4v4 win rates disparity

Pls show your playercard.

Pls show your playercard.

Wow, I had to post 593 times in this forum to get finally targeted by the ultimate argument that decides about my arguments beeing legit or not. I really owe you one now.

Wow, I had to post 593 times in this forum to get finally targeted by the ultimate argument that decides about my arguments beeing legit or not. I really owe you one now.

So, can we see it now. I isnt meant to be a Totschlagargument, but rather puts opinions into perspective.

First my questions again:
1. Why not giving Allies some doctrinal tanks in special late game commanders that can directly compete with Panther snowball but sacrifice earlygame and midgame power? I named a few doctrinal tanks that would come in consideration.

Because we are not allowed to bring full new units to the game. The officer is just a copy and already exist
Also test out the new e8. Get 2 of them and go and play vs panther or tiger.
KV1 with hulldown works ok vs panther


I don't say get kv1 spam in 4vs4. Yeah on longrange maps just get su85 vs tanks, katja vs inf+ weaponteams and t34 to ram and or flank.


2.Why are existing tanks like Pershing integrated in such an unrealistic way? Pershing should have always the edge in a 1v1 situation versus a Panther.

Because pershing kills very well inf?

3. Later I added the question about walking stuka hitting the field way before any other rocket artillery while having such a huge wiping potential. Why it is still untouched? Other wiping mechanics like mines / demo-charges were nerfed a long time ago although a simple minesweper would protect you.

Yes you get your first stuka earlier. But after that it takes a while. You need 100 fuel for stuka. Then 120 fuel for t4 and then again 145? for a PIV. In that time soviet has katja and also a good tank out.

I wonder where you have your data from. Your personal experience as a TopPlayer?

Correct playing on the top in 3vs3, 4vs4 and also watching streams.

Gets harder now since you changed the effect of ram. In addition the IL2 rocket strafe (not the bombstrike you talked about) gets nerfed so hard, that i just can't stand it. From 380 to 80? I have no words for such a drastic change, without even touching its cost at all. It is more expensive than JU strafe while JU strafe does similar damage and penetrates heavy tanks frontally. Seems somebody wants to nerf it out of the game.

Rocket penetration from 340 to 80! Penetration =/ damage! PLS! Just use the skill and planes in the rear side of the tank and you still get your damage!

I was always talking about Panther snowball beeing to strong at some point of the game. Until you get there you just have to trade better. Don't know why you are talking about Ele or JT, I do not mentioned them a single time.

But other people talked about it.


Just do this. there is still no logical explanation why the stats are not legit in any way. There is no approach to dealing with Panther snowball either.
HF playing panther on redball vs su85 and guards. You just feed them vet. I agree on lalgeize or something panthers are strong. 1 Single panther is not a big deal. But if you have 2 panthers they can destory su85 and firefly. But for that you have to use mines, at nates, at guns, or a ram, t34 are cheap compared to panthers. Esp okw panthers are expensive. Just for the MEME: Panthers are in a good spot now

Btw i hope this is now done, as said i really try to avoid to write in the balance forum.

The purpose of this post is to figure out what changes need to be made to balance 4v4s without affecting 1v1 balance.

I saw an interesting post mentioning Axis win rates and how they are skewed in team games such as 3v3/4v4 since the last patch. It cited this webpage for statistics: https://coh2stats.com/stats/week/1616976000/4v4/wermacht

Unfortunately the stats don't go far back but it shows Axis have a clear win rate advantage over Allies at a high level. Heavy tank destroyers such as the elefant and jagdtiger are dominating team games at the moment. Elefant/Jagdtiger (e/j) commanders are by far the most represented along with artillery commanders and I think I can figure out why.

1. T-34 ram nerf and removal of IL-2 bombing runs. The most popular counter to heavy tanks was the t34 and IL-2 bombing combo. The removal of the stun from the t-34 ram and the removal of IL-2 bombing runs from some commanders without offering any good alternative options has had the unintended side effect of increasing the potency of heavy tanks and to an extent, heavy tank destroyers. Lightly armoured allied tank destroyers are unable to counter e/j in a direct confrontation without taking major damage and more often than not, being unable to penetrate the armour due to the vet 2 nerf on most tank destroyers. A heavy armour push onto e/j is a huge risk and investment that rarely pays off especially if the area around e/j has been mined. The intended counter (artillery) is easily dodged by e/j's by moving and more often than not, a waste of a cooldown on the artillery piece. There is no effective counter to e/j's at the moment and it is clear.

