Can we revive Mechanized?

...

Your concept and math seem to have some issues, will point only the ones that stick out is:

1) You are comparing the two rounds that come with 76mm and claim that HAVP needs to fire faster because the AP round is "better" and that does not make sense. One needs to compare with alternative vehicle the 75mm Sherman which has slower ROF. HAVP has about the ROF of 75mm but with significant better penetration.

2) Reload does not equal ROF since there are times involved
ROF of 75mm Sherman should be around 6.05
ROF of AP 76mm should be around 5.3
ROF of HVAP 76mm should be around 6.35

3) Number of reload is number of shot minus one since the first shot does need reload.

(tools are not updated as far as I can remember)

Commands has no self propelled artillery (Calliope/Priest), no super heavy (Pershing), no normal off map (counter to static artillery pieces), no area off map (loiter/artillery), no Elite infatry (paras/rangers). That makes the commander unattractive from 2v2 to 4v4.

Thats one of the reason I proposed to exchange "Combined Arms" with some sort of normal off map or area off map in my original post. The other reason was to remove the timing push from 2x 76mm with this ability in 1vs1.

In 1vs1 the commander from 3/8/2021 to 9/11/2021 (commander was patched 26/2021) to 5 place right next to rifle company. (even if one looks at last patch it is in the same level as tactical infatry/tactical/mechanized with 4.099/4.087/4.081)

The patch which changed Mechanized and Rifle company to current state came out at 1st of june, was rolled back because of performance problems and brought online at 16th of june finally. If you use a custom range to look at loadout picks from that date up to today you'll see that Mechanized ranks at 6th place at top200 and at "all" players in 1vs1. Rifle ranks at 4th place for "all" players and 3th place for Top200 in 1vs1. Rifle company placement isn't bad at all.
The three companies ranking below Mechanized in 1vs1 all have a mode were they are ranked as either first, third or fourth pick. So Mechanized ranking 6th at 1vs1 and last one at all other game modes really is the bottom of them all.

Your concept and math seem to have some issues, will point only the ones that stick out is:

1) You are comparing the two rounds that come with 76mm and claim that HAVP needs to fire faster because the AP round is "better" and that does not make sense. One needs to compare with alternative vehicle the 75mm Sherman which has slower ROF. HAVP has about the ROF of 75mm but with significant better penetration.

2) Reload does not equal ROF since there are times involved
ROF of 75mm Sherman should be around 6.05
ROF of AP 76mm should be around 5.3
ROF of HVAP 76mm should be around 6.35

3) Number of reload is number of shot minus one since the first shot does need reload.

(tools are not updated as far as I can remember)

If I'm understanding you correctly, you area saying that there is aim time that makes RoF slightly longer? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

75mm Sherman (according to my CoH2 tools page) has a min reload of 5.6 and max reload of 6 so I don't know where you got that 6.05 from unless you are adding aim time.

You are right that the first shot shouldn't be counted though but if we subtract times from the averages, it doesn't change much.

Unbuffed max range (40). AP reload average at 5.05s.
HVAP TTK = 54.9s - 6.1s = 48.8s
AP TTK = 50.5s - 5.05s = 45.45s

At mid range (20).
HVAP TTK = 48.8s - 6.1s = 42.7s
AP TTK = 45.5s - 5.05s = 40.45s

I welcome you to redo the match I had on the initial post with your changed numbers. I doubt that would show a significant change on HVAP being better against heavy armour, which is its intended role, than AP in the long run. In short engagements where you are not expected to kill or chase, slightly better perhaps, in the long term it is not.

There's also the first shot accuracy due to moving into position which isn't calculated in but again, I'm doing the averages for in a light box to prove that HVAP is not better than AP for heavy armour.

Thats one of the reason I proposed to exchange "Combined Arms" with some sort of normal off map or area off map in my original post. The other reason was to remove the timing push from 2x 76mm with this ability in 1vs1.


