Some of the so-called “balance” measures in the game have created obvious imbalances, such as Normandy now, where I have hardly won a single victory in recent weeks, and the US forces are occupying points almost twice as fast as the Axis powers, and they have much higher manpower after capturing a strategic point. The same problem existed in battles such as Berlin and Tunisia. This imbalance makes playing the game extremely painful, especially now that get level up in the game is a long and difficult process.This makes it difficult to give up the game level you have already earned and join the other party, because the price is obviously unacceptable. I would like to ask whether the official guarantee is that at least the probability of victory for both sides is about half, rather than simply one-sidedness as is the case now. 
And how?
It could get better with merge. Try to wait ±1 month. And we will see if it’s get better.
In fact, I don’t have a lot of hope for merging, because if the result of merging is just to build the tech tree system instead of changing the actual structure of each campaign, this pain will still exist in future games.
Setting the balance should be ensured by modifying the weapon data and the number and level of real players in the battle, rather than simply giving one side a greater advantage, which will only create an imbalance as it is now.
That’s because for quite some lone time axis were dominating there, so the devs tried to desperately help less skilled playerbase.
And they didn’t it change it yet to mirror current situation.
But in my opinion, this stuff should be always the same for both faction. I don’t think this is good way how to balance something.
The problem is, that enlisted is simply online game, and especially f2p game. Every kid with super bad computer can run it.
Matchmaking will never balanced. It’s problem in basically every other f2p game like this. It’s problem in wot and wt… And it was like that for years.
Constantly changing stats of weapons to try balance thing out isn’t solution too.
You should just accept the fact it will never be balanced. But it’s just casual sandbox, it doesn’t matter very much. Yet it can be very annoying.
The tickets and cap rates are constantly adjusted to make up for one side getting stacked super hard in a given campaign. If there are no more individual campaigns for people to stack, then there should no longer be a need to have asymmetric tickets and cap rates. Instead they will likely look to weapon BR levels to try and balance things in the future.
However, it is clear that this fact is impossible to accept. And this imbalance will also be a harm to the game itself, after all, as long as a normal person does not want to be simply slaughtered by the other party every day when playing the game. The more people will choose to join the side with a higher probability of winning, which will make the number of active players on the other side continue to decrease, then sooner or later the game will change from a PVP game to a PVE game. What’s the point of that?
It didn’t harm WOT nor WT for 10 years.
But the current situation is, for example, in a 10v10 attack, if I were an attacking American I would only need to take points in half the time and get more manpower, but if I were a German, I would have to kill three times or more targets to achieve the actual combat balance. That is, one player must be a professional or even a superman to achieve such a goal.
Nah, in most cases it’s something like 4 vs 7 or 2 vs 6 and rest just filled with bots.
That’s the biggest imbalance problem.
In all likelihood it will go back to being Axis stacked as soon as they get their paratroopers. And in a month or so it hopefully won’t matter anymore.
I have played WT for 11 years, so I know very well what such a system will entail. And WT is not so outrageously unbalanced, and it is equally annoying to encounter this excessive imbalance when playing WT.
I discussed this with some of my friends who were also playing enlisted (most of them were just like me, starting the game when it went live, and some even participated in the closed beta). It was clear that the existence of the grenade in the current version was very low, and the FG42’s 20-round magazine made it almost incomparable to the existing 100-round weapons of the two US Airborne Units.And more people will participate in the event only to obtain this paratrooper unit as a collectible, which means that the situation of the German army in Normandy may be even sadder after this event.
The current para MG really isn’t that OP. I would still rather use some BAR options instead.
But it’s kinda easy to point out things like that. For example tiger vs it’s merican equivalent 76mm sherman/m10 (don’t exactly recall which one) .
You are kinda overacting on influence that mericans paras has. They’re are not so broken as it seems.
And I am Germany main, so I wouldn’t even care if they got nerfed. I think it’s just not needed. Let mericans have something fun. I don’t have any problem to facing it.
The imbalance of equipment is extremely overrated thing in this game. I don’t even think it’s problem.
The problem is in imbalance of players and theirs individual skills.
I agree especially for when you’re attacking or defending that extra split second reloading can be devastating and the one thing that I’ve learned from playing this game bigger magazines always win
They will never fix this because they think this is really “balanced.”
Thats basically the same except it affects weapons and not ticket and cp rates.
Except FG has better recoil, more dmg and better drop and way better accuracy and the event one also has grenade rifles.
Its not like 20 mag Beretta vs PPSh.