Suggested change: Revert T-34 ram nerf and reimplement IL-2 bombing run on the commanders missing them.

Alternate suggested change: Remove spotting scope from elefant commander and remove artillery barrage from jagdtiger (which helps it counter anti-tank guns). There needs to be more counters to heavy tank destroyers.

2. Artillery over-representation. Again, the removal of IL-2 bombing run on some commanders has removed the ability of those same commanders to counter artillery. The need to use artillery on heavy tank destroyers also means that Axis artillery does not get countered barraged as often. There are less counters to static artillery. It was already an expensive option to counter them before, now its rare and expensive.

its undeniable: Axis static emplacements and artillery has become more powerful with last patches changes.

Suggested change: Reintroduce IL-2 bombing runs to more commanders (the same amount as the ones removed) or lower the potency of Axis static arty which is mainly used in 4v4s anyway. There needs to be more counters to static arty.


3. Pack howie & ISU-152 HE nerf. The pack howie nerf has completely neutered this unit. This unit is now, no longer able to counter barrage an enemy IG due to its high scatter and low damage. All the while the IG has now become supreme on the battlefield with its better accuracy and no longer countered. The ISU-152 HE nerf was not needed and has made this unit countered by j/e by exposing itself even more to use HE rounds.

With the nerf of these two tools to deal with Axis blobs, Axis blobbing has become more durable and thus more powerful. Gren/Ober blobs with non-doctrine high long range damage are becoming too dominant in 4v4s.

Suggested change: Revert Pack howie changes or lower scatter and revert ISU-152 HE range back to normal.

Alternate suggested change: Increase potency of default Allied grenades (Rifleman grenade, IS grenade and cons molotov). There needs to be more counters to Axis blobs. I think the change to land mattress in the 2021 commander update patch is a step in the right direction however.

On the topic of blobbing. Both Axis factions have a non-doctrinal tool to deal with blobbing (Stuka/Werfer) however only Soviets have a non-doctrine tool to deal with blobbing (Katy). Lowering the power of anti-blobbing tools and offering nothing in exchange has made blobbing more powerful.

4. Lowering Allied tank destroyer vet pen. While I do not have the numbers infront of me right now. I'm not a fan of lowering pen on all tank destroyers across the board. This effectively means Axis heavy tanks are more durable. If the pen bonuses are absurb or unnecessarily then they did not have to be changed. This is a blatant buff for all Axis armour. Its already fairly easy to keep Panthers alive, making it even easier to keep them alive helps Axis snowball late game with their superior number of panthers. Feel free to prove me wrong on this one though.

The fact that all Allies factions must rely on tank destroyers to deal with panthers and heavy armour means tank destroyers are over represented yes but a nerf without giving any alternative option is not good or fun. The reason why all allied factions rely on tank destroyers is because there are no alternatives. They have no non-doctrinal heavy tanks for 4v4s. The balance team is nerfing the only playstyle available.

Suggested change: Revert all previous TD vet pen changes back to previous values.

tl;dr. Axis have become very effective at controlling the battlefield in 4v4s while most/all Allied counters have been neutered in some way or another. Its easier to blob as Axis since there are less counters to them now.

You know, at this point in will be much easier to just nerf ele/jt than buffing allies counters as issue isnt counters being underpowered but ele/jt being overpowered. If ISU was nerfed because its 70 range HE was deemed uncounterable in team games, same logic should be applied to axis heavy TDs.

About why axis have higher win rate in 4vs4! :
1.in random vs random axis are most of the time better. But in premade vs premade allies are stronger. Allies random don't know how to counter a mg or killing a tank.

2. Matchmaking is fail atm. When you search axis you get top 100 mates but only facing 1k to 6k allies. So ofc axis wins. Just look last streams from duffman. Shows the same. And when duffman played random allies, he got friendly snipes.
So yes atm something is wrong in 4vs4. But imo its not the unit balance self. Something in the matchmaker is not working. It wasn't so worse in past. Ofc there were days where you faced as top 100 1k-6k but it happend on axis and allies sind. Now its only on allies side.
So ofc axis has higher winrate.
As said look duffmann stream, or rosebone thread, or ask aerafield. He tried in the last week to play random allies and no chance at all from matchmaking.

3. As allies random: Ban redball, port of hamburg. Snow maps are not that bad. Lower your settings or get better pc if you have still problems.

