Is Allied vs Soviet Balanced?

[ore_truck]

TD are good in countering rushes and slow down a soviet player at that point.

[XXxPrePxX]

2 hours ago, ore_truck said:

TD are good in countering rushes and slow down a soviet player at that point.

No :p, never. In all cases, grizzly tanks are better than TD's. When my opponent buys TD's, I know I have a freewin. 

 

[Lud0wig]

2 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

grizzly tanks are better than TD's. When my opponent buys TD's, I know I have a freewin. 

How so?

[CekaJ (Jake)]

Allied vs Soviet in yuri's revenge is balanced if super weapons are turned off. A lot of the time the specific map dictates which faction has more of an advantage. (I.e. Dune Patrol Soviet map, Reconcile Allied map)  That being said if super weapons are turned on Iraq has more maps overall where they have an advantage over Allied. Probably somewhere around 65 - 75% of maps are soviet. With them off it's closer to 50% Allied maps and 50% percent soviet maps with many maps where it doesn't matter what you pick. 

*one side note though* Since supers are off ban France since they can be overpowered on some maps. Also ban Yuri for the same reason.  Ur left with a balanced game 

ALSO PLAY WITH MULTI ENGINEER ON HOLY SHIT 

Edited October 16, 2017 by CekaJ (Jake)

[CekaJ (Jake)]

The series between Marko and Buffalo i organized this last weekend followed those rules and we got many great games out from it. Buffalo even chose Allied against Marko and beat him. Iron curtain has intrinsic problems which make it too powerful and warps the Meta into a soviet one. (one problem being the 4:20 second timer with casting time considered)

Although non-supers games may take longer it balances the game between allied and soviet.

Many games with no active development team use a ban-list to balance it's competitive scene. Since nothing can be buffed due to no development the next best thing is to ban everything that is overpowered. 

Look at Team fortress 2 for example https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Competitive_item_restrictions Development on that game has been slow for the last 10 years and the competitive players took it upon themselves to balance through bans. 

The same philosophy can be applied here if balance is what the current community actually desires. 

Edited October 16, 2017 by CekaJ (Jake)

[CekaJ (Jake)]

All that said,  the current "Competitive Ban-list Rules" are:

• Super weapons Banned
• Yuri Banned
• France Banned
• Multi-engineer on 

 

 

[FlyingMustache]

The IC window is 4:10. IC expires at 4:10.

[Lucifer]

12 hours ago, CekaJ (Jake) said:

All that said,  the current "Competitive Ban-list Rules" are:

• Super weapons Banned
• Yuri Banned
• France Banned
• Multi-engineer on 

 

 

 u should consider putting a sexy, fair, veteran player in charge of choosing the settings / maps for ur showmatches mate. I  recommend xxprepxxxx. Hes been around for decades, has played at the highest levels-- and is a logical fellow-- he understands what makes things competitive and what does not. I say this because Superweapons are actually essential for ggs. Both competitive and for fun

 

 

[dkeeton]

1 hour ago, Lucifer said:

14 hours ago, CekaJ (Jake) said:

All that said,  the current "Competitive Ban-list Rules" are:

• Super weapons Banned
• Yuri Banned
• France Banned
• Multi-engineer on 

 

 

 u should consider putting a sexy, fair, veteran player in charge of choosing the settings / maps for ur showmatches mate. I  recommend xxprepxxxx. Hes been around for decades, has played at the highest levels-- and is a logical fellow-- he understands what makes things competitive and what does not. I say this because Superweapons are actually essential for ggs. Both competitive and for fun

 

Help me understand... You've said in this very thread that Allies are worse than Soviets. So now you seem to be arguing that Chronosphere is equivalent or better than Iron Curtain.

Is that the argument you are making? Can you compare the 2  supers? (Or is there something I'm missing here?)

[XXxPrePxX]

23 minutes ago, dkeeton said:

Help me understand... You've said in this very thread that Allies are worse than Soviets. So now you seem to be arguing that Chronosphere is equivalent or better than Iron Curtain.

Is that the argument you are making? Can you compare the 2  supers? (Or is there something I'm missing here?)

You are missing something, it's a bit of a complex situation.

In a vacuum, there is no doubt that Iron curtain >> Chronosphere. For one, there is less risk involved with using the IC, for two, there is a 5 minute timer compared to the 7 minute timer. It would be much more even if they both were on 5 minute timers. Although, the chronosphere might have more impact (which is why WW likely gave it a 7 minute timer instead of a 5 minute timer).

However, what is being missed here is that not every map is created equally. Some maps rely on superweapons to give the factions a chance. One quick example might be hammer and sickle. To demonstrate this example more easily, let's say the allied player is spot 1 (top right island) and the soviet player is spot 3 (bottom left). In a 1on1 without superweapons, it would be realistic for the allied player to have seals/tanyas at the bridges, somehow take naval control, and *almost* be unattackable. Sure, there are ways for a soviet player to outsmart the allied player, but it becomes incredible difficult with no supers on (i.e. seals make sure soviets can't cross bridges, and allied dolphins make sure soviets can't build navy, rendering the soviet helpless without supers). Superweapons here allow the soviet player to nuke or iron curtain important parts (generally, the nuke is placed where the navy seal would detonate the bridge, allowing the soviet player certain time to then use the iron curtain to get over the bridge).

 

Now, that's just one example, but you can look further like Death Valley girl and Isle of War, both maps with clinch points that when the game duration is lengthy, the only logical way for a soviet to win is with the superweapon.

The soviet superweapon becomes a rather polarizing option, then. I think this argument shows the superiority of the curtain over the chronosphere.

There is not many maps where the allieds chronosphere gives them an advantage/disadvantage. The chronosphere is just... there, it's useful on all maps, almost equally (that is, in the very rare occurence that the allied player actually gets to use it).

Now, of course, soviets are generally better than the allieds on (just a rough estimate) 70% of 1on1 maps, but that doesn't mean the 30% left over should heavily favour allies (i.e. certain maps without super weapons), because that isn't fair as well. Of course, we could go map by map and analyze the battle tactics and what maps the iron curtain is necessary on to make sure the long game allied vs. soviet match up still allows the soviet player to win.

We can also think about it in another strategic way. Some soviet players (myself not included) actually like to play the long game vs. allieds and in YR, an allied army long-game is incredibly difficult to handle. The battle fortresses neutralize the desolator if handled properly and an army of mirage/prisms can easily take out rhinos. In this situation, the iron curtain is a necessity. Although, so very little allied players have the capability/skill these days to actually make this a realistic concern. It takes an incredible amount of skill to be able to handle a large diverse allied army such that it annihilates a soviet force.

[heldro]

so ye anytime i say ic is just too damn powerfull (on most maps) there will be sombody saying "but heldro everyone knows allieds are OP without supers!" sure if the game drags on too long and allieds build some bf, mirage and prism it will become hard for the soviet player. but you can use the same argument against soviets with sw. once the ic is up you have like 2 minutes to make something happen before ic is ready. if you dont succeed and you are lucky the ic dident totally destroy you the first time you have 2 more minutes before you will get run over by ic again. 

when playing larger (allied) maps its not that big of a problem as when you are playing a map that allready favors sov. chronosphere is usually not a good answer since it takes more time and money to build (nuclear plant is basicly free if you sell powerplants) and ofc the timer is faster. even if you get the chance to use your chrono how are you gonna use it to stop ic? chronoing prism tanks to kill buildings is easy to stop (force shield & deso's) and you will probably be outtanked pretty hard if you decided to build chronosphere and some prism tanks. "but heldro you can also chrono his rhinos in the water!" ye maybe you can chrono 6-9 rhino's if you get lucky and if there is water woop ti doo, thats not gonna help you when ic allready stormed over you 2 times. 

"but heldro allieds can make bf's and they destoy rhino's!" yes they are good but making a bf becomes pretty useless with superweapons on, by the time you have your bf ready and at your enemy base the ic will be ready and your bf cant run away anymore. "but heldro you can just go multiple warfactory's to counter the ic!" nop, it wont work very well either since grizzly allready builds slow to start with, you gonna need like 4/5 wf's and time to be able to finally outtank your opponent, but by the time you managed to do that, guess what; the ic is allready done a few times. then i hear people say: "but heldro just dont let the soviet get ic!" allieds are not really build to rush and kill the soviet early. soviets can easily hold off any early allied rush with deso's and flack cannons gl countering that before lab."but heldro just seal his ic/lab!!" desolator says no. "but heldro just kill the lab before he can build ic!" yes that is probably the best way to do it by planes or splits. 

the thing that just bothers me is that with sw the soviet player can just be passive and wait for his ic over and over while the allied player is forced to make something happen before ic will be ready and soviet can dictate the game. while it is the soviet faction who is made able to be agressive. if supers are off and allied decides to go for an "unbeatable" mirage prism bf combination the soviet player is actually capable to pressure and try to stop that early on in game, or go multiple warfactory's to counter that. 

like i said before it mostly depends on the map there are some maps where sw are balanced and some maps where it is actually needed for sov to break allied camp(death valley girl) there are even some maps where supers favor the allied player(artic circle, depth charge). but most maps allready favor sov and those map favor sov even more with sw. these are maps like: dune patrol, tour, tournament b, dry heat, hidden valley. 

this is all based on 1v1 allied vs sov. in team games supers are fine.

