AC 2v2 statistics (Wildcard, QT1, QT2, Finals)

Thanks man. Imo i can undestand, brumbar and differents combo with him are so pwoerfull, but allies still have better winrates, hm, what will be with ostheer after brumbar nerf? (ye, if it will be quality nerf, not like 2 times before).

Thx for providing the stats which are very telling. Soviets already had the best win ration in GCS and now this trend continues in 2vs2. The faction combination with the highest win rate are Brits / Soviet (59%!!!) followed by Double Soviets (56%!). (Sample size of US/Brits is just to small to count)
Usually mixed teams should have higher win rates because the factions complement each other. You can see this very good on the different axis combos: A mixed OKW /Wehrmacht (50%) team has a significant higher winnning rate than Double Wehrmacht (just 35%) / Double OKW (42%)combos.

Not so with Soviets: Double Soviets have a higher winning rate than the most successful axis combo.
Yes, its good to wait for further data and the last qualification tournament. But it really looks like Soviets need some smaller adjustments aka nerfs. But if the mod team manages the balancing issues like the commander revamp process im optimistic that they find good solutions.

Thx for providing the stats which are very telling. Soviets already had the best win ration in GCS and now this trend continues in 2vs2. The faction combination with the highest win rate are Brits / Soviet (59%!!!) followed by Double Soviets (56%!). (Sample size of US/Brits is just to small to count)
Usually mixed teams should have higher win rates because the factions complement each other. You can see this very good on the different axis combos: A mixed OKW /Wehrmacht (50%) team has a significant higher winnning rate than Double Wehrmacht (just 35%) / Double OKW (42%)combos.

Not so with Soviets: Double Soviets have a higher winning rate than the most successful axis combo.
Yes, its good to wait for further data and the last qualification tournament. But it really looks like Soviets need some smaller adjustments aka nerfs. But if the mod team manages the balancing issues like the commander revamp process im optimistic that they find good solutions.

TBH I'd be really surprised if it was any other way.
Soviets have all the tools for multiple varied playstyles and are no longer chained to a doctrine to compete, so they are going to work well in every combination by adapting playstyle to make up for allies weakness and mixed axis team covers each others weaknesses perfectly.

OKW alone or wehr alone aren't exactly weak in any way, but they do have certain exploitable weaknesses(double OKW either wins or loses in 10 minutes, wehr turtles into late game and wins or won't last this long) but USF and UKF are in worst state, having least tools and quality of these tools being questionable as well, both being completely stripped of their gimmicks and shock value of shock units doesn't help either here.

IMO Soviets have lots of cheesy things that make them so versatile and good. Clown Car cheese, ZiS ATG being able to dislodge HMGs and infantry with barrage, IL-2 strafe that chases units well into FOW, not really needing any weapon upgrades so they have the munis to continously call in these abilities and to lay down countless mines, having multiple commanders with an abundance of tools, etc. Mines are especially punishing vs Ostheer because they have to retreat any squad that runs into one.

Not one of these things is OP in itself, but the combination is very hard to play against. Especially because the higher level players can utilize most things at once. I don't think there's any one or two units that are particulary OP (Penals and Guards arguably come close though) but it's just the combo of having too many versatile and good/cheesy stuff.

I would not draw conclusions from a 56% win rate over 34 games or a 59% win rate over 41 games, especially when you are not taking into account who played what how many times.

If you want to know why, take a few stabs at flipping a coin 50 times and tell me how many times it came up heads: https://www.random.org/coins/?num=50&cur=60-usd.0025c-pa

Updated, now includes games for Qualification tournament 2.

I would not draw conclusions from a 56% win rate over 34 games or a 59% win rate over 41 games, especially when you are not taking into account who played what how many times.

Number of soviet games is 157 after all qualification tournaments and 55% of the games were won, pls compare that to win percentage of the axis factions: Highest win rate is 48% with Wehr / OKW. Second best win rate belongs to Brits / Soviets. Its pretty clear that Soviets are the most powerful faction atm, some adjustments are needed to tone down over performing units like the T-70/Guards/SU-85. I dont speak about massive changes but smaller ones like the changes to the Brummbaer.

I would also like to see higher CP requirements for Guards: Its ridiculous that a 6 men quad who can fight all types of enemy units comes earlier than US Airborne or OKW Falls (4 men unit!).
I hope we see some general balance changes together with the revamp commander patch.

Number of soviet games is 157 after all qualification tournaments and 55% of the games were won, pls compare that to win percentage of the axis factions: Highest win rate is 48% with Wehr / OKW. Second best win rate belongs to Brits / Soviets. Its pretty clear that Soviets are the most powerful faction atm, some adjustments are needed to tone down over performing units like the T-70/Guards/SU-85. I dont speak about massive changes but smaller ones like the changes to the Brummbaer.

I would also like to see higher CP requirements for Guards: Its ridiculous that a 6 men quad who can fight all types of enemy units comes earlier than US Airborne or OKW Falls (4 men unit!).
I hope we see some general balance changes together with the revamp commander patch.

45-55% win ratio is considered balanced actually IF PLAYERS ARE OF EQUAL SKILL, which most certainly was NOT the case if you actually watched the games.

You will never have perfect 50% win rate without massive sample sizes.
And sample size lower then 100 will not be even close to accurate, too few players, too few match ups and too wide skill gap.
Smaller sample sizes can be indicative of 1v1 games, but not of team games, its just meaningless tournament stats, unless some combination of factions scores 70%+ wins, then you can start talking about imbalance.

What is needed are USF and UKF buffs to help them in 1s.

that winrate from double USA xDD
Pls nerf USA
Show Spoiler

Thanks for work man. USF OP pls nerf.

that winrate from double USA xDD
Pls nerf USA
Show Spoiler

Its always easy to make fun of other users posts. More constructive would be an explanation for the fact that Soviets had the best faction win rate in GCS2 AND now in the 2vs2 tourney. Just coincidence?

