Profile of ElSlayer

I understand you frustration with lack of "easy" (if you forgive me for using that word) counter for sniper, but if your opponent invests in T1 and 360 MP unit you have to beat him with superior map control and as a result - faster teching.

I know, there are maps that are extremely good for sniper, but general idea is what I've described above.

Hey if teller mines actually reliably exploded and hurt vehicles, that'd be nice.

Can't tell you how many times I've baited an enemy tank into tellers only to have them explode for 0.

It usually happens when you place tellers on sloping surface.
As a workaround I would suggest to pay attention to ground eleveation and place them of clearly flat ground

What do molotovs cost to get? like 120 Mp and 15 fuel? What does one of the soviet tech structures cost? 100 and some fuel? OKW needs to tech to get the flame grenade and the teching costs 300 manpower (truck + set up) and at least 45 fuel (truck + set up). Wehrmacht needs to tech to get the rifle grenade.

These threads are ridiculous. You don't see the top guys complaining. Why? Because they play all the factions and know that it's pretty well balanced as is.

And also they don't use molotov.

Luchs was given 400HP before removal of OKW fuel penalty. They had fast teching and could get out their first vehicle quite fast, but after that they couldn't get other vehicles anytime soon.

Whole faction design was promoting unit preservation - low income, high cost, 5 levels of vet. Quality over quantity.

So, I think that balance team decided that their vehicles (including Luchs) should have higher durability.

After introducing WFA and then rebalancing teching (one of the goals was increasing length of time window, when light vehicles are viable) Wehrmacht needed something better than armored car before they can roll out their first medium tank. So they decided to "upgrade" 222 to some sort of light tank.

I think that most players have already came to conclusion that 222 is too cost effective.

I should point out that T70 defeats both Luchs and 222 on 1v1 basis, while being excelent against infantry and in scouting (vet2 + recon mode). So it is not that bad.

As I pointed out creating new strategies can be very easily achieved by minor adjustment to units. The changes introduced are changing faction design.

USF where design to have strong mainline infantry strong light vehicle play and weak support weapons.

Now their support weapons are buffed to a level that is close to Wer and that is faction redesign.

SU where designed to have weak stock units and very efficient doctrinal units.

Now their Penals are buff to riflemen levels in AI and another 4 stock units received buffs again that is faction redesigned.

OKW are all over the place receiving a huge buff in AI buff in their infantry again being redesigned.

That leaves UKF one of the factions needing redesign almost untouched and Wer probably in about the same place and probably struggling against the new Soviet and USF.

I understand what you mean, but in my opinion you're making a mistake right in the basis of your claims - you're assuming that INITIAL faction design is GOOD. So that means that ANY meaningful changes to it are BAD.

I disagree with that.
I don't like to be forced to play 3 rifleman into officer as USF (with extremely rare exceptions - for example, if I pick WC-51 commander).
I don't like to be forced into doctrines that have call-in infantry and armor as Soviets.

What if we assume that there is more space to improve factions design?

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally opposed to mirroring factions, but I think that all factions should be able to solve SAME problems but through DIFFERENT means.

This is a point on which we can argue: whether changes in upcoming patch are make factions too similar or not.

On the other hand, improvement that are easy to implement and could improve game quality allot more, are left forgotten and will probably remain so since the next patches will be trying to fix the problems this patch will create:

EFA armies veterancy are almost identical for most units of the same type and remain the same although most of this units have seen drastic changes.

Unit abilities remain mostly the same for EFA. I mean how many trip wire flares, tank that can cap and medic kits does player need?

Commander abilities remain the same although the new abilities are usually far better than the old ones.

And there is still a large number of bugs.

Dealing with this issues would change the meta with far less impact on overall balance. Exactly when does Relic intends to deal with this issues that are there for years?

Indeed there is a good portion of "lazy" design in veterancy abilities. Changing that would definitely bring joy for many players, but I don't think that these changes are enough make meta shifts.

About other things, well...
Power creep is just another way to sell new stuff. We can ask Relic to bring old thing in line with new ones or vice versa, but I wouldn't be so positive in expectations.

Bugs are bugs. While some of them are definitely affecting balance (some players decide not to double equip Infantry Section because they will drop their weapons) and again I don't feel that fixing most of them will change meta in a meaningful way.