Profile of Hannibal

But since KV1 is doctrinal, you are always free to not choose its commander, specially if it doesnt perform very well vs OKW.

I do agree with the rest of the post though.

I think the game benefits most if we aim for all doctrines being usable against all factions (in general). Especially Axis would be hurt otherwise, as they have to face three different factions. It promotes creative play and different strategies, not just "fight against faction X -> take commander Z as a hard counter".

Just look at what happened to Osttruppen. They perform very well against Brits as they drag out the fights and can trade decently, but they're trash against USF since they tend to get overrun. In my opinion that's bad design. Sometimes you can't avoid some side effects and some commanders being better against some factions will always happen, but we should not aim for reinforcing that trend.

Sorry mate but jackson, scott and pack howi nerfs at this point are certain. The question is how hard should the riflemen be nerfed. 300mp, same as penals, seems fair. But i would like to hear your opinion.

I really do think that you should apply for a position at Relic.

No, but seriously:
If you think something is wrong go and make a decent argument. We can discuss about a lot here, but at the moment your point is "XYZ OP! NERF!!!!111!eleven"
Great stuff mate. Great stuff.

The funny thing is I stand by tournament stats before I know the outcome. I don't know if the tourney is going to show axis op or allies op, but I still go by them. The other guys go by outdated stats because they are only interested stats that support their claim. The tourney is not over yet, and we can't base our conclusions on the latest games.

We can't base anything on the latest tourney, even when it's finished, since there will be too few games with every team composition. At the end of the day we can't tell apart if a victory was based on rng, day-to-day performance of some teams or truely due to imbalances.

There isn't enough people playing the game, matchmaking isn't proposing balanced matches due to lack of players available.

This is true also for the top 10%. You do not improve this effect by shrinking the player base you look at even further to the top 10%.

Below elite playing ranks most of the game aren't balanced and the faction played has little impact on the game outcome.

I agree that high level play reflects better the strengths and weaknesses of the respective faction.
In contrast, if you're an average player at (for the sake of the example) 50%, you have way higher chances of getting a balanced match than being at the edges of the skill curve due to the fact that you can get an opponent slightly above AND below your skill level.
High skill players get obviously more often matched with lower skill players, low skill players get more often matched with higher skill players.
The question is if the game should be balanced around top tier play or somewhat the main player base, but that would heavily derail the topic.

We have to live with the fact that different skill levels play with slightly different metas. Units like the Brummbär require heavy micro to be effective but die more easily in low skill level. Is the unit OP? Is it UP? There's no easy way to say that, but balancing it only according to the top players that can give the unit the high micro it needs will basically kick out the main player base.

I agree with the general conclusion that low skill data is not really representative of the whole game, but first the argument given does not make sense to me as well as the conclusion that only top tier play shows game balance while 90% of the games played are purely luck is also bullshit.

Also a cache is an investment that leads to less MP on the field. It is okay to get your tank out earlier because of it.
Caches are not necessary for any faction and often not build at all in 1v1 and 2v2, so we can happily calculate everything as if they were not there.