Profile of Sander93

I am not sure about that since C.Panther is probably better at dealing with IS-2 than the tiger,
especially with the mark target.

It's not, because the Tiger's DPM and durability advantages easily outweigh the minor advantages (vet 0 range, slightly more penetration, slightly better mobility) that the (Command) Panther has, when looking at a fight with an IS-2. Coordinated Fire only lasts for two reloads (three if you'd time it absolutely perfectly) and only shaves off 1 shot (from 7 to 6). And on top of that, the Tiger will also kill infantry way more effectively while being only slightly more expensive.

In my opinion, it's the IS-2's needlessly high armor that's causing problems, and which is effectively forcing OKW and Ostheer into Tiger Is as that unit is the only reliable counter (with the Panther being okay, but only until the IS-2 hits vet 2 and Ostheer can not transition into T4 that easily in 1v1). If we'd lower the IS-2s armor, units like the StuG, JP4, Panther and ATGs and Shrecks will have an easier time dealing with it, which should hopefully mean that Grand Offensive will no longer be the only viable choice OKW has against Soviets.

Along with some minor adjustments to the Tiger I's (and all heavies') timing, we should see a decrease in GO picks after that. OKW has plenty of good commanders, but I think players simply didn't want to risk picking them in a tourney where the strong Soviet late game dominated with a 10k doller pricepool on the line.

At least I have stats, what do you have?

Skewed win ratios of 25 games is not "stats".

I used pick rates, that with such a low sample size are more reliable and revealing than win ratios (although absolutely not definitive), over a better (but still very low) sample size of 73 games. And I have my game intuition and analysis, as that is basically my job for Relic, as well as experience and knowledge from the internal balance discussions we've had lately.

If it’s a crutch against the IS2, then why did people not go Elite Armoured for HEAT shells?

Either they were wrong, or your assessment of the Tiger being an IS2 counterpick is wrong.

Because effectiveness =/= efficiency. Getting Jagdpanzer IVs or Panthers and continuously sink munitions into HEAT shells is effective too, but why take the risk when it's more efficient to go for a Tiger I that doesn't need munitions to fight the IS-2 and can also fight infantry at the same time?

Strong Soviet lategame (efficient 7 men Cons and IS-2) is what's causing some problems and forcing the Axis into a corner. Minor nerfs to both should give the Axis more options to fight the lategame and lower their reliance on the Tiger I.

My only question is:

If we can accept that super heavy tanks like JT, Ele and ISU152 are more than likely never gonna be viable outside of REALLY niche situations on 1v1, why can't the same line of thought be had regarding heavy tanks arriving slightly later on teamgames when there is a higher volume of units that could counter them

Because heavy tank destroyers and assault guns are only in 5 out of 71 commanders. Heavy tanks are significantly better represented at 9 (15 if we count the KV-2, Crocodile and AVRE) commanders.

Furthermore, heavy TDs are problematic in 1v1s because of limited use/performance and not because of timing issues, while heavy tanks currently perform well across all gamemodes and (arguably) only timing is an issue. It's already been proven long ago that the heavy TDs would never work across all gamemodes, because they aren't versatile enough (without being OP), while there is still a lot of wiggle room left for heavies.

I see no reason to give up already and condemn another 9-15 commanders to go out of meta in some gamemodes (the most popular ones at that) when there's still a good chance that some minor adjustments will make them fit in more easily.

I think stats confirm those

Can we please all realise that these stats do not confirm anything. The sample size is way too low, and because of that there are numerous factors that make these statistics unreliable. As Siphon specifically notes in his observations:

While these stats might give us an idea about the general state of balance in 1v1 to some extend, it should be noted that any the numbers should be taken with a grain of salt, for various reasons:

- Most games are decided by the skill gap between opponents (see below).
- We look at a small number of matches.
- The games are played on a subset of maps only. Performance on other maps might be very different. Also, starting positions were fixed, so wins or losses might be related to that, despite the valiant efforts to improve the maps prior to the tournament.
- Previous tournaments showed that each individual player has certain strengths and weaknesses when it comes to handling different factions.
- [Because of the best of five format, 3:0 wins translate into an artificial 67% win rate for whatever side was played first and third, while the real win ratio would be 50%]

These statistics are very globally indicative of trends at best, and not even remotely close to anything definitive.

13 Elite Armored Doctrine

221 produce 0
ST produced 0

Again the fact that no 221 was produced indicates how weak and cost ineffective this unis is.
Imo it should become separated vehicle from 223 and designed balanced separately.

Elite Armor was in loadouts 13 times. It was actually picked only 3 times, by only two players if I'm reading these stats correctly, so this does not really indicate anything. Other than that these two players happened to not build the unit for whatever unknown reason.