Profile of Aerohank

Lets say for instance I make 66% of the money you make, for simplicity reasons I make 66 dollars you make 100, so that means for every dollar you make I make 66 cents.

If we want to buy something that's worth 1000 dollars, it will be worth 33% more to me because I will have to work 33% percent longer to make up the difference between you and me.

You would have to work 50% longer to get the same amout of money as the other guy when you have 66.66% of his salary.

It's probably mostly people who bought the game on sale for a few bucks, tried it out a bit, and moved on to something else. The actual number of on-line players has hardly changed. The huge amount of in-game micro transactions may have also scared off a good portion of players who were only slightly interested in the game.

In team games Soviet artillery is extremely deadly, but 1 opponent with Close Air Support can render it all useless.

In 1v1 vs an equal opponent, the ML-20 is a big investment that you can only afford if your opponent does not go for call-in tanks as Ostheer, or does not go for a fast T3 into panther as OKW.

Well Balance is a different thing from "Boring" and "Stale-Meta"

*Disclaimer* All my posts are from a 1v1 perspective.

It depends on your criteria for balance. If your criteria for balance are something along the lines of "I want to have an equal chance of winning against an equal opponent, regardless of what factions we have chosen", then this game is pretty balanced. However, this balance is only achieved when certain conditions are met. These conditions are: Both players veto the most imbalanced maps, both players either use the best commanders (Mech assault, shock rifle, fortifications, guard motor, Elite troops, rifle company, and a few others) or agree to both use sub-optimal commanders (such as a game of Soviet Reserve Army VS Festung support doctrine), and finally, both players stick to a very limited scope of strategies and build orders (OKW and USF are more limited in this regard then Soviets and Ostheer).

For example: I want to play a game as Ostheer vs USF.
How do me and my opponent make this match-up balanced? Well, first we have to veto all the bad maps like Stalingrad and Langreskaya (there will still be bad maps, 6 vetos is not enough). Then, we have to agree on commanders. Since in automatch 90% of the players go for the best commanders, this means the USF will go for airborn or Rifle company, and the Ostheer will go for Mech assault or Elite troops. Finally, both players will only use the optimal strategies (m20 rush into major or call-ins vs T1/2 into call-ins). In this scenario, the game is pretty balanced and both players will have equal chances of winning if they are both equally skilled.

If these conditions are not met, then the game is no longer balanced. For example: A game of USF vs Ostheer on Stalingrad with commanders Rifle Company vs Blitzkrieg Tactics is not balanced at all. Likewise, a Soviet vs Ostheer game on langreskaya with commanders Elite Troops vs Partisan tactics is also far from balanced. A huge gap in between these players skill levels is required for these players to have equal chances of winning.

Now, because of human nature, 90% of the players will try to get any advantage they can, you are left with a very stale metagame. A balanced metagame, but only as long as you stick to the blandness of vetoing the same maps, playing the same commanders and using the same strategies game after game (especially with USF and OKW).

No, the difference is that a defeat can be not deserv.

Which, coincidentally, is every defeat you have ever had. Am I right?