The rarest Bk units

[Warhawks97]

OK. The WE schwimm is crap. Tought it could cap at least or that it would have abilties like PE one.


60 mm is crap. All mortars are very deadly with huge AOE but the brits 51 is much better than 60 mm which hasnt really more range than rifles (i suspect realism reasons but it cant since all mortars would have the different ranges). The damage seems lower and accuracy as well. The brits 51 mm is simply a lot more deadly. Also 60 mm has 56 seconds build time compared to 30 mm of bigger mortars or mortar HT´s. But talking baout mortars the 81 seem to have a much greater explosion than bigger mortars like 107 or 120 mm mortars. The explosions of the US 107 look pretty small but deadly.


Air runs. I can remember where it was and which map but i watched someones stream and he tried 4 times to call a p-47 straffing run but all got shot down before doing anything by base def. It might be true that US base AA is more deadly but i dont see many axis airplanes or at leats no axis bombing run. Luft player spend ammo into sd2 spam of save it for Henschel to have them available in match deciding tank battles (like hunting the SP).


AB engineers cost 320 mp iirc and can now use minesweepers. They are build/dropped by AB HQ but idk much about their abilities. I think they are the same as those of normal engineers as they look like these.


F2 only cheaper for WE? pretty weird oO. Tought that changes would have affected PE as well.


@markr: I suggested to put the sdkfz 251/17 with 20 mm into PE as Opel Blitz reward buildable in logistic company. Def would have gepard and möbelwagen as AA and the möbelwagen is pretty good air defense.

[lunarwolf]

sry to say it doesn't kill infantry is a bit of an exaggeration. the 60mm mortar is cheaper and comes before any axis mortar - what do you expect? 120mm range and damage for a fraction of the price lol. obviously it isn't the best mortar but it has its uses esp early game and the type of map.

[Tony_Frost]

Of course it has some pros, but its completely leveled by cons of that mortar.

[Warhawks97]

sry to say it doesn't kill infantry is a bit of an exaggeration. the 60mm mortar is cheaper and comes before any axis mortar - what do you expect? 120mm range and damage for a fraction of the price lol. obviously it isn't the best mortar but it has its uses esp early game and the type of map.

its earlier availabe which means not it comes earlier unless you have a very well plan in the early with a mate. If not you first have do get stuff to defend yourself vs PE vehicles, infantry and snipers so seldomly the 60 comes before 81 mm mortar are being deployed. Also on many maps the 61 mm mortar range is that of rifles (slightly more) so on open fields its usually rifle, jeep, pak, rifle/sniper and seldomly a 60 mm mortar. Everything deployed after that comes when we gewts the 81 or PE the HT. On hedgerow maps is often double pak in ealry as US to avoid a PE vehicle rush.

[lunarwolf]

well if you worried about PE, they only have HT mortar so that comes much later esp if they go with scout cars before - giving you all the time to build a 81 mortar HT. Brits have mortars early and those pound and u need a nade, flame, arty to kill them. WH has 81mm at skirmish phase. originally there were no 81mm for US nor the 107mm - now they do. ok for infantry but not for armour doc. if armour gets them then logically PE should get a 81mm mortar from their infantry barracks as well - because as of now no fuel = no mortar. btw, this is not what I suggest and want.

what was interesting before is that each faction had its advantages/disadvantages, thus teamwork was required. as the patches keep coming thick and thin the US is becoming the jack of all trades. do u actually even see anyone bother to build pershings anymore? with double sandbags easy 8, jackson and SP call-in why bother. it's now completely absurd where a Sherman 76 is cheaper than a P4 ausf F2 yet the P4 has not a chance in hell to kill it, how about a rifleman w/ 20 round bar can suppress, but grenadiers with lmg42 or volks with lmg34 can't. a 30 cal jeep that can kill two schwim. seen any volks kill a 30 cal jeep recently without a panzerfaust? the jeep is now like a scout car except it doesn't cost fuel, and doesn't need a logistic center, with armour doc it can even cap as well! I could go on. this is how broken recent patches have become. to top it off I recently had a recoiless rifle hit my elefant frontally taking down 3/4 of it's health this should never happen critical hit or not

