Profile of Protos Angelus

Agreed that the Penals are fine however considering that Vipper is usually biased and is basically trolling at this point with how he wants to nerf every single allied unit, I think his take on the argument is flawed but he would have some merit to his argument if he were to reframe the argument.

Vipper is obviously biased towards OKW which lack a decent non doctrinal AT Squad. If he were to make that case instead of spewing Nerf all the allied things then he would have a valid argument to make.

Whermacht have Panzer Grenadiers, Soviet have Penals, USF have Bazookas and UKF have Piats while OKW only have Sturmpioneers which if compared to Penals (or any other faction) are quite garbage. I wouldn't mind seeing PZB 39's on Volksgrenadiers as a Penal PTRS alternative or an additional Panzershrek upgrade on Sturmpioneers.

Additional shreck on sturms would not be bad, but then the weapon swaps would need taking look at. With the close range DPS they have and survivability, swapping 2xshrecks and sweepers could be problematic, especially in larger modes where there are usually 2x sturmpio openings

Even though this went off topic, ultimately this conclusion leads us back to what is at hand.



No one claimed that the game is totally balanced or that you shouldn't doubt the balance team. The point that was made was only that you need to be careful drawing conclusions from these stats, because they likely do not paint a complete picture. The non top 200 stats are likely more heavily influenced by some external factors such as map pool and (lack of) player skill, while top 200 stats with 200-400 games are too small a sample size to be reliable and obviously vary too wildly (60/40 wr in 3v3 vs 40/60 wr in 4v4) to be anything close to conclusive. Which really is a shame because as they'd likely be the best representation of balance.

Are Axis a bit too powerful in teamgames at the moment? I'd say probably yes.
Is it as bad as these raw stats seem to suggest? I don't think so.

But then every tournament statistics would be invalid as they have an inherent low sample size. There is a difference between sample sizes and trends. Sure, the sizes are not great, but the trend is there, no matter the size. Month after month the axis have 5%+ win advantage which is huge. The only acceptable difference would be 50 +/- 2%. So [48,52]%. And the constant BS about the "pick only top 200" games for the analysis. I've seen sh** players in top 20 that spammed mortar pits and complained how axis is OP when they went down to lefh or stuka or werfer.
Rank means sh**. It's more of a general guideline than an actual rule. If I've managed to go from rank 20 to 300 and back to 50 in a span of 3 days, then you know that the rankings in complete random teams are BS at best. Complete and utter garbage on average.
While I do agree that the stats paint a worse picture than it is, you're not really doing anything to fix the balance problem for 3v3+ modes. A couple of gimmicky buffs for brits and USF (Pesrhing), coupled with hard nerfs (calliope late game arty tank that can only take one shot, while being slow AF) really make me wonder the sanity of your team.

I mean, would you call the following a HUGE BUFF?
Every unit in the brit arsenal, both stock and doctrinal is getting a 1% buff in one area.
On paper, you'd be able to say "we've buffed every unit and brits should now be OP", whereas in reality you've done nothing.

But I don't really blame your team for it. It takes a lot of brain processing power to do a complete overhaul and unless you're getting payed for this, I too wouldn't really be bothered to do a good job. Couple that with the absolute garbage map design in 3v3+ map pool, it's no wonder that the axis has win rate larger than f****ng 5%.
That and your inability to give any sort of late game power to USF that does not crutch on 2x jackson to keep the KTs and tigers in check (well, until the Jagd/ele arrives and the axis just does a hail Mary push with 3+ heavy tanks and elite infantry supported by stukas and werfers and you straight up lose unless you have doctrinal mines on USF). I mean, you don't even have to take the winrates here. There was a post in Trending on the front page, that showed the number of games each faction played in each game mode, both random and AT. Brits and USF were dead last in each mode except 1v1 for USF (which is expected as 1v1 is a completely different balance problem, and USF is the best faction probably for 1v1). Or just sum up the number from the current winrate page.
I'd say that's the biggest proof. The player's unwillingness to play USF/brits in teamgames is there for a reason.

I've never played any axis faction competitively but exclusively play OKW in leisure games with whoever joins the lobby, and if you survive the early game with OKW, you're winning. You don't even have to win the lane or anything, just keep a decent enough map control and one fuel and you're good (well, if your allies haven't been dominated in their lane). The P4 will come, followed by JP4 and then KT (or if you have tiger doctrine, tiger after P4). Double raketen take care of any allied vehicle push and once the obers get vet2, they can pretty much solo any allied fully upgraded infantry.
Really not a hard faction to play past the minute 10.
Don't know how many times I've cured in competitive that I didn't go for the Calliope commander to deal with ober/volk blobs. I don't usually play the Lt., so I have the AA HT and double pak howis, and even that is not enough to stop the blob as there is always a double raketen following that blob that can just retreat if need be to a fast forward retreat point (most 3v3s the FRP/heal is the tech for OKW as far as I can tell). I do the same thing, and I know that in 90% of cases, the blob will go unchecked. Only stock for allies is the late game katy. With no AI mines, backtech for MG, pak howis that shoot little balls of goo instead of something that actually explodes and an AA HT that is RNG prone (either insta suppresses or doesn't at all, or just keeps spinning and you risk the handbrake vs double AT guns), you really can't expect the USF to have any sort of winrate vs decent enemies that know how to exploit those huge USF problems. Same with brits. They also have huge problems in their roster.

Mainly because most of the balance team prefers axis, with a few exceptions like aera. Buff allies in teamgames, axis gets weaker in 1v1. Buff axis in 1v1, axis gets broken in teamgames.
But mostly because axis have all the tools they need stock, plus the stock heavies and heavy tanks in a lot of good doctrines.
Why they don't rework the ally doctrines to add some teamgame power (like making E8 a true late-game brawler, instead of the retarded Jackson that it's going to be now).

Nobody will do shit and Sander will probably defend it by saying "WE ARE DOING A GREAT JOB. I played allies in last 10 games and won 12 times so it's all fine".

Don't pick USF in 3v3 or 4v4.
If you do pick it, only go for the calliope commanders. Rest is the same as it's always been with USF.

OKW: Volks or double Spios are viable in 3v3 and 4v4. Kubels are great on some maps

Brits: Don't play
Soviets: Do play. Maxim spam is the way to go
OST: I don't play OST so won't commment.

Some people say that the commander patch is a reason to wait, but it's not really. The changes are small and inconsequential at most for most units. Not something you'll feel in 80% of games.