When BRIT will be nerf ???

Balance in compitent team games in a nuttshell

1) US:
Either go pathspam with the idea in mind of staling with zooks until armor. Risky against dak.
Go full inf build with rifles. You coup a bit in early game, ones bars and grades start poping out, you have best blob in the game

2) UK:
Go full retard with inf and\or dingo, go indian artillery, put heavy mortar as close as possible and blob near your truck, shotgunning with heavy mortar. With 3 CP unlock reserves, and blob even more. After that either spam arty or go full crusader army.
Or go Armor battlegroup and forget about teching, get AA crusaders, stale until churchill.

Against DAK spam Boys against wehr you can spam recons. But full boys spam still works against both.

3) DAK
Go full bers or flame pios with bers, rush T1 get heal. Rush T2, get stug\8-rad\marders. Get your HP grades and start shitting out cheap armor.

4) Wehr
Go fallshpios into jaegers shreck blob
Or go MP40 grens into jaegers shreck blob


If you play other then that, you are wasting your time.
The easiest faction? Probably DAK.
The hardest faction? Probably Wehr.


My rating would be:
DAK
UK
US
Wehr

Wehr would be the last, mainly because how hard you depent on your commanders and how fucked up teching is in terms of unit accessibility. Also P4 is meh, being the most expensive medium, solely because you can somehow tech rush it.

There is where your words start to touch 1v1 drastically, and also there is clearly a skill issue, sorry for being straight.
First of all, you call Armor company inferior while it is broken nearly beyond repair in 1v1. Issue with over performing Marder is only a 1v1/2v2 thing since soft AT is superior in 3v3 and 4v4 and UKF has early-mid soft AT like boys-AT rifles (2-3 squads with dirty cheap infantry upgrade from upgrade center kill a marder in a single volley) and a very good late-game soft-AT as Foot Guards, which are best pick for your set of units to deal with just those Ubertanks. 17pdr is completely fine as it is with those soft-AT tools backing it up. Also you clearly underestimate power of crusader spam, so if in team game you somehow reach late game (which for my experience is like 1/8 games) two players can field enough units to deal with Tiger and even with roaster backing it up. If none of you went into Armor BG and your team decided to play without churchills there is also gurkhas/commandos at your disposal, so there is also a counter for axis elite/semi-elite troops.

Sorry when I'm talking from a teamgame perspective. I don't play 1vs1 because I want o play the game with friends and just having a good time. If Armor company is broken in 1vs1 it is maybe the old problem of CoH2 call-ins skipping tech (for example 2x T34/85 call-in) which was patched away and now we have it again in CoH3. In 3v3/4vs Indian artillery and Air+Sea companies seem to be more versatile and superior. I do think they have to bind the call-ins to tech again.
Regarding Crusader Spam: I played it myself and I do not underestimating it. I won games with it. There is a point though were it reaches the end of its lifespan. To be honest, I find it idiotic that it is superior to playing with the heavier nondoctrinal tank options in Brit unit roster. But the heavier options have all the same problem, a combination of too slow speed with too low penetration for the heavier armored targets. That the reason CrusaderIII Spam is so viable, while it can fight medium targets frontally it has the speed to swarm around heavier targets if needed. On top of this you can kite infantry pretty good because of good accleration.

And please don't tell me they won. I will start to think we are playing different games... played nearly 200 games as Wehr in 3v3 and 4v4 and Panther was useful 3 times with one time it really making a difference so much that it led to comeback. The time when it led to comeback main reason for it was it's performance against 76mm Sherman and fact that it is call-in, so I could afford to build a lot of them while saving resources because of staying in Pgren companie only.

I don't think I play on your level. Not everybody has the time to play so many games in this short release phase. I played about 65 games counting together all games with all factions since release. Strong units wich cost a lot and have a lot of health/power get better the further you go down the ladder. It is not only a l2p issue but also a issue of faction design. "Skill issue" like you said in your first sentence was always a lazy excuse in CoH to not balance learning curves properly. Its like USF in comparison to OKW in CoH2. USF was harder to learn but strong once you mastered it, OKW easier from the start but less you could abuse once you mastered it. That made USF really hard to play further down the ladder.

