Profile of nee

From a 4v4 perspective, I think Sniper units in this game are more difficult with the amount of players/ units in the map.
Besides micromanaging the unit among many others, a large map with many places to be flanked or otherwise found out means that the initial part of the game where they are most effective is actually less viable, since large numbers of squads can weather a sniper's attack. And unlike Soviet Snipers the Ostheer one has no scout ability, on top of being a single unit squad.
On smaller maps such as 1v1 or 2v2, the reduced number of units and places to go makes snipers a more viable investment, because isolated squads are pressured to retreat or risk description finding that sniper. While on most small maps locations of snipers can be predictable, getting there to out a sniper is not always as easy. A sniper holding the line against one or two squads is far easier than if the enemy had like three other players' worth of squads to back him up. Snipers in this game therefore rely much more on multiple players teamwork to succeed, one that is harder for the sniper because the enemy just needs to get one guy with a vehicle or sniper to counter it. A light vehicle is more or less an inevitable progression into a match, and of course much better for hunting snipers because they are vehicles. Supporting the Wehrmacht sniper, especially when on the offensive, is much more difficult because you are babysitting one unit that is important simply because it was expensive.

Is the Sherman pintle at least more effective to reflect and justify the increased price? Because if not, then reduction in cost is needed. Even 60 instead of 70 is fine, that plus 10 munitions isn't going to net you two bazookas or another airstrike.

I'd say unnecessary as well. It's not like they're the only units you are expected to use, surely the Kubel could help pin any flamers trying to approach your Sturmpioniers, or if 2 of the six doctrines, MG34s or even flaktrack if you rushed to the mechanized HQ? An anti-flamer upgrade will only benefit that particular unit, and not necessarily improve it's performance since the benefit is so particular (it would otherwise make ZERO sense choosing the upgrade if the enemy starts neglecting the use of flamethrowers).

On the other hand I think any squad that marches up to an enemy to inflict flamer damage should get chewed up more if the Sturms are blazing into their face, the need to support your units have to apply to both sides. I think a more effective change would be if flamer range is reduced or is far less effective at max range, giving much incentive to attack at closer distance but risk negating your opportunities if you just sat back and used sub-optimal range: IMO flamers should be ideal weapons against units in cover and structures, not that on top of also being a medium-short anti-infantry weapon, certainly not better than assault rifles. Short-very short yes of course, but not at medium range. Sturmpioniers may not be the best infantry in the game, but surely they should be quite good in their own range parameters considering their cost and supposed power relative to other units?

I can imagine pioniers and assault grenadiers being raped by a flamer unit due to peeshooter MP40s, but Sturmpioniers with their Stg44s? They might as well be armed with pistols and rid ourselves with illusion.

But the Sherman Grizzly was Canadian.

And more importantly would only really be better in matches featuring snow maps.

I can't understand why Jackson is so sluggish? If it is built on a chassis of Sherman, why it is have both LESS armor and LESS maneurability? Its pissing me off. Give me some more acceleration on Jackson and fuck Pershing, it is tincan, only bigger than sherman.

If I recall my factual info correctly, the M36 was just a 90mm on a M10 chassis, itself based on a Sherman M4A2 hull, of unknown derivative (presumably the same? Doesn't look like it).

Anyways the game had the stats different than the M10, regardless of it being identical or familiar.