Congrats Allies. Eugen is this really what you want? Such an unbalanced game?

[rommel2009]

I'm so surprised by content of new DLC after I see it. The current 10v10 balance is horrible already. But new DLC even make it worse.

Allies got everything now, they can rush at A phase, they have plenty of 17-pdr, they control air all the time, their artys are overwhelming, they also got lots of powerful tanks more than ever. (Firefly, Hellcat, Achilles, Challenger and more than you can ever imagine)

At the same time, Axis got broken heart soldiers, expensive and useless tanks. Some players might be excited by Knispel. What if I tell you most inf of 16 Luftwaffe are heartbroken? Besides, 716 Infanterie don't have any tank, not even one card.

I think allies infantry and tanks will be more unstoppable after new DLC release. I do have some suggestions about balance that I could provide.
Firstly, 17-pdr range should be 1750 rather than 2000. 2000 is too far, and in this DLC allies don't lack 17-pdr or powerful tanks anymore. Tiger, Panther, even KingTiger is just a joke in front of so many anti tank methods.
Secondly, at least MG34 should be able to shoot when inf is moving. Grenadier is totally trash facing allied inf now. Grenadier just get suppressed and surrender. It's basically impossible to win in fight. Not to mention allies usually have cars around.

These are my suggestions for now. I don't know if you would take my suggestions but I believe we all want this game to be better and more balanced.

[Magnus Aurelius, Bright Lord]

Origineel geplaatst door sull51:

In all major wars the good guys "the winners " write the history of the war blaming the bad guys "the losers" for all the atrocities of the war. Many of the bad guys not only survived WW2, but went on to achieve positions of power in postwar Europe and Asia

Hard disagree on that, at least for world war II, You can get books ( well, in North America at least) written from all Nazi Generals, Wehrmacht officers, the Mein Kampft is being sold here. The one reason why people believe the Wehrmacht was good is because exactly that, history was not written by the winners, it was written by all side.

As you say, Nazis were being put out of prison and into NATO to fight the Soviets. This resulted in them being allowed to write books and they spent their time writing about how good the Wehrmacht was. They are others who established help for SS officers on the run or in Germany, which led to the creation of modern Neo Nazis.

History, is rarely only written by the victors. In ancient time, it was sometimes the case, where entire civilisation were razed from history, but that doesn't happen anymore.

[st0ne56]

this post is full of cope and skill issues spend less time crying on them forums and more time playing

[Odysseus]

If you need "denial laws" to protect your truth regime. Its probably not true. I am sorry for you that Germany humiliated your people and made you feel insecure about your national or ethnic history, the answer is not snide reddit quips, the correct and adult response is growing up.

[Odysseus]

Origineel geplaatst door Hobotango:

Origineel geplaatst door sull51:

In all major wars the good guys "the winners " write the history of the war blaming the bad guys "the losers" for all the atrocities of the war. Many of the bad guys not only survived WW2, but went on to achieve positions of power in postwar Europe and Asia

Hard disagree on that, at least for world war II, You can get books ( well, in North America at least) written from all Nazi Generals, Wehrmacht officers, the Mein Kampft is being sold here. The one reason why people believe the Wehrmacht was good is because exactly that, history was not written by the winners, it was written by all side.

As you say, Nazis were being put out of prison and into NATO to fight the Soviets. This resulted in them being allowed to write books and they spent their time writing about how good the Wehrmacht was. They are others who established help for SS officers on the run or in Germany, which led to the creation of modern Neo Nazis.

History, is rarely only written by the victors. In ancient time, it was sometimes the case, where entire civilisation were razed from history, but that doesn't happen anymore.

denazification is the 'razing' of a regime. National Socialists who wrote favorably of the allied forces were permitted to publish their books but anyone writing favorably of the national socialist regime or even of the Wehrmacht were either jailed or had their works made illegal.
WWII was an ideological conflict that is still going on today it seems and many are tilted by the fact that someone could just simply have a different perspective.