[ore_truck]

what

[LeOwNzAll]

17 hours ago, CekaJ (Jake) said:

All that said,  the current "Competitive Ban-list Rules" are:

• Super weapons Banned
• Yuri Banned
• France Banned
• Multi-engineer on 

 

 

Hi Cekaj, 

I disagree with your "Competitive Ban-list Rules" -

Real Time Strategy (RTS) game means that you have to be smarter than your opponent.

SW - Yuri - France - Engineer are part of games. And they are not over/underpowered. 

 

 

2 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

You are missing something, it's a bit of a complex situation.

In a vacuum, there is no doubt that Iron curtain >> Chronosphere. For one, there is less risk involved with using the IC, for two, there is a 5 minute timer compared to the 7 minute timer. It would be much more even if they both were on 5 minute timers. Although, the chronosphere might have more impact (which is why WW likely gave it a 7 minute timer instead of a 5 minute timer). So there is doubt :).

There is no doubt that using IC is easier than chrono. It requires less skill.

However, what is being missed here is that not every map is created equally. Some maps rely on superweapons to give the factions a chance. One quick example might be hammer and sickle. To demonstrate this example more easily, let's say the allied player is spot 1 (top right island) and the soviet player is spot 3 (bottom left). In a 1on1 without superweapons, it would be realistic for the allied player to have seals/tanyas at the bridges, somehow take naval control, and *almost* be unattackable. Sure, there are ways for a soviet player to outsmart the allied player, but it becomes incredible difficult with no supers on (i.e. seals make sure soviets can't cross bridges, and allied dolphins make sure soviets can't build navy, rendering the soviet helpless without supers). Superweapons here allow the soviet player to nuke or iron curtain important parts (generally, the nuke is placed where the navy seal would detonate the bridge, allowing the soviet player certain time to then use the iron curtain to get over the bridge).

 

Now, that's just one example, but you can look further like Death Valley girl and Isle of War, both maps with clinch points that when the game duration is lengthy, the only logical way for a soviet to win is with the superweapon.

The soviet superweapon becomes a rather polarizing option, then. I think this argument shows the superiority of the curtain over the chronosphere.

There is not many maps where the allieds chronosphere gives them an advantage/disadvantage. The chronosphere is just... there, it's useful on all maps, almost equally (that is, in the very rare occurence that the allied player actually gets to use it).

You point something completly right, but it DOES NOT mean than IC > Chrono, it means that soviet NEEDS IC in late game because their tier-3 unit are bullshits (apoc/kirov etc.) only chopper, can be, in very few map/case interesting. 

Now, of course, soviets are generally better than the allieds on (just a rough estimate) 70% of 1on1 maps, but that doesn't mean the 30% left over should heavily favour allies (i.e. certain maps without super weapons), because that isn't fair as well. Of course, we could go map by map and analyze the battle tactics and what maps the iron curtain is necessary on to make sure the long game allied vs. soviet match up still allows the soviet player to win.

We can also think about it in another strategic way. Some soviet players (myself not included) actually like to play the long game vs. allieds and in YR, an allied army long-game is incredibly difficult to handle. The battle fortresses neutralize the desolator if handled properly and an army of mirage/prisms can easily take out rhinos. In this situation, the iron curtain is a necessity. Although, so very little allied players have the capability/skill these days to actually make this a realistic concern. It takes an incredible amount of skill to be able to handle a large diverse allied army such that it annihilates a soviet force.

Here you point the only problem. The skill of people today is low. And allied requires skill. So there are very few people can really play allied. It's not the fault of balance or soviet or IC or whatever. It's the fault of players. To be better they need competition, they need train, they need to find issue, they need to improve. Don't complain.

It seeams that 80% people here (maybe more) wants to make a game with Allied/Sov are the same faction. So make a game only mirror. Sov vs Sov. balance is easy. there is no tactics. no smart game. Only TC. It's not RTS game. 

