Simple answer as to whether a unit is OP or not.

Strikes me, that in the question "Is unit X overpowered", a good rule of thumb as to a yes or no answer is as follows.

"Would you care if the enemy had access to that unit"

As an example, ask a soviet player: " Would you mind if the enemy had access to a forward HQ? The answer would generally be "yes i would mind". From this, perhaps we could conclude that the forward HQ is overpowered.

Conversely, if the same player was asked: "Would you care if the Germans had the t70 light tank available to them"? The answer of course, would generally be "absolutely not, feel free to take it ". In fact the answer would actually probably be more likely to be "whats is a t70-light tank?" they are so underused - and the total lack of care at the enemy having access to a unit is a further useful indicator of when a unit is underpowered.

Some questions would produce no majorly strong opinions. Would you swap pioneers for engineers? Grenadiers for conscripts? Zis for Pak? You might have a preference, but you would not consider it gamebreaking, and we could therefore conclude that here we have balance.


Continuing this theme then, the questions is what units do the soviets actually have that they would have any level of care if the germans got them? The oft quoted "maxim spam" complaint from german players is easily addressed by saying "ok we will swap them for mg42s". I wager most soviet players would love to swap them. Perhaps shock troops? The OKW have plenty of superior troops - even sturm pios can knock a dent in shocks. I struggle to think of any unit (baring the hq ability) which I would give a hoot about if the germans had them. Perhaps the engineers mines? The precision stike ability on mortars maybe?

Can any soviet player think of any? Can any german player think of any they would really like?

Looking now at the German arsenal. I would bite the hand off (in decreasing degrees) anyone offering me the kubelwagon, the walking stukka, decent infantry anti-tank, the okw flack building, decent 'behind the line' troops (LOL partisans), the KT, the Jag. There is a long list of units.

TLDR

Ask yourself the question next time you claim a unit is balanced. would i mind the enemy having them. If the answer is yes, consider why you think it is balanced.

Kind of interesting approach, but its never about a single unit, but also what is behind that unit.

For example, JT alone isn't op, just pull AT guns and thats it, but with shreck volks and obers you need incomparably more resources to counter it.

The approach you are describing is incredibly flawed because factions have different basic designs with different strengths and weaknesses, and a unit that plugs a gap in a faction might make that faction OP even if the unit itself is fine.

For example, OKW have Panzershrecks on their basic troops to provide AT. To partially compensate for this, their actual AT gun (the Raketenwerfer) is much weaker and shorter range than other AT guns. Given that they already have Panzerschrecks, it would be unbalanced for OKW to have an AT gun as good as the Pak. Does this mean that the Pak is overpowered. No.

The approach you are describing is incredibly flawed because factions have different basic designs with different strengths and weaknesses, and a unit that plugs a gap in a faction might make that faction OP even if the unit itself is fine.

For example, OKW have Panzershrecks on their basic troops to provide AT. To partially compensate for this, their actual AT gun (the Raketenwerfer) is much weaker and shorter range than other AT guns. Given that they already have Panzerschrecks, it would be unbalanced for OKW to have an AT gun as good as the Pak. Does this mean that the Pak is overpowered. No.

Well the Raketenwerfer 'weakness' in comparison to the PAK is already taken into account by being a lot cheaper then the Pak, not to mention it can garrison buildings and retreat(so you are having your cake and eating it there) but I do take your point that units should be partly judged in the context of the army they are produced by.

This still, however, does not counter the point that the OKW have a list of units of which the soviets would give their right arm for. And the soviets have arguably nothing at all the OKW would really want.

A simple swap of same role units/weapons demonstrates this. Ask a soviet if he/she would swap doctrine PTRS for Schrecks? Swap Kats for Stukas? Swap scout cars for kubels. Swap t70 for luch. Swap anything for Su76. All will be met with a resounding "yes".

The reverse is not true. The OKW player would not be happy with the swap.

And this is an underlying symptom of the diagnosis that those units are over powerd (or alternativly their alternatives are underpowerd). Other symptoms include the 80-20% search rates in multiplayer and the recently released figures showing the german dominance of the win rates.

Note that this is not a OKW are overpowered thread, back in the early days of "God" mortar call ins for the soviets, the german player would have loved to have had a god mortar and the soviet player would not have wanted to let the german have it. Hence I would have argued the item was overpowered, and indeed it has taken several nerfs, and its not particularly hotly debated anymore.

This is a dumb way to decide whether or not things are over powered or not, because it is based completely on opinion. I personally would rather have conscripts than grenadiers, but that doesn't mean that conscripts are OP or that they are even better than grens. All it means is that I would rather have conscripts than grens.

