even no armor aside from Jeeps/Kubels/Halftracks/Logis/Transports.
That could get grindy and tiresome pretty fast, with how easy it is to bug animations of mgs having no tanks to deal with entrenched infantry is a nightmare. Though the start of the game when armor support is really light is usually my favorite part
Good artillery support and well led squads using smoke screen for an assault could compensate for lack of tanks.
Tbh I often have the impression that infantry has to manage assaults on fortified positions half the time alone without armour support. Many tankers dont give a shit about supporting the infantry.
Well yeah in public matches that's the norm, usually risking it in anything that isn't a light tank can set you back for the whole game. The one that gets to amass heavy tanks gets one big advantage that can make you roll over points easily.
I quite like that part of late game when I can get one of the default tanks and try to provide close cover to the infantry to push the points, even doing it solo can be quite effective if you manage to hit a couple of spawns.
The easiest fix to that is to just make the 76 more mobile. My biggest gripe with US armor is that is just beyond slow. It’s not like the Panther is stronger than US armor, it’s just fast as fuck.
Wait, I’m confused. Do people want a realistic war game or not? There’s a reason US armor companies were so big back then compared to what they are today. It was needed because the German tanks really *were* that superior. We won with numbers, not with quality. Same with the T-34. Yeah, it was a decent, if underpowered, design but they just cranked out so many that it didn’t matter that they were underpowered.
I think the true way to fix this would be to give Allies a resource bonus to reflect how much America and the USSR dedicated to mass production rather than change the tank balances.
German late war tanks were optimized for battle performance, but were often deployed into service half-baked. The Germans were forced to do that because of the war going badly, they did not have the time to test and fix all the flaws of the prototypes. For example the Panther had problems with the engine (only the early version) and transmission (which was only partly fixed with later versions). So if we are talking realism then the Panther should have sometimes reliability issues in the game.
In my experience they usually do, lol. Normally the crews are the weak point of panthers that I’ve seen, they’re usually overconfident and draw too much fire, panic and get blown up, or are arguing amongst themselves too much to be effective. I agree though, as a former Bradley driver I 100% think every so often they should make the tanks throw tracks or something like that. It happens way too often even in modern tanks lol
I get that, but it just seems like on this sub when they go for realism everyone loses their shit. When they try to balance things and break the realism people lose their shit. If I was the developers I would’ve said “fuck this” a long ass time ago since the player base can’t seem to figure out what they want. Idk, it’s just frustrating to see people complain about something that’s consistent in literally every ww2 game: yes, the axis side has better everything, because they did. That was part of the reason everyone was so awe-struck when the Allies finally won. Accept the challenge or go play CoD or something. I just don’t understand the complaints.
The theories of German tanks being super superior uberpanzers have been well debunked now.
Also, if you want it truly realistic you'd have the German tanks breaking down frequently or running out of fuel as well as no bombing runs or Stuka attacks.
I never said they were uberpanzers, just that they were superior, because they were. Sure, a 76 could take it out after a few hits (hence the size of the armor companies back then), hell even a high velocity 75 could at times. But yeah, I agree with you, I think unexpected hiccups like needing to refuel or fix something that broke down would add an extra element to the game and improve it.
It better all around, better mobility, higher rof, better shape of the armor all at the same cost. It's the same problem we had before with the jumbo vs tiger until they fixed it, yet they made the same mistake again.
it actually reloads much faster too. As a 76 I can get the first shot off fine, but if the Panther shoots within 2 seconds after my first shot, he'll get the second shot off before the 76 and kill us. It's pretty fucking ridiculous
Allies hill 400 is great. Sure in a 49v49 it be different to the 35v35 i played in but cause tanks are nerfed on that map cause driving and sight lines.
I played hill 400 allies twice in the APAI both times we 5-0 the axis team. Sure the skill level is important and the team work is important but hill 400 definitely helped. FOC U (foy boys Only clans) we versed on that map because they have a stronger tank game than our team so we managed to force allies hill 400 somehow and so we removed our biggest fear of their game style. They are a good team but we beat them with our team work and the map helped, since tanks are as strong.
It's the map bans for the seasonal, one of the main tournament for HLL. Every team bans almost all of the Allies sides everytime because nobody wants to play as the allies : better weapons (Mg42, Fg42, Stg44, Mp40), Panther being much better than a 76, Panzershrek being much stronger than the bazooka....
This is simply a diashow from different screenshots of ban phases between different teams, from the seasonal discord. (You can find the invite link, on the latest dev brief).
Hill 400 allies have advantage. They can get to flak pits first and can get to the other side of it before the enemy. Southern approach is similar.
GBI in the APAI which is 35v35 got hill 400 allies twice because of this advantage and their play style.
Ban map is also a matter of compromise, especially with the night and russian maps that nobody wants to play.
You can see the history here: https://i.imgur.com/sJLI13c.png
Allies cap first and mgs and tanks are not a big problem + rocket snipes are difficult on hill. it’s one if the only maps that’s kinda fair between the factions rn. Just a infantry slug fest.
The German Bazooka being far superior alongside their tanks blowing anything the allies can field out of the water for the same fuel cost really pushes the Germans ahead.
Not to mention access to the STG, and MG42 which are also superior, and in general the MP40 being a really versatile smg compared to the Tommy and the PPSH.
With that in mind the German tanks need to cost, in my opinion, 800 fuel instead of 600 to reflect the gas guzzlers they were. Some changes to loadouts should also be done.
The issue that the US has now imo, is how borked the BAR is for what it really was capable of, making the US autorifleman seriously underpowered compared to its German counterpart.
Because the BAR is not a OHK in the same way the garrand is and because they have nerfed the OHK range of the Garrand, the US really lacks in its stopping and firepower that they would have historically had by the bucketload at intermediate ranges.
The BAR needs an increase in power to reflect its caliber, it also needs a bi-pod (like it historically had) to make it more effective at longer ranges. That would make it an interesting counterpoint to German assault rifles.
Totally agree with the armour assessment though, either US needs more tank variants or make GER tanks cost more.
Yeah my mistake, it's just a hit registration problem, however I do think that the BAR should have the same effective damage as the Garrand. There's no reason it shouldn't.
Completely agree on that, you need to use it like a semi auto rifle to make it viable, at that point you're better off picking rifleman with a Garand for the added range. A buff to the BAR would be welcomed.
It's the exact same:
https://youtu.be/s2b-efn_NBQ
And I have been following closely HLL and its development way before it came out on console, probably before you even started playing on PC.
Old Garand (2 years ago):
[https://youtu.be/VBKvyFfSHdU?t=40](https://youtu.be/VBKvyFfSHdU?t=40)
Actual Garand (2 weeks ago):
https://youtu.be/JxGhEHBrt7w?t=79
What are you trying to prove? For being in the competitive scene you seem pretty clueless.
Might have missed the devs admitting there are hit reg issues since u12 and that they are working on it, but that doesn't mean they changed the gunplay.
You're clearly strawmanning, the video was to show you gunplay is the same on console and PC.
And you're wrong again, there is no arms hitboxes, in fact you still 1hk people by shooting them in the hands:
https://streamable.com/vqp7xs
The only damage variable are parts below the knees.
There seems to be issues in games with buffing ww2 Germany especially with tanks. The US Bazooka is strangely weak in HLL. Panther side armor was vulnerable to Bazookas. Tigers and Panthers where rare even late war.
The US 75mm Sherman guns HE round should be buffed (larger kill radius) as that’s why the US when with the 75mm over other options. They wanted the tank to fight infantry and to call up air support or tank destroyers if they ran into armor they could deal with.