 

Since the start of Yuri's we know that : Sov are better in short game, and the easiet faction. Yuri are more middle game, better than allied in short game, but not as good as sov. And Allied requires more skill and are better in long game. 

And that's the point of RTS game. Allied vs Sov, Sov will try to make the game shorter possible. Allied will do his best to resist. And if Allied succeed, Sov will try to handle with the powerful allied, with IC, with deso, with smart things (engi rush etc.). 

If you want to make a RTS game you have to make these little unbalance (sov short game are better, easy to play with, allied better in long game, harder to play with).

It's the same in WC3; SC2; CnC3 etc.

so just play, do your best to find tactics to win. Don't complain about APP to slow to make; about IC too short etc. find how to slow down/resist soviet cause of APP; find how to make IC useless etc. and there lot of ways !

 

[XXxPrePxX]

I think the point is that in a balanced game between 2 *equally* skilled opponents, the soviet player will win more than the allied player.

As we agree, the allied player takes more skill to defeat the soviet player, in a competition between two equally skilled players, the soviet wins out.

And therefore, soviet is OP compared to allieds.

 

Which, is not really a bad thing, it's part of the reason we all love this game.

[XXxPrePxX]

23 hours ago, Lud0wig said:

How so?

Forgot to respond to this.

Well, there's two ways we can examine the situation. One way is that I can go through  possible scenarios and show that Tank destroyers are not useful (meaning -- in all situations, America/GB/Korea are better than Germany), or you can try to find a situation that you think Germany is more useful then the other given allied nations. I think, for time purposes (and not to bore every reader here) it would be better for you to try to come up with a game scenario (competitive) where German Tank destroyers are actually more useful then American Paradrops / Korean Eagles / Great Britan Snipers.

The only situation that I can think of that comes close is a meat grinder situation where there is basically unlimited money (so no air units, no tech units, but lots of money) in which case the TD is an upgrade to grizzly in tank combat and the unlimited money allows you to build them extremely fast. But even in this completely noncompetitive scenario (unlimited money is not competitive) I'd still likely take Korean Eagles or GB snipers over them to try to neutralize the desolator.

My argument is that you can not find a competitive 1on1 situation that makes the TD's more useful.

 

Just to argue ore trucks comment: " TD are good in countering rushes and slow down a soviet player at that point. "

While that is very vague, in all scenarios I'd rather have either free paradrop + grizzly tanks or grizzly + eagles, or GGI ifv's. Tank destroyers are useless because they are slow, cost more money, and can't kill enemy buildings or infantry. Sure, you *might* slow down a soviets early attacks with a couple tank destroyers, but that'd only be because the soviet decided to chill out and take the massive economic and land advantage you just gave him and use it to his advantage (and thus, instead of possibly dieing early game, you now definitely die mid-game).

My initial comment was that " grizzly tanks are better than TD's. When my opponent buys TD's, I know I have a freewin.  "

I probably should say instead of grizzly tanks, the other allied units are better than TD's. There's likely scenarios where grizzly tanks won't be better per se, but grizz+para definitely will, or IFV's, or rocketeers, etc.

I know I have a freewin when my opponent buys TD's because it's a gigantic waste of money that no allied player has vs. a skilled soviet player like myself.

 

Edited October 17, 2017 by XXxPrePxX

[a1nthony]

Yes, allies require quite a lot of skill and precision to defeat soviets on most maps, the main problem is the middle game when soviets have a lot of rhino tanks and desos, splits are the allied weakness. This is why a lot of  older skillful allied players played pressure allies which you rarely see these days just because you need good control (macro and micro). Most maps with choke points give allies strategic benefits but soviets still have a better chance when their is a fight for resources in the middle. Soviets are definitely the easier, more reliable faction to use without a doubt...

Edited October 17, 2017 by a1nthony

[VWWWWWWWWWWW]

Allies are easier on YR than on ra2 by far. Para is much stronger, and BF can fk a whole army up and basically eliminate desos, which is huge if you have a bunch of mirage/prism tanks. I'm guessing that's why SW have always been on for YR, and why they are usually off on ra2. And most people just 3v3 anyways, which makes controlling the map/splitting a non-issue in most cases because the map is already full, and you have 2 people to help you vs a rush. If SW is off in those cases then allies have a huge advantage.  

And there is no reason you shouldn't be able to play both sov + allies. If the map seems to favor sov, then either go sov or don't cry. If the map seems to favor allies, then go allies or don't cry.