[CrabNicholson]

Origineel geplaatst door Hobotango:

Origineel geplaatst door sull51:

In all major wars the good guys "the winners " write the history of the war blaming the bad guys "the losers" for all the atrocities of the war. Many of the bad guys not only survived WW2, but went on to achieve positions of power in postwar Europe and Asia

Hard disagree on that, at least for world war II, You can get books ( well, in North America at least) written from all Nazi Generals, Wehrmacht officers, the Mein Kampft is being sold here. The one reason why people believe the Wehrmacht was good is because exactly that, history was not written by the winners, it was written by all side.

As you say, Nazis were being put out of prison and into NATO to fight the Soviets. This resulted in them being allowed to write books and they spent their time writing about how good the Wehrmacht was. They are others who established help for SS officers on the run or in Germany, which led to the creation of modern Neo Nazis.

History, is rarely only written by the victors. In ancient time, it was sometimes the case, where entire civilisation were razed from history, but that doesn't happen anymore.

The men you're talking about are basically just German soldiers who didn't have anything to say about the actual controversies of the war. Any figures with actual political influence or audience outreach were indeed censored, if not outright killed. After WW2, even journalists like Brassilach and Streicher were executed, along with thousands of others.

For one prominent example, the infamous Josef Mengele, after he fled the Allied show trials, spent the rest of his life writing several hundred pages of memoirs where he attempted to exonerate his name and explain the deaths in Auschwitz as disease outbreaks. Whether you believe him or not - it is impossible to judge - because his memoirs were seized by the US Holocaust Museum and were never released to the public, only a handful of people were ever allowed to see them. If they even still exist is questionable. Even if you think it is all lies, as a historical artefact, museums have a duty to preserve it for study and consideration, not kept secret and hidden away. Artefacts like Goebbels' diaries were kept, why not this?

During the Nuremberg trials, Herman Goering was censored, snippets of what he said were stricken from the records, and he was no longer allowed to speak in his own defence except through a court-appointed lawyer. Once again - even if you have a negative opinion of him - how can you have a trial where a man is not allowed to speak in his own defence?

So - point being - just who is allowed to talk, and about what, has always been tightly controlled ever since WW2.

It is not my intention anyways to say that Germans were the good guys, only no worse than the Western Allies. While the USSR were far worse than either.

I have yet to see a single photo of the Germans doing something like this (warning: graphic)

https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/c1cjcs/captain_rosinsky_polish_military_officer_being/?rdt=56764

[Magnus Aurelius, Bright Lord]

Origineel geplaatst door Odysseus:

Denazification... anyone writing favourably of the national socialist regime or even of the Wehrmacht were either jailed or had their works made illegal

Denazification sure, in Germany. Generals memoir, and the Mein Kampf is available in my country and I suspect, many others. I cant speak of all books but personally, other than saying they were well treated as prisoners, I havent yet read a German memoirs that speaks good of the allies, (especially their tactics)

[Grant]

What?
Germany is the strongest in 10v10 not accounting for skill issues.
Other than the Soviet 100mm, the Allies have nothing that can reliably penetrate the heaviest German armors i.e. both variants of the King Tigers and the Elephant at max range. Meanwhile, the German long 88mm still have sufficient penetration chance against the IS-2 1944 at max range.
While the Allies have high volume MRLS, the Germans have the heavier ones that deals more damage per volley. Otherwise, artillery are generally similar.
Infantry-wise the Axis have a mixture of great CQB and medium range units in single BGs i.e. STG 44 and FG42, meanwhile most of the Allied elite infantries BGs focused either on CQB or medium range only. For long distance, the Germans rule with their MG-42.
The only downsize to the Axis is their cost of units, which does handicap them in smaller games up to 3v3. If they buy a KT, they don't have enough for 88s or infantries, and vice versa. In 10v10, you no longer have the problem because there are enough players to support each other.

[T12A34N56K]

Skipping over the genocide discussion, and over how Rommel doesn't know what a response is or the difference between someone's image and some, and over your Wehraboo discussion which kinda died so it is fine.

I HAVE FOUND YOUR 10v10 BALANCE PROBLEM!!!

