You don’t need balancing. You need players. Trying to balance based on population is how we ended up with all of you crying about US capture rates in Normandy. You get competent players and you get dubs. Simple as
The largest reason for this is that Germany is predominately defending. Contrary to what people on here are trying to claim, (that defending is supposedly easier and more likely to succeed), defenders are usually at a distinct disadvantage.
Even though they have infinite lives, it often doesn’t matter due to defenses actually being very flimsy and easy to overcome.
Defenders are not told where their next objective point is going to be, leading them to try to guess if they wish to build anything before the objective actually moves.
All fortifications with the exception of Czech Hedgehogs are destroyed by fragmentation damage, meaning that a single artillery strikes will sweep away anything that defenders manage to put up, unless they manage to put it in a trench (which often means the players have to dig those in addition to trying to build)
Despite it requiring an engineer using their limited resources to build structures, ANY soldier can go up and “deconstruct” a fortification without needing any special tools or costing any kind of resources.
Previous Suggestions:
These 3 suggestions together would quite likely fix the issue of defenders getting decimated by attackers.
The two nations that are the main defenders (Germany and Japan) would have a much more balanced chance of success, as well as the other nations when they do play defense.
I like the suggestion to “match each level separately” - I assume you mean, restricting tiers instead of mixing them, so for example, only BR5 vs BR5 squads. I always wanted this.
It is true though, that the cause of Germany losing is that the veterans already have their stuff unlocked there. It was the most popular faction, now people aren’t playing it anymore.
Defense still is the easier mode, though with the profileration of paras and apcs attackers for sure has evened out the scales a bit. It’s harder to carry a totally inept team than before, because the enemy will flank you eventually unless they too suck. But you can still banzai your way to the action and have no downsides to barricading the way of your enemies to the cap under a mountain of your bots corpses.
The problem with your pro-fortification proposals is as usual that especially a group (like i recall you usually playing as) is that it becames way too easy to completely shut down a cap point. Even now a defense team where a few determined players sow the ground with ap mines and barbed wire can make taking a cap an absolute unfun nightmare.
Not to mention that even in your little idea of “balance,” I don’t really like using an uparmored Pz IV to fight a Pershing. Or in other terms, the Jumbo vs the Tiger. Yeah cause that makes total sense, right?
This game isn’t made for V v V “balance”
My winrate with Germany total is 20%. I’ve won only two games as Germany on defense this season. I’ve won maybe 5 matches total as Germany this season. the only reason I’m still at 20 is because of my 70% winrate back with the campaign system.
I’ve also barely played Moscow at all, I’m playing maps that belong in BR 3-5 and I’m BR2. I’m not getting the right maps.
Germans were on point this morning. They gave all kinds of hell in Normandy Assault and pushed us all the way off the map. Their pilots were really good, too. Every time I rocketed the ground, I had an Me-109 on my tail within 10s of pulling out to go rearm and they’d drop with a single burst (kid you not. Shot down twice with zero warning; landed my plane after flaming another one and taking critical damage the 3rd time…he crashed and burned right as I was belly landing in a field)