Balancing around inferior design is bad.
The argument in question is whether crushing was a good design or not.
I believe it was a bad design: it ties effectiveness against all targets and ability to escape to one important variable--can't impact one matchup without impacting another or destroying what some need to compete in one area. Now, hull / coaxial / etc. MGs can be buffed as needed for more precise balancing against each class of unit, target tables included.
Good riddance.
What makes you think it is a bad design? Actually it has all the charachteristics of good design:
- it needs skill to pull off
- it is extremely risky if you just yolo your tank into enemy, you have to think twice about all the odds
- it is powerfull - high risk high reward, as opposite of real bad design examples like emplacements
- but on the other hand super easily soft countered by retreat
- and not much less easily hard countered by mines, at nades and other AT placed behind the lines
- it not or very little rng dependant
- it also punishes blobbing
- and adds aditional depth layer to ifantry vs tanks engagements
Where is the bad design you are talking about? I really fail to see.