I posted in 3 diff threads warning that changes in team games would be dramatic but it was either not heeded or was drowned out.
I did this every patch cycle I've been around for since as best as I can tell _most_ people in the balance team don't play beyond 2v2.
From what I can perceive, and this is purely my most subjective opinion, the combination of apathy + smugness/elitism over 1v1 + constant bickering over which faction is OP/UP = results in seemingly small but important things like this going unnoticed until someone runs into it face fist in the actual game.
My guess is that there are a lot of people that find things that in fact _are_ OP but don't report or comment because, well, they want to win.
"Missed" is the wrong word for sturm to have used. With any change ever, there is always the danger that we make something too strong or too weak. With balance, you make your best guess and try to release things balanced (knowing that it probably wont be), and let the literal tens of thousands of games tell you the rest. There is simply no other way to get the kind of insight that those many post patch games provide you. Our best guess was that an axis player would not be able to consistently avoid optional fuel purchases for ~15 minutes without putting their team at a disadvantage.
Also, I don't really get the point of the "I told you so" posts. We look at community feedback, humor each person's post/point, and try to see if their points make sense. We go into each post assuming each person is correct. But we can't balance assuming each person is correct. It's impossible. Balance posts across the community contain so many conflicting suggestions/reads/opinions, and balance patches cannot possibly cater towards multiple directly contradictory opinions.
I get that it's frustrating to make a call/post about something being wrong/bad/overpowered, not have balance patches follow that call, and find out you were right to begin with. "Why didn't they just listen to me." Because we can't listen to everyone, and we don't know who is right and who is wrong ahead of time. We release balance patches thinking we're getting everything right, but knowing we're probably getting a lot of things wrong. And there's generally no good way to know except by just releasing the patch and letting those tens of thousands of games speak for themselves.
On other topics:
In most cases where there are 15 minute tigers, are we sure axis wouldn't have won anyway if they had gone for light vehicles or regular medium tanks? It's easy to see a heavy tank and say "that's why we lost" and never realize the game was lost long before that.
Balancing for 3v3s, and 4v4s is difficult simply because of the number of combinations of matchups. 1v1s have 6 different matchups. 2v2s have 18. 3v3s have 40. Too lazy to calculate how many 4v4 matchups there are. Point is, the number of interactions goes up to unmanageable levels. Balancing for 1v1s is difficult enough, balancing for 4v4s can only really be done through targeting specific interactions or units that are themselves very strong. Balancing towards any bigger picture in 4v4s is hard to do without quickly screwing something else up.