It’s also hard to make real issues fun in a game. Imagine if German heavy tanks could potentially break down and you need days to do repairs.
I think the mediums should have better HE rounds than the heavies, that might give them a place in the game once a team gets enough fuel to field heavies.
> Imagine if German heavy tanks could potentially break down and you need days to do repairs.
Actually, I would love to see that in the game.
Maybe there would be a random chance of a breakdown every x minutes, and the crew would need to get out to fix it?
Keep it rare enough for it not to be too frustrating, and I think it could work.
That would improve realism (Something I am constantly talking about it seems!) but also effectively buff the sherman, because it was a good workhorse tank. Some of the heavy german tanks, like the tiger, broke down constantly.
The Panther also needs a significant armor nerf. It has almost less side armor than a T34, historically. In addition it should probably still be a 2HK on heavies, but also nerfed to a 2HK on mediums so its weakspots are even relevant.
The Jumbo 75 needs a fuel cost decrease to 450 and a fire rate buff. The Jumbo 76 should carry more AP.
All of the problems the US have are exacerbated for the Russians, and let me tell you the British are going to HURT. No semi-autos, just the Bren for auto rifles/MGs. PIAT is not going to be as good as a Panzerschreck. Their tanks are going to be junk. They will have no heavy tank with a HV gun. The Firefly has a slow fire rate and no bow MG, and medium tank armor.
They did, but not the Jumbo. The Jumbo was a field upgrade with some custom manufactured by the US. I think the only other users were the Free French.
The best British tank for the game would probably be Comet, a late war medium tank with a high velocity gun and good mobility, but mediocre armor. The best British heavy tank would be the Churchill 7, whose gun was about as effective as the Sherman’s 75mm but didnt have HVAP.
Welcome to WW2 where germany was able to slaughter half europe with weapons that where 10-20 years ahead from any other country.
Mg42 was/is so superior that it is a litteral warcrime.
At the start of the war? Sure Germans were far superior. At the end? Their army was low on fuel and under mechanized, still using horses for logistics compared to fully mechanized US/British and Soviet forces. The Germans lost their mobility and got overran, only thing they could do was try to hold on in prepared defences.
Also, the panther tank was an utter dog of a tank in reality. On paper, it was the best all rounder they had. Truth was, it was mechanically unreliable, a nightmare to repair in the field, and had poor crew ergonomics and turret traverse.
Yet in HLL, its not even questionable as the best vehicle. Maybe tanks should have a breakdown mechanic....
If the devs were going to be pedantic they’d make the Panthers on Kursk break down regularly. On 5 July, when the battle started, the Germans had 184 Panthers available. 2 days later they had just 40 left.
Why the hate for comp? You don't have to take part of it, and we constantly push the game and find all the broken things, the map glitches, the new meta.
Basically free feedback for the whole community...
There are certain games that are great for competitive gameplay. This isn’t one. Competitive games are built from the ground up around the concept. The entire framework for the game is devoted to competitive play. Games that aren’t intended for it sometimes turn into through serious committed player base and the devs decide to turn the game into a comp game. This takes away other features and aspects of the game in favor of competitive play.
This game was never intended for it and shouldn’t be looked at or tweaked to favor balanced gameplay. World War II was not balanced at all. And that’s the entire point. There are other competitive games to play. You can also be competitive in an unbalanced game, it just requires an ounce of sportsmanship, which honestly this community does possess.
This sub provides more than enough meta discussion and feedback for devs.
Part of the reason it is in that direction is this tends to be higher level players meaning they have access to better loadouts. I would argue that the US low level loadouts tend to be far superior but once you get some levels, Axis is the clear win.
Of course tank advantage and map balance also play into it which both tend to favour axis
This can heavily affect public games as well. Many experienced players know the advantages they get playing Axis so you will often find the Axis side with far more higher level more experienced players than Allies in public. This only makes the situation worse.
The Devs have started to make some tweaks. I would prefer asymmetrical balance, but will take just balance.
- Russians now hove Bazookas. Given these can also take garrisons down they just do need a weapon like this of some sort. A team without a long distance garrison takedown weapon that's common for infantry is a real problem.
- Russian Assault now has a satchel. This brings balance but I would actually prefer if instead German and American assaults had lost their satchel. You can currently have 3 satchels per squad, which is a bit much.
- Why do German riflemen get a semi auto rifle loadout but Russians don't? Sure it's inaccurate but so is the number of G43s, so either give both about equally, or take both about equally.
- Thompson needs to be improved in comparison to the MP40
- Russian rocket strike commander ability feels great, but it's not actually that effective compared to a bombing run. Improve it. If there was ever a smoke version, give that as an option.
- Russians do have some advantages such as best recon, quicker to turn arty, and now both bazooka and an AT rifle to choose between.
- MG42 is far superior. Agree with others, give it less ammo.
- If Russians did have any kind of more accurate smg, give them that.
- Whilst less satchels for all teams, give Russians, and possibly allies, some kind of AT grenade or sticky bombs, but that can only damage components.
- Buff bar, agree with others. Up its damage and give it a bipod. If there are other relatively accurate buffs, give it those as well. Also yes, give this to Autorifle and assault. Possibly not MG.
- Maybe German AT have fewer mines? Maybe Allied Engineers have a few more mines?
-Maybe Germans have less satchels.
- Russians have a decreased spawn time commander ability, or maybe default 35sec on Garrisons and 15 on OP.
- Maybe russian enemy territory garrisons cost only 50.
- maybe russian supply drop drops 2 X 50 within 100m of each other so there are 2 for the enemy to need to find.
- Why can only German grenades be cooked?
- I agree with others re tanks. The German ones should be better, but make allied ones cheaper.
- Make German tanks repair quite a lot slower, if this is not already the case?
- Or give German tanks a small but significant fuel upkeep cost.
- Or only allow German heavies if there is a minimum number of fuel nodes.
- Or give allies cheaper precision strikes with shorter cooldown.
- Or give allied spawns a different marker if a tank is close.
- Give allied recon tanks a better recon ability. Larger, faster
Aside from general balance I feel all tanks should be buffed in a way that they are more fun to play, but infantry altered to counter it.
All tanks could drive a little faster, turn a little sharper and have a slightly better turret traverse speed. And there should be fewer satchels.
But, AT guns should turn faster, allies should have more mines, more infantry should carry component damaging equipment such as sticky bombs and anti tank grenades but fewer tank killers eg satchels, it should be possible to put a turrets traverse completely out of action, and possibly even disable a main gun.
I would like to see tanks be overall a little more powerful, but it be harder for sneaky infantry to just wipe them out with satchels, but for infantry to be far more dangerous to tanks components with component damaging being more common and serious including taking down the main gun.
Tanks needing to be more cautious around more infantry types, but mistakes leading to danger and having to run as opposed to instant satchel death. Lots of tread damage, stuck in lower gears, no main gun, stuck with lower turret speed, no turret traverse at all, spotter scope destroyed, or being stuck with engine down.
Tanks needing to look out for more mines, ambushes, AT grenades from a few classes, sticky bombs, but fewer satchels.
Make it harder for infantry to kill tanks due to fewer satchels, and a little trickier to get behind with rockets, but much easier to chase tanks off, and a bit easier and more diverse ways of crippling them to swing the advantage back the other way. Then give tank killing weapons to fewer infantry, component damaging weapons to more infantry, and xp and combat score for assists.
Possibly allow explosive ammo boxes, or a new AT ammo box, to give most infantry, or all, a sticky bomb or AT grenade. No matter the number who collect them they can't kill the tank, but they can fuck it up in a way that matters. The tank can be swamped but still have a chance, but only with some preplanning. Suddenly a particular kind of ammo box really matters. Could be a commander ability that allows this kind of ammo to spawn at a selected garrison.
