When BRIT will be nerf ???

I play only axis because i love axis

Redundant.

We gathered as much from your previous marvellous opinions on balance.

Axis are way to strong right now,any further nerfs to allies will likely kill the player base

Axis are way to strong right now,any further nerfs to allies will likely kill the player base

On what basis axis are "too strong" and in which game mode?

On what basis axis are "too strong" and in which game mode?

https://youtu.be/dsp5UTcmdu4

https://youtu.be/dsp5UTcmdu4

This guy couldn't even reach top 100 as axis by his own words and tries to speak something about balance... Nothing more than a raged "special" guy from CoH community.

This guy couldn't even reach top 100 as axis by his own words

After playing axis for only 3 days.

I don't play this game, don't care about arguing about it, but if you're going to use a quote from the video you should probably put it in the context that it was delivered in.

After playing axis for only 3 days.

I don't play this game, don't care about arguing about it, but if you're going to use a quote from the video you should probably put it in the context that it was delivered in.

You prorably can play 10 games in 3 days.
If you play for 3 days and say that it was "extremely easy" and you haven't reach top 100, you either played against lowranked people (so in that case your opinion is invalid) or you lost against normal players and because of that stayed at 300-400
In either case, there is no need to add extra to the quote.

Tbh the bar meta that's coming about is far tougher deal with than brit blobs.

Forward retreat point+ constant pressure on a critical fuel point degrade your army composition even if you trade p4s for shermans.

4-5 bar squads attacking and driving off a squad or two eventually cause the line to crumble, especially when their retreat is shorter than yours towards the fuel.

You prorably can play 10 games in 3 days.
If you play for 3 days and say that it was "extremely easy" and you haven't reach top 100, you either played against lowranked people (so in that case your opinion is invalid) or you lost against normal players and because of that stayed at 300-400
In either case, there is no need to add extra to the quote.

https://youtu.be/SnatshsdOiU

not just him its pretty much what everyone saids

https://youtu.be/SnatshsdOiU

not just him its pretty much what everyone saids

Greyshot? Really?
May I kindly ask you you to visit streamers who are in top of leaderboards as multiple factions and ask them their balance opinions? Elpern was quiet constructive on his yesterday stream.
If team-based games are in your favor, then I can recommend Kypser, for example: his english struggles sometimes, but he is a very good USF player in 3v3 and 4v4, and he can give his opinion also.
These people give more constructive criticism of very poor balance state of CoH3, without putting oversimplified and wrong marks like "allies struggle because of bersaglieri" of "riflemen are bad because of upgrade costs" or something ridiculous like "bazooka team are poor".

This guy couldn't even reach top 100 as axis by his own words and tries to speak something about balance...

That is not how it works. As if everybody could easily reach Top100 just by playing a faction for three days. You will always be compared with guys playing the same faction. So if playing a faction is like a walk in the park because the faction is so op, there are maybe still threehundred players which are even better. You loose 2 out of 10, they loose 1 out of 10. Ergo they are higher ranked. Rank 300 is pretty good already.

The guy in the video has a point. Playerbase is dwindling already, it takes forever to search for a 3vs3/4vs4 game as axis. At this pace the game will be dead soon.

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.

We need to wait a few more weeks/months, according to lelic:

" We hope to share more news on our next major releases in the weeks ahead."

That is not how it works. As if everybody could easily reach Top100 just by playing a faction for three days. You will always be compared with guys playing the same faction. So if playing a faction is like a walk in the park because the faction is so op, there are maybe still threehundred players which are even better. You loose 2 out of 10, they loose 1 out of 10. Ergo they are higher ranked. Rank 300 is pretty good already.

It might be so, but playerbase currently is so low on numbers and even lower on experienced or skilled players, there is really no difficulty in reaching top 100, except 1v1 I guess. If you have a right arranged team in current state of CoH3 leaderboard there is no problem to reach this said top 100, there is no excuse for getting a top 300 as arranged team in 3 days, it is just misunderstanding of the game in general. No way he got only new players against him, and if it was the case, his shittalking like "oh, the X is so ez-pz to play" is irrelevant completely.

The guy in the video has a point. Playerbase is dwindling already, it takes forever to search for a 3vs3/4vs4 game as axis. At this pace the game will be dead soon.

