GCS2 Barbarossa faction win rate

I agree that they need new stuff, but disagree that Relic aren't open to fundamentally adding new stuff.

Historically:

OKW were formally the worst faction in CoH2 from a design perspective... I mean they still are but they're now viable and palatable from a balance perspective due to the adding of the Panzer IV, the MG34, and the moving of schrecks to SPs. Before those three changes OKW were a shitstain, after that they're just a bit rubbish, but acceptable.

Relic were always more open to changing OKW, they were always taking it upon themselves to mess around with them like their attempts to make Kubel their starting unit. They've shown 0 desire to alter Brits in any way since release other than value changes, any time i've tried to open the dialogue with Relic and Mr Smith its just shot down.

I might make a video on Brits though as people seem to have these ideas of Brits being OP hammered into their head from how aids they were in previous patches.

I dont think that these win rates really mean much since in basically every ukf vs okw game played, you would probably expect the okw player to win no matter the factions.

So how does this line up with the fact that apart from VonIvan beating steffenbk1 2-0, every single player who played brits won a game as axis against the same opponent they lost to as brits?

So many people dancing around the idea of UKF being trash, they make so many excuses, so many far fetched allegations, the win rate doesnt matter, the players were bad, they didnt find a way how to play them yet, like you need months to find a fucking viable strategy to play a faction that you played for years.

Come on guys, stop bullshiting already, the faction is bad and at the moment it needs a lot of things to be viable otherwise it's just a practice dummy on how to vet your enemies.

So how does this line up with the fact that apart from VonIvan beating steffenbk1 2-0, every single player who played brits won a game as axis against the same opponent they lost to as brits?

And tobis.

Anyway, that means you're looking at 5 players if I've been thorough. Quiritz (my opponent), refero, steffen, tobis, and stuve.

Given what I personally know about how my series with quiritz worked out, allow me to say that I wouldn't say balance had a significant bearing on the result you saw.

Talking to refero after we both bombed out in the round of 16, he (if I recall correctly, and I apologize to him if I am misremembering) said he was personally disappointed in his brit performances throughout the qualifier. The loss in the first round still seems pretty relevant, but, again, I don't think you can take much from him losing his games against noganno.

I don't think steffen dropping matches to barton is unexpected, and you already spoke about his match against vonivan.

Stuve won his game with brits, but again, thats not unexpected.

Tobis...let's just say that as of right now, he has logged 2.2 hours on coh2 in the last 2 weeks and has no visible automatch ranks whatsoever.

Beyond that, all of the axis wins that you are referring to are ostheer wins. This begs the question of whether it was UKF that pulled these players into losses, or ostheer that pulled them into wins (or neither).

To me, if you consider the context, UKF being underpowered (against OKW, that is) far from the only reasonable conclusion or take away from these win rates.

So many people dancing around the idea of UKF being trash, they make so many excuses, so many far fetched allegations, the win rate doesnt matter, the players were bad, they didnt find a way how to play them yet, like you need months to find a fucking viable strategy to play a faction that you played for years.

Come on guys, stop bullshiting already, the faction is bad and at the moment it needs a lot of things to be viable otherwise it's just a practice dummy on how to vet your enemies.

It's not about UKF being bad or not. It's whether or not these win rates, in context, support that assertion. If someone wants me to say that UKF is underpowered/dead/useless against ostheer and situationally (or possibly always) underpowered against OKW, I'll say it. However, if someone wants me to agree that these win rates, in context, show the above is true, then I'm going to respond with skepticism.

In this situation specifically, the win rates support UKF being underpowered, but given the context, small sample sizes, and overall uncertainty, there are A LOT of other arguments it can also support, which is why I disagree with drawing any single conclusion.

A sample of 27 means nothing. J4J and Zarok had already point out some of the issues with the results, basically because the sample is too low. When you have statistics than can explained with particular causes then you know the stats have no value.
I'm not getting into if balance statements said are true or not, i'm just saying stats over 30 samples mean absolutely nothing.

it's a sample of 75. The OP explicitly said 75.


The mere fact that the british is the least popular faction should be a concern, yet people are trying to perform mental gymnastic at how the british are secretly awesome and the best player in the game just doesn't know it.

There's also the fact the british have a win:lose ratio of 9:1 in the tourny. The okw vs USF winrate of 3:2 is close enough to make a "wash".

A winrate of 10% is the beginning of a disturbing trend. If you keep on gambling after losing 9 out 10 game, you have a gambling addiction. Do you honestly think you're going to magically win 8 games in a roll to make up the loses?

Do you honestly think you're going to magically win 8 games in a roll to make up the loses?

If higher seed players were to spam brits? Most definitely. Again, context matters.

Also, he was right about the sample size. This isn't a sample of 75. This is a sample of 17... and of 8, and 5, and 26, and 2, and 18. Each matchup is its own sample, and you can't really combine them all as a "super sample". Again, the point is to not continue on with a kind of willful ignorance towards the obviously small sample size and the huge impact that spawns, maps, and players have on these stats.

As small of a sample size it would give, I think doing separate stats for the semi (or maybe quarter) finals and up would tell a lot more. Well, youd essentially have to throw out all of devm's games since hes basically boosting factions, but I think taking from games where the players are more closely matched in skill and taking play rates from the top players is just more meaningful.

Since you like talking statistics, answer a few simple questions for us newbies.

What type of data is wins and losses?
How do you determine if the sample size is large enough to make a conclusion?

If higher seed players were to spam brits? Most definitely. Again, context matters.

The fact that in a tourney where the player have free choice over their faction, the british is the least played faction in the game is not evidence enough for you? Is that not context enough for your?

