Profile of general_gawain

Units are balanced only within the context of their own faction. The unit cost of the Jackson doesn't matter for the unit cost of the Firefly.

Again, I do see your point. Still you didn't answer my point. You said yourself Firefly was lowered in population because of the high population costs that UKF has in general. It was balanced within the faction. That is true. But in addition they are way more manpower starved than USF. So 440 MP for Firefly is a lot more than 400 MP for Jackson. In fact it feels more than a 40 MP difference for a tank that isn't anyhow stronger. So shouldn't that be balanced within the faction too?

On top of that, the Jackson artificially overperforms a bit on purpose because it's the only reliable/heavy AT that USF has in the late game. UKF has the 17-pounder, Churchills for meat shields, Comet, etc. to help hold back Axis' heavier armor.

About the Jackson: True, USF just should have a nondoctrinal alternative, that would solve many problems with USF tank roster and the status of M36 as the "Holy cow".

But about UKF I wouldn't agree.
Churchill: It is just a meatshield that is fine versus infantry but deals damage to other late game tanks too slowly. Meatshields are not that valuable in a game where you can choose your targets freely. Having one means you have one Firefly less, in tank combat like Panther vs Firefly it can pretty much be ignored until Panther gets real low on health.
17-pdr: Only a problem in low skill games. Limited placement, big hitbox, easily counterable. Often enough just a waste of ressources.
Comet: Better suited for tank combat than Churchill for sure. Strong versus infantry, pays a price for that when fighting the heavy tanks and Panthers. More like a fast allrounder with decent hp/armor.

So, Firefly is the only reliable/heavy AT for UKF in the late game too when it comes down to dps/penetration. The other tanks surely can assist, but if you want to fight heavies reliable, you better go for double Firefly as you would do in a similar way by playing USF with double Jackson.

The question is why is JP Pop 15 when it designed to engage targets with less armor.

No, that is not the question of this thread and I don't want to go this thread that way. This thread is about comparison of a units population to its own ressource cost, not about units having the right population and cost for their performance. So if you want to speak about JP in this thread then talk about its population beeing too high for its ressource cost. But I do think 400/135 to 15 is something that is pretty close to the other units ratio, especially if Firefly and Jackson cost would be exchanged. Then Firefly would be 400/140 to 15 which would be pretty much the same as JP. Jackson would have 440/145/16, that would be a similar ratio.

If you do think JP ist too expensive (population/ressource) overall, just make a new thread about it please. Thanks.

Imo the population value somehow reflects the game value of a unit, so ressource costs do too. Sometimes some of these stats are changed without considering the others. I don't understand why.

One example out of the recent patches. While Jackson went from 15 to 16 population, Firefly went from 16 to 15 population. Still Firefly remains to be the more expensive one. Shouldn't all stats be exchanged? Overall Jackson is the best deal anyways (dps/speed/moving acc, great Vet1 HVAP compared to unreliable and expensive rockets...).

Jackson atm (MP/FU/pop): 400/140/16
Firefly atm (MP/FU/pop): 440/145/15

So shouldn't cost be exchanged like it was already done for population?

Its not the only example but I did thought since it was a recent change and both units are allied (no bias) + same combat role it is a pretty obvious one. You'll find further examples by looking closer at it.

What is everybody's opinion on the Original Mechanized's Withdraw and Refit.

I personally wasn't a great fan. Sending back a full health vehicle which is maybe vetted (since WC51 lost crew you can't even exchange crew and keep vet that way) to get only a part of the cost back contradicts the basic game mechanic of unit preservation (and best use of available ressources).
The idea of unit preservation is that early game units can scale into the late game by still beeing useful with veterancy. WC51 can be useful for scouting and the use of its abilities for example.

For the same reason I don't like Rapid Conscription and Relief Infantry. You get brand new early game squads at a time (5CPs) where you want to play with vetted ones. Brand new non-elite squads get eaten alive by elite units at that time.

during ML5 and another tournament, people mostly pick USF machanized and airbrone ( one is safe bet, another is sure win ).

Since both USF matches of Airborne/Mechanized in finals with the best players of the tournament were lost I wouldn't back up that statement.

M4 76 HVAP RoF nerfed is enough to balance combo M4 Bull dozer + M4 76.

Maybe just a typo... standard shell RoF got nerfed, not the AP one. But I get your message.

I already thought about giving the dozer upgrade to 76mm instead of 75mm. Would be interesting, because 76mm with Bulldozer Blade is less overlapping with 105mm than the 75mm with Bulldozer Blade. Would be more of an unique unit and a reason to go for doctrinal 76mm. The problem of the dozer blade at the 75mm is that the 76mm gets even less attractive in comparison to the combo of 75mm (with dozer) and M36.