[Krieger Blitzer]

The WH Schwim is recently more used by me than the motorbike. It seem to be currently having a much better armor than PE Schwim for some unknown reasons, also... It's possible btw for the scout to use his reconnaissance ability while being inside the car! But sadly not in a direct way.. this requires a tricky method and also a fast hand in order to perform ^^ Look how Mr.nobody did it here through the first minutes of this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C07qymjlK7U

That was one thing, another thing is that if I remember.. the reason of why the Pz4 F2 got a fuel cost reduction only on the Terror doc, is that because when I personally asked Wolf last time on 486 to decrease its cost... I only pointed on the Terror doctrine giving some justifications for that! But I actually forgot totally about the PE ones. However, I surely believe that he doesn't mind if they could get the same slight cost reduction as the Terror ones maybe next time

The 60mm mortar is the earliest available mortar ever! Specifically during 1v1s on SR rules.

[Warhawks97]

well if you worried about PE, they only have HT mortar so that comes much later esp if they go with scout cars before - giving you all the time to build a 81 mortar HT. Brits have mortars early and those pound and u need a nade, flame, arty to kill them. WH has 81mm at skirmish phase. originally there were no 81mm for US nor the 107mm - now they do. ok for infantry but not for armour doc. if armour gets them then logically PE should get a 81mm mortar from their infantry barracks as well - because as of now no fuel = no mortar. btw, this is not what I suggest and want.

what was interesting before is that each faction had its advantages/disadvantages, thus teamwork was required. as the patches keep coming thick and thin the US is becoming the jack of all trades. do u actually even see anyone bother to build pershings anymore? with double sandbags easy 8, jackson and SP call-in why bother. it's now completely absurd where a Sherman 76 is cheaper than a P4 ausf F2 yet the P4 has not a chance in hell to kill it, how about a rifleman w/ 20 round bar can suppress, but grenadiers with lmg42 or volks with lmg34 can't. a 30 cal jeep that can kill two schwim. seen any volks kill a 30 cal jeep recently without a panzerfaust? the jeep is now like a scout car except it doesn't cost fuel, and doesn't need a logistic center, with armour doc it can even cap as well! I could go on. this is how broken recent patches have become. to top it off I recently had a recoiless rifle hit my elefant frontally taking down 3/4 of it's health this should never happen critical hit or not

Yeah, brits have good mortar in early stage which is in many aspects better than the 60 mm. Thing is that the 60 mm mortar is one of the rarest units (only some CW vehicles are more rare).


And nobody uses pershings anymore.... Finally US armor can build tanks and fighting better with quantity. That was the purpose. US Armor and the 76 shermans are strong when being used in numbers and fighting in groups (and with enough ammo for HVAP). Same for AB and so finally AB and Armor doc can play the quantity style pretty well (unlike in older versions) and now its wrong that pershings are being less used? oO. Also the F2 cost for terror 460/60 and 76 sherman 430/55. In 1 vs 1 the chances are much better for the Tank IV when booth use basic AP. Sherman has top turret MG which makes it slightly better vs inf but in late game not really effective against inf still.

Teamwork is more neccessary on allied side and axis are more jack of all trade. I mean just check def, luft, terror,Bk doc. In what to they lack? I recently fought a 2 vs 2 at alsace and we basically won the early stage and enemie had luft and BK doc. They have put simply two 88´s in front of their base with 100 range and turned the game. Calli came a bit too late and calli jeep did not much to counter them. Finally we lost. Two docs actually countered by a single weapon oO (ok it was a small map with low ammo income and well made for 88 but i never seen any axis doc being stopped and beaten by a single weapon oO.