The patch which changed Mechanized and Rifle company to current state came out at 1st of june, was rolled back because of performance problems and brought online at 16th of june finally. If you use a custom range to look at loadout picks from that date up to today you'll see that Mechanized ranks at 6th place at top200 and at "all" players in 1vs1. Rifle ranks at 4th place for "all" players and 3th place for Top200 in 1vs1. Rifle company placement isn't bad at all.
The three companies ranking below Mechanized in 1vs1 all have a mode were they are ranked as either first, third or fourth pick. So Mechanized ranking 6th at 1vs1 and last one at all other game modes really is the bottom of them all.

WC51 changes where done February 26th 2021 which some other users think it should be buffed. It was a solid change.

As for CP 0 Cav riflemen that has also been suggested the WC51/Cav combo has so much squad wipe potential that is a bad idea.

76mm AP round was firing around 75% better ROF than the inferior 75mm AP round and was simply OP. Bringing the ROF inline with other medium tanks it was a solid change.

If there a need for change for the 76mm one should probably try to balance it at lower price.

Replacing "combined arms" with the WC51 off map would probably make the commander more attractive in bigger modes.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you area saying that there is aim time that makes RoF slightly longer? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
...

Yes there other "times" than "reload time" involved when calculating ROF (ready time is one of them if I remember correctly).

But the main issue here how AP and HAVP round compare with each other has little to do with balancing the unit itself.

76mm AP round was firing around 75% better ROF than the inferior 75mm AP round and was simply OP. Bringing the ROF inline with other medium tanks it was a solid change.

Oh yeah a solid change that kicked the commander practically out of the game along with the removal of the Dozer blades. Very solid. There would have been other ways to make up for RoF nerf (for example an AOE buff) that wouldn't have an effect at vehicle/tank combat and kept 76mm somehow attractive.

I remember the long discussion we had as the nerf was tested. You were always claiming how op it is and that the nerf is needed while I was arguing the other way and pleaded for some kind of compensation at least (->AOE). After witnessing the burial of this commander in succesion of june patch I guess I was right.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you area saying that there is aim time that makes RoF slightly longer? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

75mm Sherman (according to my CoH2 tools page) has a min reload of 5.6 and max reload of 6 so I don't know where you got that 6.05 from unless you are adding aim time.

You are right that the first shot shouldn't be counted though but if we subtract times from the averages, it doesn't change much.

Unbuffed max range (40). AP reload average at 5.05s.
HVAP TTK = 54.9s - 6.1s = 48.8s
AP TTK = 50.5s - 5.05s = 45.45s

At mid range (20).
HVAP TTK = 48.8s - 6.1s = 42.7s
AP TTK = 45.5s - 5.05s = 40.45s

I welcome you to redo the match I had on the initial post with your changed numbers. I doubt that would show a significant change on HVAP being better against heavy armour, which is its intended role, than AP in the long run. In short engagements where you are not expected to kill or chase, slightly better perhaps, in the long term it is not.

There's also the first shot accuracy due to moving into position which isn't calculated in but again, I'm doing the averages for in a light box to prove that HVAP is not better than AP for heavy armour.

I don't think the aim time makes much of a difference here since it's only one frame (0.125 s). More importantly, there are also no further hidden delays, such as wind up / wind down so your average numbers (minus the 1st shot) are pretty accurate.

However, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the accuracy difference between the two shells as negligible. The HVAP round has a 40% (!) higher chance to hit at max range, which is huge especially when moving / chasing. This alone makes it very much worthwhile even though the penetration-corrected DPS is even slightly in favor of the normal AP round.



EDIT: Looking over your numbers I think there's a glitch in your math; specifically, this part:

[...]It takes 6 shots to kill a Panther with 160 damage so on average, it will take a minimum of 6.1 * 6 = 36.6s to kill a Panther assuming all shots hit. The Panther will bounce some shots though, 36.5% chance to bounce. So that means our 6 shots to kill averages to 9 shots to kill a Panther at long range (6 * 1.365 = 8.19 or rounded up to 9). 9 shots to kill would mean 6.1 * 9 = 54.9s to kill a Panther in a light box. The Panther is expected to bounce 2-3 shots.

You multiply the minimum number of shots by (1 + chance to bounce), which isn't quite how this works. You can easily see this if you look at the extreme situation where you'd have a 100% chance to bounce. With your formula, the average number of shots to kill would go up by a factor of 2 only, while actually it should go to infinity (since there's no deflection damage involved).