Same thing with all of your other comparisons. Some people would say they would rather have any AT gun than the raketen, and others will say that the raketen is one of the most useful AT guns in the game. It's just an opinion, you can't use that to decide balance.

Strikes me, that in the question "Is unit X overpowered", a good rule of thumb as to a yes or no answer is as follows.

"Would you care if the enemy had access to that unit"

Is conscript merge OP? I mean if OKW had it, and then merged into obers or falls...holy god, merge is batshit OP, nerf at once!

I'm not sure this approach really has any merit.

I don't this really works because the factions are so different.

Suppose I play soviets, for instance, and ask myself "are snipers OP?"

If Ostheer had a soviet 2 man sniper team, it wouldn't be a big deal for the soviets to counter because the soviets would also still have 2 man sniper teams, so the soviets would still have respectable chances at counter sniping. It's still not the same situation as Ostheer facing two man sniper squads with one man sniper.

Even if we change it so "okay what if they got the unit, and then you lost it?" it still is a little wonky. Okay ... so OH gets a two man sniper, but remember that soviet tier 1 comes with a scout car that chase it down, so it's still not the same situation.

Even worse, you're now pitting the sov sniper against soviet 6 man squads.

Best way to get a feel for balance is to play all factions. If you're like me and play at a low level, watch streams of higher level play to figure out if the problems you see are imbalance or people simply not playing well.

Not saying soviet snipers are OP at all, just using them as an example where I feel this analysis doesn't work.

Is conscript merge OP? I mean if OKW had it, and then merged into obers or falls...holy god, merge is batshit OP, nerf at once!

I'm not sure this approach really has any merit.

Su-76/85 hears you, Su-76/85 does not care for your opinions at all for it is too busy being full of murder to care about anyone's opinion on anything.

Well the Raketenwerfer 'weakness' in comparison to the PAK is already taken into account by being a lot cheaper then the Pak, not to mention it can garrison buildings and retreat(so you are having your cake and eating it there) but I do take your point that units should be partly judged in the context of the army they are produced by.

This still, however, does not counter the point that the OKW have a list of units of which the soviets would give their right arm for. And the soviets have arguably nothing at all the OKW would really want.

A simple swap of same role units/weapons demonstrates this. Ask a soviet if he/she would swap doctrine PTRS for Schrecks? Swap Kats for Stukas? Swap scout cars for kubels. Swap t70 for luch. Swap anything for Su76. All will be met with a resounding "yes".

The reverse is not true. The OKW player would not be happy with the swap.

And this is an underlying symptom of the diagnosis that those units are over powerd (or alternativly their alternatives are underpowerd). Other symptoms include the 80-20% search rates in multiplayer and the recently released figures showing the german dominance of the win rates.

Note that this is not a OKW are overpowered thread, back in the early days of "God" mortar call ins for the soviets, the german player would have loved to have had a god mortar and the soviet player would not have wanted to let the german have it. Hence I would have argued the item was overpowered, and indeed it has taken several nerfs, and its not particularly hotly debated anymore.

Well, its not really as simple as 'swapping' since this suggests some sort of direct equivalence in role that doesn't exist in many cases.

Anyway, here's a list of some Soviet units that would make OKW a lot better:

Sniper team, Mortar (especially 120mm), Guards (for the button, imagine this comboed with Volks), T34 (a medium tank), ISU-152, KV-8... and probably a few more, since this list only took be about 30 secs

I believe any approach based on comparing single units is of very limited use, since you have to factor in overall faction design and potential combinations.

Well, its not really as simple as 'swapping' since this suggests some sort of direct equivalence in role that doesn't exist in many cases.

Anyway, here's a list of some Soviet units that would make OKW a lot better:

Sniper team, Mortar (especially 120mm), Guards (for the button, imagine this comboed with Volks), T34 (a medium tank), ISU-152, KV-8... and probably a few more, since this list only took be about 30 secs

I believe any approach based on comparing single units is of very limited use, since you have to factor in overall faction design and potential combinations.

It is true, as you say, that the "direct equivalent [between unit types] does not exist in many cases". If this is true, however, concurrent to this is that the direct equivalent DOES exist in the other cases. All of which, the soviet player would be more then happy to swap the directly equivalent item.

Your list of units include some good units, but none of them would massively dent the soviet player if they were swapped. Most soviet players would be pretty ambivalent if the unit was swapped out for the nearest OKW/German equivalent (where applicable).