Offtopic you guys saw the wins from allies in 1vs1? 3 time 52 % allies faction. poor wehrmacht 44 % lol.
Brits with the highest. But on the other side you don't see brits in 1vs1 Cups, because people know how to counter it.

I don't think this is the right mindset to approach balancing the game. Instead of saying randoms can't counter MGs. Maybe ask yourself why that is. I believe its because they aren't given enough tools to counter MG spam. Especially UKF.

I've been playing UKF lately and I can see very clearly the weaknesses of this faction. The only early game option to counter MG is mortar pit smoke. Pyrotechnic smoke is slow and risks the squad throwing the smoke to the MG as the range is not far enough. Both suffer from the same fault, only counters 1 MG. There is no other alternative. AEC smoke comes near mid-game and is a risky but usable option. Cromwell smoke is nice but is a late game option only.

While mortar pit is has a good range on the smoke, it still suffers from being a static emplacement and it can only counter 1 MG. So typically what happens in 4v4 games is each Axis player would get their own MG making a total of 4 (2 possible in each lane) while you would only have 1 mortar pit to counter 1 MG. Again, pyrotechnic kit suffers from the same fault as it can only counter 1 MG and it does not come fast enough (T1) to make a difference in the early game. This is not including more than 1 MG made by any player or bunker emplacements with MGs.

That aside, Mortar pits are easily countered by IGs/Stuka and other indirect such as mortars. When the mortar pit is trying to counter barrage other IGs, it is not getting value by attacking infantry or smoking. Smoking leaves it vulnerable to indirect. The popular counter to IGs (pack howi) was previously a good counter but with the nerfs, it no longer is a good counter. Counters aside, if an IG is stopped by killing it. It can simply be recrewed. However a mortar pit has no such option. Mortar pit cannot be recrewed.

Moving on, pushing into MGs as a UKF player is deadly because should the push fail then you have to retreat a long distance. Forward retreating point doesn't come until a T2 upgrade costing 115 fuel then 450MP. The UKF player most likely won't get 115 fuel fast if they don't succeed in the first MG push. In addition, the grenade upgrade for infantry sections is pulling MP away from building a mortar pit and a forward retreat point. This doesn't include tech upgrade, bolster upgrade and weapon rack upgrade which all pull MP away from building emplacements. Lets not forget the super expensive 320MP anti-tank gun. Combine this with a static mortar pit that can't retreat, should the UKF player fail at pushing an MG, a mass retreat often leaves the mortar pit vulnerable which means that can lose 250MP. Another 250MP that must be invested to counter MGs.

UKF unfortunately has so many MP sinks that they can't power-up effectively in the early game and counter MGs.

All this aside, there is a key difference between allies random matchmaking and axis random matchmaking. There are 3 allied factions in the game, each with their diverse arsenal while there are 2 Axis factions in the game which both rely heavily on MGs. Do all allied factions have enough non-doctrinal tools to counter MGs? USF have RE/Officer smoke and Mortar smoke. Soviets get oorah charge, mortar smoke and light vehicles to flank. UKF get mortar pit smoke and pyrotechnics...?

What happens is: I'm a Allied random player queuing for 4s. I get stuck in a team with 3 UKF players. 3 UKF players which have only 2 poor option to counter MGs, which is easily countered unless they take doctrinal choices to counter them. I think there-in lies the issue. UKF simply does not have enough tools to counter MGs.

Perhaps UKF MP costs need to be adjusted.

Perhaps pyrotechnics should come down as a off-map green flare (like decoy flares) instead of a physical flare being thrown by the infantry section. It should also have increased range.

Perhaps a new mortar pit building is required, one that is cheaper and can fire only smoke.

Perhaps more doctrinal abilities should be added that include off-map smoke.

Perhaps there needs to be more counters to IG/Stuka so the mortar pit isn't as vulnerable.

Perhaps Forward retreat point needs to come earlier and be cheaper on MP.

Perhaps grenade upgrade need to be cheaper and provide pyrotechnic off-map smoke to all sections.

Perhaps losing an emplacement should refund the MP cost as UKF have too many MP sinks in the game compared to other factions.

So, can we see it now. I isnt meant to be a Totschlagargument, but rather puts opinions into perspective.

I would claim that I'm a lot more familar with balance and modding in CoH than you may think. Please stop this bs about playercard please. Maybe you can find the mod I co-modded for, I'm not that hard to find, but you have to do some research work on your own. If you find me you have your answer, if not you have to live with it. Thats all I have to say about the ultimate argument...