If you instead divide the minimum number of shots by the chance to penetrate you'll get a more accurate value (e.g. 6 shots with 50% pen gives 6/0.5 = 12).

For those of you who are interested, here are the probability distributions for the 76 mm killing a Panther frontally at 40 and 20 m with either AP or HVAP equipped.





Note that these assume every shot hits as I haven't wrapped my head around how to properly add hit chance into the pen binary distribution yet. But since the AP shells have significantly worse accuracy the results should be skewed even more in favor of the HVAP shells.

But to get back to the OP, I'd also think the doctrine could really do with at least one or two of the recent nerfs reverted. For me, giving the Jeep its crew back would be a good solution as it kind of faded into obscurity ever since. Maybe coupled with a price adjustment if this turns out too much, but IMHO it really goes against the flavor of the faction to have a USF LV which doesn't have a crew.

For those of you who are interested, here are the probability distributions for the 76 mm killing a Panther frontally at 40 and 20 m with either AP or HVAP equipped.





Note that these assume every shot hits as I haven't wrapped my head around how to properly add hit chance into the pen binary distribution yet. But since the AP shells have significantly worse accuracy the results should be skewed even more in favor of the HVAP shells.

But to get back to the OP, I'd also think the doctrine could really do with at least one or two of the recent nerfs reverted. For me, giving the Jeep its crew back would be a good solution as it kind of faded into obscurity ever since. Maybe coupled with a price adjustment if this turns out too much, but IMHO it really goes against the flavor of the faction to have a USF LV which doesn't have a crew.

Thanks for this, I was hoping someone with more knowledge on probability would come along and do real math instead of my boot legged version of probability.

It depicts a different picture in regards to HVAP vs AP but I think one important element missing is there are more 'rolls' on AP than there are on HVAP. Namely that AP will shoots faster which means with every shot, there is a chance for a Panther to die.

Taking the second chart into account, cumulative probability T2K. If we stop at the 60s mark, AP will have had 6 rolls/chances to kill with each shot while HVAP only has 5. I don't think accuracy can make up that lost chance/gap right? I suppose we can add up all the chances here and average them out and see which one is higher?

Picture:



I think I mentioned in the first post but its hard to calculate the accuracy since the first shot would likely be a moving shot as well. Assuming all shots hit, HVAP doesn't seem much better. Especially with the 6s switch time.

Thanks for this, I was hoping someone with more knowledge on probability would come along and do real math instead of my boot legged version of probability.

It depicts a different picture in regards to HVAP vs AP but I think one important element missing is there are more 'rolls' on AP than there are on HVAP. Namely that AP will shoots faster which means with every shot, there is a chance for a Panther to die.

Taking the second chart into account, cumulative probability T2K. If we stop at the 60s mark, AP will have had 6 rolls/chances to kill with each shot while HVAP only has 5. I don't think accuracy can make up that lost chance/gap right? I suppose we can add up all the chances here and average them out and see which one is higher?

Picture:



I think I mentioned in the first post but its hard to calculate the accuracy since the first shot would likely be a moving shot as well. Assuming all shots hit, HVAP doesn't seem much better. Especially with the 6s switch time.

I guess it would be a good idea to clarify the 2nd graph a bit more and what these probabilities imply. Basically there are two ways to read the info in there.

1) If you look at a certain timestamp, e.g. the 60 second mark as in your example, the y-value of the curves will tell you the probability the M4C will have killed the Panther (i.e. out of all shots fired 6 penetrating hits have been scored) within 60 s or less. In this case, the AP Sherman at 40 m (blue line) will have a kill probability of a bit over 50%, while the HVAP Sherman (red line) will have killed the Panther in over 70% of all cases. Hence, the HVAP Sherman is more likely to knock out its target within 60 s.