It's the income and map designe. As said before, none of the aforementioned units are broken or useless but 10v10 is unbalanced. I played 3 10v10's before Rommel claimed that I didn't so I don't know ♥♥♥♥, did say the experience from one of them, just not the other two. The games were with 3rd Canadian inf, Panzer Lehr and 116th Panzer. The first two were won by the Allies, the third was by the Axis. The two where the Allies won were on a 4v4 map, the Axis victory was on 10v10 Tannenberg.
I will give some historic context. Some time back 10v10's were 750p start 1.0x income, this made it easy for Axis players to spawn their expensive armour. As such, armour fights were won mostly by Axis, and any inf forest fights were just besieged from afar. Air spam was a thing but Axis were really good at shutting it down so it didn't win many games, plus the losses on the Axis armour mattered less due to how much they had. Early game rushes were a thing but the Axis had enough firepower to take the lost ground back.
Now the lobbies are 500p start and 0.75x income making it so it takes two ticks to spawn in a panther/tiger and only one to spawn in a firefly. This makes Allied armour spam more viable against Axis.
Now the reason for the change is the maps, on 10v10 Tannenberg the issues isn't present but on 4v4 maps you don't have room to maneuver due to how much stuff there is on the map. To reduce the problem they reduced the income, however that had the consequences of silently nerfing Axis due to haw expensive those decks are in comparison to Allied once. The same happened to air spam in my opinion, in the three games I played I only saw two planes flying. Planes are also in the 2 tick categorie now so you can't buy them as easily.
I assume that the change happened sometime around the Man of Steel release, that's why Rommel blames that DLC, although I only saw two decks from that DLC and one was in the game that the Axis one.

Now to add to the controversy.

ROMANIA WAS THE ONLY GOOD GUY IN WW2!!

Haha!! Now you you have to answer my comment! Now way you guys will let that slip by!

[CrabNicholson]

Romania was a country that started the war allied to Poland. Then when Poland lost the war, they turncoated to the Germans. Then due to their own incompetence at the battle of Stalingrad, the German 6th army got encircled. Immediately after this, they began secret talks with the Allies to turncoat again. Yes, they were literally plotting for 2 years to betray their allies after a blunder they themselves caused. When the time for the betrayal came, for no apparent reason, the Romanians continued their tradition of treachery and betrayed... themselves. Their dictator, who, after all these negotiations, came to be on good terms with the Soviets, was deposed by their King, and even the Soviets balked at this because they saw the Romanian dictator as being a man who was protecting the interests of his citizens while the King was just a power-hungry schemer. The king, then continued with the plan of betraying Germany (I guess he just felt left out or something). After the war, the Soviets occupied the country. The king was allowed to remain in power for a while, until the Romanian communist party... betrayed him and removed him from government... to nobody's surprise at all. Romanian history during ww2 is shameful to a degree that it verges on ludicrous. So it's as the old joke goes: the only time Romania ends the war on the same side as it started, is when the war goes on long enough for them to change sides twice.

[Amormaliar]

Origineel geplaatst door T12A34N56K:

Skipping over the genocide discussion, and over how Rommel doesn't know what a response is or the difference between someone's image and some, and over your Wehraboo discussion which kinda died so it is fine.

I HAVE FOUND YOUR 10v10 BALANCE PROBLEM!!!

