Profile of Carlos Danger

It might be overperforming vs. Soviets very slightly but then that's only because support weapon spam is the meta. Against the Americans and the British, it's fine. Maybe could be less effective against buildings, but that's about it.

Anyways, there isn't enough of an issue here to warrant any changes right now. There are more pressing issues.

Needs to be more durable and needs to be better against infantry. After that its effectiveness against vehicles can be evaluated.

Costs can, of course, be changed.

I'm surprised actually that the LeFH-18 doesn't get used more often, especially since two of the most popular Soviet doctrines - Shock Rifle and Guard Motor - have no real counters to it.

Against OKW it's fine'ish but the only practical counter to the AEC as Ost is either T3 or a Puma, both of which you'll be lucky to get at the 10-12 min mark. The solution isn't necessarily to nerf the AEC, just reduce the cost and the command point requirement for the Puma in the mobile defence doctrine and that would go along way to balancing it.

I can't stand it when a very specific doctrinal unit is required to counter a non-doctrinal unit or strategy. Balance shouldn't work that way. You shouldn't be pigeonholed into a doctrine choice. As any faction. Mobile Defense might be an option - and a good option at that - but it sure as hell shouldn't be required.

First, the US vehicle crew system is a terrible idea. I think it made some sense in the context of singleplayer gameplay, but in multiplayer this mechanic really just exists to get abused. Being able to dismount from tanks or artillery pieces to free up additional pop-cap probably wasn't Relic's intention with this mechanic, but that's become its primary purpose. It also makes absolutely no sense that crews from other armies can't also get out of their vehicles to perform repairs or free up population. Long story short, this is a poorly conceived mechanic that shouldn't be in the game. If the USF needs a few buffs to their late-game units to compensate for the removal of this mechanic, so be it.

Second, we've got the OKW veterancy system, with five levels instead of the traditional three. Prior to the big OKW rebuild, this mechanic made sense because it helped compensate for the faction's reduced resource income. Now that the faction has full resource income, the extra veterancy levels don't make a lot of sense - especially since Relic has nerfed the actual bonuses they give. However, unlike the vehicle crew system, I actually like this mechanic, thing as does a good job of promoting unit conservation. So instead of getting rid of it, I think it would actually be better if the other four factions were also given access to five levels of veterancy, so long as the bonuses are well-balanced and useful.

Third, I don't think base building makes a lot of sense any longer. Relic seems to agree with me on this one, since none of their new DLC factions actually require you to build base buildings (well, OKW, sort of, but that's a bit different). All this mechanic really does is keep your engineers out of the fight for a few seconds at the at the very beginning of the match. Otherwise it serves no purpose. So, in other words, I think both the Ostheer and Soviet factions should get pre-built base buildings, just like the US and British factions. Obviously there'd have to be some small adjustments to teching and such (maybe buildings could be activated instead of being constructed?), but it wouldn't be a difficult or particularly major change.