I dare to disagree. My take would be "While brits have superior early game advantage and are powerful all-rounder overall they struggle against heavily armored anti-infantry vehicles, cqc elite units and artillery fights in team games since those are RNG-based. Artillery and air-based call-ins also are powerful against brits since UKF has poor AA-platform and not very mobile in it's current meta playstyle. USF however has weaker early game and crowd-control/anti-emplacement tools are nearly non-existent, but has access to superior late-game tank destroyer, best mainline infantry and sniper backed up with decent support abilites from BGs and support centers."

I don't know why you want to disagree. You don't contradict my argument but yeah your explanation is way more detailed and better overall. I agree with your statements completely. The only thing I want to add: Its worth nothing that you gave the best mainline infantry if everybody plays with better doctrinal infantry as their mainline (because their own nondoctrinal mainlines are weak).

I still do not understand those people. They might get a Tiger or a panther in 1 out of 10 games and those units even rarely make a difference but they still go for them if what you say is true. I just cannot understand the point: they play not to win but to see a unit moving back and forth and shot/shout random barks and slurs. How you can balance game around these people?

In 3vs3 and 4vs4 its more than 1 out of 10 games, at least below Top200 and that are over 90% of the players.

Currently if you move Fpios to 1 CP you will softly remove wehrmacht from 1v1 matchmaking. People will not play grenadiers in their current state in 1v1, only few chosen one superior gigamindsets and guru's of CoH franchise. Also I cannot understand why we should move 30.cal to 1 CP if HMGs in this game are as poor as they are. Paratrooped 30.cal still must be supported by riflemen or it is busted with first clowncar/stummel/sniper etc.

I just brought up two examples of units that are no problem in 1vs1 but a problem in bigger game modes. I gave a solution. Regular grenadiers have to be buffed in return, all HMGs anyways. That is out of question if you ask me.

They already made a ketten nerf so comm cables cannot be upgraded straight away. By going into ketten in teamgames you, of course, provide your team with extra resources, but
a) have 1 less timed combat unit fielded
b) get your flamer later
This drastically impacts your play since as I said before, you already are in big disadvantage in wehrs early game, that's why you do not see ketten built as often in "competitive" 3v3 and 4v4. About opel blitz... I hope you are aware that it takes pop cap and costs fuel? 25 fuel, if I remember correctly. A big investment for 1 more non-combatant unit. There must be a good reason to go for it.
While Weasel, which is mentioned by you, has:
a) very good early game MG for 30 munitions
b) shared veterancy
c) possibility to field HMG or mortar
d) slow self-repair for free, so you do not build engies to keep it going
e) 2 very useful vet abilities; Actually, so useful, that I've seen people fielding 2 of those for the sake of getting both vet abilities
If anything really needs a little bit of tuning, it is definitely not kettenkrad, with all due respect.

Regarding Kettenkrad and Opel Blitz: Its always more than worth it that one players sacrifices a little bit of ressources or fighting power to give the whole team a bonus of a critical ressource. In a 1vs1 you fall behind by doing so (risk vs reward), in a 4vs4 your teammates can offset it. You are playing so many games, don't tell me you really believe this mechanic is okay please.
There was a reason they patched Opel Blitz in CoH2 after the first year from giving the bonus to the whole team to the controlling player only. This should be done here too, you can then change the fuel cost of Opel Blitz in the same patch to reflect the lower gain. This would make Opel Blitz more interesting for 1vs1 by the way.
And I was never challenging the game value of the weasel, so you don't need to list its advantages. For the sake of completeness I was just saying there is a fiddly ressource mechanic on allied side too. Fiddly because you have to reach Vet1 first. That is more unpredictable and takes longer than waiting for the 10 missing munition you need for Kettenkrad upgrade. Not capturing fuel points and waiting for Vet1 can backfire pretty hard if it takes too long or your weasel gets destroyed somehow.

Regarding Crusader Spam: I played it myself and I do not underestimating it. I won games with it. There is a point though were it reaches the end of its lifespan.