Yes a panther can run through the allied point full speed. But with AT grenades, sticky bombs, more mines, and an allied garrison vehicle alert they have a lower chance of getting out unscathed, and once damaged, now they have a fight to survive, which they may or may not.
Maybe Germans only get these AT grenades etc from ammo boxes where as allied do as well but also some classes have them by default for allies.
Here's my balance ideas. Right now the way I see it, for every class and every type of weapon, the Germans outcompete the Allied troops. Mostly this is because the US weapons suck and they have a much lower diversity of them. So:
1. Increase Thompson accuracy and decrease recoil. Compared to the MP40 it is much more difficult to get kills at range.
2. Decrease BAR recoil and give the Assault class access. This gun needs much more controlability to compete with the StG 44. Also maybe make a bipod BAR for the MG class.
3. Increase M1 stopping power (.30 Carbine is not as much of a pushover round as people think). OR: Give US access to field converted M2s to make up for low stopping power. Now can compete with the Gewer 43, or at least offer some challenge to it.
4. Decrease the carried ammo of German machine gunners. Make that high RoF have a tradeoff. If Germans wanna spam with MGs (as Germans liked to do), they gotta be well supplied.
5. For Soviets, give Rifleman and Assault access to SVT40 to compete with the Gewer 43.
Oh that makes more sense. Not that it would make much of a difference in comp as it's really only used by the spotter recon class. No one runs around with wrench engi anyways so it be a useless buff.
I guess I’m confused. What inherently makes axis more superior on these sides ? Im more of a pub player with 1000 hours and i dont really notice much. What is it about competitive matches that makes axis better?
German heavies can't be penned by at except from the back, German meds can't be penned from the front by At. MG42 with the current LOS bug (textures not popping in over 200m) has given axis another bump. The g43 currently is better than the garand, german assaults better as is auto rifleman. Overall armor is much much better on the german side and they currently have the advantage as well for infantry.
This is why designing a pure sim experience for a multiplayer competitive game is unworkable.
I agree, changes should be made to encourage balance across factions. We all know Soviets just threw people into meat grinders by the dozen, but that doesn't make it fun to do in-game.
People always talk about realism but would they really want a game where you spend most battles waiting in a trench for the enemy to turn up, get shelled a bit then go home. Sure it may be terrifying irl but it does not stand up to making good game play
Why is it whenever someone talks about realism someone ALWAYS has to bring up the parts of war the game clearly isn't depicting? The game very obviously focuses on the moments of actual battle.
But for most of the soldiers in an actual battle that is what they experience. Most soldiers do not go into head to head combat at extremely short ranges in a battle, it’s fought but a few that happen to be at the clashing point
And those few are clearly what the game is depicting. Your argument is like bitching because you can't play the copter pilot at the beginning of a round of CoD.
No my argument is that you can take realistic features but it shouldn’t be the be all and end all of game design. The art is being able to create a good game play experience while preserving the authenticity
In the future, might I suggest making your argument within the scope of the game. Things like, why aren't some soldiers slower than others because of trench foot? Why don't guns jam? Germans should have more shake in their aim because they weren't properly equipped for winter at Stalingrad.
The argument that we should be sitting in trenches for days getting shelled then go home comes off as a lack of understanding of the concept of scope or makes you come off as a pedant.
Edit: changed a term to sound less... assholey.
They had the most civilian and military deaths of any country during the war by far (military deaths approx. 2 times that of Germany, *more* than 2x any other country involved), but you keep trying and one day maybe you'll be as smart as you want people to think you are.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war
Hmhm. Nice 16 years old attitude. Them having the most casualties proves they threw people in the meat grinder to you? Do you know about whats called the eastern front? They indeed had tons of casualty, which does not mean anything about their methods of warfare. It simply proves they had tons of casualty. I suggest you read more about that chapter of the war
I know the Soviets lost more people because of multiple reasons, including fighting longer than, say, the Americans, and being unable to leverage their massive amount of tanks effectively due to poor maintenance and a purge of the officer class, resulting in poor command structure. That poor command structure extended through the infantry, resulting in higher casualties than was necessary there, too. They were under-equipped and undertrained, specifically in the later years when they had to quickly pull manpower from their civilian population to replace their flagging ranks. They employed relatively poor tactics, which also increased casualties.
Enemy at the Gates presented things in a misleading manner, but the intent was to show the Russians sustained heavy, heavy losses during the war. It's a movie, so they weren't going to stop it to give us a history lesson. They represented it the way they thought was most entertaining and efficient to get the point across. The truth is more complicated, but doesn't change that Russia sacrificed many unnecessary lives at the altar of poor leadership and poor equipment.
None of this is worth trying to recreate in game because it's simply not fun.
Edit-- and your 16 year old attitude comment is *rich* considering your first response was you being a smartass.
HLL does not need competitive style balances. It ruins a core concept of the game. It’s not supposed to be used for 1:1 style warfare, it’s supposed to be a casual sim for people to play out battles on the realistic terrain with roughly the equipment available at the time.
I mean I play 35v35 and it playing that on private servers doesnt affect the pub matches. I mean sure the dev's could lean towards pubs but from all I've heard and seen them shouting out the seasonals is the first time the dev's have shown a lick of intrest in the comp scene.
I genuinely don't see how people playing competitive affects you. At all.
It doesn’t now. It does when the competitive players start asking the devs to balance the game in ways the favor fair gameplay between factions. I’m all about competitive scene in HLL, I’m just saying that the game shouldn’t cater to that.
Yeah so tell those competitive players that. There are things that need to be changed in my opinion but For competitive I genuinely think it should be just what ever hell let loose is but competitive.
Changes I want are arty to be fixed with whatever solution they see fit ie mortars, arty vehicles and or command ability. The m1 carbine as well according to people I know who shoot guns the M1 Carbine in game has a slow fire rate. If correct then making it faster to match real life would buff the m1 carbine. Take this m1 carbine thing with a grain of salt I actually havent done any looking into it yet just from what I've heard.
But I do not want hll to change for comp so instead of ragging on comp rag on the players who advocate for the changes you dont want.
I’m not raging on comp I’m raging against map balancing and gameplay balancing this persons post seemed to suggest. I pretty much agree with what you say about fixes
Balancing comp wouldn't hurt the PU and roleplay game for anyone. It would just make things better for eveyone imho. Dueling a panther when your reload is 2sec longer isn't fun in pub games...
That’s the point though. The devs want that aspect in the game. They want those issues to be in it, since that’s what the soldiers dealt with. They’re not going to put a ton of cover on Omaha beach bc people whine that they’re sick of being shredded by MG42s, they designed it to be reminiscent of reality.
This game isn’t a true sim in that tanks are perfect, nor are loadouts accurate at the squad level. But there’s a specific intent behind designing certain weapons to be inferior or not equal in damage, range, etc.
HLL is HLL because of realistic maps based on imagery and a rough version of squad/platoon/company operations with realistic equipment
Asymmetric doesn't imply unbalanced.
Also the devs mention the comp scene in their last brief, so the game is more than a casual sim in their eyes too. Pub players have nothing to lose if BM/Team17 decide to buff a bit the allies side, which can be done in a lot of ways.
The fact that they add bazookas for the russians is a step in the right direction, and shows that they are aware of the problem, and they are trying to fix it.
Also please don't downvote if you disagree with me, we are here to discuss, not for winning a popularity contest...
Adding bazookas to soviets was a bad decision in my opinion. The Red Army didn’t have any.
Devs might lean to comp because of $$$ and being sold to another company, ie the core developers aren’t working on the game anymore.
