Profile of Protos Angelus

youre entitled to your opinions... but objective data subjective data and expert opinion both disagree with you... in any case i can with 100% certainty say the soviets have the worst average winrate and the worst winrate at all points of the ladder... that information however does not directly translate to "soviets are the weakest" but it already gives a hint on its own...

when such information is combined with expert opinion one can say that the soviets are the weakest faction ingame however...

Oh stop it with that BS. You're becoming as venomous as that Piper person. The piper that pipes. Maxim is the weakest MG but it's more than enough considering the other units soviets have. Double maxim is effective into conscript spam, at least it is for me, against OKW. And against OST, since pios have better sight, you won't be happy against MG42 spotting. So instead of maxims, you go for mortar and conscript spam. Or sniper.

What objective data? That 1v1 graph? That graph is BS at best. The differences are within 1%. You can't take that as any meaningful data. If you studied anything resembling statistics, you'd know that. Especially in a game as complex as this one.
Expert opinion? Which expert opinion? This forum is filled with opinions from people that spew out arguments for both Axis and Ally buffs that make me wonder how they managed to finish elementary school (if they did). There are no expert opinions for such content. You have players that have more games and better control. They have more instantly available information about the game, and that's it. They are no expert-balancers. This is a video game, not chess or handball. Stop treating it like it's some sort of hard to master BS...

Experts.... making me laugh.

Furthermore, I main USF and they are the best faction (for me at least)

Infantry do not have hit-box but target size.

Vehicles have a both a hit-box and target size.

Received accuracy. Same sh** different story.

EDIT: Technically, since it's not a FPS and you have no control where the squad aims, hit-box could technically be defined as probability to hit. The whole game is chance based.

The change OKW needs is cheaper BGHQ and Mechanized HQ, but both mandatory to get Schwerer Panzer HQ.

This is a good alternative. Not a buff, not a nerf. Redistribution of resources. On top of that redistribution, you could modify the build times to further balance the whole schmuck.

You absolutely should not extrapolate anything based on 1% difference. That is 0.5% from 50%. If anything, this graph shows that the balance is extremely well functioning. Nobody is standing out. Soviets maybe but they are also a faction that is in the base game so more games could be played there. NONE OF YOU, and I mean NONE, should use those graphs to come to any sort of conclusion. Axis or ally bias. OKW needs a slight tech rework, if anything. Doesn't need nerf nor buffs.

OKW is not in a bad spot. It has some nasty tradeoffs but that's it. USF also has nasty tradeoffs. Only OST and Soviets have none with their complete linear structure.

One should also never use "Top tier players are saying". Top tier players are probably the most bias of them all since their income revolves around them being able to win with certain factions. No matter how many swaps you do in a tournament where one person plays allies, other plays axis and vice-versa, it's obvious that specializing in one faction can net you the best outcomes in 1v1.
2 factions (1 axis, 1 ally) is viable and would make you the best player.
Playing all factions equally does not make you an expert nor does it give your arguments merit, contrary to popular belief. One does not need to see ones playercard to analyze the arguments. This is not science with unknown variables. The variables are known.
I have the same merit with balancing the USF or OKW (factions I mostly play). I was both 17th and 300th in competitive with USF and would probably rank somewhere around the same with OKW if I were to play it ranked. Still, those ranks mean s***. The weight of my argument does not supersede the argument of some 1000+ rank person.



Eg. this thread is nonsensical. Not because OP is low/high rank, but because the arguments themselves are nonsensical. Doesn't take rank 1 nor rank 1000000 to point that out. Again, everyone can play the game and you don't need to go through 6 years of education and exams to get a grip with the subject in hand.

EDIT: you would use expertise and experience in science because a lot of it is UNKNOWN. You need to study and learn models so that you could apply the same models to unknowns. If it works out, great, if not, you need a new model. This is where science is great. It creates new goods, intellectual or material.
Balancing this game creates nothing. You are taking the known and open to all and shuffling it so that nothing stands out. That's why you don't need to play 200 games with each faction to see what works and what doesn't. 10-20 games (like the first 10 ranked) are usually enough with a couple of AI games for actually getting to know what's what. That's why one should ALWAYS focus on the arguments themselves, leave out the bias and the "SHOW ME YOUR PLAYERCARD". Once you ask for the playercard YOU are forfeiting the argument cause deep down you know you are wrong so you are looking for the "I have more hours invested, I am MORE right than you"

The more I use it, the more I realise how the faction itself isn't designed to have a heavy tank.

Point 1: Usf is armor designed around the ability to self repair and are also efficient at their intended purpose. The point is, how late and again with what it brings isnt good enough to warrent its price.

Point 2: directed towards the pershing, your rewarded less for keeping it alive compared to the IS2 and Tiger.

Point 3: buying new squads of rear echelons is annoying as you need to upgrade them have a chance to vet or even keep alive.

Point 4: you need to commit to getting the pershing but you cannot afford to do that as usf especially.

I would consider reverting its health back to 800 and giving it 20% damage reduction to allow faster repairs as axis at typically have higher rof than pen is a fat problem for the pershing.

Also about nerfing its speed for armor, its really its acc/dec that gives the advantage. If its speed was nerfed it would not be much faster than the tiger (tiger 5.4, pershing 6).

One question, is it possible to get rid of the pershing 1 second wind down? I know other tanks like the panther have it but between the 3 heavies, why does the pershing have it? Thinking about it this makes the reload bonus (in general) not really the full bonus.

That might be a too big of a buff. It just needs armour to 300 and maybe a bit of AI buff. Right now it's lackluster in all departments except for acceleration, which is not God knows how nice, just higher than usual with heavies.