Profile of BabaRoga

Just for clarification: its not really a balance issue because who ever can spend such resorces in a game and not lose in the meantime, is by far better player/team and would win anyway.
In any game mode
If anything, player doing this in 4v4 would severely weaken his team and thus lose the game. No matter how many Shermans he ends up spamming in the end

It's a double edged sword, this one.
I understand reasoning behind punishing people who leave, on the other hand I leave games often because I don't want to wait for 15 minutes while some noob is fighting Tigers with Pios until VP ticks out.

If I was forced to play, I would most likely chose not to play the game at all.

Blizzards was just annoying gimmick that didn't add much to strategic depth.
as Strummingbird said ^
I would add difficulty in figting with combined arms vs mobile mechanized army,
game kind of winding down to capping point or two, if you can get to it without freezing or going around with tank to crush flame pits or see if you can find some infantry finding somewhere to massacre.
Not to mention numerous instance of game crashing because not everyone's PC can handle extra information processing

I don't miss blizzards at all

Oh, but please, name these bad P2W commanders that were not elite troops or soviet industry.

Please, tell us exactly which ones and in which way were stronger then say guard motor or shock rifle or lightning war or spearhead or the ele doctrine?

Two commanders were clear P2W.

Every single other one? Clueless noobs complaining about stuff they have never faced before.
Something tells me you were part of them as well after reading your post.

Ass Grens, needed massive nerfs in first couple of weeks. Just as they got them sort of balanced they released new commanders (don't remember maybe elite)

Elite was so OP that no one even noticed how strong luftwaffe is until Elite got nerfed..

or you think increasing price of unit by 100% and decreasing its ability by 50% in few nerfs qualifies it as not being stronger?

All these units are supposed to work as combined arms army. And they work great in that role

Problem is someone decided to put variety of super tanks, extremely effective long range weapons and bunch of super cool click of a button, death from above call in abilities.

Combined with maps that are very large and many ways to flank army that is highly demanding with babysitting units to keep them well positioned, Very micro intensive army composition, you get situation that going combined army is liability compared to more mobile or durable units.

Starting from 1v1 going up, this just becomes increasingly easier for opposition to exploit and harder for combined arms player to keep his forces from breaking apart.

Su85 is useless without conscript support (at nade) and it becomes useless even with conscripts when heavy or highly mobile armor hits the field (not very high engine damage rate)

Simple armor flank with straffe breaks combined army and leaves awkward SU85 and supporting weapons highly vulnerable and largely ineffective vs mobile army that can take some punishment (Panther or two supported by infantry)

If you make conscripts, SU85, etc more powerful you get problem of combined arms becoming OP in 1v1, leave them like this and they become irrelevant because combined army is to much of a liability.
Inherit faction design that cannot be changed without major rework of units roles and performance. For example, giving SU85 turret so its not so awkward.
Can't see it happening