No, he doesn't. There are very few people who play this game for ranks, more people play just "for fun", and if you want to play as allies you won't find something which is very different from CoH2 playstyle: "smoke and blob/get heck a lot of firepower" as USF or "blob and call-in a lot of arty" as UKF. As axis you get a "blob around undoctrinal opel-blitz from feuersturm or minibrummbar" as DAK or "blob your fallpios atound HMG and medic bunker/251". DAK released as semi-soviet t1+OKW faction and wehr got luftwaffe doctrine where you drop semi-mainline infantry from the sky. It is atleast something new, that's why people play axis more. There is literally no point to play allies except for rank and not a lot of ppl care about that. Also should I mention that even when pathfinder+scott meta as USF was found by majority of players in CoH2 axis still had a majority of players playing while it was a pure suffering for most of them?
This guy on a video is a "evil wehraboo" (or allies fanboy, idk how to call these ppl) who is incompetent in a game he was playing and tries to sound edgy with all modern slangy words like "copium" just to empower his poor argumentation. If I would use his explanational style, I would call him an "unskilled moron". Such ppl should not be taken seriously in any discussion.

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.

This is a very difficult data to use since you don't have ratings for arranged teams and solo players for CoH3. Most of people who are playing 3v3 and 4v4 "seriously" to get ranks don't go solo in those gamemodes and matchmaking is so poor that in most of times your semi-arranged or fully-arranged team of top10-top50 players gets matched up against 1-2 top100 players and last are top1000+ which means autowin for arranged team.
In my opinion people who are really should be listened to regarding balance are those people who reached high ranks and 1v1 should be prioritized over team-base gamemodes since team-based modes are more forgivable.
Things which are heard by me from such group do not include cry like "hammer axis/allies to the ground" but address overtuned and underperforming units. I can light up 10 most common takes I've heard if required.

It might be so, but playerbase currently is so low on numbers and even lower on experienced or skilled players, there is really no difficulty in reaching top 100, except 1v1 I guess. If you have a right arranged team in current state of CoH3 leaderboard there is no problem to reach this said top 100, there is no excuse for getting a top 300 as arranged team in 3 days, it is just misunderstanding of the game in general.

You still nee the right arranged team of skilled players, otherwise you will fail ultimately. There are between 7000 and 8000 ranked players at 4vs4 for each faction atm (not all playing in regular basis of course). I don't think everybody can reach Top100 this easily. That would be strange.

No, he doesn't. There are very few people who play this game for ranks, more people play just "for fun", and if you want to play as allies you won't find something which is very different from CoH2 playstyle: "smoke and blob/get heck a lot of firepower" as USF or "blob and call-in a lot of arty" as UKF. As axis you get a "blob around undoctrinal opel-blitz from feuersturm or minibrummbar" as DAK or "blob your fallpios atound HMG and medic bunker/251". DAK released as semi-soviet t1+OKW faction and wehr got luftwaffe doctrine where you drop semi-mainline infantry from the sky. It is atleast something new, that's why people play axis more. There is literally no point to play allies except for rank and not a lot of ppl care about that.

People always played axis because of german tanks. Especially in "for fun" matches. Panther, Tiger, Königstiger, Elefant... and so on. It is not about tactis or viability but about the reputation of "Ubertanks". With the exception of the new 76mm Sherman this is still true for axis late game.

Also should I mention that even when pathfinder+scott meta as USF was found by majority of players in CoH2 axis still had a majority of players playing while it was a pure suffering for most of them?

The sad thing was that USF neede such bs meta, because their artificial nondoc unit roster with important unit types completely missing needed such tatcics to compete in multiplayer. USF in CoH2 had the steepest learning curve because of mobile glass cannon design and missing unit types in late game. It seems CoH3 has no faction with such big artificial holes. That is a progress at least.

This is a very difficult data to use since you don't have ratings for arranged teams and solo players for CoH3. Most of people who are playing 3v3 and 4v4 "seriously" to get ranks don't go solo in those gamemodes and matchmaking is so poor that in most of times your semi-arranged or fully-arranged team of top10-top50 players gets matched up against 1-2 top100 players and last are top1000+ which means autowin for arranged team.

Its difficult to use but still one aspect you shouldn't miss. The arguments you used should apply to both sides equally. So there is some sort of useful comparability in this data.

In my opinion people who are really should be listened to regarding balance are those people who reached high ranks and 1v1 should be prioritized over team-base gamemodes since team-based modes are more forgivable.
Things which are heard by me from such group do not include cry like "hammer axis/allies to the ground" but address overtuned and underperforming units. I can light up 10 most common takes I've heard if required.

Team-based modes shouldn't be neglected, more players are playing here and keep the game alive. There is always a way to tune balance in 1vs1 without screwing the balance in 3vs3/4vs4. The resource inflation plus too narrow map design were a big problem in CoH2 multiplayer and made balancing across all modes nearly impossible. It seems they improved in that basic aspects. So it should be more easy now to balance while having an eye on all modes.

People always played axis because of german tanks. Especially in "for fun" matches. Panther, Tiger, Königstiger, Elefant... and so on. It is not about tactis or viability

Nice, I didn't realize you were my spokesperson.