I've been playing UKF lately and I can see very clearly the weaknesses of this faction. The only early game option to counter MG is mortar pit smoke. Pyrotechnic smoke is slow and risks the squad throwing the smoke to the MG as the range is not far enough. Both suffer from the same fault, only counters 1 MG. There is no other alternative. AEC smoke comes near mid-game and is a risky but usable option. Cromwell smoke is nice but is a late game option only.

I play brits a lot and the way I deal with them is a bren carrier mixed with infantry sections with grenades. In the very early game, a bren carrier rush can catch an MG42 (since 90% of Ostheer players build MG42 as their first unit) before it sets up and do a decent amount of damage before supporting grens arrive, and then flanking with tommies and throwing a grenade also works really well. I agree UKF is at a disadvantage to MG spam, but there are solutions not involving the mortar pit, and they are more effective on some maps than others. Steppes for example I find it very easy to make the bren carrier into a very lethal tool. I never get the WASP but I get the Vickers and it just shreds MGs until they get vet 1 and can counter with AP incendiary.

I just always build a bren first, and immediately send it to the fuel or wherever the Ostheer player will be attacking to catch them off-guard, and then let my tommies back cap.

I think the Bren carrier is the most important thing honestly for brits, until a 222 comes out it hard counters everything Wehr can throw at you. Just have to watch out for an OKW teammate getting an early raketen.

I play brits a lot and the way I deal with them is a bren carrier mixed with infantry sections with grenades. In the very early game, a bren carrier rush can catch an MG42 (since 90% of Ostheer players build MG42 as their first unit) before it sets up and do a decent amount of damage before supporting grens arrive, and then flanking with tommies and throwing a grenade also works really well. I agree UKF is at a disadvantage to MG spam, but there are solutions not involving the mortar pit, and they are more effective on some maps than others. Steppes for example I find it very easy to make the bren carrier into a very lethal tool. I never get the WASP but I get the Vickers and it just shreds MGs until they get vet 1 and can counter with AP incendiary.

I just always build a bren first, and immediately send it to the fuel or wherever the Ostheer player will be attacking to catch them off-guard, and then let my tommies back cap.

I think the Bren carrier is the most important thing honestly for brits, until a 222 comes out it hard counters everything Wehr can throw at you. Just have to watch out for an OKW teammate getting an early raketen.

Thanks for the tip, I've always viewed the UC as a slightly better DPS clown car. I'm interested in trying to use it like a clown car to counter MGs. Still, its a risky option and devastating if lost early especially to a faust snare.

Thanks for the tip, I've always viewed the UC as a slightly better DPS clown car. I'm interested in trying to use it like a clown car to counter MGs. Still, its a risky option and devastating if lost early especially to a faust snare.

Yeah, you just have to play it aggressive until the grens arrive and then play it much safer. Good micro and you can really deal with grens well too, especially once you get the vickers K which tears them apart when they're out in the open.

Like I said, it really only works on the open maps without a lot of buildings though like Steppes or Red / Whiteball.

I do find it odd that people don't veto the laney maps more that clearly favour the HMG 42 and heavy TDs. Playing less games on Red and White Ball or Hamburg (maps where there is 0 room to flank HMGs or TDs) would probably significantly decrease the disparity in win ratios.

I actually prefer Redball and White ball because they feel like the more balanced maps with their symmetrical design. Some asymmetrical maps like Lienne Forest and City 17 tend to favour one side over the other.

Waaaaay back in the day (2014-2015ish) I made a post here complaining about Ettelbruck station and the imbalances of one side over another and it was changed in the game.

Thx for answering my questions/proposals.

Because we are not allowed to bring full new units to the game. The officer is just a copy and already exist.

Only to clarify this. I talked about doctrinal E8, KW-1, Pershing, IS-2 and nondoctrinal Churchill and Comet. They are in the game. The proposal was to raise cost and performance to make one or two a somehow even match for 2-3 Panthers if you look at the population ressource.

Also test out the new e8. Get 2 of them and go and play vs panther or tiger.
KV1 with hulldown works ok vs panther.

You are right, a pair of E8 should clearly beat a Panther, but two are a lot more expensive and need way more population than a single Panther. Still they have a range and speed disadvantage, that a good player could use against them.
KW-1 on the other side has 40 range with hull-down since it gains no range advantage like german hull-down but a damage reduction and raised RoF instead. I saw that video where a KW-1 could beat a Panther under very specific circumstances. Panther has 50 range, that situation shouldn't happen.

