Profile of Vipper

I've stated multiple times now that USF has about 50% win rate across all modes, being better in 1v1 and worse in 4v4, following the general trend of Allied factions.
If you keep citing a 53% WR for USF in general, at least note that this is only true for 1v1 and no other mode. Otherwise the WR of 53% is misleading, as would be citing the 4v4 WR of 48% and generally stating that this was "USF winrate". I already pointed this out earlier.

"USF this patch have higher win-rates than axis so there is not indication that hey are weak (1vs1 patch duration)."
I have.

Now if you want number from 2vs2 that are less "contaminated" one should probably look at the same faction matches where double USF have 51/49 vs double OKW and 54/46 vs double Ostheer for this patch.

Do you have any stats for that? Honest question. Although I like digging data, I just don't have the time to look up all possible time frames and data myself.

I had pointed out how OP WC51 even when first patched (20 Dec 2017) the unit remained OP until February 26th 2021 that is 4 years...

OP by default because they are misdesigned? Wouldn't say so. Are they too cost efficient for their price? I also wouldn't say so. 1-2 paths are reasonable and helpful in the build without them feeling OP by any means. But as I already said I do agree with your previous post that this path spam strategy is bad for the game or at least a consequence of badly designed pathfinders. This has been the actual topic of the thread.

They are both misdesinged and OP.

1) XP value us way to low (OP)

2) They come with Elite carbines that else are available to CP 3 and are superior to Riflemen M1. To add salt to would the weapon is very good at close range making Pathfinders and I&R pathfinder able to dish damage at all ranges (bad design)

3) Beacon with no cost/down side (bad design)

4) Able to spam (timing/cost/pop)/Critical kill carbines (OP)

5) Rack 2 weapon slot, no mu cost/slot for scoped carbines (OP)

6) Extra range with vet even to slot weapons/ combined with extra sight to take advantage of the range (OP)

I never said anything about a "guaranteed victory". Please don't state things I did not say.

Show Spoiler

I'll skip this part for clarification: I assume in 3 through 5 the "would be identical" is a copy and paste error and not supposed to be there?
Also, where is the qualitative difference in options 3 to 5?

Sorry but I failed understanding your question.

My question is simply since you have claimed that nerfing Air would make USF's win rates plummet what is your rough estimation for that "plummet"?

I think others have explained this better than I did. Not needing to push into enemy lines, being able to dodge enemy MGs and not bleeding against snipers are probably the most important.
And if you read my posts you will see that I regularly stressed that the stats are no proof, but only indication. Still, we have to deal with them.

"Fixing" these "core problems" of the USF will create "core" problems to Ostheer since it would invalidated their combined arm strengths and leave Grenadier at the mercy of riflemen blobs.

And USF have stock option to counter those (even if not optimal) unlike UKF and that was my point.

Show Spoiler

Show Spoiler

Counter argument?

If the equation was easy balance issues would had been solved within a year...

October until yesterday yielded 52 and 53 for OST and OKW, respectively. Anyway, that's only one of the stats. The all stats for 2v2 and 3v3 is are very even. Do I cite the subpar win rate of 48% for USF and claim they were weak?
No I don't, that would be wrong.

If you're interested in my reasoning, please re-read the previous posts that I made. I have explained my reasoning on pathfinders in detail.

Only your previous reasoning does not make sense.

USF this patch have higher win-rates than axis so there is not indication that hey are weak (1vs1 patch duration).

Now if you arguing that let say USF without airborne would have a 40% (thus being weak) and the actually 53% win rates is contributed solemnly to Pathfinder being OP that is a totally arbitrary hypothesis on your part.

In addition the assumption that a doctrinal unit being OP automatically will translate to higher winrates is another hypothesis which is not actually supported by stat. (An easy example is the WC51 that was OP for long itme before becoming meta)

Don't quote me on what I said and do not wrongfully imply stuff I did not say. I'll leave it at that, he said she said is not my style of discussing.

It is not my style either and I did not start it.

My point is that I have not post on "multiple core USF in this thread".

Definitely paths can replace mainlines, that's what this meta build is all about.
Does it make USF overpowered? No.

Yes it does not make USF OP, it however makes Pathfinder OP which is supposed to be reconnaissance unit and has ended up taking the mainline infatry role on top of that.

To re-itereate:
Airborne is a standard commander. Seeing it as a top loadout pick is to be expected in the "all" data. Win rates across all modes are roughly 50%. So either the commander and USF are both fine factions, or - assuming pathfinders are OP - USF has problems on its own. Commander loadout choices indicate a heavily biased loadout for USF, giving a hint it might actually be the latter option.

The first flaw in the theory is the direct link from a unit being OP and guarantee victory.

