The Churchill

But UKF stock tanks (plus Valentine) are absolutely better than most axis vehicles. Churchill has so much health that in order to make sure it can soak damage and come back quickly to the field, UKF has specially designed sappers and every second commander has repair abilities. It is simply much better than what axis have.

You may even have problems to finish off a churchill in smoke repairs (plus engies - why not?) as you have to attack ground with a pak and churchill can still bounce, and often you won't be dealing enough damage to destroy it - it will be repaired faster. It will definitely give time for the UKF player to mop up your at guns. Often even with sappers. Of course if pak/s survied the churchill push in the first place. Lategame UKF is really good.

What tanks would they be? Cromwell could do with a ten fuel increase now MGs are reliable but everything else is roughly in line or worse than their axis counterparts.

Centaurs speed let's it down compared to ostwind despite their dps being almost identical. Pretty important for survivability.

Comet is basically the same power level as panther but trades AT and range for better AI. Well balanced tank finally.

Churchill is currently dead. Thank the big chungus popcap for that.

Rocket artillery to match stuka or werfer doesn't exist

FF is slightly worse than Jackson and SU85. Similar DPS to jagdpanzer vs heavies depending on armor value is slightly worse or better. Much worse vs mediums compared to JP. I would trade it for a Jackson or JP in a heartbeat.

If you made that claim on UKF release OK, but every tank in the UKF roster has been hit pretty hard with the nerfhammer. They're nothing special apart from croc

What tanks would they be? Cromwell could do with a ten fuel increase now MGs are reliable but everything else is roughly in line or worse than their axis counterparts.

It lost its advantage of having a smaller target size from the last patch so it's mgs was increased to the panzer coaxial and hull levels.

[...]
dont make conclusions on what you see in those but what you experience yourself ingame

So, from this point of view, a discussion about balance should be lead by the guys who lose games because they forget to built a pak?

Balance discussions should always resolve around the top players, since its the only way to exclude l2p issues. In any game.

Captcha test failed

Ah, there we have it, took longer then expected, but the inevitable "nerf allied units" from certain guaranteed poster finally appeared.

I would say that it was more expected your defense to allied units just on the edge of overperforming.

If people ask for buff katitof sleeps
If people say the nerf word katitof awakes.

Both units are fine within context of their own factions standing behind them.

I simply agree with this statement.

Lets just Leave people say what they want, even if they are backed up by theorycrafting or histerycal experience. In the end we are just pawns in the balance game, wasting our lives in worthless battles meanwhile the real important people look at us and decide wether to change something or not.

Nowaday in 2vs2 I usually see more comet than churchill. If I saw a churchill it's usually a flame churchill.

Also, I feel like my Ost AT gun is a joke when shooting churchill tank so nowaday if I see churchill tank ( mainly flame ), I rather shoot stun round from pak gun and then using Panzersherk to scared it off until my big boi Elefant coming out.

Seriously, that thing armor feels like a beast! And also I don't like that it got grenade: I saw enemy churchill just rolling in straight into my AT gun and pop a grenade right on it :\, now I just lay mine 43 OR just straight up move back my AT gun when seeing a churchill keep moving straight in. if Churchill hit a teller mine, it can just move back slowly so I rather use mine 43 to disabled its movement completely

No complaint, just saying!

Crocodile

So, from this point of view, a discussion about balance should be lead by the guys who lose games because they forget to built a pak?

Balance discussions should always resolve around the top players, since its the only way to exclude l2p issues. In any game.

L2P exists in all ranks, that's why tournaments exist. If everybody knew how to play everything, what's the point? Only thing that tournaments actually can tell you is the new tactics. Most of the top players need to no-life game and live around gaming and that's their life, so the old tactics are redundant and new ones spring up (been there, done that scenario). That's where the OP this or OP that comes into existence. You have a game with a ton of factors and the randomness so if individual units are really OP, then you'd know, 100% that they are OP. Furthermore, there is the game mode element. 1v1 games are drastically different than 2v2 or 3v3 games. A premade team of 3 players can synergize so well that you will lose 90%.
Eg. for axis: Jaeger doctrine reconnaissance plane + elefant synergize with OKW stuka and LeFH/arty commanders...etc. You can have a pro player any time and they will lose vs a well coordinated team.

IMHO, balance should revolve around 2v2 and 3v3 modes as 1v1 mode seems nonsensical in a game that has asymmetrical balance as one of it's foundation pillars.

L2P exists in all ranks, that's why tournaments exist. If everybody knew how to play everything, what's the point? Only thing that tournaments actually can tell you is the new tactics. Most of the top players need to no-life game and live around gaming and that's their life, so the old tactics are redundant and new ones spring up (been there, done that scenario). That's where the OP this or OP that comes into existence. You have a game with a ton of factors and the randomness so if individual units are really OP, then you'd know, 100% that they are OP. Furthermore, there is the game mode element. 1v1 games are drastically different than 2v2 or 3v3 games. A premade team of 3 players can synergize so well that you will lose 90%.
Eg. for axis: Jaeger doctrine reconnaissance plane + elefant synergize with OKW stuka and LeFH/arty commanders...etc. You can have a pro player any time and they will lose vs a well coordinated team.

IMHO, balance should revolve around 2v2 and 3v3 modes as 1v1 mode seems nonsensical in a game that has asymmetrical balance as one of it's foundation pillars.

I feel like you make a lot of valid points I did not consider too much before. Thank you for sharing.

I still believe though that balance discussions should be revolving around the best players, since the L2P factor can be at least reduced to the max - though not eliminated as you point out correctly. The mindset of a top player is mostly making use of the best means available to win the game. This shows us if a unit is too strong under "competitive" conditions or not.

I also agree that 2v2, 3v3 etc. are an important part of balancing - as relic has learned throughout the years. But I disagree to exclude 1v1 from balance discussions. Any mode in this game is "assymetrical", and 1v1 is the most "clean" state to see units perform.

I think relic is actually doing a brilliant job by engaging the "pro" community and focusing on all game modes for balance changes. After 7 years I feel like we have quite a balanced game. Which is an achievement looking at 5 (!) completely different factions. As i said before, in RTS History this level has only been achieved by Blizzard.