AT gun's lack mobility. When chasing enemy armor you need something that can be ready to fill gaps or flank at a moments notice. AT guns are fragile and die to tanks themselves quite easy, and most USF/Soviet players will have a big blob following their tanks ready to focus fire your AT guns.
At a 4 man crew + AT gun's green cover still being bugged decrewing them is easy, and thus they lack reliability versus the very fast and mobile Allied lights and Mediums. You need armor of your own to counter them. I'm not saying they are bad, but they are supposed to be used defensively to drive off enemy assaults not to follow attacking armor.
Ostheer lacks light armor. Yes, its true. ILL SCREAM IT FROM THE RAFTERS. But that doesn't change anything. But Ostheer is compensated by having the best support weapons in the game. You complain about light armor directly attacking your AT guns, followed up by a blob. This is why you have the MG42 (best suppressing MG in the game) and the Pak (best AT gun). The MG42 is screened by grens that spot for it and faust charging tanks. The MGs kill light armor and suppress infantry. The Pak kills anything with wheels. You can't compensate a faction without light armor by making their medium cheaper. This is because:
1) The Medium won't come fast enough to alleviate the problems you are talking about, so it is a pointless change.
2) Said medium is already balanced in the context of the other tanks in the game.
Also, allied medium armor is about the same speed as German armor (slower if you count blitz), and light vehicle speed has nothing to do with anything. A single faust or teller from a light vehicle trying to flank, and its dead.
Bugs don't play into balance. They are coding issues, and are never compensated for through gameplay.
The Pak40 doesn't hard counter enemy armor on it's own. And Allied armor and Light Vehicles come in greater numbers than Axis ones do making it quite easy to handle Axis tanks with lower numbers of dedicated AT (at least in 2's, idk about the shit show of 3's or 4's.) The USF AT gun also has a fast ROF making it choice for taking on mediums and lights.
See above. Also, the USF AT gun comes without the support of an MG, and delays your armor by 10 fu. The 222 is very much capable of dealing with USF LT tier light armor, as well as T70s (when in groups of two) and SU76s (when flanking).
Also USF and Soviets get armor out way before Axis does, so uh, it's not like your going to be facing much but Pak's to start.
USF and Soviets get their mediums out at around the same time Ostheer gets theirs (slower if they grab nades/ AT nades).
If we are talking about Soviet light vehicles, then you have to remember that these are LIGHT vehicles, not tanks. They will all die from two pak hits (except SU76), don't have smoke, and are what the Soviets get for not having heavy lategame tanks stock (Panthers). Ostheer has never had trouble fighting off USF AAHTs and Stuarts, why is it any harder to deal with T70s that arrive at a similar time?
The M5 AA upgrade is overperforming currently, but that is a problem with the M5, not Ostheer teching.
Yes and Ostheer has to make a medibunker, and upgrade all their squads with LMG's, ect. There is plenty of mandatory stuff we can ignore because it's a constant that isn't going to change. Both Axis and Allies have "mandatory" upgrades.
You are starting to not make sense. Medibunker + lmgs + tellers are munitions based upgrades, not fuel base upgrades. Fuel is the limiting factor as to when vehicles enter the battlefield, this is why we only look at fuel cost when calculating unit timings. Axis has no fuel costing upgrades, with the exception of teching. All grenades, AT grenades, are paid for through teching.
The cold hard fact that Ostheer has to match the PIV versus T34/85's and Easy Eights sucks. Keeping a PIV around for a while as Ostheer is a pain because you will have a very hard time dealing with their enemy armor (mostly because the main gun pen on the PIV is lack luster like the basic sherman just with slightly more pen at medium and long). It's just way more efficient to get StuG III's for AT and Ostwinds for AI as both tanks excel in their role and get good vet that helps them scale like they should.
So build Stugs. They exist in T3 as well, and can support your tank. The P4 is not some shite tank as you seem to think it is. It is perfectly suited to its job, especially when supported. Get it to vet, and it will outscale those Heavy mediums Soviets and USF get doctrinally. Don't expect 1 generalist to do everything for you. This was the problem with the old T34/76. It had no support armor. The P4 absolutely does.
The bonus the P4 gives you is that it allows you to have a tank that can kill infantry AND be useful against armor, while also gaining better veterancy. It has a turret, so can support your Stugs just like your Stugs can support it.
Because it it's only 5 fuel less than a T34/85 but is completely outclassed by it. Would be horrible if the Ostheer PIV skirts were an upgrade rather than coming from Vet and it's 3 levels of vet just mirror the OKW PIV's?
T34/85s are underpriced. I will give you that one, but that doesn't mean the the P4 need a buff. It means that the T34/85 needs a cost nerf. Buffing the P4's price will make it closer in price to a Sherman, which doesn't make sense based off of performance and scaling.
Last chance bud, you still haven't come up with any valid reasons to lower the P4's fuel cost. You can admit you were wrong.
commash
Venustus
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
