Profile of Gdot

to be thorough in analysis, we had

-AEC buff, probably the biggest culprit in a VP dominated tournament, on top of allies already have good lights, which was just... 4head early game. Which meant VP's were drained so rapidly if the allied team had a clue.

Which wouldnt have been a problem if, Axis late game wasnt gimped:

axis vet

, VERY notably OKW's, which is infact gamebreaking with 4v4 scaling, was not working*

arty cover

neutralizing and outright smashing the axis late game advantage which is basically setting an unbreakable defensive line of simply superior units and support weapons with heavy tank critical mass, KT's and JT's with a shrek ober fusi blob and pak wall on the damn vp's and just crushing the allies

Combined with

calliope, which also helped break these lines as it took care of the ubensmench infantry and support weapon walls.

And even then, that tournament was still biased as any in terms of proving alli op. Every team invited was mostly historically of allied allegiance in terms of games played, except Focus, and maybe ns.

Run the same tournament now without the 'op' mattress, or maybe advanced emplacements, and i bet my life we'd have damn near a 100% axis winrate.

Everyone was effected by the vet, not just axis. I don't think any games had any vet 5 units anyway considering they all ended around the 20 minute mark. It wasn't just arty cover, people could use Mark Target - multiple British OP abilities whether arty cover or multiple players calling in Typhoon and Mega bombers concurrently, which is still a huge problem in 4s. There should be limits on how many p47s/strafing/megabombers can be called at once; like we had with p47s.

Not sure why you think most teams were allied favored, other than Northweapons. He was able to take an decent group of players and beat really good teams only using USF - which I think stressed how easy allies were at the time. We had FOCUS, SOE, NS, RUKA, and TATUS. (TATUS and SOE both held #1 as axis for lengthy periods, FOCUS was typically ranked around 3 or 4.)

We could run the tournament without those commanders or relic could just fix them and their abilities. It isn't the British core army that is the problem (in fact, they could probably use buffs) but their commander abilities are too powerful. Also allies were winning (4v4AT) even before the brits so I'm not so sure that you'd want to bet your life . Remember b4's percision strike-shootzens Eles/Jagdtigers/KT's/Tigers in one shot with Market Target? Maxim spam (yes this was a 4v4 strat long before it was a 1v1 strat), call in t34/85s with market target, (I could go on and on).

Actually its now team #3. Why do you think such teams shouldn't be taken into consideration? And what else do you propose? Basing "statistic" only on first 2 teams?

Rank #4 for axis is 11-0
Rank #3 for allies is 12-0

Sorry for not clarifying.

Well 4v4AT has dried up - most teams abandoned the mode, if this was a year ago the data set would have been better. Still, I think top 25 vs top 25 would be a much better sample for 4v4AT. Top 250 is insanity for 4v4AT.

Excellent guide, Hans!
also
The artwork is AWESOME.

Pretty much all team games are balanced, leading to what I was always saying-you either play team games to win(AT) or random.

There goes the whining and bitching of 4v4 heroes about having imbalanced game.
GET TEAM AND GET GOOD SCRUBS!

If you played in the 4v4 circuit you would know 250 is an insanely high amount of teams to look at. Playing 10 games, regardless of skill would get you into the top 250, maybe even into the top 25. It may as well be random. There are maybe a handful of teams that still play 4v4AT this point, it should really be closer to top 25 or 30 for 4v4AT.

More Emplacements...!

YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO