Profile of achpawel

Your argument would make a lot more sense if M20 had a 20mm and had 320hp stock. But it doesn't.

Also, insinuating that Aerafield of all people isn't using his units correctly is a good meme.

He is a great player of course Tbh I looked at what was written rather than who wrote it. I would be the last person to instruct him on how to play.

Still, allies have lights that can help deal even with mediums pretty well. M20 will always be meh by comparison. Imo the only thing one can do is probably make the armour upgrade stock. That would be a quick change. It would become sort of jeep on steroids I guess. I really have seen so many times people writing that ostheer needs to rely on tellers that I find it a bit funny that nobody writes that M20 should rely on its mine.

I just can't believe what I'm reading sometimes. Ostheer stock light vehicle is a glass cannon and there are players who can use it really well. It has no crew, no smoke and no armour upgrade. It can't lay better version of a teller. I understand people would still say it is OP. Just incredible.

Geat stuff, great ideas And german panzer commander with headphones for sure

But it does have barrage and its not going anywhere.
Also, I'll blow your mind with this, but:
Show Spoiler

I think ZiS barrage is just OP. With its price, 6 men and more than decent at capabilities, ZiS shouldn't have any barrage tbh (or maybe a really expensive one to make sure you can't spam it like now). Soviets should be forced into building mortars if they wanted indirect fire, not an at gun. A player should basically "risk" building an at gun that is dedicated to killing vehicles only. It shouldn't help you in infantry engagements (or destroy mgs or even at guns!) - that is breaking the core game "risk/reward/army composition" mechanics. Spending manpower on at guns should mean some disadvantage in infantry department if your opponent does not build a vehicle. Soviet faction continuously breaks this rule. In the past, when Soviet ZiS was significantly worse at dealing with vehicles, the barrage and larger crew made sense. Now it is just OP after the buffs to ZiS's at performance.

Coming back to Su76 - If ZiS didn't have the barrage, su76 could be viable as an at/ai platform. Players would choose it over ZiS for its barrage ability, mobility and at performance. They would be more willing to spend manpower and fuel on it. Since SU76 is the higher tech (and requires fuel) it is quite right to make sure it is significantly better than ZiS. Also ZiS now can counter everything. Most frustrating is its ability to kill at guns when supporting an armour push. Just deletes at guns or makes them lose so much hp that tanks can easily finish them off. If the barrage was on the su76 only, there would be some risk involved when barraging at guns for the su76, which is imo good. Su76 would be able to barrage mgs, mortars and infatry as intended. So I really feel that the barrage should be left on exclusively on su76 with a relatively attractive price. After nerfing it for ZiS (price increase, moving to vet 1), or removing it from ZiS, Su76 would become really viable next tier unit. Probably it would lead to 1 ZiS and 1 su76 on the field instead of double ZiS builds.

Even though I'd personally love to rework the sandbags dynamic, it is simply not feasible to do so at this point. We don't know how long Relic will continue to support the game, every patch can be the last. Sandbags are a huge part of the power level of Volksgrenadiers and Infantry Sections and removing them from these units would very likely require multiple other adjustments/compensations that would probably take 2-3 patches to iron out. It's simply not a risk that can be taken.

I perfectly understand the logics here. Yet, I wish it could be done. Maybe just a small muni cost to prevent "the more, the merrier" approach?

Edit:
...or maybe, finally, give them to grens.