2) If you pick a certain percentage on the y-axis, the respective value on the x-axis will tell you the average time it takes to kill the Panther with that confidence. If we, for example, pick a success probability of 50% the AP Sherman will need at least ~58 s to kill the Panther in 50 out of 100 cases, while the HVAP Sherman only needs around 51 s to do the same. If you increase the confidence level even more to 75% (i.e. out of 100 tries, the Panther is killed at least 75 times) the gap between the time it takes both tanks on average to knock out the target in at least 3/4 of all cases increases even more.

Note that these graphs already factor in ROF, not only penetration, so the extra round fired by the AP Sherman after ~7 firing cycles is already part of the equation (the horizontal gaps between the jumps in the graph are slightly shorter for the AP Sherman).

Ideally, the difference in accuracy should of course also be considered. But since this is (with my limited understanding of math at least) hard to implement into the probability calculation I used we'll have to treat this as an additional layer of RNG on top. And that's not even considering scatter shots which are even harder to compute deterministically.
However, the HVAP Sherman is vastly superior at all ranges here, so it should perform even better comparatively in an in-game head-to-head matchup than these graphs suggest.

...
1) If you look at a certain timestamp, e.g. the 60 second mark as in your example, the y-value of the curves will tell you the probability the M4C will have killed the Panther (i.e. out of all shots fired 6 penetrating hits have been scored) within 60 s or less. In this case, the AP Sherman at 40 m (blue line) will have a kill probability of a bit over 50%, while the HVAP Sherman (red line) will have killed the Panther in over 70% of all cases. Hence, the HVAP Sherman is more likely to knock out its target within 60 s.
...

Thanks for the math. Somehow it makes very clear why the 76mm overall isn't worth it. If you look at it, you'll see that you need 51 seconds for a 50% chance at 40 meters to kill a Panther with the shell that is meant to kill tanks and does next to no damage vs infantry. Meanwhile Panther needs 20 seconds to 100% destroy a 76mm Sherman at 50 meters. Even factoring in population values doesn't change the outcome (you get 1,5 76mm Shermans for 1 Panther). It just closes the gap a little bit, but it is still far apart.

All this AT medium tanks are just only made for fighting PZIV and don't scale at all into lategame for fighting Panthers. This way you'll always take the Jackson instead which can utilize its range advantage to win vs a Panther. As long as AT medium tanks like 76mm (and E8) suck at killing infantry there will be no reason for their existence. This is true especially outside 1vs1. 76mm/E8 should be straight upgrades of M4A3 with somehow equal AI power but some additional advantages like better penetration, health, accuracy, armor or RoF. If you want an example: It works out well for T34/85 beeing a straight upgrade of T34/76.

Oh yeah a solid change that kicked the commander practically out of the game along with the removal of the Dozer blades. Very solid. There would have been other ways to make up for RoF nerf (for example an AOE buff) that wouldn't have an effect at vehicle/tank combat and kept 76mm somehow attractive.

I remember the long discussion we had as the nerf was tested. You were always claiming how op it is and that the nerf is needed while I was arguing the other way and pleaded for some kind of compensation at least (->AOE). After witnessing the burial of this commander in succesion of june patch I guess I was right.

The problem in your logic is that you consider that since the commander is not picked thus 76mm must be up, which is a big logic leap.

76mm Sherman had a ROF 4.55 which is faster than all allied mediums that have a ROF above 6.

Compared to 75mm it was firing 1.5 sec faster while having superior penetration and comparable AI. On top of that it is even getting better reload bonus of 30% instead of 20. The damage output of the unit was simply OP.

If the unit requires change they should be focused more on price or defensive properties and not on damage output.

Can the commander be improved? Sure but imo that does not mean that units it provides should become OP.

I personally would test bringing the commander back to original design as commander that can invest heavy on light vehicle play.

Changes could include:

1) WC51 now designed as a counter to Kubel (something USF can use) and snipers.
Now comes with gun but can not transport (or transported unit can not fire). Possibly allow passenger firing with a MU upgrade. (change could allow lowering Cav riflemen CP to 0)

Off map removed mark target replaced by "wark sniper" an ability that makes sniper unable to cloak.

