Profile of JohnSmith

Either way, UKF is the trash army, I hope that they'll find some balance space in future patches.

Also, the winrates stats that people are looking at are normalised; everyone seems to ignore that in 1on1, the stats clearly show that UKF is the least picked army by a major difference. Normalising winrates without any weights or without looking or considering the whole picture makes it look like UKF is doing well, despite that clearly not being the case. That's like just picking parts of the facts that favour a discussion! Even the league stats show that Brits are totally messed up army.

Basically, the stats show that UKF is still picked in top200 1on1, but top200 players prefer by a larger proportion to play with other factions, thus inevitably pushing normalising the win rates of UKF towards the same as any other faction if the calculations are done on percentages only. Arguing that UKF has the same win rate as any other faction without considering all of the data is really just picking the stats that warrant the desired narrative. Even the data shown is only 4% of everything available (as per site) which further amplifies that UKF is the least favourite (and by deduction considered as the weakest faction, as players will not chose a faction they feel is underwhelming) faction, despite UKF still showing some signs of life when picked, but that overall, other allies faction are roughly 2.25 times better situated for 1on1s (for every 1on1 UKF games, there are roughly 2.25 more games against axis with other allied faction in top200, which would also equal to UKF having 2.25 less weigh on the win stats, but normalised through showing percentages, but that's a different topic of analysis, and also the numbers would be much higher if more than 4% of games were considered...). Potentially, you could even sum up all the axis games and calculate the exact proportion of these games showing how much 1on1s UKF actually won as raw, which would be one definitive way to showcase this, the same way as ML does..

tldr; just using that percentage to compare winrate is totally wrong.

Both quantitatively and qualitatively the StuG has been demonstrated to be the better choice. This is exactly what has been explained throughout the last page. Glad to read that we all finally agree that the Stug is better overall in both cost-effectiveness and overall effectiveness on the battlefield without derailing the thread. StuG 4 life!

I have been seeing a massive rise of KV1s in 2on2s, they're the osttruppen meta flavour of the month. I would prefer seeing some other meta than seeing an existing meta being nerfed to death. WC51 were annoying to play against, but now, they're just deleted from the game from patch to another. Don't do that to KV1, I still want to see them but not in every 2on2 games ...

Source please.

I am no historian, but a quick check on google gave me that page, which describes the very low number of ostwinds produced (6-45 produced). Considering that over hundreds soviet tanks were captured and converted to Axis, Katitof is right on that subject.

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-germany-flakpanzerkampfwagen-iv-ostwind/ (under production)
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_T34-76.php (under captured T34s)

By artillery you mean off maps? At least one of them has the railway arty though. But we will see. With a lot of abilities being switched and altered, we don't know yet how exactly the commander will play.
There's also a lot of commanders that have an early give-away for what will happen in the late game, the late game units/abilities are still being played. I think this is more of a concern for the late game unit than for the early one (in our case Elefant/railway arty and hull down, respectively)

I removed my post about a minute after I posted it, I had in mind that there was only one with hull down (Elefant Commander). There are also upcoming commander changes. That shows that it has been a while since I played with the railway artillery commander or Hull Down... Personally, I like HullDown, but the commanders are very limiting compared to other available ones that cover a full range of possible 2on2 plays. Thus, I barely chose it, I think the last time I picked it was for a modded patch 2on2 game. Elefant&Hulldown commander in 2on2 feels VERY limiting and allows the opposition to control the play more effectively.

Yeah, I meant artillery that includes off-maps and long-range units/builds. There aren't many commanders out there that add strong mid and end game concerns to the opposite team. I prefer to load out commanders so that the enemy cannot fully be confident that their FRP is safe, their expensive units are safe, and/or skill plans might land on their beloved toys at any time. Hull Down commanders don't really offer that range of play. If Hull down was added to the (for example top 5) most equipped commanders as per coh2stats, only then perhaps it might be considered as stronger than what it is now. But for now, considering it is only in limiting commanders, there is no need to have it redesigned and modified in any way.