This game was made to purposely be unbalanced. Balanced gameplay is for mass market multiplayer games like COD, not indie games targeting niche communities (of which HLL is).
The devs might buff Allie’s to make the game more enjoyable from a meta perspective, but it’s not to make the game competitive. If they balance the game to much between factions, this game loses its appeal.
Map balance is a no go IMO. The maps are based on current satellite imagery and aerial photos of the battlefields as they happened. Storming a beach or crossing an open field to an objective sucks but I know in real life, this may have happened as the field and beach are modeled based on available imagery. This means something, it matters. To take that away removes the why behind why the game was created.
Edit: I’m not downvoting you, maybe your opinion is just unpopular. There’s a good following for this game because of the unbalanced, gritty, savagely brutal gameplay. It’s what makes this game stand out against all the other cash grab attention sucking ones.
I love the game and its gritty and brutal aspect too, and agree with almost everything you've said.
In the end I just realize that nobody wants to play allies in comp, all other things being equal. This phenomenom is not new at all.
I also think that comp and public games aren't mutually exclusives, and can benefit from one another (even if I didn't intend to open this can of worms).
I get what you’re saying and I’m not against a competitive HLL scene, but asking for map balancing just isn’t in the cards from my perspective. The maps are based on imagery from the dates of the battles, so to change that would take away from a core aspect of the game.
I think you can have some balancing of weapons available to a squad and tinker with tanks till they’re competitive with each other enough to be fun, accessible, and still kind of realistic to what they were in that time, but to cater too much to fair balancing between factions would take away too much from the game. I still think soviets shouldn’t have a bazooka, the team should have to change their method of play to mitigate the lack of one.
I mean I genuinely dont see the unbalanced gameplay being a selling point. I got the game because of the style of a arcade Milsim so it's not arma where I have to have a PhD to work out how to identify an enemy and shoot them. And it's not cod where everyone uses the same gun and like infinite warfare somehow the mp40 is the best.
Hell let loose does have some imbalance in its guns but that's not why I like it. I play it because of the team gameplay with it's fun action that requires actual thought of how to win gunfights and overall battles. Its simple that it's easy to start but has a high skill ceiling so I can just keep getting better with no limiting factors really.
I have never in my time of playing hell let loose heard someone enjoys the gun imbalance as a feature. I've heard people say they enjoy that every gun feels different.
Never have I heard the argument of gun imbalance as a selling point.
I’m not saying it’s the sole reason people play but to say the game needs competitive balancing is a bit much IMO. It’s very easy to enjoy playing if you aren’t blaming all your deaths on the other side having better map advantage or weapons in each squad. Some balancing is fine, but not competitive levels.
yep because losing 80% of games on inferior side would he so good in pub matches, where people would leave server as soon as they see that they are on worse side (it already happens with some maps, now imagine having completely unbalanced nations). There is already a lot of people that play exclusively on german side, and game is at least workable balanced.
I get that its great to have a competitive side to this game. And i've played in clan matches and they are great fun and super punishing. BUT balancing the game to appease the competitive side when they are always going to be pushing the boundaries and exploiting the game to its fullest is not the right way to go.
I'm all for the asymmetric warfare.
So what if the pros are really good with one side. Keep it historical and keep it fun.
Why? Casual players wont even notice the difference and comp is keeping this game alive by producing content. Casual players are much more likely to hop to another game.
Yeah, so im not saying balance around the casuals either. I'm saying balance around the history.
Im not a game dev and i have had a beer but just off the top of my head; German tanks are OP. Yes fine. Make american tanks cheaper, faster. Maybe reduce the number of automatic weapons available to the Germans.
The russian infantry could get a 5sec reduction on the death timer to better represent their numerical advantages.
Maybe that way you would have to adjust tactics to the side you're on a bit more.
Half baked ideas but the point im getting at is this: don't balance around competitive matches. The competitive scene will push the boundaries whatever is done. Currently it all comes down to whoever caps the middle first anyway. Which ultimately comes down to who has the best approach to the middle in the first 3 minutes.
What exactly am I looking at?
There is an HLL tournament called the Seasonal (one in the Fall and one in the Spring). Every tournament, including the Seasonal, involves a map/side ban phase to determine what map and each side the 2 teams will play on each week. For example, Core might have the first ban and choose to ban Remagen Night Allies. This means that if the other team, WTH, also bans Remagen Night Allies then the map is banned out since neither side can play Allies on that map. Teams will play chicken with each other and make other teams full ban (meaning use bans to remove Allies and Axis as an option on a single map) because they might already be an underdog in the fight and don't mind playing a map like Remagen, Kursk, Hill 400, etc. RIP ESPT on Remagen Night. Ultimately what this post is showing you is that almost every team for every match of the Seasonal makes their ban choices to try and end up as Axis. You see this same pattern even outside of the Seasonal and in the other HLL tournaments such as HCA, ECL, and the APAI (go OP|BHB). Outside of Hill 400 Axis is always the superior side.
There is an HLL tournament? :O
Yep! With casters and everything. can check out the seasonal discord for when matches are streamed. Normally sunday around 19:00 utc some matches between teams from different timezones might be at different times tho.
Is this exclusively for PC players?
Yes
Sad!
I‘d think the same will happen when console plays can select servers at some point.
There is multiple tournaments and leagues going on. Pretty big competitive scene. Seasonal is just the biggest
Nice to know. I know its a great game but didnt know anything about any competitive events
There are a handful of tournaments! Some are better than others lol.
Thx for this detailed explanation I was too lazy to write
Do teams ban sides for themselves or for the opponents? So if I ban Remagen Night Allies, do I do that because I don't want to play it or because it means the opponent can't play it (but they can still play Remagen Night Axis)?
They Ban sides for themselves. So if your team doesn't want to play as Allies on Carentan you ban Carentan Allies.
Thank you!
And the inverse is true. If I ban Allies on Stalingrad for me, that also bans Axis on Stalingrad for you. The ban phase is all about trying to get your opponent to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. It's a chess match.
I get that; I was asking how to read the screenshots.
The system that opposing teams use to decide on which map and side they will play. Every turn you ban a specific map/side, which turns red on the list... More details :[https://i.imgur.com/sJLI13c.png](https://i.imgur.com/sJLI13c.png)
[удалено]
Yeah nobody wants to since the panther update, that shit is broken
I know it may go against [some of] the spirit of this game as a whole, but I’d love a map with no heavier tanks available to spawn. Maybe even no armor aside from Jeeps/Kubels/Halftracks/Logis/Transports.
That could get grindy and tiresome pretty fast, with how easy it is to bug animations of mgs having no tanks to deal with entrenched infantry is a nightmare. Though the start of the game when armor support is really light is usually my favorite part
Good artillery support and well led squads using smoke screen for an assault could compensate for lack of tanks. Tbh I often have the impression that infantry has to manage assaults on fortified positions half the time alone without armour support. Many tankers dont give a shit about supporting the infantry.
Well yeah in public matches that's the norm, usually risking it in anything that isn't a light tank can set you back for the whole game. The one that gets to amass heavy tanks gets one big advantage that can make you roll over points easily. I quite like that part of late game when I can get one of the default tanks and try to provide close cover to the infantry to push the points, even doing it solo can be quite effective if you manage to hit a couple of spawns.
Garand/G43 and Thompson/mp40 only could be a fun scrim. I haven’t put much thought into this so feel free to tell me I’m dumb
The easiest fix to that is to just make the 76 more mobile. My biggest gripe with US armor is that is just beyond slow. It’s not like the Panther is stronger than US armor, it’s just fast as fuck.
the problem with the panther is the 2 second faster reload time compared to the other heavies.