[Wake]

The normal pershing is quite rare as those have stated above, because it is a pretty bad unit. It's armor is really not that much better than that of an E8, yet the pershing costs 830 MP and 160 fuel, which is over twice that of an Easy Eight. And on top of this, the armor player also has to go through 2 phases of fuel upgrades in his tank depot. The pershing also has no top 50 cal, which means it is bad at killing infantry.

Spending the resources on a pershing is a bad decision because you could spend those resources on much better units like the super pershing, pershing ace, or the Jackson.

[lunarwolf]

F2 costs 500 mp and 70 fuel for PE. Terror doesn't need that tank since it has stug, tigers, panthers etc... (when have you seen any1 using terror build one, unless he is clueless?) however PE Luft and SE have little choice in tanks and stuck with this pile of expensive rubbish. to say the F2 beats a 76 Sherman in 1v1 is simply not true. the p4 F2 is more on par with m4 Sherman.

the reason no one fields pershings anymore is because of all this whining which has buffed allied tanks to unrealistic levels. double sandbags/concrete - lol fantasy land? like that would do anything except in someone's mind. in reality it probably just slows down the tanks, anyway result is that Sherman which was a shit tank - aka Ronson, tommy cooker - is now able to fight off panthers, tigers etc... esp with this BS buff for armour doc. essentially making it a heavy tank thus no need for pershing.

personally I think this global double sandbag upgrade should be scrapped coz it's BS. Instead make heavier single sandbagged 76/easy 8 version available in tank depot as a buildable unit, but with appropriate price. ie 550mp and 80 fuel and after a production upgrade 1 ie when Jackson becomes available - BTW that is similar price to P4 w/ sideskirts from TH/BK docs, and we all know they are weaker than a double sandbagged easy8/76. because if Ally tanks get better then their price should reflect that, since we are not in a logic of quantity vs quality anymore. this issue was completely overlooked as patches buffed allied units but didn't include a price premium as well.

in short remove double sandbag. make a single sandbagged version buildable in depot with proper price + production upgrade 1. and then we will see 90mm pershings/jacksons again which are really the units that should be used vs heavier german tanks. shermans are meant to fight p4 not german heavy like tigers. etc... also I think the Super Pershing should be able to be called in again if it has been destroyed, same as Jagtiger or Elefant. never understood why only once.

PS -

@ Warhauks - if you don't know how to counter an 88 by now, then really you shouldn't be making any comments on this forum - i'll give you a clue don't use tanks air strikes, artillery (even the one from tank commander ability does wonders), mortars, etc... do an excellent job, if for some reason infantry can't run up to it and nade/satchel/flame it., as well as snipers if its not reinforced 88. seriously if you blame two 88 in front of their base from losing the match then I think you are missing something a little more fundamental, but yeah blame the OP 88s since it wasn't your fault

@ Wake -> Pershing cost is similar to panther cost and cheaper than tiger, both of which also require a production upgrade cost of 75 fuel - why is it OK for allies to get panther performance from double sandbagged easy8/ Sherman 76 for 1/2 the mp price and 1/3 of fuel costs - how is that balanced? I am Ok with pershings getting a turret gunner

[Krieger Blitzer]

I was seriously thinking of the idea to make the SP available more than a time, using the war machine ability.. I don't actually mind! Since the JT is available more than a time already. We need to see Wolf's opinion here really ^^

The Pershing is able to bounce off several shells from the Panther's gun currently Isn't this worth enough to get it than an upgraded E8? Well... I also wouldn't mind if the Pershing gets a .50 cal on its turret but to be as an upgrade then

[MarKr]

the reason no one fields pershings anymore is because of all this whining which has buffed allied tanks to unrealistic levels. double sandbags/concrete - lol fantasy land? like that would do anything except in someone's mind. in reality it probably just slows down the tanks, anyway result is that Sherman which was a shit tank - aka Ronson, tommy cooker - is now able to fight off panthers, tigers etc... esp with this BS buff for armour doc. essentially making it a heavy tank thus no need for pershing.