You still nee the right arranged team of skilled players, otherwise you will fail ultimately. There are between 7000 and 8000 ranked players at 4vs4 for each faction atm (not all playing in regular basis of course). I don't think everybody can reach Top100 this easily. That would be strange.

Well, the guy we have spoken about couldn't do even this but speaks with a lot of bravado about quiet mediocre rank achievement while speaking about it like it is his major argument, so he is still irrelevant. Enough of Herostratus.

People always played axis because of german tanks. Especially in "for fun" matches. Panther, Tiger, Königstiger, Elefant... and so on. It is not about tactis or viability but about the reputation of "Ubertanks". With the exception of the new 76mm Sherman this is still true for axis late game.

That might be true, but usually people play Luftwaffe doctrine which lacks those overpromoted "Ubertanks" or Italian Combined Arms, which offers access to superior italian tanks like Carro Armato M13/40 or Semovente 75/18 heavy tank destroyers... Of course, with access to Tiger later on, but people constantly complain that game ends sooner than it's fielded and ppl tried to spam those italian "ubertanks" a lot. I really haven't seen much tries to stall until heavy tank against me while playing as allies so there's is something I am missing (it would be cool to see BG pick rate and call-in stats so we could know how many wehr players picked Breakthrough for Tiger or mecha for Panther, highly doubt that we can get it tho)
Jokes aside, why those people pick luftwaffe as often if they came into match for that overpromoted Tiger?

Its difficult to use but still one aspect you shouldn't miss. The arguments you used should apply to both sides equally. So there is some sort of useful comparability in this data.

You got me here, but please tell me what kind of knowledge we can get from this data?

Team-based modes shouldn't be neglected, more players are playing here and keep the game alive. There is always a way to tune balance in 1vs1 without screwing the balance in 3vs3/4vs4. The resource inflation plus too narrow map design were a big problem in CoH2 multiplayer and made balancing across all modes nearly impossible. It seems they improved in that basic aspects. So it should be more easy now to balance while having an eye on all modes.

Currently I haven't seen any good things towards balancing except for Pfinders and flak emplacement nerfs, which still were very slow to implement. They still did their old mistakes of overnerfing things, like 250/pgren nerf or increasing PIVs popcap and MP cost.
When in CoH2 we find a bug with self-reparable SWS which could give Wehr access to OKW units they banned for using it and fixed it less than in a week after 10 years of game's release.
Destroy obstacle bug , bug with increased range of vet1 stugD's mounted MG and garrisoned HMGs bug are still in game from the release and they did nothing to solve it. Yes, I understand that those aren't as game breaking but I am still very pessimistic about Relic and do not feel that they really made steps into right directions.
I have a feeling that out conversation is pure theory and we won't play long enough to see how they implement their balance changes or "make steps into right direction" since there will be no such steps.

Nice, I didn't realize you were my spokesperson.

Yes, Sir!

That might be true, but usually people play Luftwaffe doctrine which lacks those overpromoted "Ubertanks" or Italian Combined Arms, which offers access to superior italian tanks like Carro Armato M13/40 or Semovente 75/18 heavy tank destroyers... Of course, with access to Tiger later on, but people constantly complain that game ends sooner than it's fielded and ppl tried to spam those italian "ubertanks" a lot. I really haven't seen much tries to stall until heavy tank against me while playing as allies so there's is something I am missing (it would be cool to see BG pick rate and call-in stats so we could know how many wehr players picked Breakthrough for Tiger or mecha for Panther, highly doubt that we can get it tho)
Jokes aside, why those people pick luftwaffe as often if they came into match for that overpromoted Tiger?

I have to admit as DAK I always play Italian Combined Arms, because it seems to be the best deal overall. As DAK you have the Tiger in the end of course which I do think is exeptionally good especially vs Brits since there are no tanks that can reliable pen it from the front unless you go for Black Prince, but Brit Armor company is an inferior choice Imo. Of course there is the nondoctrinal 17pdr but it sits there unable to move on its own with 17 popcap.
As Wehr I'm not sure were you got your data/impression, lately I saw a lot of players building the Panther in 4vs4. Especially for Brits its a hard thing to deal with. While Brits have very good infantry and artillery options they struggle versus heavy armored targets. Ironically US is vice versa.
And there it is: The german Ubertanks. On the other side Axis has always the choice to support heavy tanks with Marder III to penetrate the slow moving heavy brit tanks in addition to the strong pentration Tiger and Panther have by themselves. So this is maybe somehow the problem in late game tank fights which attracts the players to axis.

You got me here, but please tell me what kind of knowledge we can get from this data?