And the is a second flaw and lets see it with an example:
Currently USF have 54/46 win rate vs Ostheer

Now the following scenarios are possible:
1) Win rate with out airborne would be higher like 58/42 (imo that is highly improbable)
2) Win rate with out airborne would be identical with now like 54/46 (imo improbable)
3) Win rate with out airborne would be lowered but balanced like would drop to 50/50 (imo less improbable)
4) Win rate with out airborne would be reverse like would drop to 44/46 (imo improbable)
5) Win rate with out airborne would be clearly bad like would drop to 40/60 (imo highly improbable)

In cases 3,4,5 that would indicate Airborne commander is carrying faction.
Now I am not sure what you arguing here that we are actually dealing with case 5?

The last sentence of yours is misinterpreting statistics though. You compare across modes, which by itself is not wrong, but you have to handle conclusions with way more care care. We have better point of reference: For 1v1 and 2v2, there are plenty of games if we filter on the top200. Mode specific effects are completely eliminated.
So what do we see there?
Airborne gets even more popular. Despite looking only at players that likely play a lot, invest more into the game and have more commanders available, they still pick one of the "free" ones, even more frequently than the players that have fewer options (in numbers: 1v1 18,8% of all USF players have airborne in the loadout, compared to 22,1% of top200 players. For 2v2, the numbers are 34,0% and 46,8%, respectively). So surely the win rate goes up, especially in 2v2, doesn't it?
Nope. It doesn't. It stays the same, actually goes down a tiny bit although this might not be significant.

Unless one actually knows how many times airborne is used that is speculation.

In addition 2vs2 games add a lot more variables making things even more complicated.

Now, if pathfinder spam is OP - and it actually might be - then it seems to make USF perform similar to other factions. In this sense it would be OP compared to other options that USF have.

Which has been my whole point since I entered this discussion: Pathfinders fix issues of core USF. For this reason, the strategy as a whole does not seem to be OP. Especially not in 2v2 which OP was discussing originally. USF win rate here is very close to 50% (50,5% and 50,2% for all and top200, respectively) while still relying heavily on pathfinders.

And what is that core issue of USF that pathfinder fix?

If you nerf pathfinders without adjusting anything else, USF win rate will plummet, especially for 2v2.

That is yet another hypothesis and has little do with what I posted.

"Either USF Faction is weak and can only win using airborne which mean that the commander is over performing resulting in high win rates while masking the balance issues.
or
USF is ok as faction and Airborne is OP.

In both cases having limited meta is bad for the game."

The limited meta is an issue that simply should be fixed.

(edited to clarify some points and correct some copy mistakes)

There are no high winrates for USF. They are ptetty much 50%, slightly better in 1v1 and slightly worse in 2v2.

We get ~50% WR while seeing heavily scewed commander selection, either for airborne only or a triad of commanders, depending on the mode. I've made those points in the previous post, so I won't repeat them again.
It is no proof, but indication that the core faction is not sufficient for competitive play.

Therefore, saying that USF generally does not struggle might be dismissive of what actually happens, because the win rates on which the argument is biased are biases.

This has been a long standing issue for both USF and UKF. Lacking core units at the right timing always makes you rely on doctrines to fill gaps. OKW had similar issues, but they have been relieved for example back when they got the MG stock and more recently with easier access to medics. USF still has some core issues that are not as easy to forgo, that's why we're seeing the current commander selection.

Not really UKF and USF have different issues.

I am not going to argue weather USF as faction is UP or not, Airborne and Pathfinder are dominating the meta and they promoting a certain type of play and that is bad

The main point that many make is not that USF struggles in all circumstances, but that the only way for them to not struggle is by choosing airborne.

I think the only commander where we can see such a heavy bias in loadout is Soviet's Guard Motor commander. Axis commanders seem to be generally more diverse, only Jager Armour stands out for OST in 3v3 and 4v4. OKW commanders in loadout are probably the most equally distributed from all factions.

I am not sure if I'd nail down Airborne as the only "fix" for USF, but the commander data is strongly biased for USF in all modes. What is notable though is that the rate of Airborne increases if you switch to the top200 while the win rate stays the similar, indicating that this doctrine might be required to stay competitive.
On that point it would be interesting to know if Airborne is part of the free 4 commanders. If so, this effect would be quite exacerbated. Is there any site/post to look up the initial commanders for all factions?

Regardless if Pathfinder are a necessity or not it is bad for the game. (Same applies to Guard motor)

2v2 against double SOV was the first one and the second was 2v2 again going against Brit-SOV combo.

Seemed to work like a charm ngl.

That would require playing 3+ plus minutes with 1 pioneer and 2 hmgs before the first Pg can even enter the field.

It would seem to me it rather difficult to pull.