Profile of Protos Angelus

Removing 1.3 Pershing nerf.
Less "more in line with..." business (cookie-cutting) since it's a basic recoloring of factions (if faction A has this, faction B must have a nearly identical unit stats-wise) -> this is a plea for future updates to bring out the uniqueness of each unit.
All in all, a good patch, good luck with future patches. May the brainstorm be stormy.

Panthers should not be touched at all, they have HP of Pershing, armour a bit weaker than a pershing, penetration is excellent, speed is excellent (+ blitzkrieg). Axis have enough solutions to any allied tank. And besides, if you see a wall of jackson.... just build infantry...
Most people here like building and spamming one (or 2) unit(s) and when the said units get countered, they complain they are too weak and need buffs. Panther is the best tank currently. Non doctrinal, great stats, super strong for tank hunting with it's speed. I never had any problems playing with panthers vs allied tanks, don't see where the problem is. Tank destroyers destroy tanks, if you have a problem with that, well, tough luck. I literally never had any problems with any unit... except that one time the axis had an elephant and it was supported with infantry and we had nothing to counter it, it was making a slow push with most jackson shells bouncing off it. That was a good play, I lost, big deal.

Tiger : AOE damage from 1/0.25/0.15 to 0.75/0.25/0.15
AOE distance from 0.25/1.5/3 to 0/1/3

Is2 : AOE damage from 1/0.35/0.175 to 0.75/0.35/0.175
AOE distance from 0/1.35/3 to 0/0.85/3

Pershing : AOE damage near from 1/0.4/0.175 to 0.75/0.4/0.175
AOE distance from 0.25/1.5/3.25 to 0/1/3.25

Pershing is still top against infantry. If you think any of the heavies needed to stay the same then your 500 hours of comp stomping haven't helped you learn shit.

Those are minor differences, 8% and 15%. For a heavy with the lowest amount of armour/hp and no top gunner (like tiger), yeah, I'm calling "more in line with" BS. I love the fact that you call me a comp stomper when the truth couldn't be further. Extracting one data that shows a minor minority advantage and calling it "still top" is laughable.

I'll ask the question I've asked everyone who's said "all the factions are balanced" (or even 'ost OP'):



What's your explanation for the disparity in win rates? You can argue that the sample size for UKF is too small, but what about OST? This is from the recent World Cup Series, which had the same unit stats as the current version, and was played by top-level players.

First thing first:
You're right, you need a good population to be able to extrapolate data.
2nd there is an inherent flaw in this graph:
** How many games in total have been played? **
Other than that, you can then argue about the matches themselves. Were they anything else besides 1v1? The main thing people need to grasp is how fundamentally different a 1v1 game is to any other mode just by looking at the input parameters for each (let's say arbitrarily without any loss of generality) minute of gameplay. CoH2 1v1 is a different game altogether.

So yeah, the graph doesn't really show much, the percentages are there ad-hoc without any background information. If you want to build a good statistical analysis you need a large population, controlled system (tournaments are semi-controlled systems) and you need parameters which you would keep static. All in all, when you get such large disparities, you know something is off and the graph presented should be taken with a big fist of salt.

EDIT: Seen the link, 84 games. Not nearly enough to be able to draw any conclusions. Their statistical analysis is something that would be considered a bad representation/analysis in the scientific community. I mean, I don't blame them, it's a game that has countless parameters... Even though the thorough analysis they concluded is "much wow" effort, it's also waaaaay too much information and extrapolation. Way too much. The whole thing is convoluted, impossible to draw conclusions.

I'd say that the best way you would test the balance is if you had at least 1000 games. Only then can you proceed with an analysis that would not be inherently flawed.

But tbh how You compared tanks is wrong. Hard to read because of so many inaccuracies, wrong assumptions and simple cherrypicking. Which lvl are You? Maybe You should show some replays?

I never save replays nor do I allow my games to be publicly accessed. Feel free to correct me wherever you see fit. Only thing I will disclose is that I have 533 hours in COH2, whether playing vs experts or playing vs humans. I just made a basic, brute-force comparison of roles. Nothing special nor extensive. Non doctrinal of course. If I've made a factual boo-boo, correct me. I used coh2 stats to compare panzer vet with sherman,rest are just from my experience playing COH2, about how units behave. Do point out the mistakes, I'd appreciate it, it was late when I typed that.