It's lifespan is nearly eternal, problem is that yeah, in case of armour fight UKF can rely only on crusader massing since Grant cannot be effectively spammed during to it's main gun being Imperial Dane'd. Matilda is too slow so it's very difficult to move it from line to line and churchills are locked behind the doc. Last one is hardly an excuse since brits are most comfortable faction to play without BG in team games.

I don't think I play on your level. Not everybody has the time to play so many games in this short release phase.

This is completely understandable.

"Skill issue" like you said in your first sentence was always a lazy excuse in CoH to not balance learning curves properly.

Struggling always were majorly a skill issue. This is why I so hardly put this sentence here for those who are speaking about underperforming allies: tools are there. When there are tools and someone cannot use them, it is a skill issue. When dingo is 250mp and can drastically damage 280 mp 30fuel unit locked behind 50 fuel tech it is a balance issue. When USF player says that teching into BARs puts him into disadvantage because axis are fielding vehicles earlier it is a skill issue, because investment was wasted and ground was not taken. Sometimes my ability to explain things lacks in simplicity and being understandable, hope you get what I mean. Balancing the game to whole ladder is simply impossible.

I don't know why you want to disagree. You don't contradict my argument but yeah your explanation is way more detailed and better overall. I agree with your statements completely. The only thing I want to add: Its worth nothing that you gave the best mainline infantry if everybody plays with better doctrinal infantry as their mainline (because their own nondoctrinal mainlines are weak).

I disagree with a word "struggle" or "has hard time to deal with" since both are, again, skill issues, because tools are clearly there.

In 3vs3 and 4vs4 its more than 1 out of 10 games, at least below Top200 and that are over 90% of the players.

Any example of such games like someones video or cast?

I just brought up two examples of units that are no problem in 1vs1 but a problem in bigger game modes. I gave a solution. Regular grenadiers have to be buffed in return, all HMGs anyways. That is out of question if you ask me.

Actually fpios are a bit of a problem in 1v1 but there are bigger problems at the moment so people do not complain about those as loudly.

Regarding Kettenkrad and Opel Blitz: Its always more than worth it that one players sacrifices a little bit of ressources or fighting power to give the whole team a bonus of a critical ressource. In a 1vs1 you fall behind by doing so (risk vs reward), in a 4vs4 your teammates can offset it. You are playing so many games, don't tell me you really believe this mechanic is okay please.

When I play wehr in 3v3 or 4v4 I need every combat unit on the field asap, I cannot afford to invest into non-combat vehicle in start of the game, there is tommies, sappers, dingo, weasel, rifles to deal with. My units are in disadvantage at the start, I need everything I can bring to hold the ground until my meta units like jaegers, stugs, halftracks come into play. I might afford to spare manpower for cache in the midgame, but in the start I would never put myself into such disadvantage, my teammates cannot get me more manpower because I fielded ketten. If I field ketten at the start of the game and somehow hold the ground this is my opponents missplay.

There was a reason they patched Opel Blitz in CoH2 after the first year from giving the bonus to the whole team to the controlling player only.

Because Opel blitz costs 200 mp and has no popcap while CoH3 opel costs fuel, manpower and popcap. This mechanic is completely fine.

And I was never challenging the game value of the weasel, so you don't need to list its advantages. For the sake of completeness I was just saying there is a fiddly ressource mechanic on allied side too. Fiddly because you have to reach Vet1 first.

It's not fiddly, it's working pretty well. Point decap is typical for games, those are rarely kept in one hands until the end of the game so you just recap decapped point with vet1 weasel.

Not capturing fuel points and waiting for Vet1 can backfire pretty hard if it takes too long or your weasel gets destroyed somehow.

Nobody does like that, they just recap decapped points.
About suicidal idea of fielding early ketten I told already, why it is not an issue.

Struggling always were majorly a skill issue. This is why I so hardly put this sentence here for those who are speaking about underperforming allies: tools are there. When there are tools and someone cannot use them, it is a skill issue.
I disagree with a word "struggle" or "has hard time to deal with" since both are, again, skill issues, because tools are clearly there.