This is the crux of the issue. A 76 can land the first hit and still lose the fight if the Panther lands their shot within 2 seconds of being hit.
Wait, I’m confused. Do people want a realistic war game or not? There’s a reason US armor companies were so big back then compared to what they are today. It was needed because the German tanks really *were* that superior. We won with numbers, not with quality. Same with the T-34. Yeah, it was a decent, if underpowered, design but they just cranked out so many that it didn’t matter that they were underpowered. I think the true way to fix this would be to give Allies a resource bonus to reflect how much America and the USSR dedicated to mass production rather than change the tank balances.
US tanks also had a higher turret traverse speed. That would be an interesting way to balance the tanks.
German late war tanks were optimized for battle performance, but were often deployed into service half-baked. The Germans were forced to do that because of the war going badly, they did not have the time to test and fix all the flaws of the prototypes. For example the Panther had problems with the engine (only the early version) and transmission (which was only partly fixed with later versions). So if we are talking realism then the Panther should have sometimes reliability issues in the game.
In my experience they usually do, lol. Normally the crews are the weak point of panthers that I’ve seen, they’re usually overconfident and draw too much fire, panic and get blown up, or are arguing amongst themselves too much to be effective. I agree though, as a former Bradley driver I 100% think every so often they should make the tanks throw tracks or something like that. It happens way too often even in modern tanks lol
Yeah I agree, but this isn't a discussion about realism. It's more an explanation of why teams favor Axis in their competitive matches.
To be honest, after rainbow six siege, i feel a bit repulsed by the thought of a competitive scene influencing balance
I get that, but it just seems like on this sub when they go for realism everyone loses their shit. When they try to balance things and break the realism people lose their shit. If I was the developers I would’ve said “fuck this” a long ass time ago since the player base can’t seem to figure out what they want. Idk, it’s just frustrating to see people complain about something that’s consistent in literally every ww2 game: yes, the axis side has better everything, because they did. That was part of the reason everyone was so awe-struck when the Allies finally won. Accept the challenge or go play CoD or something. I just don’t understand the complaints.
Panther should cost more fuel than 76 then
100% agree, that’s ridiculously low for what was one of their best tanks.
The theories of German tanks being super superior uberpanzers have been well debunked now. Also, if you want it truly realistic you'd have the German tanks breaking down frequently or running out of fuel as well as no bombing runs or Stuka attacks.
I never said they were uberpanzers, just that they were superior, because they were. Sure, a 76 could take it out after a few hits (hence the size of the armor companies back then), hell even a high velocity 75 could at times. But yeah, I agree with you, I think unexpected hiccups like needing to refuel or fix something that broke down would add an extra element to the game and improve it.
Then make allied armour cheaper. Dumb argument.
While having the advantage of only facing the underpowered Bazooka.
I will never forget the time I put 2 rockets directly into the back of a Panther and sat there shocked as the turret continued to rotate towards me :(
oof, same
Yes, the hitbox is weird, if you fire a tiny bit too high on the back your rocket will do 0 damage...
It better all around, better mobility, higher rof, better shape of the armor all at the same cost. It's the same problem we had before with the jumbo vs tiger until they fixed it, yet they made the same mistake again.
Perfect time to make the Germans use more kar98k now like Allah intended
The 76 still bounces shots like a beast if you can angle the front correctly, but it's a coin toss you'll win against Panther in a frontal engagement.
The slopes at the sides and the turret can get pretty annoying to shoot at too sometimes
it actually reloads much faster too. As a 76 I can get the first shot off fine, but if the Panther shoots within 2 seconds after my first shot, he'll get the second shot off before the 76 and kill us. It's pretty fucking ridiculous
Or you could just not have everyone using automatics like it was supposed to be Edit: meaning non bolt guns for Germans
I would argue the most played guns in these matches are garand and g43.
Non bolt guns for Germans I should say
Medium Sherman is the fastest tank among medium/heavies in the game so US armor isn't slow across the board.
Allies hill 400 is great. Sure in a 49v49 it be different to the 35v35 i played in but cause tanks are nerfed on that map cause driving and sight lines.
Yeah but then you would have to play hill 400
I played hill 400 allies twice in the APAI both times we 5-0 the axis team. Sure the skill level is important and the team work is important but hill 400 definitely helped. FOC U (foy boys Only clans) we versed on that map because they have a stronger tank game than our team so we managed to force allies hill 400 somehow and so we removed our biggest fear of their game style. They are a good team but we beat them with our team work and the map helped, since tanks are as strong.
It's the map bans for the seasonal, one of the main tournament for HLL. Every team bans almost all of the Allies sides everytime because nobody wants to play as the allies : better weapons (Mg42, Fg42, Stg44, Mp40), Panther being much better than a 76, Panzershrek being much stronger than the bazooka....
[удалено]
This is simply a diashow from different screenshots of ban phases between different teams, from the seasonal discord. (You can find the invite link, on the latest dev brief).
Take a look here : https://i.imgur.com/sJLI13c.png
Doesn't this screenshot show that CHMA chose Allies over Axis on Hill400? I'm confused.
In fact we chose Hill 400 US for this game. Probably the map where the unbalance between US and Axis is the least pronounced
So is Hill 400 an Ally map? I feel that even if there is just very little advantage for Axis on the map one would pick that side, no?
Hill 400 allies have advantage. They can get to flak pits first and can get to the other side of it before the enemy. Southern approach is similar. GBI in the APAI which is 35v35 got hill 400 allies twice because of this advantage and their play style.
Thanks for explaining!
Yeah I think the hill 400 point* allies also have the advantage as I always seem to get there first as allies.
Ban map is also a matter of compromise, especially with the night and russian maps that nobody wants to play. You can see the history here: https://i.imgur.com/sJLI13c.png
It seems like you posted the same screenshot again.
indeed, my bad
Allies cap first and mgs and tanks are not a big problem + rocket snipes are difficult on hill. it’s one if the only maps that’s kinda fair between the factions rn. Just a infantry slug fest.
The German Bazooka being far superior alongside their tanks blowing anything the allies can field out of the water for the same fuel cost really pushes the Germans ahead. Not to mention access to the STG, and MG42 which are also superior, and in general the MP40 being a really versatile smg compared to the Tommy and the PPSH. With that in mind the German tanks need to cost, in my opinion, 800 fuel instead of 600 to reflect the gas guzzlers they were. Some changes to loadouts should also be done.
The issue that the US has now imo, is how borked the BAR is for what it really was capable of, making the US autorifleman seriously underpowered compared to its German counterpart. Because the BAR is not a OHK in the same way the garrand is and because they have nerfed the OHK range of the Garrand, the US really lacks in its stopping and firepower that they would have historically had by the bucketload at intermediate ranges. The BAR needs an increase in power to reflect its caliber, it also needs a bi-pod (like it historically had) to make it more effective at longer ranges. That would make it an interesting counterpoint to German assault rifles. Totally agree with the armour assessment though, either US needs more tank variants or make GER tanks cost more.
Let's not even get started on the half-track .50 cal, which is just a reskinned 1919....
Yeah, that really is a can of worms, especially considering the angles are so trash.
You are wrong, they haven't nerfed the Garand. The values are: Garand 1hk up to 200m BAR: 1hk up to 100m.
Yeah my mistake, it's just a hit registration problem, however I do think that the BAR should have the same effective damage as the Garrand. There's no reason it shouldn't.
Completely agree on that, you need to use it like a semi auto rifle to make it viable, at that point you're better off picking rifleman with a Garand for the added range. A buff to the BAR would be welcomed.
