So you think a bunch of completely randomized matches with all sorts of skill levels, the majority of which are far below what should be used as components to evaluate balance is a better way of determining balance issues, than a tournament of high skilled players effectively playing in controlled settings of multiple matches on the same map over and over and each team switching factions every match...?
Coming for two USF threads about PFs and Scotts and ranting at both looks a little bit akward if you ask me. Don't you like USF?
I personally would go for coh2 stats, set custom range from mid june to today and choose displaying Top200 games only. That data ia a far bigger and more reliable source than one tournament. Atm it is 55,1% winrate for Ostheer an d 59,5% for OKW at 4vs4.
Don't want to question that allied side performs a lot better at 1vs1 and 2vs2 though.
I always wondered why a lot of the allied buffs affect the early to mid game. They shouldn't buff units that play a big role in 1vs1 and 2vs2 where allies always had a good game performance. Buff real late game units. Example: Buff UKF hammer/anvil tanks (and raise population+cost accordingly and/or cap them) instead of buffing T0-T3 units.
Early game units have to be buffed in a different way: A good example for a game buff for an early game units that kicks in later is the 7th man upgrade for conscripts which gets unlocked at T4 automatically or at T3 with additional tech costs. It has a bigger impact in multiplayer games than in 1vs1.
Scott could be balanced easily. Just remove autofire, reduce to 320 hp and balance it completely about a decent long range barrage with an appropiate ability cooldown. Or do it the other way round. Keep health and low range autofire (+attack ground), remove barrage and adjust around decent autofire with appropiate reload. Either way it could be balanced way better.
PFs are fine however.