2) "withdraw and refit". Ability now allows USF to withdraw light vehicles and replace them better ones for a cost:

AT CP 2 WC51 can be withdraw for M3
AT CP 4 M20 can be withdraw for greayhound
AT CP 7 Stuart can withdraw for M10
AT CP 3 AAHT can withdraw for QUAD

3) Cav riflemen

4) 76mm Sherman

5) 155mm of map

In sort the commander would be focused on heavy light vehicle play in small modes while having a strong off map for large modes.

Thanks for the math. Somehow it makes very clear why the 76mm overall isn't worth it. If you look at it, you'll see that you need 51 seconds for a 50% chance at 40 meters to kill a Panther with the shell that is meant to kill tanks and does next to no damage vs infantry. Meanwhile Panther needs 20 seconds to 100% destroy a 76mm Sherman at 50 meters. Even factoring in population values doesn't change the outcome (you get 1,5 76mm Shermans for 1 Panther). It just closes the gap a little bit, but it is still far apart.

That is simply false for a number of reason including the fact that you assuming a Panther will hit a Sherman with each shot at max range in in game fight which simply is not the case.

In addition if you expect a cheaper mainline tank to take out a more expensive both in price and tech Panther you are simply expecting too much. If 76mm could be spammed and win vs Panther what vehicle would axis faction have to use to counter them?

All this AT medium tanks are just only made for fighting PZIV and don't scale at all into lategame for fighting Panthers. This way you'll always take the Jackson instead which can utilize its range advantage to win vs a Panther. As long as AT medium tanks like 76mm (and E8) suck at killing infantry there will be no reason for their existence. This is true especially outside 1vs1. 76mm/E8 should be straight upgrades of M4A3 with somehow equal AI power but some additional advantages like better penetration, health, accuracy, armor or RoF. If you want an example: It works out well for T34/85 beeing a straight upgrade of T34/76.

You seem to forget that 76mm sherman get a 25% penetration bonus (and 30% reload bonus) so it does scale. It not designed to win over Panthers since it not designed as tank destroyer. It still can perform very good especially if someone use things like "mark target"/"combined arms"/"radio network"

76mm has better AI power on the AP round. If you expect to have equal AI power than HE round you are simply expecting too much.

If you compare the unit with other mediums instead of expecting to beat Panthers, the unit is fine.

Thanks for the math. Somehow it makes very clear why the 76mm overall isn't worth it. If you look at it, you'll see that you need 51 seconds for a 50% chance at 40 meters to kill a Panther with the shell that is meant to kill tanks and does next to no damage vs infantry. Meanwhile Panther needs 20 seconds to 100% destroy a 76mm Sherman at 50 meters. Even factoring in population values doesn't change the outcome (you get 1,5 76mm Shermans for 1 Panther). It just closes the gap a little bit, but it is still far apart.

true, a 76mm sherman won't scare off a panther, whether with or without hvap munitions. however, it would arguably be kind of nuts if it were an actual threat to it as both tanks serve fundamentally different roles, have different costs/timings and also differ in their ai potential. i see the 76 mm more as a hybrid between the regular sherman and the jackson, though you can probably argue it's not too effective in either at or ai compared to the two. since the last patches first and foremost gutted its anti-inf performance, i'd agree that a small ai buff to the regular at rounds might be a good call. still, i think the hvap is fine for what it does and shouldn't be made any more powerful.

true, a 76mm sherman won't scare off a panther, whether with or without hvap munitions. however, it would arguably be kind of nuts if it were an actual threat to it as both tanks serve fundamentally different roles, have different costs/timings and also differ in their ai potential. i see the 76 mm more as a hybrid between the regular sherman and the jackson, though you can probably argue it's not too effective in either at or ai compared to the two. since the last patches first and foremost gutted its anti-inf performance, i'd agree that a small ai buff to the regular at rounds might be a good call. still, i think the hvap is fine for what it does and shouldn't be made any more powerful.

Yep that is more of less the case.

Imo it would be worth testing turning the 76mm into a 75mm clone (prices/stat/bonuses) with the difference of replacing the AP round with a HE round that has the stat as 75mm AP but slightly better AOE and an HAVP rounds that have a little less penetration or AP HAVP skill shot with a mechanism similar to Pershing. That way 76mm and 75mm would be designed to work together instead of replacement.