I don't say get kv1 spam in 4vs4. Yeah on longrange maps just get su85 vs tanks, katja vs inf+ weaponteams and t34 to ram and or flank.

Yes, totally. I really try it like that.

Because pershing kills very well inf?

The Pershing is better at killing infantry without doubt, although the nerf to AI damage for heavy tanks hit it harder than other heavy tanks, because that was always its reason to exist. It has a good AOE were it does some damage but its 80 damage kill radius is pretty small. I don't think the Company is worth to get picked atm. This won't change by nerfing Calliope.

Yes you get your first stuka earlier. But after that it takes a while. You need 100 fuel for stuka. Then 120 fuel for t4 and then again 145? for a PIV. In that time soviet has katja and also a good tank out.

In 3v3 and 4vs4 you just build a second one since you are playing in a team of 3 or 4 players. For AT you support your mates with Raketen and Shrek. Once you get used to them and yes - regarding me - it took a while they get wiping machines on crowded 3vs3 / 4vs4 maps. Especially the laney ones.
This is totally different from 1vs1 where you put yourself in a disadvantage at the tank battle.

Rocket penetration from 340 to 80! Penetration =/ damage! PLS! Just use the skill and planes in the rear side of the tank and you still get your damage!

Thats correct if you assume you still hit the target by flying from the rear. It gives the tank more time to escape since instead of taking the shortest possible route (-> IL-2 bombing or JU-87 strafe) you have to take the route leading to a rear attack no matter how much longer. The changes will result in less hits. In addition not every hit will penetrate since the heavies you would use this ability normally on have way more than 80 rear armour. In the end it just can't be that JU-87 strafe cost less although it hits faster by taking the shortest route and is penetrating from the front. Since Ju-87 got meta in Jaeger doctrine they are coming in from the close edges, penetrating everything at the moment. This is somehow applying a double standard.

HF playing panther on redball vs su85 and guards. You just feed them vet. I agree on lalgeize or something panthers are strong. 1 Single panther is not a big deal. But if you have 2 panthers they can destory su85 and firefly. But for that you have to use mines, at nates, at guns, or a ram, t34 are cheap compared to panthers. Esp okw panthers are expensive. Just for the MEME: Panthers are in a good spot now

Yes, i don't want to say that 2-3 Panthers are like that on every map. I do think Panthers are in good spot in 1vs1 and 2vs2 and on the bigger lane maps. But there are too many maps where massed Panthers can't be beaten by population value. Its always about population value (like at the comparison with E8 above) since that is a very important ressource in 3vs3 / 4vs4. If population value of Panthers and allied TDs plus axis SHTDs would be raised for example other tanks would have a chance to compete somehow without changing their performance. This wouldn't impact 1vs1 so much since reaching 100 population takes a lot longer.

You know, at this point in will be much easier to just nerf ele/jt than buffing allies counters as issue isnt counters being underpowered but ele/jt being overpowered. If ISU was nerfed because its 70 range HE was deemed uncounterable in team games, same logic should be applied to axis heavy TDs.

ELE/JT dont have auto attack 70 range AI shells?

I agree, nerfing ELE/JT is better than buffing Allies

General allies buff to fix ELE/JT will mess with 1v1 which doesn't need an axis nerf
Nerfing ELE/JT will fix the team game issue without messing up 1v1

so ELE/JT should be nerfed

ELE/JT dont have auto attack 70 range AI shells?

I agree, nerfing ELE/JT is better than buffing Allies

General allies buff to fix ELE/JT will mess with 1v1 which doesn't need an axis nerf
Nerfing ELE/JT will fix the team game issue without messing up 1v1

so ELE/JT should be nerfed

how are ele/jt even op?

the isu nerf wasnt even a big deal, it still does AT and AI like a super heavy

while ele/jt are AT only or at little more AI from Jt

I think the point I want to hammer home in this thread is that the balance team is making a lot of changes and shaking up the meta but when they remove something or nerf something, something equivalent should be brought up in power.

You have M8 and Pack Howi nerf but what other options are being improved for USF to counter blobbing? These units may be overperforming but what other option does this faction have to fight blobbing if nothing else is being improved. Maybe a buff to Sherman HE in exchange for these nerfs? Indirectly, blobbing is being buffed and blobbing gameplay is boring.

