Resources/micro in asymetrical warfare of coh2 . Tanks

Okay i got the idea to make this thread from 2 matches i recently had and since most signs show that tanks will be more effective in coh2 i think it would be usefull to discuss it since its almost sure it will come up at some point . For "academic" reasons i will first give you the examples , in the first 2 upgunned shermans 1 of em vte2 failed to take down an immobilized 1/3 health vetless panther using only frontal shots ( i could not flank it was in a tight spot ) , in the second 2 unvetted stugs forced away head on an unapgrated vetless pershing . The relative costs are 1020 mp 230 fuel for shermans , 1000mp/2 for panthers ulternatively 640mp 110 , 800mp +8cps for pershing and 640mo + 100 fuel for the stugs . I think we can all think of an example in coh that a well microed hard counter ate for breakfast a large number of medium counters with few examples of the opposite ( not talking about soft counters )

The question that lies before us is should medium in this case vs hard counter units outcome be reliant on micro or ammount of resources invested or rather a combination of both (stickey rear hits plus 2 shermans seems a bit excessive for one panther considering resources invested in both medium and soft counters also i count bulletins as resources ) and where should we put the golden balance , how effective should the vet and the upgrades be , in order to avoid going towards starcraft or some other rts. In order to help your thought process imagine the same examples with a soviet heavy tank , t34s and p4s and panthers ( here is hoping we ll see more of them p4s instead of stug4 eclipsing them ) Same question goes for infantry , should ftfl or some ability of the same magnitude and cost exist in coh2 ?

Granted that we havent seen the game yet , i do think the question to be substancially theoretical on the subject of who should determine the outcome of asymetrical warfare resources or micro ??

To give you my opinion i would like a 60/40 +/-10 analogy for the nondoctrinal units and differentiated in different arms (inf tanks etc ) as i think it would make the game more tactical and add more game reading and decision making than multitasking plus it would add more tactical depth on bulletin and commander choice . It goes without saying that i also like that analogy altered on very heavy doctinal units and always dependent on how many cps you need , abilities you might succrifice and resources cost you are willing to pay in order to get the unit in question , if you wish to counter them with nondoctrinal units . Allthough the best way to do it is for each unit of the same category alone and in synergy with others versus varius combinations , at a time , using diagramms of cost damage , mobility environment etc etc, dont know how possible ir would be though .

In conclusio , it seems to be a delicate and complicated matter really and its sure the developers will need our help on that .

I think you might forget some typical CoH thing, namely random numbers. In the first example, your shermans were expected to kill the panther, but they didn't, probably because of random numbers going on. Sometimes it is just "the chance that armor penetration will happen", but that does not mean it will effectively happen, and if the numbers are against you, you can keep shooting and the shot will miss or do no damage. Everybody knows games of tanks missing 4 times in a row... .

It's typical CoH, if you take that away, the game is no longer CoH.

Then about the examples: in the Sherman vs. Panther example, i think you were a bit unlucky ( see above ). In the second example you might have considered "upgunning" your pershing, even before getting the pershing out on the field. Also here, a bit unlucky maybe.

Uh. What?
I'm seriously not understanding anything the OP writes here.

Also, just to reply to something:

It's typical CoH, if you take that away, the game is no longer CoH.

Pff. The RNG relating to anything slow-firing in CoH wasn't well implemented, and never really added anything that pseudo-RNG couldn't have done just as easily.