I find it interesting that even top players have such a differing view about the current state of balance. (Sorry Sid for picking your most contributing argument )
Experience and premade teams will alleviate a lot of the issues mentioned in Sullys list but naturally that is a double edged sword and cheese builds can be a lot more devastating when done by skilled users.
I don't think its still easy to objectively justify for example the cost efficiency and utility of massed SU76's compared to its T4 SU85 counterpart. I think there is a difference between L2P and justified L2P. (lazy final example: L2P with grenade dodging vs L2P with pre nerf mininuke gammon bombs from camo)
Dunno how much Stark and Sully scrimmed for the tourney but their axis builds were really sub-optimal lategame.
Tournaments arent the best way to gauge balance because its the top players, its because theres equality in skill level.
Right now in the not 3-0 series axis are winning the most games by a lot.
Fire rate is king over range in 2v2, stug is thr best td in the game cost/pop/performamce. Anyone watching the tourney is also seeing how axis is a snowball machine right now, gets ahead first 5 mins, lvs hit earlier, t3 rush from ostheer. Also massive atm is okw and osts free access to weps atm.
Listing out each factions good and bad units doesnt also doesnt say anything about balance as a whole.
Centaur might be op but every brit tank gets shit on by stugs, same with usf and jackson. 2 stugs is dirt cheap compared to tds right now and it takes 4 shots to kill allied med tanks but 5 to kill axis ones praise command tank.
Im also questioing how often people play the game since the last 2 patches with how often i still see the gren meme
Not like allies are impossibly bad but youre much more limited in how you can win games and you're the side on thr knife edge now that axis can push the early game harder