Profile of Protos Angelus

Go tell this to vCoH USF and Wehr, which had pretty much all the nessesery tools and the same units with same roles, but factions was completly asymmetrical. Its funny how most of USF\UKF players still bitching about "OH WHERE IS MY ROCKET ARTY" while at the same time having rock hard on the idea of "asymmetrical factions". Here is your asymmetry as you want it. You dont have strong tanks, you dont have snares, you dont have rocker arty, but you have very strong inf, deal with it.

If factions have access to the same tools it doesnt mean that they instanly become mirrored, its just plain false claim.

If you could read, you'd see that I don't want any sort of stock rocket arty on USF, pak howi and scott should be enough, but after the mega nerfs, they have become less than obsolete at fighting late blobs. And USF does not have very strong infantry. Rifles are great close range, lose long range against both volks and grens. 2x BAR reinforces medium range firepower when all of the combat is done at long range where Obers dominate along with MG grens. If you actually played this game at any level other than rank 9000, you'd know that the notion that USF has some Godgiven infantry is false. Are rifles strong? Yes. Do they sh** on volks or grens? Only on close range. Hence why you see kubel start vs USF all the time. Kubel vs Rifles is a won engagement. Spios + kubel + volks >> 2x rifles + echelon.
Same goes for OST. Pios + MG42 on most teamgame maps = locked down area of the map.

Play USF in higher brackets and you'll see how the "USF Infantry stronk" diminishes quickly

Oh and there is also the 4v4 matchmaking. We (a lot of 4v4 players that I know & myself) have a saying "Do not search allies 4v4 in dead timezones, only in EU afternoon time. You will always get unwinable games."

Truth be told, same goes for 3v3. And as a person from Croatia (+2 GMT), I always search when Germans and the likes play (19.00 PM) after work. Right now I searched when there were 9885 players online, game took ages to find and it was a sh** one. Played vs horrible players with horrible players. Only one of all 6 players to have a positive K/D ratio with most captured points. Searching late at night yields a fast game that is even worse. I don't think there is a magical time to search in europe as there will always be some Chinese players that heighten the ping to 2 seconds and have 0 communication skills (no offense to any Chinese players, but you really don't care about anything or anyone else but yourselves from my experience).
Still, teamgame wise. If skills are matched in <thinking, micromanaging, awareness, execution> I think that the axis has the inherent advantage whichever way you put it.

Where do you find this info? To my knowledge there was no stats site a year ago. The earliest of pagep's data is march this year.

However, to the point:
I agree that 4v4 balance is bad and that it probably worsened since march (from about 55 to 58-59% axis wins), I am reluctant though to blame only the balance team for it. If you look at the chosen commanders, you see a clear pattern: Ost, OKW and Soviets have a decent selection of commanders. UKF and USF however choose commanders with artillery or strong offmaps. This however is mostly Relics fault. They designed those factions shittily and probably did not allow core changes is that regard. Arty is crucial especially in 4v4. Both Axis factions have them stock, allowing them to get commanders to what they need. 2 out of 3 Allied factions don't, you pick the commander to cover your bare necessities rather than getting an actual strength.

I am not saying that the balance team did not make mistakes. Scott changes in my eyes were bad, the Scott should have been the late game arty replacement. USF AT changes were not fundamental enough either, leaving the faction not in any broken state, but just a boring one regarding AT.
Brita were... Well, to be honest I think without adding units this faction is beyond repair. In my eyes, the team did well with what they had, even if it is still unsatisfactory

In my opinion, there were great solutions to the pakhowi/scott dilemma for USF. Lack of stock rocket arty could have been solved by that. Adding a mortar halftrack to the E8 commander and making the E8 a true brawler with 240 armour and 800 hp and a decent enough AI/AT gun (in the lines of the Comet) with a proper price tag. They could have made the scott a mini brummbar and pak howi an inaccurate autofire howitzer that deals damage IF it hits but with a strong long range barrage. You'd have 4v4 indirects right there. And considering how slow to maneuver and how innacurate the pak howi would be in autofire, you'd easily make it non-1v1-oppressive. Well, as long as you don't play camp-wars. Scott would be a mini brummbar + smoke dispenser + I'd make the barrage induce a good amount of scatter. Getting 2x Scotts would be quite good to displace massed infantry and teamweapons on the front line. Current Scott can't kill in one barrage an AT gun or an MG team (For MG teams, should change as they get more clumped up in the upcoming patch). Let alone use the 50 range to do anything meaningful or follow up. Pak howi is the same ever since the 50% AOE nerf.

As for the brits, they did do a good change on the mortar pit. Adding that HE barrage that really puts a hurt on static positions did help out in teamgames, but at the same time, they'd buffed flame based weapons so that the static position won't survive for long against anyone with half a brain cell. Still, given that brits have a 290 armour/800 HP generalist premium tank for the lategame, and a high damage firefly with tulips + some good croc commanders, I'd say they are doing fine if played properly in 3v3+. Problems I've seen playing with allied brit players, is that they use the 1v1 strategy of mass IS vs OST which falls flat due to the MG42 + pio sight with lane-y map design where one MG42 can cover the whole lane (eg mid VP from building on Whiteball). What I did see work for brits in 3v3 is the UC into AEC with a couple of IS and engies, maybe one mortar pit.
And IS spam vs OKW I've seen always fall flat against double spios or 221 or fussies. Most good players don't go for volks vs IS spam and push the brits way back, winning the lane

Soviets are well rounded.