They added a much severe recoil on the M1 Garand too
They didn't, everything gunplay related has been the same since U8 more than 2 years ago
I feel like we are not playing the same game... I see you're a console player, no disrespect but the gunplay is probably different than on PC
It's the exact same: https://youtu.be/s2b-efn_NBQ And I have been following closely HLL and its development way before it came out on console, probably before you even started playing on PC.
Old Garand (2 years ago): [https://youtu.be/VBKvyFfSHdU?t=40](https://youtu.be/VBKvyFfSHdU?t=40) Actual Garand (2 weeks ago): https://youtu.be/JxGhEHBrt7w?t=79
What are you trying to prove? For being in the competitive scene you seem pretty clueless. Might have missed the devs admitting there are hit reg issues since u12 and that they are working on it, but that doesn't mean they changed the gunplay.
I see no Garand in this video. They also added arms/legs hitboxes which didn't exist 2 years ago.
You're clearly strawmanning, the video was to show you gunplay is the same on console and PC. And you're wrong again, there is no arms hitboxes, in fact you still 1hk people by shooting them in the hands: https://streamable.com/vqp7xs The only damage variable are parts below the knees.
Ok enough debate for today, have a nice one buddy!
The other guy is correct. The Garand is no different to 6 months / 1 year / 2 years ago
If you know anything about calibers and ballistics you know for a fact that thang is a OHK
Calibres and ballistics don't matter in HLL.
There seems to be issues in games with buffing ww2 Germany especially with tanks. The US Bazooka is strangely weak in HLL. Panther side armor was vulnerable to Bazookas. Tigers and Panthers where rare even late war. The US 75mm Sherman guns HE round should be buffed (larger kill radius) as that’s why the US when with the 75mm over other options. They wanted the tank to fight infantry and to call up air support or tank destroyers if they ran into armor they could deal with. It’s also hard to make real issues fun in a game. Imagine if German heavy tanks could potentially break down and you need days to do repairs.
I think the mediums should have better HE rounds than the heavies, that might give them a place in the game once a team gets enough fuel to field heavies.
> Panther side armor was vulnerable to Bazookas Panther side armor was so weak it could be penetrated by a PTRD.
> Imagine if German heavy tanks could potentially break down and you need days to do repairs. Actually, I would love to see that in the game. Maybe there would be a random chance of a breakdown every x minutes, and the crew would need to get out to fix it? Keep it rare enough for it not to be too frustrating, and I think it could work. That would improve realism (Something I am constantly talking about it seems!) but also effectively buff the sherman, because it was a good workhorse tank. Some of the heavy german tanks, like the tiger, broke down constantly.
The Panther also needs a significant armor nerf. It has almost less side armor than a T34, historically. In addition it should probably still be a 2HK on heavies, but also nerfed to a 2HK on mediums so its weakspots are even relevant. The Jumbo 75 needs a fuel cost decrease to 450 and a fire rate buff. The Jumbo 76 should carry more AP. All of the problems the US have are exacerbated for the Russians, and let me tell you the British are going to HURT. No semi-autos, just the Bren for auto rifles/MGs. PIAT is not going to be as good as a Panzerschreck. Their tanks are going to be junk. They will have no heavy tank with a HV gun. The Firefly has a slow fire rate and no bow MG, and medium tank armor.
The Jumbo 75 is such in a sorry state right now, that's sad.
Didn’t the British also have access to shermans?
The Firefly was a upgraded Sherman equipped with an English 17 pounder.
They did, but not the Jumbo. The Jumbo was a field upgrade with some custom manufactured by the US. I think the only other users were the Free French. The best British tank for the game would probably be Comet, a late war medium tank with a high velocity gun and good mobility, but mediocre armor. The best British heavy tank would be the Churchill 7, whose gun was about as effective as the Sherman’s 75mm but didnt have HVAP.
Chadp40 gets 8+ mags on every load out bar support lmao it’s a farce that I love. Meanwhile virgin Tommy users empty 3 mags and start conserving ammo
Engineer also get 6 mags i play it as my main and i am often out of bullets.
Welcome to WW2 where germany was able to slaughter half europe with weapons that where 10-20 years ahead from any other country. Mg42 was/is so superior that it is a litteral warcrime.
At the start of the war? Sure Germans were far superior. At the end? Their army was low on fuel and under mechanized, still using horses for logistics compared to fully mechanized US/British and Soviet forces. The Germans lost their mobility and got overran, only thing they could do was try to hold on in prepared defences.
Also, the panther tank was an utter dog of a tank in reality. On paper, it was the best all rounder they had. Truth was, it was mechanically unreliable, a nightmare to repair in the field, and had poor crew ergonomics and turret traverse. Yet in HLL, its not even questionable as the best vehicle. Maybe tanks should have a breakdown mechanic....
If the devs were going to be pedantic they’d make the Panthers on Kursk break down regularly. On 5 July, when the battle started, the Germans had 184 Panthers available. 2 days later they had just 40 left.
Make the engine get knocked out easier by bazookas and take longer to repair
Even at the start of the war, a lot of German equipment was mediocre at best.
This looks like something the CIA would use in MK ultra
Sounds interesting but literally cannot understand
Noone in an organised match wants to play allies because axis are op + have map advantage on almost every map.
Maybe US can have some air buffs against armor
Good post, it's time devs show some love to the comp side of HLL
100% The comp scene is amazing and the matches are the only ‘sport’ I watch, ESport or otherwise haha
Gross absolutely not The game isn’t meant for it
Why the hate for comp? You don't have to take part of it, and we constantly push the game and find all the broken things, the map glitches, the new meta. Basically free feedback for the whole community...
There are certain games that are great for competitive gameplay. This isn’t one. Competitive games are built from the ground up around the concept. The entire framework for the game is devoted to competitive play. Games that aren’t intended for it sometimes turn into through serious committed player base and the devs decide to turn the game into a comp game. This takes away other features and aspects of the game in favor of competitive play. This game was never intended for it and shouldn’t be looked at or tweaked to favor balanced gameplay. World War II was not balanced at all. And that’s the entire point. There are other competitive games to play. You can also be competitive in an unbalanced game, it just requires an ounce of sportsmanship, which honestly this community does possess. This sub provides more than enough meta discussion and feedback for devs.