Pack Howi is a counter to IG. They counter each other. However a nerf to the pack howi means the IG no longer has a counter. Indirectly it is buffed. Unfortunately increasing the crew size does not help it counter IGs.

Similarly removal of IL-2 bombing run from some commanders without re-adding it to others. Indirectly, artillery is being buffed because it has less counters.

I know I keep bringing up these couple changes a lot but they are the ones that hurt the most.

I'm not a fan of reducing vet pen on all Jackson/SU-85 as it indirectly made Axis heavy armour stronger. Without offering any alternatives like stronger ATG performance (+10% received accuracy and ??), lowering Axis heavy armour, or increasing range or another stat.

how are ele/jt even op?

the isu nerf wasnt even a big deal, it still does AT and AI like a super heavy

while ele/jt are AT only or at little more AI from Jt

I don't understand why the ISU-152's dual role (and excellent special shot ability) are being routinely ignored. It's an anti-everything unit that can even shoot at planes. Its counterparts are as good as scrap if the opponent pulls away, that is if the map allows it in the first place.

The discussion around these units is incredibly biased due to "arcadey" maps like Redball Express that are somehow extremely popular. Nordwind is my personal favorite and gameplay is completely different when compared to Redball. Most of the maps result in a mess of a game. For example, Port of Hamburg's spaces are so tight, each side barely fits one against one in teams of 3, let alone two against two in teams of 4.

The issue isn't they are popular, its because they are just chosen in the random automatch a lot.

It might be time to rotate out those maps if changes arent feasible.

What I’ve always thought is limit static arty/priests etc to only 1. As mentioned earlier, one player can forgo most usually tech/build and just focus on arty and if you have no counters for that or your counters keep failing, you’re fucked. Hell even if your counters work they can just build another in a minute or two anyway due to the high income rate, which brings me to my next point.

Why not reduce the income the higher the player count? I don’t think straight halving it would work so some maths would have to be done but surely even reducing the income for all resources by at least a quarter would make losing units at least a little bit more punishing, that or rework the maps to have less standard points.

The issue with axis in team games is that (like soviets) they have a non doctrinal counter to everything, USF and UK don’t and if you go the wrong doctrine it’s simply hell. If a UKF player faces team weapon spam, you have to go mobile assault to get the land mattress out, locking you into a doctrine, if the UKF player goes heavy team weapons the axis just tech for indirect and decide on the doctrine later.

Since they changed arty 3-4 years ago that’s all the game has turned into in higher modes and people don’t build them because they are average units, one barrage can turn a whole game and when multiple static arty pieces are fielded/priests etc, if fired alternatively it can deny an entire section of the map for minutes at a time, at least with Land mattress, Stuka, Werfer etc it’s one and done, you can hear it, you can just about GTFO and they are at least somewhat predictable.

Just watch some of Skippys games, granted he isn’t the best of players playing against the best of players but I would say he is your average coh2 player/skill and watch some of his arty spam videos, they’re funny but show that in those high player game modes, one player going for a stupid build that would have you defeated in 10 mins 1v1/2v2 is viable when you have 2-3 other players filling in your gaps.

I tried years ago to suggest an aura similar to what units get that are in proximity to command tanks etc, but give negative effects to moving units that are clumped together, almost giving them red cover effects (but less harsh) no matter where they are, and in turn this would reduce blobbing. But alas, nothing and instead blobbing counters removed/nerfed.

Nothing will get done however and that’s the sad part. Unless you can make a popular tournament for team games with some umph of course, and as much as I like playing team games, watching them, even 2v2’s is just a cluster fuck (of arty).

Originally, it felt like Ostheer vs Soviets could be close at all stages of the game. IS-2 or the ISU being incredibly dangerous vs a Tiger or Elephant. They seemed to push this concept away as USF was "hyper early game" and okw was "hyper late game" designed which probably bled to the other factions.

Ignoring balance, UKF was originally designed too to compete with late game.

Thats because Sov and OST arent artificially gimped by leaving massive gaping holes in non doctrinal roster: Rocket arty, Heavy Tanks, Elite Inf, Premium medium tank.

I've been saying it for years but balance team gives the same lame answer that: its asymetrical game!!

Yeah you know what else is asymetrical? The over 13% win rate disparity between the lowest winning axis faction and the highest winning allied faction.

13%. Balance team is 100% responsible for the state of team games right now and they have been very clear they do not care about them at all.