I must say that lunarwolf has a point here. In the huge debate where many requested lower price for sandbag upgrades and cheaper SY upgrades, everyone forgot the possible consequences. I think it was Warhawks who supported the idea strongly saying that sandbags are a must in order to have survivable Shermans in lategame. He also mentioned the quantity/quality ratio. Truth be told, by lowering the prices of those upgrades we buffed the quality while keeping the quantity factor untouched. Thinking back, I guess it whould have been better to make upgrades to lower the prices of Shermans even further so to support the intended quantity but keeping it low quality. Then you could either go for numbers in sense of many Shermans or for strength in sense of less Shermans supported by Pershing.
It is kinda weird that Pershings are only available to one doctrine but this doctrine almost never builds them since there is little point in it :/.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Well, but at least from a historical point of view... Pershings didn't see real combats and they were few already cuz they appeared too late on the war! So Shermans were mainly the backbone of the US armored battalions..

[JimQwilleran]

ekhm... what about the wasp? No one uses this unit !

Well, but at least from a historical point of view... Pershings didn't see real combats and they were few already cuz they appeared too late on the war! So Shermans were mainly the backbone of the US armored battalions..

Tiger you really should start reading some sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Remagen "didn't see real combats" -_-


Here you are Tiger:

On 6 March, just after the 3rd Armored Division had entered the city of Cologne, a famous tank duel took place. A Panther tank on the street in the front of Cologne Cathedral was laying in wait for enemy tanks. Two M4A4 Shermans were supporting infantry and came up on the same street as the Panther. They ended up stopping just before the Cathedral because of rubble in the street and didn't see the enemy Panther. The lead Sherman was knocked out, killing three of the five crew. A T26E3 was in the next street over and was called over to engage the Panther. What happened next was described by the T26E3 gunner Cpl. Clarence Smoyer:

We were told to just move into the intersection far enough to fire into the side of the enemy tank, which had its gun facing up the other street [where the Sherman had been destroyed]. However, as we entered the intersection, our driver had his periscope turned toward the Panther and saw their gun turning to meet us. When I turned our turret, I was looking into the Panther's gun tube; so instead of stopping to fire, our driver drove into the middle of the intersection so we wouldn't be a sitting target. As we were moving, I fired once. Then we stopped and I fired two more shells to make sure they wouldn't fire at our side. All three of our shells penetrated, one under the gun shield and two on the side. The two side hits went completely through and out the other side.

Four of the Panther's crew could successfully bail out of the stricken tank before it was destroyed. The action was recorded by a Signal Corps cameraman Tec.Sgt Jim Bates.

https://youtu.be/GkUnMhD2qTY?t=5m26s

[lunarwolf]

I was seriously thinking of the idea to make the SP available more than a time, using the war machine ability.. I don't actually mind! Since the JT is available more than a time already.

I don't agree with war machine ability for SP. a SP costs 2000 mp, it shouldn't be free replacement for a couple of hundred munitions, in fact I think war machine ability should not apply to callipolle and jumbo as well. furthermore, this ability bypasses the cooldown for the call ins.

[MarKr]

ekhm... what about the wasp? No one uses this unit !

I was thinking about giving it the flamethrower with the same stats as Church croc has. It would become very deadly early game vehicle but it would still die to pretty much any AT shot so players would still need to be careful. Though I don't know if it wouldn't make the unit too OP then.

Another idea I had was to give it a plame trap ability similar to SE shwimm.

Not sure what to do with this unit in order to make it an appealing reward choice while not making it too OP.

[Krieger Blitzer]

@illa;
Srsly?! U think I don't know the battle of Cologne incident???!!! U really gotta read my words more accurately then... I only said that there were few Pershings and that they didn't see real combat. I never said that they didn't see any combats, again I only said they didn't see real ones. The Pershing first saw on action was on Feb 1945.. only few were produced, and fighting a Panther in a street is noway a real combat compared to the other hot combats or actions which both the 1942 made Tigers and the 1943 made Panthers participated in during the battle of Kursk for example.. neither it is even compared to what the cheer numbers of Shermans did during the whole Normandy campaign!! Who could deny that Shermans were much more reliable, more common, and that they fought more times than the rare late Pershings?????!!!!!

