Profile of Imagelessbean

Not a statistically relevant sample size. Especially when you have two of them!

Do 1v1, have one schwerer and do it 30-50 times and report back to have meaningful data.

Statistically this is relevant. Your small sample size complaint makes sense when samples fall below 5. We call 30 tests a large sample size, but most tests I work with will happily take sample sizes at around 10 and report meaningful output. We don't know the true chance (it depends on the map, game type, plane origin), but 10-20% is also reasonable based on simple calculations.

Each shot from the base structure has a 0.5% chance to knock down the plane. If you have 10 base structures and they all fire 10 rounds at the plane you have 10x10x0.005=50% chance. On the other hand if you have 5 base structures that fire 10 rounds than you get a 25% chance. You can easily calculate for say 4 base structures and 5 round each. The range on the base structures for hitting planes is quite long and 10 rounds is fairly easy to do. All of this is assuming no Schwer HQ, if there is the chance of hitting the plane rises substantially.

Also why is 1v1 the only place to run the test?

If you feel so inclined not to trust the data Australian generated feel free to run the test yourself, you should not demand he do the work for you.

You don't need all the AT by 15 minutes, you just need to be able to notice at 15 minutes if there's no OKW armor on the field, then in 3 minutes, OKW will probably field a KT. So you have 3 minutes to grab a Jackson and an AT gun or two. Assuming an average of 30 fuel income, 18 minutes will grant you 540 fuel. That's more than enough fuel for an American player to get a Stuart, Sherman, and Jackson out. On the other hand, that leaves the OKW player enough to get a KT and nothing else. Close to getting a Luchs, but still not enough. Jackson is all you need to force a KT to back down, and the Sherman/Stuart should be able to force the situation to where you have better map control.

You are not incorrect in your calculations, but look closely at what I said. An OKW player should recognize that you are building up AT for his coming supertank. At that point they retain the initiative because they can still choose not to build it and can divert fuel to other units. If they do, all that Allied AT is going to waste because OKW will presumably build counters to it with that fuel (For instance I see you have 3 tanks, I will get 2 JPIV, or I see you have 3 AT guns I will get 2 Stukas). On the other hand if the OKW calls in the KT they can try to force the hand of the Allied player by making him commit their AT units, and pick them off on his own terms. Basically the KT can decide where to fight the battle, stacking the odds in its favor.

The issue is not even getting AT, its that it lets the OKW player hold all the cards when it arrives. At this point they have to make a mistake, even when the Allied player has the right mix of units, for the Allied player to get in the game. This should not be, both players should have to be making plays to compensate for weaknesses in their current strategy.

The questions they ask about graph at the end doesn't get to the core of the problem:

Every game mode, not only 2v2, but also 3v3 and 4v4 show balance being skewed towards Axis, and that this is increasing in team size (e.g. Axis is heavily favored in 3v3 and 4v4).

Team games tend to be longer, which illustrates the main problem: late game balance.

The main problem in the late game is that Axis heavy tanks are more cost effective and simply easier to use than Allied tanks.

Also, the counters for heavy tanks are very expensive and harder to use. E.g. AT guns tend to bleed man power, a lot. Allied tank destroyers are frail and cannot chase a low health heavy tank.

In an engagement an Axis player is much more likely to back out a damaged heavy tank alive, whereas Allied players will likely lose at least one tank in the same fight. The heavy tank can then be repaired to full and keeps veterancy.

So even if 1v1, 2v2 games seem somewhat balanced by just looking at win rates, the game skews heavily towards Axis in the late game, in any game mode.

If Relic wanted to look into this they should just plot faction win percent by game duration. I am certain that statistic won't be pretty.

Keep in mind the data they present us could very well be made up, we don't know. Secondly, I agree with you that the underlying problems are not specified. This is a problem with surveys, they simply cannot cover all bases. The issue of why is best laid out here, as I think people are trying to do so don't fault the survey too much.

Its the OKW revamp survey or something new?

The OKW revamp survey (as I remember it) referred to balance changes to OKW directly. This survey talks broadly about balance in all game modes.

The short answer is no its not the OKW revamp survey, yes it is something new.

KV2 suffers from the "I was batshit OP and ruined the game for a few months and now I must pay for my sins for a few years" Relicitis Syndrome.

Let it run its course

Otherwise, comes too late, mediocre in every way, ISU is more attractive, etc.

This is how I feel about the unit as well.

KV-2 is gonna need more buffs to be relevant to the meta. Obviously its vet 1 is gonna need to change. Also why does vet 3 vastly improve its movement, when the tank is designed to sit still? Shouldn't that be something about tear down and set up?