I think what makes it popular is that it's pretty much a noob friendly environment, whereas 2v2 - 4v4 are more prevalent with stacks (well, 10v10s can be stacked as well and have been). I think the popularity of 10v10 is testament to the failure of having a working matchmaking system. People want casual games but they don't find them. They can't do the "I would like to join a 3v3 or a 4v4 game, as one player with a bunch of randoms that somewhat match my skill level" with a press of a button, because it doesn't exist. They can however get closer to that experience by joining a 10v10 lobby. By joining a 2v2 - 4v4 lobby you either run into a stack or possibly get teamed with a bunch of players unable to communicate or without knowledge how to play the game. They lack the assurance what a well implemented and skill based matchmaking would provide. It's just safer to hop into a 10v10 and enter brainless mode and hope for the best. At least you can have some fun that way, but due to the very nature of 10v10 communication is hard and usually the games end in a disaster for one side due to bad unit placing, somebody deciding to play artillery division and do f*ck all, or something else, just because they can as they think they can get away with it expecting the other 9 players to pull your weight.
So I think 10v10 is a gimmick and should not really exist if only proper matchmaking existed. Also balancing for it is simply not compatible with the other modes. You simply can't balance properly for that amount of players, what is reasonable amount of planes per battlegroup in a 4v4 match turns into an unreasonable amount in a 10v10 due to the sheer number of players and the possibility to focus so much firepower to such a small area. Same applies for ground forces, and the more players there are and the more they're focusing firepower the more "imbalance" players experience.
I don't see on what basis you could say the popularity of 10vs10 is a testament to the failure of having a working matchmaking system. I've another reason, 10vs10 is popular cause it's... fun ?
10vs10 isn't a noob friendly environnment per se, in fact 10vs10 especially in 4vs4 maps is often more difficult to handle cause you deal with not only your main opponent but with arty and airforce from other players (these arty-airforce strats have their limits in a global strategy, they are points expensive). And as you play in a very small part of the map, there isn't big distances to handle and you have to react quickly cause your direct opponent isn't looking elsewhere.
On the contrary, a big part of what's a 1vs1 game consists to handle all your troops as fast as possible on a large front, the fast player will often win cause his opponent will not see some action elsewhere, he'll do simultaneous pushes on two parts of the map, he'll react quicker to a push himself... It's what we called "skill", it can be argued.
Right, to have one bad player in a 10vs10 game is less worse than in 2vs2, 3vs3 and 4vs4 but it still can turn a game, that doesn't mean the 10vs10 in a whole is a noob friendly environnement.
I don't see what is balance for you. I find the game very much balanced right now, there are ways to counters every deck. BUT as it's a meta game every deck doesn't suit every map and terrain. BUT as it's a meta game, infantry decks will allways prevail in phase A on close encounters with low line of sight, armor decks will always prevail in phase C on long encounters with huge line of sights.
Deleting these differences would be a huge mistake imo.
What your problem is is not 10vs10 itself but the idea you got 20 more chances to get a noob who will loose you your game in a 10vs10. The matchmaking doesn't suit you, you feel there is too many noobs among the players to suit you.
I've seen 10vs10 games where the best kill/losses player on his team is an airforce guy only, who made his team loose in the end cause he couldn't help to hold the ground at all. He killed 5k planes and tanks but still. It happens, it's true.
You may still get in game friends and only play with skilled players if you want to, you have the possibility to do it.
I feel the first thing which made people flee are the disconnections, it was horrific, but it's better than before.
And i say people are fleeing but it could be argued too, in european time there are 350 400 players connected, around 50-70 constant playing games in the evening. This number of players was stable this last two weeks.
To me you have a snobbish way of seeing things only regarding your own experience.