That would stop the overlap with Easy8 and the comparison with M36.

I guess it would be a good idea to clarify the 2nd graph a bit more and what these probabilities imply. Basically there are two ways to read the info in there.

1) If you look at a certain timestamp, e.g. the 60 second mark as in your example, the y-value of the curves will tell you the probability the M4C will have killed the Panther (i.e. out of all shots fired 6 penetrating hits have been scored) within 60 s or less. In this case, the AP Sherman at 40 m (blue line) will have a kill probability of a bit over 50%, while the HVAP Sherman (red line) will have killed the Panther in over 70% of all cases. Hence, the HVAP Sherman is more likely to knock out its target within 60 s.

2) If you pick a certain percentage on the y-axis, the respective value on the x-axis will tell you the average time it takes to kill the Panther with that confidence. If we, for example, pick a success probability of 50% the AP Sherman will need at least ~58 s to kill the Panther in 50 out of 100 cases, while the HVAP Sherman only needs around 51 s to do the same. If you increase the confidence level even more to 75% (i.e. out of 100 tries, the Panther is killed at least 75 times) the gap between the time it takes both tanks on average to knock out the target in at least 3/4 of all cases increases even more.

Note that these graphs already factor in ROF, not only penetration, so the extra round fired by the AP Sherman after ~7 firing cycles is already part of the equation (the horizontal gaps between the jumps in the graph are slightly shorter for the AP Sherman).

Ideally, the difference in accuracy should of course also be considered. But since this is (with my limited understanding of math at least) hard to implement into the probability calculation I used we'll have to treat this as an additional layer of RNG on top. And that's not even considering scatter shots which are even harder to compute deterministically.
However, the HVAP Sherman is vastly superior at all ranges here, so it should perform even better comparatively in an in-game head-to-head matchup than these graphs suggest.

Thanks for clarifying the second graph. I'm still not convinced that HVAP is better than AP unless specifically for the long run (50s+). Typically engagements don't last more than 15-30s so it doesn't seem better to use HVAP over AP. Might be different against the biggest cats. Still the 6s change, unless preemptively is deadly, and I'd rather always have AP ready for AI if I need it.

Back to the original topic at hand. I think Mechanized could use a buff. Perhaps adding a Calliope for team games?

It could do with removing a vehicle since there are many and you get a finite amount of fuel to spend on light vehicles. Giving it the buff of a calliope while making the Commander play more predictably would be a welcomed buff.

Lowering the cost on the WC51 would be good too. To see it used like a clown car ferrying troops.

That is simply false for a number of reason including the fact that you assuming a Panther will hit a Sherman with each shot at max range in in game fight which simply is not the case.

Before marking my data as false you should consider the coherences. I didn't include accuracy because MMX wasn't either. That was the only way to directly compare to his diagramms.

In addition if you expect a cheaper mainline tank to take out a more expensive both in price and tech Panther you are simply expecting too much. If 76mm could be spammed and win vs Panther what vehicle would axis faction have to use to counter them?

I don't expect that. I expect having it better AI than it has now to give a reason taking it over M36. I do think I made this point pretty clear multiple times in this thread alone.

76mm has better AI power on the AP round. If you expect to have equal AI power than HE round you are simply expecting too much.

No I'm not. All can be balanced around delay of shell switch and unit cost. There is absolutely no balance problem.

If you compare the unit with other mediums instead of expecting to beat Panthers, the unit is fine.

1) I don't expect it to beat Panthers and I never said so. You put words in my mouth. Again, it was always about its AI performance.
2) It is not fine if you compare it to other USF tank options in T4. Going for nondoctrinal M4A3 + M36 is better than going for 2x 76mm. So there is a problem within the USF tank roster/tank balance. It just isn't worth the doctrinal choice (along with the other abilities of the commander). Looking at commander loadout stats I'm not the only one who thinks that.
I would even go so far as to say that 76mm wouldn't be a good alternative to M4A3/M36 Jackson combo if it would be nondoctrinal, because the unit has no real place in USF tank roster in its current state.

true, a 76mm sherman won't scare off a panther, whether with or without hvap munitions. however, it would arguably be kind of nuts if it were an actual threat to it as both tanks serve fundamentally different roles, have different costs/timings and also differ in their ai potential. i see the 76 mm more as a hybrid between the regular sherman and the jackson, though you can probably argue it's not too effective in either at or ai compared to the two. since the last patches first and foremost gutted its anti-inf performance, i'd agree that a small ai buff to the regular at rounds might be a good call. still, i think the hvap is fine for what it does and shouldn't be made any more powerful.

