The issue is that CoH2 does not have enough 'different' units, so every unit has to be unique and cover its own niche without too much overlap. Non linear tech trees therefore force you to skip essential units. At the same time the whole game is designed to be a 30-50 minute match instead of 15 min rushes until someone has to realize that he won't win anymore. This means that lacking an essential unit is a huge disadvantage in the long run if it does not allow you to pull off the rush tactic.
So either you
1) allow easier access to all essential units (OKW and USF)
2) load units with lots of different roles so that they can cover the holes (basically old and still current UKF)
3) mirror units between tech tiers, at which point they only become similar flavors of the same thing. Usually barely possible if you already have few units to distribute among a lot of roles as in the case with CoH.
4) make the choice non-essential.
Point 3+4 in my opinion can be seen in OKW T1/2: both tiers have an arty option that is okay even in the late game. The LVs are all good enough to get you to the late game but overall non-essential since the important MG and ATG are recruited from the HQ. USF got their backtech price reduced to grab essential support weapons. The LVs are not important at that point.
I seldom post balancing ideas. Posted one on AEF forum yesterday (??). I shit on the balancing ideas being proposed by some people mostly. Like disguising nerfs as buffs or using "cookie-cutting, in line with" BS. I like the game, don't like majority of people involved in balancing the game. I'm light years away from being good at balancing COH2. I don't play it regularly, nor do I play OST/brits/soviets. I play with soviets and brits VS OST but I don't play as them.
Doesn't matter if you suggest yourself or comment on other people's ideas. You have an opinion about balance and you voice it regularly. I just casually scrolled through your 20 most recent posts and you commented on Falls, Volks and USF units.
One wehrmacht comes from "most played faction". Soviets comes up 11 times for me. The WGerman seems to be bugged out to 4 but is 3. He apparently played 45% as Allies. How is that "WGerman and Wermacht mostly"? Especially if you consider his overall profile, so stop misleading. He plays apparently more Ostheer and less OKW than if it were completely random, also more Soviets and less USF. The rest is COMPLETELY in line.
Sturm can balance Germans as much as he wants, but I don't expect him to say anything about USF or Brit balancing
Wtf does it have to do with Germans? He even has more games as Brits than as OKW despite there being 3 Allied factions.
Nevertheless, if you want to stay consistent with your own logic you should not comment on anything outside of team game USF then, yet you do.
You don't like the balancing people/Sturmpanther and what they do for whatever reason while simultaneously claiming you did not care about balance. I don't mind, I don't like every balance suggestion that has been done either. But at this point you are just projecting some Axis fanboyism into someone where even your own quoted data contradicts what you say. If you don't like the changes despite not caring about balance, then phrase it accordingly. But stop lying about false linkages.
And yeah, I only play USF competitive and do not go spreading any sort of gospel about OKW balance or OST balance nor do I interest myself in any sort of balancing and have not preached any sort of balancing on these forums. I have stated my opinions and only used data provided (assumed it's not false) to back up some claims. A couple of games I play here and there I state what I feel like is happening and the current state.
You don't have to state the obvious. I only play USF competitively and OKW in leisure. Nothing new.
You regularly post you opinion about balancing ideas. How is that not being interested in balance?
Unfortunately the match details does not have this information. It has only player profile ids. So when processing each match I would have to look up each player. And I can't store this information in our own database, because that might not be up to date - for example when you have new team. So as I see it the only way would be to look it it at at the Relic API. But I am afraid that would be too much stress on the Relic API and they wouldn't like it. For example 1k matches 4v4, would require 8000k API calls for the player profiles.
What does the API give you back exactly?
Scraping the leaderboards might also be possible. Call the site for one player in the team, if the names/IDs of the other players show up, count as AT, otherwise they are randoms. There might be issues with changing. E.g. the current Soviet#1 in 1v1 http://www.companyofheroes.com/leaderboards#profile/steam/76561198018614046/standings -> the HTML code includes the steam IDs of his team mates.
Overloading the calls is indeed an issue, but maybe you can space those out? One call every 10 min would give 144 checked ranks per day. After a week there will be 1000 games annotated.
yeah that wasn't very clear, sorry. i was talking about fire aim time. ready aim is set to the default 0.125 in both cases, but as you said this doesn't matter in this case.
as to the timekeeping, i've used the shooting sound and projectile animation as cues. the 0.125 fire aim tank serves basically as the reference clock since it always fires 1 round every 2 frames. with both tanks starting the firing animation at exactly the same time and firing precisely 100 rounds before reloading, you can count the number of rounds fired after the reference tank has stopped firing. in this case the 0.130 s fire aim tank shot 2 extra rounds, which translates into at least 4 frames for the whole firing sequence to finish.
sorry if this sounds overly convoluted, but i hope you understand what i mean.
EDIT i haven't done more than 3 fire-reload-cycles, but from what i can tell the extra frames add up. but i definitely need to test that again more rigorously.
-> I'll move this to PM. Not sure if others are that interested at the moment.
the last test i've done must have been a couple of weeks ago when you mentioned you're working on the improved DPS formula in Cruzz's thread. so that should've been 64 bit already.
back then i've tried to figure out how the game handles aim time values that aren't multiples of 0.125 s, which led to some strange results and might be interesting in your case as well (details in the spoiler).
Just to make sure: you're talking about fire aim time, not ready aim?
Still wouldn't fully explain that. But also how and how often did you measure those 4 frames differenve? When I stop time, I regularly get 0.1 and sometimes 0.2 seconds of difference. The only way is to measure at least a couple of cycles so that they cancel out.
What niche that would be tho?
Obviously, AT niche is filled by BOYs and I don't see the need for "elite piats", especially on infiltration unit.
Long range is already covered by them picking up brens. CQC is self explanatory, so there is no combat niche they would need to fill and the only non combat that's missing is special mine? Booby trap?
As I said it is indeed hard to find one.
I could imagine a real recon unit since UKF does only get the pyro upgrade. Alternatively, a sniper like unit like Paths or JLI are possible too.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