@Lunar;
This ability costs 250 ammo.. no one seem to be using it currently! Both the JT and the Elephant comes endlessly. So what's ur problem??!!

[JimQwilleran]

hey MarKr, maybe there is another solution. For example leaving Wasp as it is, but adding a new flame unit. The M5A1 with E7-7 Flame Gun, it would replace standard Stuart. It had a flamethrower instead of the main gun (no new model needed). It would also make people build Stuart at all -_-.

If u don't like this idea I think that buffing wasp will be good, but with slight cost increase, so it would be a choice for brit player: wasp or 2nd command truck -> Recce.

[JimQwilleran]

Tiger, I think you have a too idealistic way of seeing the battles of WWII. But I quit further argument with you.

[lunarwolf]

hey MarKr, maybe there is another solution. For example leaving Wasp as it is, but adding a new flame unit. The M5A1 with E7-7 Flame Gun, it would replace standard Stuart. It had a flamethrower instead of the main gun (no new model needed). It would also make people build Stuart at all -_-.

If u don't like this idea I think that buffing wasp will be good, but with slight cost increase, so it would be a choice for brit player: wasp or 2nd command truck -> Recce.

Wasp was too OP as a starter vehicle when it made its appearance in this mod, this is why it was nerfed

I like your idea for CW stuart/tetrarch, dunno if such a unit existed , but it is interesting nontheless

[MarKr]

Wasp was too OP as a starter vehicle when it made its appearance in this mod, this is why it was nerfed

But it was nerfed so much that it became unusable. We talked about this inanother topic - main problem is its range and when it gets close enough to use the flamethrower it kills veeeery slowly. It dies to single Volks Panzerfaust, AT nade or AT gun shot so even getting it close to enemies is hard as hell.

I tried the Croc weapon and it works as infantry killer quite well but still as a flamethrower it has shorter range than regular weapons so mainly early AT guns are its weak side. But it would require some price increase to even this out. As I said - balancing this thing isn't that easy.

[lunarwolf]

Wasp was too OP as a starter vehicle when it made its appearance in this mod, this is why it was nerfed

But it was nerfed so much that it became unusable. We talked about this inanother topic - main problem is its range and when it gets close enough to use the flamethrower it kills veeeery slowly. It dies to single Volks Panzerfaust, AT nade or AT gun shot so even getting it close to enemies is hard as hell.

I tried the Croc weapon and it works as infantry killer quite well but still as a flamethrower it has shorter range than regular weapons so mainly early AT guns are its weak side. But it would require some price increase to even this out. As I said - balancing this thing isn't that easy.

well wasp 1st edition was too op because having an infantry decimator that can quickly outflank AT guns very easily at the start of the game caused huge balance issues. however having a HT or stuart version available with tier 2 building seems ok to me, and wouldn't create any balance issues, provided it can't just drive up to an AT gun and burn it

I also think that the brent carrier with AT boys is a poor unit, could it not carry a squad w/ only 1 Piat instead (not 2 or 3 piat but more similar to recoiless jeep), obviously w/ a price correction. not sure how this would affect balance, but may be worth testing? the idea wouldn't be a 1 shot halftrack or scout car kiler, but a dissuasion to slow the advance

[JimQwilleran]

having an infantry decimator that can quickly outflank AT guns very easily at the start of the game caused huge balance issues.

Yeeea that doesn't sound like PE scout car at all xD...

[lunarwolf]

having an infantry decimator that can quickly outflank AT guns very easily at the start of the game caused huge balance issues.

