Not everyone has asked for replays, and quite frankly your inabillity to believe us is a bit annoying.
As is your attempting to shove "DUNOVS ARE IMBALANCED" down our throats, if you want to get personal. Besides, I never said I don't believe you, just that I'm not convinced after reading all of it.
Oh and the Devs don't demand a replay of every little issue, you have as much a burden of proof to make as I in your assertions that certain strategies will work. I have at least been making the effort to conduct tests and play it out. You are just talking, and claiming that without a replay my opinion doesn't seem to count, whereas yours without a replay does.
No they don't, but do you honestly believe they'll be convinced by a single forum thread without any supporting evidence that they can clearly see for themselves? And if they wouldn't be, why should anyone else? No, the burden of proof is on you because you are arguing for a change. The ironic thing is, you are not presenting yours as an opinion, but as a dead-on fact, without providing any supporting evidence that people can clearly see for themselves.
Please propose a better balance test; and if you seriously suggest just playing the game with no limits to review specific variables, then please don't call it a test.
I'm not calling it a test, but yes that's what you need to do, though not to review anything specific other than "Does getting 3 Dunovs at the start allow a player to win almost any game". I've beaten 2 players' combined fleets with my own more than once, nobody raved about imbalances, but in one of those cases it meant squat because I couldn't capture a single of my opponent's planets due to culture, so winning that fight meant absolutely nothing.
As I said, to make a good case you need to show how triple Dunovs win games just because it's triple Dunovs, not how they can win individual battles. Case in point, when I played a 1v1 with Schod, he won 4 or 5 battles in a row with my fleets (beat me back, often destroying the vast majority of my forces, while I gained no ground in my attacks), but he only needed to lose one for the deciding moment in the game.
So while winning the game despite battles is possible, its not the majority or major factor in most games.
So the triple-Dunov player can win a majority of battles by being able to keep those 3 capitals alive, while losing most/all of his frigate support because a) The level of micro needed for those 3 Dunovs is immense, leaving no reaction time to micro frigates, and

a competent player will ignore/keep the 3 Dunovs disabled and shred the support frigates, instead. So even if the 3 Dunovs remain standing at the end, are you then going to assault a fully defended planet with a small fraction of your remaining fleet? Nope, you wouldn't win. So in the end, what does winning that battle count for? Nothing, because you're not left with enough to press any advantage.
Having said all that, stop arguing on a personal level. I don't care for it, and it's not needed in this thread. I'm not bashing you, but as you're trying to convince folks of this imbalance, I am pointing out what exactly that entails, and that you do need to provide visible supporting evidence.