Yeah I'm with you here. Its not about HVAP beeing up or 76mm beeing an equal match to Panther, it is rather about the failed concept of the standard shell beeing more of a competition to HVAP shell instead of beeing some sort of reliable AI source. Instead of nerfing RoF they could have nerfed penetration of standard shell, that way 76mm would have retained old AI value. Alternatively they could have buffed AoE while nerfing RoF or removed standard shell alltogeher and replaced it with some sort of HE shell.

Before marking my data as false you should consider the coherences. I didn't include accuracy because MMX wasn't either. That was the only way to directly compare to his diagramms.

Still, posting that "Meanwhile Panther needs 20 seconds to 100% destroy a 76mm Sherman at 50 meters." without specifying that you do not take accuracy into considerations is simply misleading even if unintentional.

I don't expect that. I expect having it better AI than it has now to give a reason taking it over M36. I do think I made this point pretty clear multiple times in this thread alone.

AI is not that bad and it certainty better than the M36 thus the argument better AI will give it
"a reason taking it over M36." does not make much sense.

No I'm not. All can be balanced around delay of shell switch and unit cost. There is absolutely no balance problem.

Problem is that the units is already balanced according to its cost and is not UP.

1) I don't expect it to beat Panthers and I never said so. You put words in my mouth. Again, it was always about its AI performance.

That is simply false my sentence start with "If" so I have not put any words in your mouth so pls lets try to avoid unpleasant posts.

The argument though that 76mm because it can not deal with Panther effectively does not hold much water.

2) It is not fine if you compare it to other USF tank options in T4. Going for nondoctrinal M4A3 + M36 is better than going for 2x 76mm. So there is a problem within the USF tank roster/tank balance. It just isn't worth the doctrinal choice (along with the other abilities of the commander). Looking at commander loadout stats I'm not the only one who thinks that.

Nope that is also false.

Even if "Going for nondoctrinal M4A3 + M36 is better than going for 2x 76mm." that is an indication of a problem in variety/overlap and not a problem in balance.

76mm Sherman has a decent change to beat a PzIV and thus there is very little indication that the units is not balanced.

And since there are 5 versions of Sherman (75mm,76mm, Easy8, 105mm, 75mm dozer)it is expected that there would be overlap issues. Those issues are made even worse by the fact that stock options are so good. 75mm has one of the best HE shell and M36 is on of the best TD.

One should not try to solve overlap issues by making units OP and creating balance issues.

That is why one of my suggestions was to make 76mm stock and at similar power level as PzIV and 75mm doctrinal.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/104125/a-redesign-of-sherman

Still posting that " Meanwhile Panther needs 20 seconds to 100% destroy a 76mm Sherman at 50 meters." without specifying that you do not take accuracy into considerations is simply misleading even if unintentional.

So why you don't called out MMX for posting wrong data about the time a 76mm needs to destroy a Panther? Aren't his diagramms misleading?
Imo they are not and neither is my post if you factor in the coherences and relations of the discussion. my post was clearly pointing to his data, because I took his numbers for Sherman for a direct comparison. In a direct comparison it makes no sense to add another factor which wasn't used to calculate the data you want to compare to. It is only misleading if you take the post for itself and don't take the time to read the post it is related to.

One should not try to solve overlap issues by making units OP and creating balance issues.

Its not even of any importance if it is just an overlapping issue or a balance one. The outcome is the same. 76mm has no place in USF tank roster. It needs a redesign along with 2-3 other units/abilities in this commander. I proposed some ways it could be done. Noone speaks about creating a balance issue. Its just you who smells trouble if someone says "Can we revive the last choosen commander in USF commander loadout, please?".