Yeeea that doesn't sound like PE scout car at all xD...

give me a break. scout car takes time to kill AT guns, just like a jeep - that wasp 1st edition could instantly burn AT crew before it could fire a shot. 30 cal jeep is like scout car now and doesn't need logistic center and costs 0 fuel, so what the hell are you complaining about. also jeep are repaired by engineers in no time, it takes panzer grens lot longer to repair a scout car.

if you can't handle scout cars, then you need to rethink your build order. lol scout cars have been in game since vCoh yet I have never seen as much bitching about it as I have on these forums

[JimQwilleran]

Dude, I was joking. Why are you so aggressive? Am I complaining? Wow that was much hate...

[Warhawks97]

F2 costs 500 mp and 70 fuel for PE. Terror doesn't need that tank since it has stug, tigers, panthers etc... (when have you seen any1 using terror build one, unless he is clueless?) however PE Luft and SE have little choice in tanks and stuck with this pile of expensive rubbish. to say the F2 beats a 76 Sherman in 1v1 is simply not true. the p4 F2 is more on par with m4 Sherman.

the reason no one fields pershings anymore is because of all this whining which has buffed allied tanks to unrealistic levels. double sandbags/concrete - lol fantasy land? like that would do anything except in someone's mind. in reality it probably just slows down the tanks, anyway result is that Sherman which was a shit tank - aka Ronson, tommy cooker - is now able to fight off panthers, tigers etc... esp with this BS buff for armour doc. essentially making it a heavy tank thus no need for pershing.

personally I think this global double sandbag upgrade should be scrapped coz it's BS. Instead make heavier single sandbagged 76/easy 8 version available in tank depot as a buildable unit, but with appropriate price. ie 550mp and 80 fuel and after a production upgrade 1 ie when Jackson becomes available - BTW that is similar price to P4 w/ sideskirts from TH/BK docs, and we all know they are weaker than a double sandbagged easy8/76. because if Ally tanks get better then their price should reflect that, since we are not in a logic of quantity vs quality anymore. this issue was completely overlooked as patches buffed allied units but didn't include a price premium as well.

in short remove double sandbag. make a single sandbagged version buildable in depot with proper price + production upgrade 1. and then we will see 90mm pershings/jacksons again which are really the units that should be used vs heavier german tanks. shermans are meant to fight p4 not german heavy like tigers. etc... also I think the Super Pershing should be able to be called in again if it has been destroyed, same as Jagtiger or Elefant. never understood why only once.

PS -

@ Warhauks - if you don't know how to counter an 88 by now, then really you shouldn't be making any comments on this forum - i'll give you a clue don't use tanks air strikes, artillery (even the one from tank commander ability does wonders), mortars, etc... do an excellent job, if for some reason infantry can't run up to it and nade/satchel/flame it., as well as snipers if its not reinforced 88. seriously if you blame two 88 in front of their base from losing the match then I think you are missing something a little more fundamental, but yeah blame the OP 88s since it wasn't your fault

@ Wake -> Pershing cost is similar to panther cost and cheaper than tiger, both of which also require a production upgrade cost of 75 fuel - why is it OK for allies to get panther performance from double sandbagged easy8/ Sherman 76 for 1/2 the mp price and 1/3 of fuel costs - how is that balanced? I am Ok with pershings getting a turret gunner

With PE its a mistake that F2 cost still 500/70. 1 vs 1 F2 wins. Also: Have you ever seen someone producing 76 sherman unless its armor doc player? The 76 sherman in inf and AB doc is as rare (if not even more) than the F2 in any axis doc. Booth units are pretty usless and the only reason 76 are being fielded is because of armor doc cheap cost (first then the unit makes a bit sense and is cost effective). So pls, dont say F2 is more rare than 76 sherman just because one unit is cheaper in a specific doc. If one axis doc would be able to mass produce F2 for 340/60 booth units would similiar rare/common. And F2 has much better chance to win 1 vs 1 when booth use BASIC AP rounds and even when 76 has sandbags.



the unemplaced 88 has 100 range (paks 75) which is MUCH more as the tank commander off map strike range ability! Furthermore i did so recently (and quite often whenever possible) and it killed only the crew. Also note that sherman shots do bounce sometimes from unemplaced 88 and thats no joke. We had open field and 2 88 right in front of base and covering the half map. They had krads in front and every reccon or sniper got shot by the 88 or enemie sniper.