Its always easy to make fun of other users posts. More constructive would be an explanation for the fact that Soviets had the best faction win rate in GCS2 AND now in the 2vs2 tourney. Just coincidence?

I think since the big december patch this game is in a good spot from balance. When i think back to past...

You maybe remember of the 1 2vs2 cup, where we had to ban double okw as faction! Because it was too broken op.

Man axis with sub 50% winrates? How can that be? I've always heard axis so OP. Well at least they're decent in 1s... oh wait we're sending straight buffs to UKF and USF? yes that'll be healthy as hell for 2v2+

Are people seriously thinking winrate stats from a tournament in which every series went 2-0 apart from one are meaningful regarding balance of the game? The sample size of these stats are literally 3 games. Because in all the other games one team was so dominant that they won regardless of faction played.

Are people seriously thinking winrate stats from a tournament in which every series went 2-0 apart from one are meaningful regarding balance of the game? The sample size of these stats are literally 3 games. Because in all the other games one team was so dominant that they won regardless of faction played.

Good point. Indeed in 15 of the 16 rounds in QT2 ended 2:0. However, only the spoilers contain the results for the individual tournaments, the numbers in the main post are from all three tournaments combined.

Previous rounds where 8 (2:0) to 7 (2:1) for QT1 and 16 (2:0) to 11 (2:1) for the wildcard tournament. So, ratio of 2:0 to 2:1 rounds in total is 39 to 19.

Now, not saying that that makes the numbers any more meaningful or anything, just stating a fact...

I think since the big december patch this game is in a good spot from balance. When i think back to past...

You maybe remember of the 1 2vs2 cup, where we had to ban double okw as faction! Because it was too broken op.

Well, i absolutely agree with you that the game is in a good spot(and will be in an even better spot after the commander revamp patch). I also know that we should not take the current balance for granted...(i started to play the game when double US mortars nuked my infantry away
so BIG changes are -rightfully- a no go.

Soviets are really strong but beatable and i dont want to take anything away from soviet players. I just think that certain units could use some MINOR changes. You and the mod team just showed the right "fingerspitzengefühl" in the mini patch. If the T-70 would get a slight nerf to killing power on retreats for example i would already be happy.

Its always easy to make fun of other users posts. More constructive would be an explanation for the fact that Soviets had the best faction win rate in GCS2 AND now in the 2vs2 tourney. Just coincidence?

Speaking in 2v2 terms: How much of an advantage is the variety in the soviet army dictate their wins? As opposed to one part of their army being OP.

Possible SOV starts could be:
- Maxims, Mortar, Zis barrage, Flame Engrs.
- Con molotov blobs with Flame Engrs.
- Penal blobs with Flame Engrs.
- Penals with Flame Engrs in half track.
- Penals with snipers.

That is a lot of stuff to try and counter. As opposed to say USF or OKW: - Rifle blobs. Axis is on the backfoot right from the start until they have enough engagements to guess what is coming next. Brits have a similar start: With varieties of Rifles, MGs, or UCs.

Unlike 1v1 and 3v3, in a 2v2 and 4v4 the first few engagments are critical because the points taken will need to be fought for later. In 1v1 and 3v3 the armies will be more mobile since the maps are larger generically, thus, you may be able to simply cap them later or move to another area of the map.

Speaking in 2v2 terms: How much of an advantage is the variety in the soviet army dictate their wins? As opposed to one part of their army being OP.

Possible SOV starts could be:
- Maxims, Mortar, Zis barrage, Flame Engrs.
- Con molotov blobs with Flame Engrs.
- Penal blobs with Flame Engrs.
- Penals with Flame Engrs in half track.
- Penals with snipers.

That is a lot of stuff to try and counter. As opposed to say USF or OKW: - Rifle blobs. Axis is on the backfoot right from the start until they have enough engagements to guess what is coming next. Brits have a similar start: With varieties of Rifles, MGs, or UCs.

Unlike 1v1 and 3v3, in a 2v2 and 4v4 the first few engagments are critical because the points taken will need to be fought for later. In 1v1 and 3v3 the armies will be more mobile since the maps are larger generically, thus, you may be able to simply cap them later or move to another area of the map.

Id say its a very big advantage to be able to have many different possible openings. The Soviets before typically had 1 or 2 strats that were significantly better than everything else and that could be exploited since you can expect what could be coming out. Now the opponent has to prepare for a multitude of possible viable starts that can be played which is much harder to deal with. Similarly, these different opening are better based on the faction you might be facing so Sovs are good against OKW and OST for its multitude of different openings.

For example comparing USF and SOV opening. USF has to start 3 rifles and maybe a mortar every game. This works better against OST due to OSTs weaker early game but its really bad into OKW who does the same thing but is stronger early. The thing is there isn't really anything else you can do as the faction so you get the OKW shits on USF statement.

Soviets on the other hand can go scout car + sniper + penals into OKW which does well into that faction. While this opening is still viable against OST a lot of times Cons into support weapons is better since the mortar and at gun can dislodge mg42s and Cons do better into Grens than they do into Volks. Also AT guns and a longer range snare on cons better counters OSTs fast 222 or HT play. So Soviets don't really have a big weakness into either faction.

Compare that to USF who sucks into OKW or UKF who sucks into OST, Soviets just make more sense due to their flexibility into axis matchups.

Thanks for the calculation / data gathering work and for making sure that people don't jump too conclusions into quickly. Very appreciated.

Despite Siphon's efforts, and his own warning early in the thread, people still (and will always) jump to whatever conclusion they wanted to in the first place.