With regards to balance

Cant agree with you, van Voort. Of course, its very map dependent. And maps like steppes will allow less of this to happen than maps like, say, Rostov. Usually though, playing larger team games is alot more forgiving and gives more room for error. You can be carried by your teammates for so long without it really impacting lategame alot.

I used this a bunch of times myself(maybe 3 or 4) and must say its the biggest scumbag bullshit you can use beside ISU and JT. One wehr player just goes with his normal build, waits until 3 cp, tries to hold the line or support his neighbour with his limited troops and then drops fuel about 3 or 4 times. Thats usually enough for the OKW player to have a panther and a kt out by around 18min, while everyone else still manages to get out their p4 or panther in just about the same time as always. The only thing it will affect really is the amount of map presence in terms of infantry, of the guy dropping that stuff. Its a very efficient trade-off though and should definitely be looked at for balance purpose.

Theres virtually nothing you can do against that early kt supported by a panther if the OKW player has just about a glimpse of micro in him and youll just end up getting pushed off or everyone has to focus on that one player in order to keep him in check and then youll just end up losing the rest of the map, or, all your units cause the teammates of the OKW player came to help him and killed your 2 shermans.

This strategy bears the potential for massive abuse and thats certainly not ok.

Axis need much less skill to play properly in 3v3/4v4 than Allies. Axis can seat there with their op mortars stukas and 5 vet squads which eventually will win game for them even without op tanks they waiting for, while allies need constantly apply pressure in hope they inflict enough loses to have chance in late game. After some point its not even about micro, macro, rng and adaptation but about game sense to the point where allied player should predict engagement outcome almost perfectly and see situation on the map as a whole.

Before balancing game Relic should add more commanders, coz 6 commanders per fraction compared to what sov and wehr have is laughable. Allied war machine, rangers, different paratroopers commander (recon paras is a joke), different easy eight and priest commanders and other stuff to improve USF availability in team games. OKW probably need a doctrinal motorcycle or other light vehicle to have chance against sov snipers in 1v1. Also i hope to see Goliaths and flak 88.

I wanted you to note that the same #1 team in axis 4v4AT is also able to achieve #1 in allies 4v4AT - to show you that its possibly good teamwork and some skill that which has made them successful, not just 'axis op'. You somehow took that as me telling you L2P. Even though that was my not what I was saying, but so what if I was? Are you really that insecure that you're going to lash out like a teenager because someone may think its in the realm of possibility that it may be you and not balance? You can tell me l2p all you want, and ill say thanks - can you give me an idea of what I could do differently to improve. The point of the comment was to look at yourself before you constantly cry balance. There are players who are able to be successful with both factions and of course there are balance issues that need to be addressed - always have, always will. You can go ahead and wait for some magical ground-breaking patch that will revolutionize the game and you'll be sooooo sweet. In the meantime, I will keep playing and keep improving - no matter the game state.

I understand where you are coming from G.dot. If one specific team is able to be #1 at Axis and Allies why can't everyone else. It is easy to say "L2P" in order to emulate the success of this one team.

However, i think in the case of 4v4 and 3v3 (and even 2v2 to some extent), i truly believe that there are fundamental balance issues. It is easy to say "why can't you guys just improve your game. The same AT is #1 in both Axis and Allies!". But if you look at the stats (unfortunately, Relic doesn't have any official data, but Legends has his or her own work), you will see that the Top 200 Axis players in 4v4 consistently have winrates >80% while Allies hover around 50-60% (sometimes not even breaking .50 on specific days). This has been going on since mid-July, when Legends first started the data collection.

I think it is a little unfair to just tell people to improve your game (although everyone should be doing that regardless of balance issues), when the majority of the top 200 4v4 Allied players consistently struggle. Of course, all teams can strive to be like the #1 Allied and Axis team but why is it then that the majority of the top 200 4v4 Allies players struggle to break 60% while the top 200 Axis players consistently top winrates of ~85%. We can always assume that Allies players stink compared to Axis players, but considering some, if not a significant amount of players, play both sides. Also, these inconsistencies have been there since July, when we first got to look at Legends' data. This is why i believe there is a core problem with the balance of the game in these larger modes.

I think it has to do with the changes to the jagdlol and isu. I've noticed earlier that when non of these units where built balance and the games were alot more fun.

They are fundamentally the same. Only their abilities got changed a little.

They are fundamentally the same. Only their abilities got changed a little.

Of course, of course, but I think it is more about those small changes made sure the units are used less, meaning more of the standard heavies and less of the super-tier units, and that in turn has had a positive impact on the game in my mind.

I've always been against the very existence of these super strong units being included in the game and seeing less of them is refreshing.
That being said I like Cruzz's changes even more since they have in my mind tried to remedied the problems instead of just making the problem appear less commonly, as is the case with the official changes.