Profile of Applejack

I kinda agree with this. Tanks like the 105 Dozer and Brummbär should be a greater threat to AT guns than vice versa. If anything you could argue that they could become a bit more susceptible to tanks as those should be their natural counters. Right now at least the Brum can get out of harms way quite quickly if things go south and hunting it down is rather difficult. I think a slight acceleration nerf, as was proposed in another thread a while ago could go a long way to make overextending with these tanks more punishing. Other than that I'd say their durability is fine.

This goes back to my initial point: Brummbar is a snowballing vehicle. If only meds can counter it, there is no counter if the Ost player rushes Brummbar first with a resource advantage. Then it makes it harder to counter compared to similar vehicles and costs.

To illustrate my point better: Say Ost player gets resource advantage either through more points totaling more MP or both fuel points totaling for more fuel. Ost player gets Brummbar with resource advantage. 3 scenarios, either more fuel, more MP or both.

The opposing player has limited options to counter.

1. Get an 2x ATG which is already more MP than the Brummbar and would cost more because Brummbar bleeds MP as an AI unit. Its 640MP for UKF/Sov and 540MP for USF but because of the high armour Brummbar has, USF would end up having to use muni to counter which is not feasible when playing at a resource disadvantage.

2. Get a medium which doesn't counter the Brummbar as well because of high survivability. T-34, Cromwell, and Sherman AP don't do a good job of countering the Brummbar because of their slow shots and having no snare. Not to mention that Brummbar has high hp and high armour for a good bounce rate.

3. Get a TD which is the same cost as a Brummbar. Not possible at a resource disadvantage.

4. Get handheld AT. Not feasible for Soviets as they PTRS's are not enough to deal with the Brummbar because (again) of the high armour. Also not a good option because Brummbar is a AI unit which can counter this counter.

There is no better unit to snowball a resource advantage than the Brummbar and I hate it. I'd argue that part of the reason why German team games win rates are so high is because its easy to gain a resource advantage with MG42 early game and then snowball it with Brummbar.

I like that the Brummbar has a high skill cap because of its attack ground mechanic but its much too forgiving with its high survivability. The high survivability was probably fine when Ost didn't have access to the Panther but now I don't think its warranted.

I wonder if the only release of 1v1 and 2v2 means 3v3 and 4v4 will have different patch notes? Or just unoptimized currently. Here's hoping big team games have different patch notes and changes.

Who remembers blizzards on winter maps? Such a weird mechanic.

I don't remember it because those maps were permanently veto'd.

I've managed to fix this by reinstalling my Nvidia drivers. Had the latest installed but reinstalling it fixed my frame drops.

Hope this helps anyone else with the same issue.

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.