I love how Gachi says that every faction besides OST and Soviets is inherently unbalanced, like there is some sort of a standard metric with which one can measure "imbalance". Lame unintelligent reasons but still, goes to show the general idea of this forum.

You can play the game however you want. But know that one-faction heroes are biased. They all think their faction of choice is weak and the other side is OP. This dark conspiracy has their puppet-master in Relic/balance team/illuminati.

For some reason though, you never hear this from people who play both sides equally.

Never said the other side is OP. Even though I do not play soviets or brits or ostheer, I do play OKW non competitively. Never said USF is UP. It's not a secret that it has huge holes in it's pockets when it comes to dealing with blobs in teamgames. USF infantry is decent, although a muni sink. Biggest "unbalance" comes once obers with vet2 roll out, since they eat vet3 double bar rifles for breakfast. But against every other infantry, quite well balanced. Jackson is the 2nd best TD (I find the firefly to be the best) with good mobility and a good active ability.
AT gun is decent. Not penetrating but wide cone and tracking make up for it. Weapon racks add diversity, and adding double zooks to RE and major is a pretty good medium tank deterrent. The list goes on.

What I do find completely and utterly UP on the USF is the pak howi (after the AOE nerf) and the Scott. Not only do they fill the same role, they both cannot do the one thing that USF needs available as stock. Blob control in teamgames. If they had nerfed the autofire accuracy on the pak howi and buffed the barrage, then you'd get a anti-static weapon. I use the Scott every game, and just last game 2 scotts failed to kill an MG that stayed in one position, did not budge, for the whole duration of both barrages. So I needed to waste time not killing it with the barrage only to waste smoke barrage just to barrage a low hp 2 model MG squad. Every game same thing, always wondering why I even went for the scott. Then I remember I need two scotts to carpet the frontline with smoke. The only thing they are really really great at.

If USF had something to punish Ober (or fussies/pgrens) blobs which laser down infantry, supported by double A-move raketen that mow down any sherman or scott plays, and one stuka in case an MG is there, then USF would have a complete roster.

If you know, do share your knowledge of how to deal with blobs as USF in teamgames non doctrinally. Don't do too much mental gymnastics with unbelievable scenarios though.

The accusation that the MOD team is biased are non constructive, unfounded and simply false.

As for this thread it seem more like someone's speculation and is not backed up with any sort of numbers or theories that make sense.

What bias? Check their player cards and you'll see a majority of games played are axis. Balance team should comprise of people that play all factions equally to remove as much bias as possible.

Nonsense. 95% of USF nerfs were completely justified. Things like pak howie, scott and Calliope were overperforming and screwed the balance in 1vs1/2vs2.
On the other side things like no stock rocket arty and axis 70 range tds are beyond their reach cause relic designed the game like this and won't allow changes.
So stop blaming the balance for the current 4vs4 gamestate. Maybe give some valuable (!) input instead of this worthless crying?!

Well, the moment you give proofs or arguments that pak howi and scott were overperforming, I'll give my arguments. Try playing USF in teamgames and get back to me with some arguments. If you need 2 pak howis to reliably kill one MG then you know it's BS. Same with scott. One scott won't kill an MG or mortar with the barrage. Calliope was overperforming but they basically made it a light vehicle with the 2shot hp, instead of lowering agility/velocity and making it slower after the barrage. So many options, they decided to just gut it's uniqueness.
USF never dominated 1v1s and 2v2s the way both axis factions dominate 3v3s and 4v4s. Heck, the 1v1 winrates were constantly even around 50% +- 1%

https://coh2stats.com/stats?range=month&statsSource=all&type=1v1&race=wermacht&timeStamp=1625097600

Check each and every month for 1v1 USF winrates and you'll see it's around 51%. Then check axis winrates for teamgames and you'll see a big disparity.
The way you put it, 2 core indirect units were "overperforming" yet made no difference in the overall winrates..

AND if you really want your proof of "USF STRONG IN 1v1" then check TOP 200 winrates for USF in 1v1 and you'll see that top 1v1s are even lower than 49% for USF month in - month out. Go ahead:
lowest for this month: https://coh2stats.com/stats?range=month&statsSource=top200&type=1v1&race=wermacht&timeStamp=1625097600

So yeah, I'm calling BS. The balance team is incompetent at best and even though some nerfs were justified, they never gave anything in return, just straight out nerfed a unit into obscurity.
Pak howi got the 6 man crew which makes absolutely no difference as they are even more clumped up and the survivability maybe went up 5% while offensive stats went down 50%.


Please show me a month where USF dominated everything in terms of winrates, any game mode. I can show you each and every month where axis dominate in the winrate department.