The british is factually the least popular faction out of 75 games. what explanation do you have for that behavior?

This is not just the fact the british lost 9 out of 10 game they played, it's also the fact they are the least popular faction by far

UKF been the least popular faction wouldn't be an issue, if that would had been the case prior to any previous patch. People who use to bring UKF, not longer doing so, is another alarm.

UKF right now is like OKW post rework, without giving it the proper tools for a normal faction after most of it's clutches had been removed.
Imagine current OKW without having access to MG34 and Volks without faust.

Problem comes when you try to limit factions basic tools, while powerbudgeting other aspects to compensate. There's a fine line between having a balanced strong unit/aspect and having it so strong that the best strat is to completely spam the hell out of it.


PD: winrates on it's own doesn't say anything unless there's a heavy discrepancy, specially with small sample size and skill/map bias. But if something talks like a duck, looks like a duck and moves like a duck. It's more than likely that it is a duck.

PD: winrates on it's own doesn't say anything unless there's a heavy discrepancy, specially with small sample size and skill/map bias. But if something talks like a duck, looks like a duck and moves like a duck. It's more than likely that it is a duck.

This, the players that are famous for always playing Brits in tournaments have stopped, the ones that still try to do so lose...

Yet some people would rather pretend it's not a duck. It's a duck!

In this situation specifically, the win rates support UKF being underpowered, but given the context, small sample sizes, and overall uncertainty, there are A LOT of other arguments it can also support, which is why I disagree with drawing any single conclusion.

Because players aren't a homogeneous group we'll never have a particularly robust sample for any faction, nevermind the least popular one. You work with what you get.

I don't think there's any reasonable conclusions to draw from what we have other than "Brits are worse against both axis factions than soviets are".

Beyond that, all of the axis wins that you are referring to are ostheer wins. This begs the question of whether it was UKF that pulled these players into losses, or ostheer that pulled them into wins (or neither).

Ost performance in the tourney is much less abnormal than the brit one, making this sort of claim while waving off the data points we have for brits is doing the exact opposite of what you've been saying about the sample size etc.

It would be interesting to hear from the actual players that played the Brits last weekend or played against them. However, they always seem to avoid these threads like the plague.

Perhaps create a thread especially for them?

Ostheer needs more buffs according to imperialdane

It would be interesting to hear from the actual players that played the Brits last weekend or played against them. However, they always seem to avoid these threads like the plague.

Perhaps create a thread especially for them?

At risk of sounding like an elitist douche... most top players feel like they're wasting their time explaining issues in detail when rank 1,000 fanboys come and tell you why you're wrong because some numbers on a spreadsheet theoretically MIGHT make their argument valid. But theory and practice don't always line up.

The biggest issue Brits have at the moment, in my opinion, are their difficulty in killing tanks (lack of snare) and difficulty in doslodging HMGs/pushing into green cover (lack of indirect fire).

Fix those two, and you'd probably have a decent enough faction even with current stats on units. If you buff other things instead of fixing inherent game mechanic flaws, you're going to go back to a gimmicky UKF crutching on overpowered stuff like Cromwell spam, Centaurs wiping like crazy, Land Mattress erasing armies, Commandos 1 shotting anything they come within 10 yards of, etc.

At risk of sounding like an elitist douche... most top players feel like they're wasting their time explaining issues in detail when rank 1,000 fanboys come and tell you why you're wrong because some numbers on a spreadsheet theoretically MIGHT make their argument valid. But theory and practice don't always line up.

The biggest issue Brits have at the moment, in my opinion, are their difficulty in killing tanks (lack of snare) and difficulty in doslodging HMGs/pushing into green cover (lack of indirect fire).

Fix those two, and you'd probably have a decent enough faction even with current stats on units. If you buff other things instead of fixing inherent game mechanic flaws, you're going to go back to a gimmicky UKF crutching on overpowered stuff like Cromwell spam, Centaurs wiping like crazy, Land Mattress erasing armies, Commandos 1 shotting anything they come within 10 yards of, etc.

That is why I emphasized the aspect of creating a thread for them and them only. Now in regards to the suggested buffs, I agree. These will make Brits a viable faction. However, when these elements are added, some changes need to be made in order for Brits to not become batshit overpowered and too competent. Mainly; double lmg performance needs to be towned down and if a snare is added, then the 6 pounder needs to be less competent.

Otherwise, I agree with your statements.

That is why I emphasized the aspect of creating a thread for them and them only. Now in regards to the suggested buffs, I agree. These will make Brits a viable faction. However, when these elements are added, some changes need to be made in order for Brits to not become batshit overpowered and too competent. Mainly; double lmg performance needs to be towned down and if a snare is added, then the 6 pounder needs to be less competent.

Otherwise, I agree with your statements.

Yeah, that's fair. I don't know that I'd tone down double LMGs any more though. They're already the worst upgrade in the game. Maybe nerf IS vet a bit instead? If you tone them down more, I don't think they'll be worth it.

Yeah, that's fair. I don't know that I'd tone down double LMGs any more though. They're already the worst upgrade in the game. Maybe nerf IS vet a bit instead? If you tone them down more, I don't think they'll be worth it.

IS vet isn't that strong, especially offensive one.
While grens get 40% accuracy, tommies get only 20%.

Tommies are durable and that's it.

I dont get why the Brit AT gun would have to be nerfed. It´s just right as it is.

It´s a Pak 40 clone that has to fight heavier armoured vehicles than the Pak 40. It often fails to penetrate as is, making it any worse would be a very bad idea. The 6 pounder also has worse vet than Pak40.


There is no way Brens should be nerfed more either, they arent even good.