win-lose-ratio from 15.9. - 25.9.2014 + much more

They were about to fail their invasion in France, The only tank brigade France had push them back because the P3 was too weak compare to French tanks, it could barely pierce the armor.
What make them finally won: of course, competent Head of Army than French ones (not difficult at this time), Tank radio on every tank (only the tank battalion leader had a radio on French side) and Stukas. Germamy won the early war with a better airforce (well French airforce was barely inexistent, it goes in peer with the HQ level of competency) and lost it when they lost they're air superiority.
France army could also have retreat over the Seine and hold here, but they decided to surrender...

You and Braicharados are correct about the superiority of French and British tanks in a head on armour clash (rather than the fast moving armour group tactic the Germans were exploiting). Luckily there was a line of 88mm guns in the French's way which the Germans found vaporised the 'superior' French tanks. Then you say the superior German tank communications and superior leadership backed by a well trained air-force with their superior aircraft swung it with the help of poor French morale and leadership

You make it sound like the German army was better than everyone else in most respects.

I am a little more hazy on the French surrender but know that Rommel and Guderain had gone through the French lines like butter, and were rampaging across France at an astonishing speed (200 miles on one day)

I don't really want to argue or derail the thread I would simply say that anyone who like Bracharadas who tells people that they should learn their history (though he has many excellent points) is playing with fire on these forums - there is a lot of knowledge and no-ones is complete plus there can be differing opinions on its interpretation.

I really wish there would be ONE heavily moderated sub-forum. I'm not sure what all this historical shit chat and one line "xyz is OP" replies have to do with balancing... AT ALL.

(And now i went OT myself, because there's no point to reply to the few on topic replies that appear once per page)

The difference between the number of played games between the axis and allies in the top 200 could be an artifact of how the data was generated.

If you assume that the Axis is currently over-powered, but once weren't, then you would expect that it would be very easy for players this patch to beat the ELO rating of players who played in previous patches, but have since become inactive. This would result in the majority of the top 200 axis players being active.

The opposite will occur in the Allies ladder, where an active player now can expect to fall below a player who earned a high elo rating when the game was more balanced. This will result in a larger portion of the top 200 players on the allies side being inactive accounts.

What this would bascially suggest is that the effective sample size on the axis side is larger and has hence played more games.

1-People play with the most effective units and the easiest to use. This applies to factions as well.

-Call in infantry and tanks? Maxim spam? Obers? LMG on all units?
-Commander choice? When was the last time someone saw anyone use conscript support or NKVD?
-Theres always the exception to the rule (Lenny and his partisans). A tiny part of the population that from time to time wants to try different things are not by sure the mayority.

Stop deluding yourself. If you like to play with X faction, commander and units do so but don't try to shove off as someone "noble" for doing so.

2- Strawmen arguments...
If you have been searching for a long time, with either faction, the result can work both ways. Either you get matched with someone better or worst than yourself.
It would be great if it only show matches from top 200 vs top 200 but unfortunately we don't have that info.
Also, i feel like the rank "gap" for WFA top 200 is a little slower than with vanilla.

3- I don't know what to say regarding 2v2+ since AT are not taking into account. Would love to see a comparison between allies and axis AT eventhough this doesn't have too much value.

4- Can we stop with "historical" comparison.

Allies, especially USSR, are easy mode for 1v1 & 2v2 tbh

Allies, especially USSR, are easy mode for 1v1 & 2v2 tbh

The graph follows my experience. 1v1 is rather balanced, with OKW as the strongest faction and Ostheer as the weakest, albeit not by much. 2v2 is OK, OKW starts to dominate, Ostheer is good, Soviets are good, US start to really struggle. 3v3 and up is a clear Axis advantage as while Ostheer becomes stronger and OKW stays top tier, US is basically a waste of space in anything bigger than 2v2.

The graph follows my experience. 1v1 is rather balanced, with OKW as the strongest faction and Ostheer as the weakest, albeit not by much.

1v1 Win Rates were OKW>Soviets>Ostheer>USF

with the % being 69.8/68.7/68.2/62.3

Allies, especially USSR, are easy mode for 1v1 & 2v2 tbh

The inability of you being able to read the charts properly reflect poorly on your countries education system.

The the OP of this thread. The poster of the stats made a mistake and has corrected it in his OP.

The the OP of this thread. The poster of the stats made a mistake and has corrected it in his OP.

The mistake was in his August 27-September 7 Statistics

1v1 Win Rates were OKW>Soviets>Ostheer>USF

with the % being 69.8/68.7/68.2/62.3

Ah, misread that, thanks. Makes sense that USF is the worst, you either win early game or you, well, don't. Them largely getting nerfs in the last patch doesn't help, as well as the Konigskubel idiocy.

Soviets are also strong at all levels of play, if you use cookie cutter builds.

1v1 Win Rates were OKW>Soviets>Ostheer>USF

with the % being 69.8/68.7/68.2/62.3

that is pretty balanced id say. maybe a hair too much favoring Soviets, probably cuz snipers and maxim spam

The inability of you being able to read the charts properly reflect poorly on your countries education system.

The the OP of this thread. The poster of the stats made a mistake and has corrected it in his OP.