It's the income and map designe. As said before, none of the aforementioned units are broken or useless but 10v10 is unbalanced. I played 3 10v10's before Rommel claimed that I didn't so I don't know ♥♥♥♥, did say the experience from one of them, just not the other two. The games were with 3rd Canadian inf, Panzer Lehr and 116th Panzer. The first two were won by the Allies, the third was by the Axis. The two where the Allies won were on a 4v4 map, the Axis victory was on 10v10 Tannenberg.
I will give some historic context. Some time back 10v10's were 750p start 1.0x income, this made it easy for Axis players to spawn their expensive armour. As such armour was won mostly by Axis, and any info forest fights were just besieged from afar. Air spam was a thing but Axis were really good at shutting it down so it didn't win many games, plus the losses on the Axis armour mattered less due to how much they had. Early game rushes were a thing but the Axis had enough firepower to take the lost ground back.
Now the lobbies are 500p start and 0.75x income making it so it takes two ticks to spawn in a panther/tiger and only one to spawn in a firefly. This makes Allied armour spam more viable against Axis.
Now the reason for the change is the maps, on 10v10 Tannenberg the issues isn't present but on 4v4 maps you don't have room to maneuver due to how much stuff there is on the map. To reduce the problem they reduced the income, however that had the consequences of silently nerfing Axis due to haw expensive those decks are in comparison to Allied once. The same happened to air spam in my opinion, in the three games I played I only saw two planes flying due to the fact that they are also in the 2 tick categorie now.
I assume that the change happened sometime around the Man of Steel release, that's why Rommel blames that DLC, although I only saw two decks from that DLC and one was in the game that the Axis one.

No, it was always x0.75 iirc, you just have some lobbies with x1 income (and some with x0.5 - tactical). And it's mostly depends on division choices by players - Ryhma Raappana, for example, can pretty easy take CQC part of the map from allies (and can contest even "commandos" that Rommel mentioned). Same with Rosselsprung or even Jager div in some cases. Romania has pretty strong CQC too iirc. Most of 10v10 maps, because of how small are they - favour Axis even now. And not like SSB or ATF changed CQC situation for allies when 3rd VDD exists (both ATF & SSB - weaker than 3rd VDD in CQC). And as I heard (from ST iirc), with MoS 10v10 actually become more balanced than ever - but mostly because of the traits, not the divisions tbf. MoS changed nothing for Allies in large team-games - it was actually better for Axis, because 715th and Tettau are super-heavy divs that you can use for things impossible for Axis before (with a lot of inf). And new Hungarian 1st and 2nd Pancelos - basically the best AA divs in the game, from two previous big DLCs too.
I have an assumption that it's either bad luck on Rommel side, or personal bias and he want previous Axis win-rate of 80% (or smth around that).

[T12A34N56K]

Origineel geplaatst door Amormaliar:

No, it was always x0.75 iirc, you just have some lobbies with x1 income (and some with x0.5 - tactical).

Not sure about that chief. I can tell you for certain that two years ago most lobbies were 750p 1.0x, there was the occasional tactical or 800p 1.25x but those weren't the stable.

Also, I know that the Axis have strong CQC decks (I am personally a 6 Cav. fan) but those aren't the stable in 10v10's or on their side in general.

Also, that doesn't change that it takes two ticks to spawn in a panther/tiger, compared to the firefly's one tick. There isn't anything in the Men of Steel DLC that could cause the Axis to be less potent in the armour field, and from playing with Panzer Lehr and 116 Panzer I can tell you that they do fell less potent then they should be.

[Amormaliar]

Origineel geplaatst door T12A34N56K:

Also, I know that the Axis have strong CQC decks (I am personally a 6 Cav. fan) but those aren't the stable in 10v10's or on their side in general.

Also, that doesn't change that it takes two ticks to spawn in a panther/tiger, compared to the firefly's one tick. There isn't anything in the Men of Steel DLC that could cause the Axis to be less potent in the armour field, and from playing with Panzer Lehr and 116 Panzer I can tell you that they do fell less potent then they should be.

I think that allies just have better "mentality" in case of 10v10 - they already accepted the fact that they can't win in open field against KT's, so players pick CQC and specialist decks much more... while Axis players can easily pick full team of tank divisions, and then fail at every non-open place.
Idk, there's nothing (as you said) that could affect Axis armour, and even Panthers got price buffs around it (so they're actually better than before).
I think it's mostly connected to current active players for Axis side (and overall balance on battlefield because of it, even for better players) than to some changes in the patch or DLC.
Because overall Axis now stronger than before - 84/97 for Soviets were unique because they have super-heavies and a lot of inf, and now Axis side has Tettau and 715th. And Axis become much stronger against air, with addition of Pancelos divs with Nimrods and Dunkirk german div with super-strong AA (together with existing Toulon). So I honestly don't know what it can be if not the result by current players themselves - because of "domino effect", if one player can't complete his part of the fight - it's harder for the next one.

