Profile of Mr.Smith

Actually, before you even try the suggestion before, why not take this one step further:
- Do NOT create a cloned copy; instead work directly on the original HQ
- Give it a high rotation rate, and make it trigger a victor target ability on itself
- At the end of the ability, reset the rotation rate to 0 permanently

The reason why you might want to avoid cloning the HQ is that the annihilation victory conditions (if you care about them) are probably tied to the original HQ.

Given how weak Maxim currently is, and how strong OKW infantry is, you need the best tools you can get.

The reasons why people pick the DSHK are:
- DSHK -is- OP (too much suppression, and too much damage at close-range)
- The Maxim is objectively weak due to certain parameters that we now know, but didn't know while doing GCS
- People have lack of confidence in the recently-changed Maxim
- DSHK & Lend-lease is the devil they know

DSHK stats mean that whatever loss of AI you would incur with upgrading to PTRS, you regain with an OP machinegun that operates similar to the Maxim.

People did test PTRS Penals & DSHK a lot, even during WBP. Although we knew DSHK & PTRS would become a really strong combo (but weren't allowed to change due to scope), what really tipped the balance way off was the early-faust change.

With early faust, M3A1 would strugle to be useful. From the matches that we've watched, this meant that you would lose map presence due to expensive penals & kubelwagen, and T1 openings were an uphill struggle against Vet5 complete dominance.

Without early faust, it's hunting season for the M3A1. Thus, flamer-scoutcars becomes the goto no-brainer opening. Now OKW really has to fight for its life in the early game. You already have Penals that are strong in the early game. Moreover, you need to put some resources aside to survive a deadly flamer-car rush.

This is not where we wanted to take balance (i.e., back to abuse meta). However, we were only allowed to make a binary decision (early faust vs late faust).

Hopefully things will improve later on. For instance, people might not be playing strategies to their full potential, yet; that goes for both Soviets and OKW that have to counter Soviets.

I agree with you about the point changing non 1v1 meta stuff to get a best experience in 4v4 is legit argument. Let's focus on non 1v1 meta doctrine is ok. But suggestions about changing stats on core units are just irrelevant.
Anyway, your behaviour is way respecteful for the community, congratz mate. But i think you maybe need to be a bit harsh with real stupid suggestions.

What I'm actually proposing are high/highest-priority changes and none of this really affect 1v1 meta that much.

I've also added a section for changes that will probably have to be enacted due to those units being overpowered in 1v1.

- Sure; nobody has seen the Crocodile in competitive play for months. However, that's 100% due to the fact that you only used to see Mobile Assault/Arty Cover. The Crocodile was a 2nd grade cheese. However, post-nerfs, Crocodile is 1st-grate cheese. Again.

This is similar to the DSHK vs Maxim situation (how often did you see DSHK's before GCS?). I would argue that you are now going to see the Crocodile as often as you see the DSHK.

- Stugs will eventually have to get a nerf when OST T3/T4 gets rebalanced.

- JP4 is already too strong for what you pay for it. Again, other changes in OKW will force us to change the unit. JP4 follows OKW-release type of veterancy even after multiple reworks when OKW has access to full resource income.

All in all, I'm not actually proposing core-unit changes as a package for teamgame changes. I'm just providing a context about other things for which changes seem to be inevitable (and dictated by 1v1 balance).

That way, we won't have people pointing out that they need the Elefant to counter the Crocodile, etc.

Each of the 5 factions have (bigger or smaller) issues that hamstring their flexibility in 1v1. Hopefully, those issues will be hammered out over time. Given the rate we've been allowed to enact changes so far, that will require a certain depth of time. What I'm just proposing here is a small package of changes to keep 4v4 afloat while those changes are enacted.

Man here I go and try and answer one small question you ask me and you decide to rant about something I'm not even denying. You keep moving off topic and arguing things I'm not even talking about. Please understand I'm not saying Allies op or Axis OP. You asked me "how would you go about trying to take on a brummbarr elephant combo as soviets or USF" and I gave you arguments for both (in another post which you never replied to) and an example doing it as soviets. I never once said it was a piece of cake or always works (which it shouldn't) I only stated how I would go about doing it. If you think it's too difficult that's your opinion. Go find followers to agree with you if it makes you happy.
If you wanna go on about how the game I posted went go do it to someone else not me. I do think even know what you're trying to argue here either.

If you actually read my first post you'd have seen that i clearly stated when the elephant goes down in replay (~41 min mark).

https://youtu.be/P9OCWfm9al0?t=41m30s

So I looked up. I looked at the entire scene, where the Elefant, for no reason, is ordered to move forward, to OVERPASS a T-34, effectively getting itself outflanked.

To make the fail even worse, the Elefant turns its back towards the enemy front.

In this case, the Elefant dies to a massive misplay, after it overextends and gets itself voluntarily flanked.

The reason I got confused however, was that Brosras used the same strategy you proclaim as the cure earlier on:
https://youtu.be/P9OCWfm9al0?t=27m48s

The fact that the Elefant exists causes Brosras to commit the sacrificial T-34's to move in. He sends in 3 of them (not piecemeal as indicate), goes through an unmined flank and of course, loses all of them.

By that point, the Elefant has already payed for itself, and I didn't even count the direct kills that Elefant scored.

So, yes. Elefants do die to massive misplay and overextending. That's not a very reliable way to counter an Elefant though, is it?

Is there another massive-attack vs the Elefant I missed?

I apologize bringing thisk topic up but in answer to your question, I would counter Elephant Brummbarr/kt etc. In a similar way to how brosras did --> spam t34s and attack in pairs. I think this is a perfect example of how the effectiveness of elephants are negated.

https://youtu.be/P9OCWfm9al0

If you don't wanna watch the whole thing skip to around minute 42. That's where the elephant gets taken out.

Are you seriously linking a pre-GCS, pre-WBP match as if nothing changed in-between?

Allies would simply not have this kind of map control. Allies are no longer dominant early-game; it's the opposite.

Brosras already lost a ton of those T34s in previous attempts to take down the Elefant. He had to throw significantly more resources in to get the Elefant, effectively making a bad trade (720MP for an elefant vs 300MP per each T34).

PS: BTW, the game was won by Calliopes/Priests/etc