I read the chart and it is stupid to say "This data ergo Axis OP". Its just as stupid as "the OKCupid stats, showing men of all ages showing preference in young 20 year old women, ergo all men love young girls" Your inability to understand the data reflects only on your poor comprehension.

As someone who has been in the competitive gaming scene for almost a decade, with over 1k hours of CoH2 played, I can tell you the data doesn't reflect reality. Allies out class Axis in every way. Allies early-mid game allows them to beat Axis to late game armor, which is the only area where axis is "better". USSR's T1 + T2 into ISU dominates. Only JT and Elefant can effectively counter it.

USF has some of the strongest infantry in the game. While lacking a heavy tank, their Shermans make up for it. Their Shermans are cheap while remaining strong. Their radio net passive helps increase their power as you get 2-3 of them. By having multiple Shermans, you can exploit the weakness in German armor, their slow movement and turret rotation speed. The bigger the tank, the easier it is for Shermans to swarm it. This synergies with ISUs as the Shermans can effectively take out ele/JTs.

The only reason Axis "seems" OP is because it is easier to play, especially their tanks. Noobs like to go head to head with tanks. While you can do this with German tanks, you need to play smarter with Allies tanks.

^ These are stats for the top 200 players, not "noobs" who charge their medium tanks face first into King Tigers.

I read the chart and it is stupid to say "This data ergo Axis OP". Its just as stupid as "the OKCupid stats, showing men of all ages showing preference in young 20 year old women, ergo all men love young girls" Your inability to understand the data reflects only on your poor comprehension.

As someone who has been in the competitive gaming scene for almost a decade, with over 1k hours of CoH2 played, I can tell you the data doesn't reflect reality. Allies out class Axis in every way. Allies early-mid game allows them to beat Axis to late game armor, which is the only area where axis is "better". USSR's T1 + T2 into ISU dominates. Only JT and Elefant can effectively counter it.

USF has some of the strongest infantry in the game. While lacking a heavy tank, their Shermans make up for it. Their Shermans are cheap while remaining strong. Their radio net passive helps increase their power as you get 2-3 of them. By having multiple Shermans, you can exploit the weakness in German armor, their slow movement and turret rotation speed. The bigger the tank, the easier it is for Shermans to swarm it. This synergies with ISUs as the Shermans can effectively take out ele/JTs.

The only reason Axis "seems" OP is because it is easier to play, especially their tanks. Noobs like to go head to head with tanks. While you can do this with German tanks, you need to play smarter with Allies tanks.

I dont know what game mode you play, but clearly no one plays the same game as you. The statistics are pretty clear, and many of us have seen the top players play and thier thoughts are pretty much the same as what the charts show.

You are kind of delusional to not at least igknowlege the fact the USF and Soviet design are flawed in a way that forces two cheese strats to even stay competitive, which get out scaled hard core by Axis late game.

Even if you think the charts dont represent balance, clearly they represent that out of the top 200 players of each game mode the win loss ratios significantly favor Axis. You might want to go brush up on your statistics....

I dont know what game mode you play, but clearly no one plays the same game as you.

Actualy he has a point, manny things I saw here is just pro-Allied bias. This guy is rare, it realy understands the game.

You are kind of delusional to not at least igknowlege the fact the USF and Soviet design are flawed in a way that forces to cheese strats to even stay competitive, which get out scaled hard core by Axis late game.

Nobody force Soviet or USF to use cheese strats. Cheese strat = easy mode and that is why people use it, because they are in love with their stats.

Even if you think the charts dont represent balance, clearly they represent that out of the top 200 players of each game mode the win loss ratios significantly favor Axis. You might want to go brush up on your statistics....

Oh, and I imagine the game is built just for top 200 huh? I am pretty sure it will be realy interesting what is going on below that. You would be surprised.

Cheese strat = easy mode and that is why people use it,

wow.

#1 usf has zero or very few cheese strats


Now for soviets. If people need to use double sniper and m3 (cheese) to win vs OKW. It shows an Obvious problem with the faction. It shows that soviets cannot fight okw traditionally.

They either need to maxim spam or go sniper-m3-call in

Im telling you right now... Micro-ing snipers and an m3 requires an EXTREME understanding of this game mechanics.

Honestly how dare you call cheese EZ mode? This game is so unbalanced, its almost dead.

We have stats that prove that allied factions are under performing or axis are OP.

Nobody force Soviet or USF to use cheese strats. Cheese strat = easy mode and that is why people use it, because they are in love with their stats.

First of all, what USF cheese?

Second of all, for Soviets, not using cheese such as Maxim spam or multiple Snipers is severely gimping yourself against OKW. It generally isn't fun to lose. Would you play as OKW without building any elite infantry and no Shrecks on your Volks?

Oh, and I imagine the game is built just for top 200 huh? I am pretty sure it will be realy interesting what is going on below that. You would be surprised.

You know Starcraft II? The game generally considered the prime example of asymmetric RTS balance and RTS e-sports? That has a larger player base than this game? They balance based on the Grandmaster league, which contains the top 200 players (though it is per region: NA, EU, Korea). You can't balance the game based on players who make mistakes all the time.