Profile of Imagelessbean

Hi again; the reason the FHQ is retarded is because it's gimmicky in the sense that it's an all in win or lose thing. Said types of gimmicks are terrible because on one hand they are horrible in some situations and on the other retardly OP in others.

Just because the commander is shit after minute 10 doesn't excuse the fact it can win the game before that, just because the game can be won before that doesn't excuse the poor late game scaling.

The commander would be much more fun if it was an emplacement or HQ you build on the ground that your troops could retreat to and heal at.

Think of it like this, would you rather keep the current "win at minute 10 or bust" form of the commander or a better scaling one that is more versatile and gives Soviets an edge on the bigger more open maps were they tend to suffer?

No one is saying we want FHQ to remain as is, we are saying it is balanced as is. Cheesey yes, but balanced. If Relic wanted to redesign the commander it would be fine. The commander needs an overhaul to make it really part of the meta.

If the AoE is reduced the range must increase. I am all for seeing the unit not one shot squads, but the tank is already extremely weak.

Seeing a player go with 120's and having an American would mean that I would like to get a long range TD. The American player will like play back up to the 85's that are coming and if you can force them to attack into a TD no amount of scotts is going to save them. They are going to need to buy lots of Jacksons. Keep an AT unit behind the TD so it cannot be flanked, and then push forward. This late in the game you may use a sniper to spot if you have mp, or if you went elephant get spotting scopes.

Also remember the more diverse you force his army to be the more micro he requires. Try to build the micro requirement for him to the point at which you can start to pick off units. Americans regularly field 6 or 7 unique units, often more. The micro for each unit is considerable as the units can rarely go toe to toe with late game axis units and require abilities to be popped.

Belittle my post but contribute nothing, good work...I guess.

Jaegers or Sturm Officer is excellent to do MP bleed because the units do great work at long range. You want to maximize your range against units around the FHQ so you can disengage whenever you want. This allows you to bleed when it seems good to you and get out if you are taking too many losses. Also both of these units excel against conscripts which is what he is going to have all around the building.

But since you seem happy to just make fun of other posters don't worry about it.

The day I value your opinion is the day I will eat my keyboard, go away you terrible uninteresting troll.....

Why insult his comment above, he was right?

The cost of the FHQ is so high that unless you reduce the overall cost you cannot make the building decappable.

The strategy is annoying but very beatable.

If Ost: Immediately get multiple MG's and place them just outside of the range of conscripts near the building. Lock the area down and make him crawl. He will bleed MP to stay on the field. In the meantime have a teammate get mortars, or if you are doing a good job of keeping the conscripts down just move up with infantry to pick them off. The buffs won't help that much if they are suppressed. If you still need it get the MHT. Avoid getting grens until a little later since they will just bleed you of MP.

If you are OKW: Get multiple Kubels. Keep the scripts pinned and quickly get Mech. Fast tech to the Stuka or go med and get ISG. Get another Sturmpio and punish scripts that try to crawl forward. Still having trouble? Seriously consider getting Jaeger light infantry and a Sturm officer.

Even if he stops you from getting the fuel you want bleed him of MP. Even if he gets the fuel what will he do if he is desperately trying to hold ground and bleeding MP?

Expect to play for the late game, he just beat you in the early game, but you will crush him in the late game. Never stop fighting until the last ticket disappears.

Just wanted to jump in here briefly as someone who deals with interpreting of stats and data as part of my job.

The OP had a number of methodological problems with their data collection. I would not trust that their data produces a "biased" (using technical definition here) estimate of the true mean.

The following data set brought to light by another user addressed many of these problems and produced, I believe, a better estimate of the true win ratios. Remember here we are trying to estimate a true mean without being able to see every match up.

However, all data presented in this thread suffer the same problem, they have no estimate of the error. In no case does anyone report the uncertainity (which must exist because they are estimates) around their values. The win ratios are ESTIMATES of the true mean, as such we have some error around them. Without knowing the error both estimates cannot be compared and give only a limited insight into the current balance.

In any case do we really need to refer to people as fanboys as soon as the thread opens?

These data mean little, we need Relic to tell us what is really going on.