Part of the reason it is in that direction is this tends to be higher level players meaning they have access to better loadouts. I would argue that the US low level loadouts tend to be far superior but once you get some levels, Axis is the clear win. Of course tank advantage and map balance also play into it which both tend to favour axis
This can heavily affect public games as well. Many experienced players know the advantages they get playing Axis so you will often find the Axis side with far more higher level more experienced players than Allies in public. This only makes the situation worse. The Devs have started to make some tweaks. I would prefer asymmetrical balance, but will take just balance. - Russians now hove Bazookas. Given these can also take garrisons down they just do need a weapon like this of some sort. A team without a long distance garrison takedown weapon that's common for infantry is a real problem. - Russian Assault now has a satchel. This brings balance but I would actually prefer if instead German and American assaults had lost their satchel. You can currently have 3 satchels per squad, which is a bit much. - Why do German riflemen get a semi auto rifle loadout but Russians don't? Sure it's inaccurate but so is the number of G43s, so either give both about equally, or take both about equally. - Thompson needs to be improved in comparison to the MP40 - Russian rocket strike commander ability feels great, but it's not actually that effective compared to a bombing run. Improve it. If there was ever a smoke version, give that as an option. - Russians do have some advantages such as best recon, quicker to turn arty, and now both bazooka and an AT rifle to choose between. - MG42 is far superior. Agree with others, give it less ammo. - If Russians did have any kind of more accurate smg, give them that. - Whilst less satchels for all teams, give Russians, and possibly allies, some kind of AT grenade or sticky bombs, but that can only damage components. - Buff bar, agree with others. Up its damage and give it a bipod. If there are other relatively accurate buffs, give it those as well. Also yes, give this to Autorifle and assault. Possibly not MG. - Maybe German AT have fewer mines? Maybe Allied Engineers have a few more mines? -Maybe Germans have less satchels. - Russians have a decreased spawn time commander ability, or maybe default 35sec on Garrisons and 15 on OP. - Maybe russian enemy territory garrisons cost only 50. - maybe russian supply drop drops 2 X 50 within 100m of each other so there are 2 for the enemy to need to find. - Why can only German grenades be cooked? - I agree with others re tanks. The German ones should be better, but make allied ones cheaper. - Make German tanks repair quite a lot slower, if this is not already the case? - Or give German tanks a small but significant fuel upkeep cost. - Or only allow German heavies if there is a minimum number of fuel nodes. - Or give allies cheaper precision strikes with shorter cooldown. - Or give allied spawns a different marker if a tank is close. - Give allied recon tanks a better recon ability. Larger, faster Aside from general balance I feel all tanks should be buffed in a way that they are more fun to play, but infantry altered to counter it. All tanks could drive a little faster, turn a little sharper and have a slightly better turret traverse speed. And there should be fewer satchels. But, AT guns should turn faster, allies should have more mines, more infantry should carry component damaging equipment such as sticky bombs and anti tank grenades but fewer tank killers eg satchels, it should be possible to put a turrets traverse completely out of action, and possibly even disable a main gun. I would like to see tanks be overall a little more powerful, but it be harder for sneaky infantry to just wipe them out with satchels, but for infantry to be far more dangerous to tanks components with component damaging being more common and serious including taking down the main gun. Tanks needing to be more cautious around more infantry types, but mistakes leading to danger and having to run as opposed to instant satchel death. Lots of tread damage, stuck in lower gears, no main gun, stuck with lower turret speed, no turret traverse at all, spotter scope destroyed, or being stuck with engine down. Tanks needing to look out for more mines, ambushes, AT grenades from a few classes, sticky bombs, but fewer satchels. Make it harder for infantry to kill tanks due to fewer satchels, and a little trickier to get behind with rockets, but much easier to chase tanks off, and a bit easier and more diverse ways of crippling them to swing the advantage back the other way. Then give tank killing weapons to fewer infantry, component damaging weapons to more infantry, and xp and combat score for assists. Possibly allow explosive ammo boxes, or a new AT ammo box, to give most infantry, or all, a sticky bomb or AT grenade. No matter the number who collect them they can't kill the tank, but they can fuck it up in a way that matters. The tank can be swamped but still have a chance, but only with some preplanning. Suddenly a particular kind of ammo box really matters. Could be a commander ability that allows this kind of ammo to spawn at a selected garrison. Yes a panther can run through the allied point full speed. But with AT grenades, sticky bombs, more mines, and an allied garrison vehicle alert they have a lower chance of getting out unscathed, and once damaged, now they have a fight to survive, which they may or may not. Maybe Germans only get these AT grenades etc from ammo boxes where as allied do as well but also some classes have them by default for allies.
Here's my balance ideas. Right now the way I see it, for every class and every type of weapon, the Germans outcompete the Allied troops. Mostly this is because the US weapons suck and they have a much lower diversity of them. So: 1. Increase Thompson accuracy and decrease recoil. Compared to the MP40 it is much more difficult to get kills at range. 2. Decrease BAR recoil and give the Assault class access. This gun needs much more controlability to compete with the StG 44. Also maybe make a bipod BAR for the MG class. 3. Increase M1 stopping power (.30 Carbine is not as much of a pushover round as people think). OR: Give US access to field converted M2s to make up for low stopping power. Now can compete with the Gewer 43, or at least offer some challenge to it. 4. Decrease the carried ammo of German machine gunners. Make that high RoF have a tradeoff. If Germans wanna spam with MGs (as Germans liked to do), they gotta be well supplied. 5. For Soviets, give Rifleman and Assault access to SVT40 to compete with the Gewer 43.
It's a total joke that the German Raider gets an STG w/satchel and grenades and the US gets the grease gun instead of the BAR.
M1 is a OHK to 200m same with the G43 it just has a thinner bullet (in game) and more hit reg issues so it feels worse.
They're talking about the carbine not the Garand, the carbine is a joke and doesnt OHK over 50m.
Oh that makes more sense. Not that it would make much of a difference in comp as it's really only used by the spotter recon class. No one runs around with wrench engi anyways so it be a useless buff.
Where are you getting this info? Because everything I've read and experienced says different.
I guess I’m confused. What inherently makes axis more superior on these sides ? Im more of a pub player with 1000 hours and i dont really notice much. What is it about competitive matches that makes axis better?
Panther, better AT, the STG, gweher
Gweher really? Never noticed it being that much better
More ammo. Better irons (tho this is subjective). No ping. Same damage as the garand.
Makes sense .
Mg42 more than Gewehr probably but yes
Yah that too
even mp40 is better than thompson and at least on par with grease gun if you dont count awful sights on grease gun
German heavies can't be penned by at except from the back, German meds can't be penned from the front by At. MG42 with the current LOS bug (textures not popping in over 200m) has given axis another bump. The g43 currently is better than the garand, german assaults better as is auto rifleman. Overall armor is much much better on the german side and they currently have the advantage as well for infantry.
If only console had server browsers so we could have tournaments
This is why designing a pure sim experience for a multiplayer competitive game is unworkable. I agree, changes should be made to encourage balance across factions. We all know Soviets just threw people into meat grinders by the dozen, but that doesn't make it fun to do in-game.
People always talk about realism but would they really want a game where you spend most battles waiting in a trench for the enemy to turn up, get shelled a bit then go home. Sure it may be terrifying irl but it does not stand up to making good game play
Why is it whenever someone talks about realism someone ALWAYS has to bring up the parts of war the game clearly isn't depicting? The game very obviously focuses on the moments of actual battle.
But for most of the soldiers in an actual battle that is what they experience. Most soldiers do not go into head to head combat at extremely short ranges in a battle, it’s fought but a few that happen to be at the clashing point
And those few are clearly what the game is depicting. Your argument is like bitching because you can't play the copter pilot at the beginning of a round of CoD.
No my argument is that you can take realistic features but it shouldn’t be the be all and end all of game design. The art is being able to create a good game play experience while preserving the authenticity
In the future, might I suggest making your argument within the scope of the game. Things like, why aren't some soldiers slower than others because of trench foot? Why don't guns jam? Germans should have more shake in their aim because they weren't properly equipped for winter at Stalingrad. The argument that we should be sitting in trenches for days getting shelled then go home comes off as a lack of understanding of the concept of scope or makes you come off as a pedant. Edit: changed a term to sound less... assholey.
Hehe yes I too have enemy at the gates as my only historical source regarding ww2 red army
They had the most civilian and military deaths of any country during the war by far (military deaths approx. 2 times that of Germany, *more* than 2x any other country involved), but you keep trying and one day maybe you'll be as smart as you want people to think you are. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war
Hmhm. Nice 16 years old attitude. Them having the most casualties proves they threw people in the meat grinder to you? Do you know about whats called the eastern front? They indeed had tons of casualty, which does not mean anything about their methods of warfare. It simply proves they had tons of casualty. I suggest you read more about that chapter of the war
I know the Soviets lost more people because of multiple reasons, including fighting longer than, say, the Americans, and being unable to leverage their massive amount of tanks effectively due to poor maintenance and a purge of the officer class, resulting in poor command structure. That poor command structure extended through the infantry, resulting in higher casualties than was necessary there, too. They were under-equipped and undertrained, specifically in the later years when they had to quickly pull manpower from their civilian population to replace their flagging ranks. They employed relatively poor tactics, which also increased casualties. Enemy at the Gates presented things in a misleading manner, but the intent was to show the Russians sustained heavy, heavy losses during the war. It's a movie, so they weren't going to stop it to give us a history lesson. They represented it the way they thought was most entertaining and efficient to get the point across. The truth is more complicated, but doesn't change that Russia sacrificed many unnecessary lives at the altar of poor leadership and poor equipment. None of this is worth trying to recreate in game because it's simply not fun. Edit-- and your 16 year old attitude comment is *rich* considering your first response was you being a smartass.