In comparison, the kubel, the walking stuka, shreks, and the flak building in particular would be gleefully accepted by the soviet - and the OKW player would be vehemently against the loss. And it is the degree of vehemence that the player feels which is the indicator that should make the player think:

" why do I not want the enemy to have this particular unit X so much when I am ambivalent if they were to have another unit Y?"

The answer to that is fairly obvious, they know its overpowered!

No... they know it would be overpowered if that faction had it. There is a pretty big difference.

...
I'm not sure this approach really has any merit.

Me neither.

If they would even allow to play Axis and Allies in the same team i could think of dozens of synergies that would be rather nasty. Factions do have their (dis-) advantages for a reason.

....
In comparison, the kubel, the walking stuka, shreks, and the flak building in particular would be gleefully accepted by the soviet - and the OKW player would be vehemently against the loss....
The answer to that is fairly obvious, they know its overpowered!

And what would OKW get in return for this?

In comparison, the kubel, the walking stuka, shreks, and the flak building in particular would be gleefully accepted by the soviet - and the OKW player would be vehemently against the loss. And it is the degree of vehemence that the player feels which is the indicator that should make the player think:

" why do I not want the enemy to have this particular unit X so much when I am ambivalent if they were to have another unit Y?"

The answer to that is fairly obvious, they know its overpowered!

Here, lets give the wehr 6 man weapon teams, maybe some shocks, an m5 quadmount, and maybe a demo charge to round it out.

Oh dear, that sounds god awful and crazy OP, clearly we should nerf the soviets more due to this hypothetical matchup that might be unfair.

Hmm to try this a different way then. Two simple examples.

Would Soviet players care if tomorrow there was a patch which gave the OKW players access to the T70? Some may care a little, most would not give a hoot.

Would OKW players care if tomorrow the Walking Stuka was accessible to the soviets? All would vent their spleens.

One unit, no one cares. Why? Underpowered.
One unit, everyone cares. Why? Overpowered.

My contention again is that, as a rule of thumb, the more you don't want the enemy to have a unit, the more overpowered you know it is.

My contention again is that, as a rule of thumb, the more you don't want the enemy to have a unit, the more overpowered you know it is.

But it depends completely on how the faction is designed, you wouldn't want to give volks an AT-nade (which would complement schreks), but that doesn't mean it is OP for conscripts to have it.

Hmm to try this a different way then. Two simple examples.

Would Soviet players care if tomorrow there was a patch which gave the OKW players access to the T70? Some may care a little, most would not give a hoot.

Would OKW players care if tomorrow the Walking Stuka was accessible to the soviets? All would vent their spleens.

One unit, no one cares. Why? Underpowered.
One unit, everyone cares. Why? Overpowered.

My contention again is that, as a rule of thumb, the more you don't want the enemy to have a unit, the more overpowered you know it is.

That makes no sense.

Would OKW players care if tomorrow there was a patch that gave Soviet players access to the MG34? Some may care a litte, but most would not give a hoot.

Would Soviet players care if tomorrow the T34 was accessible to OKW? All would vent their spleens.

That doesn't mean the mg34 is underpowered, nor the T34 is overpowered. I don't see how you don't see this.

Hmm to try this a different way then. Two simple examples.

Would Soviet players care if tomorrow there was a patch which gave the OKW players access to the T70? Some may care a little, most would not give a hoot.

Would OKW players care if tomorrow the Walking Stuka was accessible to the soviets? All would vent their spleens.

One unit, no one cares. Why? Underpowered.
One unit, everyone cares. Why? Overpowered.

My contention again is that, as a rule of thumb, the more you don't want the enemy to have a unit, the more overpowered you know it is.

That example doesn't make any sense.

Why would i care if OKW gets a T70, they already got the Luchs, and plenty of their infantry is for AI purpose.

Also: why would i care if SOV gets the Stuka. With tech cost at OKWs income that's 210 fuel for the first Stuka, or 150 for another one. And in which Tech would you put it? T3? Sure, move the T34 out of it (OKW has no generalist medium tank, remember), and i wouldn't mind playing against that any day.

No offense, but i hope you do realize that certain units are just specialized to fill a gap of a certain faction.

Give Volks PTRS and Conscripts Panzerschrecks ))

Give Volks PTRS and Conscripts Panzerschrecks ))

But you also give Volks Molotovs, AT nades, doctrinal dpsh, Ooorah, and merge, right?

Give OH soviet sniper and exchange it with the soviet one
Yeah, your comparison doesn't work.

But you also give Volks Molotovs, AT nades, doctrinal dpsh, Ooorah, and merge, right?

And then Conscripts are allowed to build proper sandbags, bunkers, nades and assault nades...
We can keep forever with this logic.

PD: merging Obers...