Profile of Crysack

Balance issues aside, tank pathing seems kind of fucked up now. I'm running into an issue where, no matter what I do, I can't force my tanks to drive along certain roads and they instead want to take completely illogical routes. So far, the most noticeable place has been just north of the far right VP on Semoskiy where I couldn't convince my Jackson to take the road to flank a Jagdpanzer that was sitting near the entrance to the Axis base. It instead wanted to drive through the gardens straight at the enemy tank every time.

The only issue I see with axis in team games is that they have the most and the best AT units.

Is a pain to play against a faction that, except a couple of pure AI units, everything else can do a lot of damage to your vehicles. In teamgames that makes easier for one of the players to spam Elite AI units to cap, push and harass. And each day they got more and more infiltration elite units (Falls, Jeager, Stormtroopers...), which makes the harassing even worse for allies.
I'm tired of seeing OKW players with 3 cheaper panzerschrecks bulletins stacked because he just needs that to fight allied armor until King Tiger/Jadgtiger arrives.
That makes me remember old vCoH times when in teamgames one player spammed just paks+tanks and the other snipers + vet3 Knight Cross Holders.

Allied AT capabilities should increase. USF zooks should be better, and soviets should have anything better than Guards/Cons against vehicles which currently both are pushed out of the meta due to their terrible AI abilities against OKW elite infantry.

The US' lack of AT is one of their core issues in team games aside from the lack of a late-game presence). I know bunker spamming is a newbie tactic but it actually becomes a problem in team games when you can't smoke past it because your opponent has a buddy who can make up for the MP loss by setting up supporting units in the vicinity. Meanwhile, unlike the Soviets, the US has no way of busting bunkers until they spend a fair amount of fuel and get the captain/AT gun. It often results in the US player/s being denied a large portion of the map for an unreasonable amount of time.

The other major issue involving AT is the construction of the US tech tree in general. In 1v1s it's easy to make a decision between the LT and Captain based on your opponent's tech. In team games, though, it's difficult to make a decision because your opponents could easily go in two different directions. If you go LT and one of your opponents goes armour, you can easily be forced off the map then and there. Same applies to Captain vs a large inf blob.

Obviously, these issues are partially nullified by simply rolling with a Soviet team-mate. That being said, God help you if you get stuck with double US.

I see 6 inf units including 2 airborne, most of which are vet 3. There's no problem here. This is like complaining about a 4 squad vetted volks blob supported by multiple Obers running straight through multiple 50 cals which, by the way, they will do with no problems whatsoever.

I'm not really sure what you're expecting from non-vetted MGs vs almost 2000 MP/500 muni worth of (vetted) inf.

I rarely build them, honestly. I generally find that there's a bit of an issue with blobs running at it head-on and still managing to kill it because of how squishy the crew is.

I don't necessarily agree with the premise of this thread, but I will say that I think Paras are borderline-useless. They're prohibitively expensive when you take the mandatory 120 munitions into account and they come at a point in the game where you already have 3+ rifles, a captain or LT (or both)as well as at least a single pathfinder squad to actually place the beacons. Getting more inf squads at that point is just asking to have your MP bled down to nothing - and you should be working up to AT or light/medium armour at that point anyway. In the rare instances that I use the Airborne doctrine, I would only ever get Paras if I happen to lose a few rifle squads - which probably means I'm screwed anyway.