Edited October 18, 2017 by VWWWWWWWWWWW

[Lucifer]

6 minutes ago, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

Allies are easier on YR than on ra2 by far. Para is much stronger, and BF can fk a whole army up and basically eliminate desos, which is huge if you have a bunch of mirage/prism tanks. I'm guessing that's why SW have always been on for YR, and why they are usually off on ra2 .

 

Everything is easier in YR...its a much slower, more economically friendly version of the game where defense is enhanced. i.e. forceshield. It is not a very dynamic game, the tactics need to be very carefully selected so you have to be SMART to win, whereas in ra2 the tactics are right around every corner--  need to be tactical / fast / multitasking in order to win. In YR, superweapons are on to make the game more dynamic and more fun. Watch the Marko vs Tej series. There is indeed very little movement going on--- u need supers! 

 

Easier does not mean better though. The more dynamic nature of ra2 allows allies to hit and run more effectively. Also, for reasons i cant fully explain (due to the difference of physics in the game) both grizzly tanks / rocketeers are more reliable vs soviet units than in yR. But as you said, the battle fortress is outta control powerful. It, amongst many other things in yuris revenge, makes the AvS matchup highly asymmetrical causing allied maps to be ALLIED maps and sov maps to be SOV maps, whereas in ra2, the matchup is more symmetrical and its about the same on any map-- which is what makes the game more balanced  By symmetrical i mean constant exchange-engagements. In yuris, everything hits everything else so hard, you cant really engage unless you have the advantage. 

18 hours ago, a1nthony said:

Yes, is is why a lot of  older skillful allied players played pressure allies 

 

boom shalalaka

[Gun_Man]

On 10/16/2017 at 1:05 PM, CekaJ (Jake) said:

All that said,  the current "Competitive Ban-list Rules" are:

• Super weapons Banned
• Yuri Banned
• France Banned
• Multi-engineer on 

Not to be rude, but I just don't get why you get to decide this.  There are a lot of players with a lot more experience, knowledge, and skill who should decide on it if necessary.

[CekaJ (Jake)]

Oh because i haven't played the game for 20 years like you it must be that I am incorrect with my opinions. But yeah, there really is no point in debating this actually because nothing said here can be proven without any evidence. Maybe once the quick match is up and running well Grant can provide us with the statistics oh which factions win the most on which maps. If they could turn supers off for a month maybe we would see a trend

[Lucifer]

2 hours ago, CekaJ (Jake) said:

it must be that I am incorrect with my opinions. 

Yes, it must.

 

--VWWWWW, one of the true GOATs (that stands for greatest of all time) is telling you why superweapons are on.   If there is anyone on the planet to listen to--this is the guy.

--Prep, one of the most famous and experienced YR / Ra2 players in the history of the series, is telling you at wonderfully articulated length why supers need to be on. Just....read his explanation 

--Gunman, one of the better current allied players, is telling you why you shouldnt make the rules. 

--Lucifer, the Lord O' freakin' darkness, is telling you why supers need to be on.

--Leozownall, a random noob, is telling you that you aint qualified to make the rules.

 

2 hours ago, CekaJ (Jake) said:

nothing said here can be proven without any evidence.

I i know its difficult, but you should try the other half of communication-- its called listening. 

[[NRA]Rocketeer]

 

On ‎18‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 4:23 PM, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

Allies are easier on YR than on ra2 by far. Para is much stronger, and BF can fk a whole army up and basically eliminate desos, which is huge if you have a bunch of mirage/prism tanks. I'm guessing that's why SW have always been on for YR, and why they are usually off on ra2. And most people just 3v3 anyways, which makes controlling the map/splitting a non-issue in most cases because the map is already full, and you have 2 people to help you vs a rush. If SW is off in those cases then allies have a huge advantage.  

And there is no reason you shouldn't be able to play both sov + allies. If the map seems to favor sov, then either go sov or don't cry. If the map seems to favor allies, then go allies or don't cry.

Matt is right, YR is more allies friendly but the Superweapons balance the field! BF's are ridiculously OP on this game. I feel RA2 is more skillfull than YR but YR is still equally as enjoyable.

[XXxPrePxX]

Here's my opinion on Allieds in Ra2 vs. Yr.

Ra2 in general, takes more skill. By skill, I mean TC, BO, taking care of the economy, and similar aspects of the game. This is due to the fast nature of the game. One small mistake with TC or eco and you are really behind/doomed (YR has always been more forgiven, which is why you often have insane comebacks on YR but rarely so on RA2).

