Things that immediately stood out to me:
- M8 Scott costs no fuel upkeep and considerably less manpower upkeep than a Chaffee which does cost fuel upkeep
vehicles in general cost no fuel and scott is considered one. In my private version i did add very slight upkeep on vehicles... like two cost 1 fuel in game at the end. So you can spam as many vehicles as you want without any hurts to your upkeep... thats a bit dump...
- Jagdpanther having incredibly low upkeep, priced around a bit higher than a Panzer 4 in MP and fuel
Long time ago there was a replay with double jagdpanther.... i got asked if its normal that they cost so little upkeep (basically as low as stubby tank IV or something).... i provided datas and for me it doesnt look like its itentional, just as the 1 upkeep for hetzer wasnt in the past.
I really don't like how lots of infantry units have basically the same upkeep as well. Riflemen, Airborne, Rangers, etc. basically most elite and non-elite units have the same upkeep numbers.
Its not orientated on what kind of unit it is but rather which faction you play... Brits are generally quite low and their tanks cost not much MP but lots of fuel upkeep, us cost much in both, WH is very low for their inf, no matter which and PE is between US and brits.
So a single riflemen will cost you 2 manpower from your income which is the same as a Ranger. So it's not technically viable in the late, late game to get riflemen again in mass numbers because the Ranger will be a better long term pay-off thanks to this. I don't really like riflemen draining 2 MP a man either because 6 riflemen is 12 MP gone from the pool in the early game. It doesn't seem like much, but in high resource games the upkeep becomes increasingly noticeable depending on how many riflemen squads are built early on. Same problems exist on Wehrmacht side involving Volksgrenadiers and Grenadiers; but it's better here because Volksgrenadiers have a really cheap reinforce cost and losing them isn't as punishing as losing Grenadiers.
in my private version i dropped build cost for grens for example in exchange for higher upkeep. I am not so much a friend of super expensive units which are actually considered "regular units". I prevented "overspam" simply via upkeep... It allows more comebacks for players and its easier to re-create a "basic army" later on but effectively prevents spam of certain units. Currently, once you lost a bunch of units you never find back to a "combat ready" army that contains basic stuff like mortar, HMG and inf squads bc getting such basics requires lots of time in which you are effectively out of battle.
I would standardize a lot of the upkeep to an upkeep-to-cost ratio. It would make balancing units a lot easier as some upkeep rates hide how 'really easy to maintain' some units are over others in numbers. An example of this is how a Sherman E8 has the same upkeep as both variants of the Jackson. If resources were infinite but you were tied to a certain upkeep as a 'cap.' The Jackson in numbers would always be better for tank-killing than using an E8 for the job. The upkeep doesn't represent this stuff, and it is hard to notice without looking at the raw numbers in the game files. Certain units do have patterns to their upkeep related to their cost such as the stug 4 to panzer 4 to panther (getting higher the more it costs) but it doesn't look to me like most are done in that way.
True, but i would keep faction individuality bc that is what makes fun at the end... having all factions differently in all aspects. Thus i do like going with worse upkeep-cost ratio into game as US, but having the advantage later on.... like landing and holding ground in normandy landing is hard, but if you stay alive and have your harbours build up and supply rushes in, you can take the lead. And thats something i just love in this CW-US synergy which is unmatched by axis factions.
On another point, the Scott is using VCoH veterancy modifiers such as 25% penetration boost at vet 2 (which is pointless for it since it 'penetrates' everything anyway).
bc it counts as vehicle... many have vcoh vet boosts.
@Viper: Surviviability vets beat out damage vet boosts. Why? bc it makes you better against all enemie damage types... arty, HE, bullets.... damage boosts by vet helps you dealing damage but only against those you can harm at all. You have a vet 3 rifle squad with massive damage boost? fine, your enemie throws only tanks and arty at you.
received damage reduction and survivability boosts are always more usefull than damage boost modifiers.