You want jagd to remain broken just so OKW has to hang to something? Oh then that means you must surely be OK with rifles being as they are since usf has sub par AT and lategame.
The Jagd is not as 'broken' as Rifles are. I would be fine if cloak gets nerfed or removed, but this should come with a compensation, otherwise we'll just be doing what got Okw into the state it currently is, that is taking things away without compensation.
You cannot use the excuse that they are the worst faction for the fuel penalty, because the fuel penalty has existed since WFA launched, yet their strength as a faction has varied and they have previously been extremely strong, especially in team games.
The same can be said about everything about OKW, since it's fundamental design philosophy hasn't been changed. It's not attributed JUST to the fuel adjustment, but the fuel adjustment plays a role in that.
An Ost Panther and OKW Panther cost the same resources (490 MP 175 F) and they perform fairly close to each other, with the OKW panther having slightly better ai for some reason (ignoring vet 5 bonuses, because that is unique to OKW)
This alone is enough to prove that the OKW Panther does not cost a significant amount more fuel, else it would outperform the OST one by a long way. Same can be said for Ost PzIV and OKW PzIV (Okw one has excellent armour as soon as its built, makes up for the extra fuel cost, especialy when combined with 3x armour bulletins).
You have literally upset your own point by saying 'significant' amount more fuel. You acknowledge that there is a fuel disparity yourself, and it fucks OKW over. You even said that they perform fairly close, but not identical. You even basically reflected my argument when you said the OKW PIV gets additional armour to make up for the extra fuel cost. What are you even arguing about by now? And since when did we start looking at bulletins, like ever?!
Saying OKW lower fuel income is not the same as higher cost is saying 3+1 is not 4, but 2+2 is. It's saying 'Volks should beat Riflemen because one of them doesn't cost more, Riflemen simply come out later'.
There is nothing to argue about, it's a fundamental truth. It's pure math. Okw's situation would be exactly the same if they had 100% fuel income but everything would cost 1,44 times more fuel.
You cannot balance the game by having some stupid and over performing abilities 'making up' for weaknesses a faction has.
Except that this is what OKW is based on, like it or not. I didn't design the faction. Then people came by and started nerfing the things that were supposed to make up for the Fuel and Ammo income, and this is how suddenly Winrates go apart by 40% and CoH2s playerbase sinks down to 2013 levels. You take something away from a faction, you have to make good for it if you don't want it to become bad. Nobody is arguing USF should get their Vehicle crews removed. The crews exist for a reason, and it's to make up for something.
And lastly, quoting anybody trying to support your argument is a logical fallacy. Ben Carson says the pyramids were used to store grain. Guess there's our answer for the purpose of the pyramids.
The Jp IV is 135 fuel. The Stuka is 100 fuel. There is no "effective" cost. The resource penalty is there to affect the timings of units. OKW has probably the cheapest teaching in the game as a result of this.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but saying resource penalty is affecting the timing of units(1,44 times later than the allies counterpart) is exactly, 100% the same as saying that the unit is 1,44 times more expensive.
This isn't a CoH2 thing, this is elementary math. The biggest thing OKW gets for their lower fuel income is being the worst faction.
The JP IV is an 'effective' 200 fuel, and that is not excluding the Leig, which is the only indirect fire Okw has, unless you want to spend another 140 fuel on a Stuka which is in a forgotten tier. For the same cost you could get a Pershing, or a comet or whatever, plus supporting units.
It does nothing but hunt tanks, nothing. This is it's only purpose.
So Rifleman -43% + Grenadier +40% creates a net of -3%
Vs. Grenadier -23% + Rifleman 30% creates a net of +7% (although I believe Grenadier has a native -7% at Vet 0 if I'm not mistaken) so... Even.
Does seem that bad... or am I missing something here?
Now I'll admit that Rifleman Vet3 places Vet 0/1 Grens at a pretty bad disadvantage but squad preservation should be rewarded and Vet 0/1 squads will struggle versus any Vet 3 squad.
If you look at recieved accuracy you need to look at overall models in a squad. If Grens have .8 recieved accuracy and Rifles as well, then rifles will have a 25% advantage over Grens.
So in the end, you have 400MP unit with DPS of unit which equivalent is 450MP. How does that prove Obers weakness without LMG? I find it opposite
I didn't say anything about Obers being weak, and we just applied a random arbitrary exchange rate for mp to muni. The tiering restrictions were also excluded.
400MP and DPS of 240MP+60ammo unit. Seems fair. If you change 60 ammo for MP according to 5:2:1(or something like that) income, you will get quite similar price.
In other words, I find they price jusified, just like T4 requirement.
PS
The same way we could say that Paras or Rangers are only useful with Thompsons/LMGs.
In this case you end up with an MP price of 450mp for the Grenadiers. And when exactly did we start converting munitions?