As alluded to earlier, Grizzly's and rocketeers seem to just 'work' on Ra2 compared to YR. On YR, they are nothing but fly's on my cars windshield wipers, but on Ra2, those grizz/rockie combinations can do swift damage to me. 

This is why Ra2 allies have always been more of a threat than YR allies to me. 

On YR, when I get matched with any allied player, I know I will control the game for the most part. I know that i'll be able to rush if I want or build up to tech, or build up to multi-war factory. I had no real fear in vsing any allied player back in the late 2000's. In fact, there simply wasn't many great allied players -- perhaps you can say this is due to the lack of players available, but I say it is because the allieds on YR are incredibly difficult to master and sustain over a ranking month. The two best allied players around where Andy and Adam (Phaillure??). Both of which ended up being cheaters apparently (Andy being the obvious cheater at the time).  (In fact, on YR I often went months where my loses were less than 5 per 60+ games, this is due to there being very little risk in soviet vs. allied games)

People mention Battle Fortresses and the late-game advantage of allieds on YR compared to Ra2, but I think that is mostly wrong. In a competitive 1on1, if an allied player can get more than 1 BF against your soviet techniques, then you as a soviet player are failing. The pressure you should be applying to an allied opponent should force them never to have a chance at 2+ BF's unless you have complete map and superweapons control and are just toying with the opponent. In reality, the allied opponent should very rarely get over 1 BF against you. 

Now, in the rare situation that the allied player does get the BF, best of fucking luck to this allied player because he now has to fend off my massive onslaught of rhinos against his 1 BF, a few grizz, maybe some rockies, and building mirages. Good luck in defending against splits on certain maps during this period of vulnerability. It takes an incredibly skilled allied user to be able to handle his/her diverse and limited forces in stopping multiple attacks by the soviet. If that's not it, this is usually when the iron curtain is getting ready. 

I mentioned first in this post, that Ra2 takes more skill, but the difference is that YR takes very particular strategy. In the extreme limits, YR takes an insane amount of skill (late game allieds management, yuri management in general takes a lot of skill), but these limits are rarely met. 

I think if we want to look at some measures, just consider the post I made on these forums about the current best allied players. There were very few satisfactory answers. In fact, the best allied players by far were named VWWWWW who is directly from Ra2 as an allied player (and I don't think has quite yet been tested on YR due to there not being a proficient ladder yet), and Justin (who has a clear Ra2 style in the way he uses grizz+para+rockies+seals to harass). Everyone else is simply name drops to make a list of top 10. 

As an allied player, I choose to use the Ra2 Style on YR as well. This is because there is less risk involved. Going late-game tech on YR is asking for the soviet player to enter your base and/or essentially giving the soviet player the complete control advantage of the map/game. 

I think there is a common misbelief that YR Allieds >> Ra2 allieds in the community. This is fueled by Battle fortresses, GGI, and strong GI's. But it doesn't help much in 1on1's if the allied player is dead in the first 3 minutes (the serious change is that it is actually easier to rush allieds on YR then it is on Ra2). 

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by XXxPrePxX

[Gun_Man]

11 hours ago, CekaJ (Jake) said:

Oh because i haven't played the game for 20 years like you it must be that I am incorrect with my opinions. But yeah, there really is no point in debating this actually because nothing said here can be proven without any evidence. Maybe once the quick match is up and running well Grant can provide us with the statistics oh which factions win the most on which maps. If they could turn supers off for a month maybe we would see a trend

Well I've only played the game for about 2.5 years (gr account opened 6/6/15)...so yeah.  And I was not talking about myself as I still am learning.  But I think, u kno, as people have played this game for maybe 20 years like you said...maybe they can shed light on the argument.  You could go ask them, but they kinda have been talking in this thread already...

[a1nthony]

Allies are just harder to use.  I’ve played against one of the best long game 1v1 Allied players probably the game has ever seen in Dean. I’ve seen allies at a top level from all different sides, and 2 man clanned with multiple top tier allied players(even getting a 2man allied clan into hof)I bring up clanning because on xwis sws were usually off in 1v1s and 2v2s. Ok with that out of the way..if you can get to a point where the Soviet player can not pressure you at all, then yes you will 99% win as long as you play properly. Prep is 100% right in that going for a quick bf is suicide on most maps As not only will a good sov have 3+war facs already but you’re most likely on one.. how can you counter those splits? While allies do take skill, the way they cekaj is  describing them how to be played seems to be based on soviets Having a low skill level and camping in their base which 100% of good sovs should rush allies, Especially with sws off.  

 

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by a1nthony