[sull51]

Romania

"Following the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939, Romania lost almost one third of its territory without a single shot being fired, as Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were annexed[4][5] by the Soviet Union on June 28, 1940, after Romania yielded to a Soviet ultimatum.[6][7][8][9] As a result, King Carol II was forced to abdicate in September 1940, and General Ion Antonescu rose to power."
The above is taken from wikipedia.
They joined the Germans to get their land back from the Russians and made the mistake to continue the war into Russia. Without the Romanian oil fields the German war effort would have been crippled even more. At Stalingrad they were overwhelmed by Russian men and equipment. The Romanians to their discredit caused the death directly or indirectly of several hundred thousand Jews during the war

[Odysseus]

Origineel geplaatst door sull51:

Romania

"Following the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939, Romania lost almost one third of its territory without a single shot being fired, as Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were annexed[4][5] by the Soviet Union on June 28, 1940, after Romania yielded to a Soviet ultimatum.[6][7][8][9] As a result, King Carol II was forced to abdicate in September 1940, and General Ion Antonescu rose to power."
The above is taken from wikipedia.
They joined the Germans to get their land back from the Russians and made the mistake to continue the war into Russia. Without the Romanian oil fields the German war effort would have been crippled even more. At Stalingrad they were overwhelmed by Russian men and equipment. The Romanians to their discredit caused the death directly or indirectly of several hundred thousand Jews during the war

is there any actual evidence the romanians did that to the jews or is this anti-romania slander

[Odysseus]

Origineel geplaatst door Amormaliar:

Origineel geplaatst door T12A34N56K:

Also, I know that the Axis have strong CQC decks (I am personally a 6 Cav. fan) but those aren't the stable in 10v10's or on their side in general.

Also, that doesn't change that it takes two ticks to spawn in a panther/tiger, compared to the firefly's one tick. There isn't anything in the Men of Steel DLC that could cause the Axis to be less potent in the armour field, and from playing with Panzer Lehr and 116 Panzer I can tell you that they do fell less potent then they should be.

I think that allies just have better "mentality" in case of 10v10 - they already accepted the fact that they can't win in open field against KT's, so players pick CQC and specialist decks much more... while Axis players can easily pick full team of tank divisions, and then fail at every non-open place.
Idk, there's nothing (as you said) that could affect Axis armour, and even Panthers got price buffs around it (so they're actually better than before).
I think it's mostly connected to current active players for Axis side (and overall balance on battlefield because of it, even for better players) than to some changes in the patch or DLC.
Because overall Axis now stronger than before - 84/97 for Soviets were unique because they have super-heavies and a lot of inf, and now Axis side has Tettau and 715th. And Axis become much stronger against air, with addition of Pancelos divs with Nimrods and Dunkirk german div with super-strong AA (together with existing Toulon). So I honestly don't know what it can be if not the result by current players themselves - because of "domino effect", if one player can't complete his part of the fight - it's harder for the next one.

Panthers and Tigers are significantly worse than 17 pdr vehicles because - the Firefly, Achilles, 17pdr all go through Tiger and Panther armor as consistently as Tigers and Panthers go through Firefly and Achilles armor, fireflies are cheaper, so when you double up fireflies you may lose one firefly but you are guaranteed it is traded for a panther, this leads to a snowball effect because with their armor/firepower balance at a certain threshold they are functionally identical, with neither bouncing or missing often enough to cause a difference in long term pt value.
The Panther may beat the Firefly 6/10 times in a 1v1, but you rarely see Panther and Fireflies fighting consistent 1v1s its typically a two or more trading with a panther or overwhelming them.
Problem is the firefly price is way too cheap for being able to trade with the "Panther Class". Germans dont really have a lot of tank variation while the allies have high armor mediums, high firepowerpower mediums, cheap and fast mediums, and balancing variations of those, where the Germans have either the well balanced PzIV or the Panther, and thats it, and the Panther is easily negated by any division which has more than 1 FireFly card.