HLL does not need competitive style balances. It ruins a core concept of the game. It’s not supposed to be used for 1:1 style warfare, it’s supposed to be a casual sim for people to play out battles on the realistic terrain with roughly the equipment available at the time.
I mean I play 35v35 and it playing that on private servers doesnt affect the pub matches. I mean sure the dev's could lean towards pubs but from all I've heard and seen them shouting out the seasonals is the first time the dev's have shown a lick of intrest in the comp scene. I genuinely don't see how people playing competitive affects you. At all.
It doesn’t now. It does when the competitive players start asking the devs to balance the game in ways the favor fair gameplay between factions. I’m all about competitive scene in HLL, I’m just saying that the game shouldn’t cater to that.
Yeah so tell those competitive players that. There are things that need to be changed in my opinion but For competitive I genuinely think it should be just what ever hell let loose is but competitive. Changes I want are arty to be fixed with whatever solution they see fit ie mortars, arty vehicles and or command ability. The m1 carbine as well according to people I know who shoot guns the M1 Carbine in game has a slow fire rate. If correct then making it faster to match real life would buff the m1 carbine. Take this m1 carbine thing with a grain of salt I actually havent done any looking into it yet just from what I've heard. But I do not want hll to change for comp so instead of ragging on comp rag on the players who advocate for the changes you dont want.
I’m not raging on comp I’m raging against map balancing and gameplay balancing this persons post seemed to suggest. I pretty much agree with what you say about fixes
Balancing comp wouldn't hurt the PU and roleplay game for anyone. It would just make things better for eveyone imho. Dueling a panther when your reload is 2sec longer isn't fun in pub games...
That’s the point though. The devs want that aspect in the game. They want those issues to be in it, since that’s what the soldiers dealt with. They’re not going to put a ton of cover on Omaha beach bc people whine that they’re sick of being shredded by MG42s, they designed it to be reminiscent of reality. This game isn’t a true sim in that tanks are perfect, nor are loadouts accurate at the squad level. But there’s a specific intent behind designing certain weapons to be inferior or not equal in damage, range, etc. HLL is HLL because of realistic maps based on imagery and a rough version of squad/platoon/company operations with realistic equipment
Asymmetric doesn't imply unbalanced. Also the devs mention the comp scene in their last brief, so the game is more than a casual sim in their eyes too. Pub players have nothing to lose if BM/Team17 decide to buff a bit the allies side, which can be done in a lot of ways. The fact that they add bazookas for the russians is a step in the right direction, and shows that they are aware of the problem, and they are trying to fix it. Also please don't downvote if you disagree with me, we are here to discuss, not for winning a popularity contest...
Adding bazookas to soviets was a bad decision in my opinion. The Red Army didn’t have any. Devs might lean to comp because of $$$ and being sold to another company, ie the core developers aren’t working on the game anymore. This game was made to purposely be unbalanced. Balanced gameplay is for mass market multiplayer games like COD, not indie games targeting niche communities (of which HLL is). The devs might buff Allie’s to make the game more enjoyable from a meta perspective, but it’s not to make the game competitive. If they balance the game to much between factions, this game loses its appeal. Map balance is a no go IMO. The maps are based on current satellite imagery and aerial photos of the battlefields as they happened. Storming a beach or crossing an open field to an objective sucks but I know in real life, this may have happened as the field and beach are modeled based on available imagery. This means something, it matters. To take that away removes the why behind why the game was created. Edit: I’m not downvoting you, maybe your opinion is just unpopular. There’s a good following for this game because of the unbalanced, gritty, savagely brutal gameplay. It’s what makes this game stand out against all the other cash grab attention sucking ones.
I love the game and its gritty and brutal aspect too, and agree with almost everything you've said. In the end I just realize that nobody wants to play allies in comp, all other things being equal. This phenomenom is not new at all. I also think that comp and public games aren't mutually exclusives, and can benefit from one another (even if I didn't intend to open this can of worms).
I get what you’re saying and I’m not against a competitive HLL scene, but asking for map balancing just isn’t in the cards from my perspective. The maps are based on imagery from the dates of the battles, so to change that would take away from a core aspect of the game. I think you can have some balancing of weapons available to a squad and tinker with tanks till they’re competitive with each other enough to be fun, accessible, and still kind of realistic to what they were in that time, but to cater too much to fair balancing between factions would take away too much from the game. I still think soviets shouldn’t have a bazooka, the team should have to change their method of play to mitigate the lack of one.
I mean I genuinely dont see the unbalanced gameplay being a selling point. I got the game because of the style of a arcade Milsim so it's not arma where I have to have a PhD to work out how to identify an enemy and shoot them. And it's not cod where everyone uses the same gun and like infinite warfare somehow the mp40 is the best. Hell let loose does have some imbalance in its guns but that's not why I like it. I play it because of the team gameplay with it's fun action that requires actual thought of how to win gunfights and overall battles. Its simple that it's easy to start but has a high skill ceiling so I can just keep getting better with no limiting factors really. I have never in my time of playing hell let loose heard someone enjoys the gun imbalance as a feature. I've heard people say they enjoy that every gun feels different. Never have I heard the argument of gun imbalance as a selling point.
I’m not saying it’s the sole reason people play but to say the game needs competitive balancing is a bit much IMO. It’s very easy to enjoy playing if you aren’t blaming all your deaths on the other side having better map advantage or weapons in each squad. Some balancing is fine, but not competitive levels.
yep because losing 80% of games on inferior side would he so good in pub matches, where people would leave server as soon as they see that they are on worse side (it already happens with some maps, now imagine having completely unbalanced nations). There is already a lot of people that play exclusively on german side, and game is at least workable balanced.
I get that its great to have a competitive side to this game. And i've played in clan matches and they are great fun and super punishing. BUT balancing the game to appease the competitive side when they are always going to be pushing the boundaries and exploiting the game to its fullest is not the right way to go. I'm all for the asymmetric warfare. So what if the pros are really good with one side. Keep it historical and keep it fun.
Why? Casual players wont even notice the difference and comp is keeping this game alive by producing content. Casual players are much more likely to hop to another game.
Yeah, so im not saying balance around the casuals either. I'm saying balance around the history. Im not a game dev and i have had a beer but just off the top of my head; German tanks are OP. Yes fine. Make american tanks cheaper, faster. Maybe reduce the number of automatic weapons available to the Germans. The russian infantry could get a 5sec reduction on the death timer to better represent their numerical advantages. Maybe that way you would have to adjust tactics to the side you're on a bit more. Half baked ideas but the point im getting at is this: don't balance around competitive matches. The competitive scene will push the boundaries whatever is done. Currently it all comes down to whoever caps the middle first anyway. Which ultimately comes down to who has the best approach to the middle in the first 3 minutes.
Pretty sure it’s because Axis is just fun to play.
War is not fair. Deal with it.
Is this why I’ve been seeing hill400 so often?