If you see that a faction has higher win ratios in one game mode than in others, have a look what is differnt in the meta. Mostly it is timing of units or spam of units which are better in some game modes than in others. Having a 0 CP paratrooper squad (Wehr) or paratropper MG (US) is for example better on bigger multiplayer maps where you can dig in before enemy troops arrive than on small 1vs1 maps. Solution: Put 1CP before it. Small impact on 1vs1, big impact on 4vs4.
Another example: Having Kettenkrad upgrade and Opel Blitz which basically can double fuel income of a fuel point if you combine them for the whole team is idiotic if the other team can't do that (okay, there is one fiddly mechanic with weasel). Solution: Only the owner of Kettenkrad, Opel Blitz or Weasel gets the bonus fuel income (thats the way it was in CoH2 lately). The latter change has absolutely no impact on 1vs1 but a huge one on 4vs4. Easy and smart balancing.

Currently I haven't seen any good things towards balancing except for Pfinders and flak emplacement nerfs, which still were very slow to implement. They still did their old mistakes of overnerfing things, like 250/pgren nerf or increasing PIVs popcap and MP cost.
When in CoH2 we find a bug with self-reparable SWS which could give Wehr access to OKW units they banned for using it and fixed it less than in a week after 10 years of game's release.
Destroy obstacle bug , bug with increased range of vet1 stugD's mounted MG and garrisoned HMGs bug are still in game from the release and they did nothing to solve it. Yes, I understand that those aren't as game breaking but I am still very pessimistic about Relic and do not feel that they really made steps into right directions.
I have a feeling that out conversation is pure theory and we won't play long enough to see how they implement their balance changes or "make steps into right direction" since there will be no such steps.

Sad... I hope you are wrong but somehow I have this feeling...

I have to admit as DAK I always play Italian Combined Arms, because it seems to be the best deal overall. As DAK you have the Tiger in the end of course which I do think is exeptionally good especially vs Brits since there are no tanks that can reliable pen it from the front unless you go for Black Prince, but Brit Armor company is an inferior choice Imo. Of course there is the nondoctrinal 17pdr but it sits there unable to move on its own with 17 popcap.

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.

As Wehr I'm not sure were you got your data/impression

I play all factions in all game-modes, lately focused on 1v1 and 2v2 since my teammates from 3v3 and 4v4 pool got lately bored from the game especially with so cool weekly "hotfixes". Played the game a lot from open beta, and after release 3v3 and 4v4 experience is based on playing in arranged team against whatever comes into matchmaking except for USF which I played solo in team games sometimes. There is where impression comes from.

lately I saw a lot of players building the Panther in 4vs4.

And please don't tell me they won. I will start to think we are playing different games... I 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.

Especially for Brits its a hard thing to deal with.

Panther has poor anti-infantry capability, so it is a piece of cake to foot guards and vetted AT-tommies. Brummbär is more difficult to deal with as UKF than Panther. Especially backed up by panther, but this is a story of faction design, where some factions have advantages over others on some stages of the game. But I can assure you with all respect that in competitive 3v3/4v4 brummbar+panther combo is not as difficult to deal with as 2xsapper+dingo+2/3 infantry section into early humber combo with vanilla wehrmacht early game based on grenadiers and HMG42 (which is great as damage dealer, but made of paper and suppression is garbage in this game overall)

While Brits have very good infantry and artillery options they struggle versus heavy armored targets. Ironically US is vice versa.

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."
Both factions do not have "struggles", they have hardly a challenge: UKF is simpler, but USF is more rewarding if you play your cards right.

And there it is: The german Ubertanks. On the other side Axis has always the choice to support heavy tanks with Marder III to penetrate the slow moving heavy brit tanks in addition to the strong pentration Tiger and Panther have by themselves. So this is maybe somehow the problem in late game tank fights which attracts the players to axis.

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?

If you see that a faction has higher win ratios in one game mode than in others, have a look what is differnt in the meta. Mostly it is timing of units or spam of units which are better in some game modes than in others. Having a 0 CP paratrooper squad (Wehr) or paratropper MG (US) is for example better on bigger multiplayer maps where you can dig in before enemy troops arrive than on small 1vs1 maps. Solution: Put 1CP before it. Small impact on 1vs1, big impact on 4vs4.

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.

Another example: Having Kettenkrad upgrade and Opel Blitz which basically can double fuel income of a fuel point if you combine them for the whole team is idiotic if the other team can't do that (okay, there is one fiddly mechanic with weasel). Solution: Only the owner of Kettenkrad, Opel Blitz or Weasel gets the bonus fuel income (thats the way it was in CoH2 lately). The latter change has absolutely no impact on 1vs1 but a huge one on 4vs4. Easy and smart balancing.

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.