@Markr and Lunar: Sure you have fair points still i dont know what exactly sandbags do. In my last games i didnt used them and shermans still stood 2 schrecks sometimes. The accleration reduction and overall lowered flexibility is already in game when sandbags are upgraded. Still iirc the chance for Tank IV to pen e8 or at least normal 76 sherman using standard AP rounds is still twice as high as the chance of the sherman to pen the tank IV using also basic AP.



I once said that- saying to markr now- reducing cost further and further- wont balance some stuff as there is simply a limit of micro managament. I also said that we have very often unneccessary quantity and quality just because "axis must be quality and allis quantity". I woudlnt mind (like for example some allis weapon would perform more realistic like the M1) if certain allied units would cost more than an axis unit and i agree with lunar in some aspects.

I actually wanted to make a new topic about it and again for 76 US gun and to the general "quantity vs quality" discussion. The 76 need to be a bit more realistic and rebalanced as it is simply pure lottery weapon but never satisfying or reliable when fighting against certain units. If the 76 shermans/e8 would become better balanced against enemie medium tanks and more on pair with those i wouldnt mind about a price increase or reduction for some Tank IV´s. Sherman got called tommy cooker but the W version with Wet-Storage had been pretty save tanks. Just 15% of the shermans with W storage burned out after hit. Furthermore the "soft" steel was easier to pen but less dangerous when tank got penetrated. Thats just for some wrong assumptions and back to topic.

If the 76 shermans/e8 would more or less comparable to tank IV´s cost could get adjusted. That would mean that when a Tank IV faces a 76 sherman the better micro/first shot and hit would win the day. The accuracy and pen chances would still be a way better for tank IV (due to harder steel and historcially better gunsights) but not so much better anymore. Also it would mean that the cal 50 would get a way more effective dealing with inf (currently bullet damage is almost same to mg42 counterparts and accuracy the same just mg42 shoots 3 times faster and damage output accordingly and thus there is still a huge difference performence wise between tank IV H/J and sherman 76 and the usefullness for each army). If that would/could be done cost differences of Tank IV H/J and 76 sherman or e8 would be less and the Tank IV F2 could get replaced entirely by Tank IV H/J. The real "quantity vs quality" would occure mainly between shermans and Panthers/KT´s etc. Here, in order to achieve that, the pen chance of 76 would be lowered against Panther, KT, Elephant, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger. Also by using supply yard and the fact that every US player would have a point in using 76 shermans (and not only short barreld jumbo with inf doc). It would be either buff or nerf but simply removed unneccessary quanitity and quality by adding some where it was really the case and where it is neccessary currently. The main differences would be that booth sides would field comparable units in comparable numbers up to a certain stage. And while allis will go more and more for a general quantity with help of the supply yard the axis would go for bigger and bigger tanks. To make that up for infantry as well booth sides would have comparable inf with comparable cost (maybe even slightly higher for US as a realistic M1 garand would be superior on short, mid and range ("range" range would be equal more or less and K98 advantage at "distance" distant). Later in game allis would get maybe a bit more inf (due to supply yard mainly) with good basic equipement while axis would get more available weapon upgrades for good prices to become superior to allis inf. Also while allis would have an edge in in AFV´s number axis inf would get more usefull in fight vs tanks (but not by rushing anything with mgs frontally).


@markr: but persh makes no sense in any other doc either.
@Lunar: War machinery should only affect shermans and the tankbusters. It shouldnt be applied to jumbo and pershing. At the other side a bit cheaper to activate.

Jeep like scout vehicle? oO Put your inf behind cover and jeep is no real prob (it denies your movment). A scout car will rush to your base untill facing another pak, base def or a very very lucky Boys AT squad oO.