Dont you guys have stats on how many ppl play what factions/doctrines/unlocks? Then also have stats for what was killed in the battle. Aka, battle 393920 for player 1 had 30% from rifflemen, 10% sniper, 60% sherman and ect ect ect..
Nope, we dont. The data itself would be useless and skewed due to player preferences rather than usable as statistical data for balance.
Whithout any kind of overall auditing controls, balance is going to be just guessing or you will be able to spot major imbalances. So i would encourge this wealth of infomation be posted automatically and such for each build. Without it, its just a shot in the dark.
Again, as a balance tool - Id disagree with its worth. As a statistical tool to see what IS being used, thats about it.
Your goal should be to have roughly about every faction / doctrine choice / unlock equally used. Why? Well, if you don't your metagame is going to fuck up balance big time. Let me explain.
If everyone plays axis defensive because its so bad ass and the allies all play airborne because its also equally bad ass much more so than the other doctines.... Well now when you start balancing the game, your not really balancing anything. Your balancing the entire game based on 2 specific factions with certain doctrine choices.
Here is where I believe your example is partially flawed. Firstly, perception of power of a doctrine can come from more than just selected doctrines or unit choices - personal observation / skill with said units, heresay, following a trend etc.
Thats not the only problem. I personally play Airborne as US or Infantry - not because of the choices, but thats just my gameplay style - I prefer to use troops rather than vehicles, which would further skew the statistics.
The goal should be to make all doctrines be appealable. If you don't the entire gameplay suffer. AKA..KCH spam.. Why is it a problem!?!? The question should be why is everyone playing only that dontrine combo / faction?
KCH spam (purely as an example) - might be more of a problem with their effectiveness vs a strong-point of an infantry company, which multiple people might be playing at the time (even if the total Infantry companies were the lowest of the 3/6 Allied factions) - again, providing a false positive.
Each doctrine indeed *should* be equally attractive as the others, and that is what we balance on - attractive in power/bonuses, yet also utilitarian buffs that can help playstyles rather than units themselves.
All in all, its more of an organic, evolving balancing than a statistical analysis - which quite honestly, we dont have the manpower nor time to invest in something we provide for free.
As the meta-game changes, different strats and balance issues change. What was once seemingly all-powerful, is now mediocre - while the stats themselves have changed.