The point I made was about the accessibility of tools (learning curves). Atm we see allies on the backfoot in the big game modes and this starts in the low Top200 already as I pointed out as a tendency with the winratios in another post. As a developer you can't simply say "But the tools are there, it is a skill issue." Its nothing worth if only the Top100 can use this tools to great effect because there use is either fiddly, too micro intensive or just too unintuitive and so on. Of course it is a skill issue but it is problem beyond a skill issue if one side has a better accessibility than the other.
Lets to a comparison within the same team. If I'm playing Allies with three friends in 4vs4 two always play Brits, one always US. Despite having the same winratio with the same played matches, the US player has a higher ELO and a higher rank, although he is the worst player of our team. Why is that so? It seems in comparison to other US players in 4vs4 he is better than the British with the same winratio compared to British player in 4vs4. What does that say about US and British? I would say British wins overproportional in comparison with US.

In a good balanced game the Top 5% of every should win more often than loose, the bottom 5% should loose more often than winning. The 90% in between should win roughly about between 49% - 51% because matchmaking confronts them with people of their own skill. If that is not working either matchmaking or balance (including accessibility/learning curves) is screwed.

Any example of such games like someones video or cast?

I accepted your own played games as the basic of your arguments. Why are you asking me that? My played games are the basic for my arguments. I didn't recorded a single one. You are free to stop talking with me if that is not enough for you.

When I play wehr in 3v3 or 4v4 I need every combat unit on the field asap...
Because Opel blitz costs 200 mp...
It's not fiddly...
About suicidal idea of fielding early ketten...

I don't think we get to a mutual agreement here. I do think no team should have a ressource bonus in a game (and that includes abilities like reducing manpower cost of reinforcing by 25% at Indian artillery, but that one is only for one player at least and not for the whole team - still it is a bad mechanism). Ressources should be equal and only depending on map control. You seem to think that its totally fine as it is. I do think all is said.

...

More interesting is the winrate of the Top100 to Top200, because there it starts to really split up. It would be interesting to see the average winratio of all that players, but I give you a direction. If you compare players that have a winratio of 90% or more on the fourth page of leaderboards (Top150-200) for 4vs4, you will see this:

DAK: 11 players wih 90% or more, three of them having 100%
Wehrmacht: 8 players with 90% or more, two of them having 100%
British: 4 players with 90% or more, highest winratio is 93%
US: 3 players with 90% or more, hioghest winratio is 92%

This data may have changed as you read it, but it should be still similar.

This is just a tendency with low number of games overall, but I fear it is part of the dwindling playerbase.

That data are not really helpful in an analysis for many reasons.

That data are not really helpful in an analysis for many reasons.

Yeah winratio comparisons are completely overrated. Luckily they have nothing to do with balance.

Just give us other reasons than YeltsinDeathBrigades already provided.

I accepted your own played games as the basic of your arguments. Why are you asking me that? My played games are the basic for my arguments. I didn't recorded a single one. You are free to stop talking with me if that is not enough for you.

Don't feel insulted. I am asking out of curiosity to see such games, not especially your but games with a lot of late-game tanks involved in general.

Yeah winratio comparisons are completely overrated. Luckily they have nothing to do with balance.

Just give us other reasons than YeltsinDeathBrigades already provided.

The most obvious one is how ELO work.

People who achieve 90-100% win rates are usually experienced players who are either change mode or account and enjoy at least 10 games in mismatches.

The probability of a player who just bought the game to achieve such win rates are very very slim.

Don't feel insulted. I am asking out of curiosity to see such games, not especially your but games with a lot of late-game tanks involved in general.

Okay, I'm sorry for missunderstanding.

The most obvious one is how ELO work.

People who achieve 90-100% win rates are usually experienced players who are either change mode or account and enjoy at least 10 games in mismatches.

The probability of a player who just bought the game to achieve such win rates are very very slim.

Yeah, I assume so. People reaching a 100% win rate are most likely no new players. But since that is not an axis or allied only feature this should concern all factions equally and as such don't dictort the overall tendency.
Most interesting would be a winratio comparison of all players that played 50 matches or more at least, seperated in some skill levels. For example rank 1-100, rank 100-200, rank 200-500 and so on. Sadly I don't know a tool that does this. Maybe someone else knows a way to extract that data.