Profile of achpawel

It's a mixed bag that way though as you are still making it so both squads basicly have to retreat as soon as it's crewed where with 3 models you can generally risk keeping the weapon in the front and just retreat the other squad. Sucks when your squad loses a model and can't recrew anymore but I think it might suck more to always have to retreat.

True. It is a mixed bag. Yet, the impossibility to recrew stuff after an engagement seems more of a problem for ost rather that having a team weapon with 2 men. Those 2 men might have more staying power that the original crew tbh.

From my mostly 2v2 perspective, i want to add my 2 cents into this topic. Mainly, I agree with CreativeName. Soviets are very strong faction with a lot of stuff that being too powerfull in certain situations (sometimes depends on a map, sometimes on your army composition, something combine with your teammate, something all at once).

What i would like to see being changed:

Buffs:
- Katiusha needs it vet1 ability changed into more stuka fire that or doesn't share cooldown (but with ammo cost) or ammo cost highly reduced.
- better variation for soviet to start the game (example: higher starting MP (by 30 mp) but cons costs 250 mp). therefore it's more efficient to go 1 cons into t1 or in maxims coping ostheer way of playing than just simply spam 1 unit.
- HT can heal units inside - units cannot fire while in HT,
- SU-76 - better rotation,


Nerfs:
- T70 - increase vet requirement, increase nonfire cooldown between spotting mode/fire mode, reduce speed movement while in recon mode, reduce penetration that it cannot easily win vs p2,
- Revamp ISU-152 commanders - it cannot be that commander has elite infantry, heavy tank and late game off map. Commander itself counters every counter - brainless. My idea is to replace late game IL-bombing run with 0 CP ability, like: light "s" mine and smoke nades/barrage. Those changes should be implemented with removal of stuka dive bomb in jeager armor. Those combo is definatly too strong in maps like Minsk/Rails. It's really boring to see it almost every game on those maps.
- All nonsoviet teamweapons can be crew by numer of soldier that ally to the faction weapon belongs, for example rakketen 5 men, pak40 - 4 men, 50cal - 4 men. Currently when soviets steal a teamweapon it's almost impossible to get it back becouse of 6 men squad - especially when it crew by shock troops.
- Combat Engineers - increase cost to 200 mp like other counterparts.

All sensible +1

You're half-correct. People do need to play all factions to understand the mechanics and issues. Playing just one side leads to horrible bias.

However, playing all factions a roughly equivalent number doesn't make sense at all, since that would mean you play 50% more Allied games than Axis ones. And across a playerbase that is simply not possible since the matchmaker needs to match the playerpool 1 for 1 exactly. If 3 people are queuing Allies as Soviet-USF-Brits and only 2 people queue Axis as OKW-Ost, 1 Allied players will be left without a game.

So if you play equal games with all factions, you will have 50% more games as Allies - assuming that you can even find matches that often. The true equilibrium is playing both Axis and Allies 50-50.

This is why Katitof and gbem style comments should never be taken seriously. FYI Gbem claimed that my 1544 games as Axis and 1501 games as Allies made me "Axis-biased" at 50.3% Axis games (while he himself played 100 times more Allied games than Axis ones).

I agree with all the above. IMO it is just hard to pinpoint the exact proportions of games played to make sb less biased or ideally not biased at all. I don't think anybody serious might really think it should be exactly the same number.

Another thing is voicing strong balance opinions without any significant experience of playing all of the factions involved. Maybe it should just be added to players' signatures and then people reading the forum would just know what kind of player voices what kinds of opinions.

But to the stuka ze fuss point. I really do feel that more precise indication of rocket target points (be it squares or dots or anything of that sort) would spare some frustration of using the stuka for both sides. To be precise here I must add that those point would just show aim point not precise landing points of the rockets. I understand that a pro player will know where each rocket is aimed. This means that the player on the receiving end will feel stuka is performing really well (looking at tourney use by pros it might still be a risky statement - stuka missed a lot). On the other hand, a fresh or intermediate player using stuka will feel that those rockets are frustratingly unreliable for such fuel investment.

Can everybody please stop quoting automatch win/loss stats as a proof that a faction is up? Just read how these are/were created and cut the nonsense.

Tourneys do not follow meta.
They are not indicative of anything else but individual players ingenuity, micro and awareness skill.

True but also they show how these players can put to use some of the factions' OPness. So far most games in tournes are won by allied players be it 1v1 or 2v2. It indicates the balance problem. Not that great a problem but a significant problem.

Also, the only, singular unit that was batshit insane during the last 2v2 tourney(no patch since it happened and game isn't balanced exclusively for 1v1 for years now, so its perfectly valid) was brummbar wrecking all
infantry based shit with impunity.

Simply not true. Brumbar just executed what you suggested at the beginning of the post. The game was probably already won andyway as in the hands of a similarly skilled players tourneys show that allies win by a decent marigin.