I've been suggesting for a while that the bulk of tank AI be moved to mgs instead of cannon based so that we have more reliability across the board and such that pintle are worth thir cost, but all in all atm I feel the tank balance is mostly fine. The better the tank is at fighting tanks the worse it is at fighting infantry and the panther is the best "tank" at fighting tanks.
Well, although I agree with you logics to some exted here, I can't agree with its result. Firstly, cannons should deal with infantry well as this is thw whole point of a tank, and mgs are too close range and make tanks too likely to get snared. A snared tank is most often a dead tank, especially when you don't have crew crit repairs. So a big no for mgs dealing infantry damage instead of a cannon.
Secondly, panther is not the best tank to fight tanks. Especially if you look at how much tech and manpower and fuel is involved here. Jackson is simply much better. The whole 'tank' category You created is artificial. I don't want to repeat what was written above, but panther is a curious amalgam of contradictory features, which makes it rather more like one of Hobbart's funnies that a premium medium and a wehrmaht replacement for panzer 4. The reason it is far from being best is that it will always have to close in into At fire of many at units to shoot (60 vs 50 range) and its armour and health pool will be deleted very quickly. Then it will need an expensive squad to repair it (God forbids you have other tanks that the same pio will have to repair). It only works when you are way ahead of your opponent and his army composition is just bad.
Your comparison of pios and CE are misguided and are only comparing 1 singular aspect of what accounts for their cost. Pios have longer vision as well as actually being a threat via close range Smgs.
Additionally that 30mp difference in cost is more than made up by the first building for teching. Getting grens and mg and pios is 50mp cheaper for Ost than getting CE, cons and an mg despite the performance of all these units being heavily skewed towards Ost in the early to mid game..
Further more pios can build Bunkers and minefields while CE just get a demo. There is much that goes into the cost of the units and 30mp isn't breaking Ost as for what pios bring over what CE bring.
All repairs were normalized. If you think that Ost has it bad imagine the exact same thing but not having armour to be able to bounce shots at any point in the game with stock armour... Either both factions get it or none of them do and it was far easier to adjust the 2 than the numerous variables of the other 3
USF vehicle crews are a faction trait, their very design was crafted with them in mind, a result being that all of their stock tanks have less armour than a p4 and getting more durable armour is a doctrinal choice.
Squishy and in need of frequent repairs (and having them) vs durable and taking time to fix. It's the standard tank vs dps kind of design in many games. But the grass is always greener I suppose...
Overcomplicating things is sometimes not good. 30 manpower is just more. If they die it is cheaper to quickly build more of them, especially if you have more tanks on the field. The story about grass just doesn't make sense as I play all armies, including Soviets and playing ostheer is the most difficult. I keep pinpointing why that is the case. Most of the stuff you repeat are myths. Crews are a great idea but made the game almost impossible to balance. Initially USF tanks were really squishy - thy had crews, accuracy on the move, stock smoke, crite repairs, etc instead. Players complained and their raw stats got buffed - quite sensibly. But this made, for example, sherman a good opponent to ostheer panzer 4 - especially if you look at the price difference. Crews and all other abilities remained and it is sometimes ridiculous to pay 200 manpower for a pio and look how a jackson can be crit repaired without any additional costs.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
