Yeah but they don't share the same role.
The M10 is a cheap and efficient tank destroyer and the Puma is intended more as a hard counter to Allied light vehicles that can also help kill medium armor like the AEC.
Its a matter of opinion what it is but it is ether underpowered medium tank hunter or a way overpriced hardcounter to lv's
Their costs may not reflect their performance perfectly relative to one another but so what? Those little imbalances exist all over the game.
You're gonna tell me the 4-man .50 cal HMG should be 280 MP while the MG42 is only 260? Or that the 222 should be 280 / 15 while the M20 Utility Car is a whopping 340 / 20?
20 mp more or less for an unit that performs more or less the same. but if i stick to the stats of the m10 vs puma to the mg42 vs 50 call matchup the 50 call would have double the dps , a 6man squad with sprint and incendiary ammo . As i said before the puma really is not doing a good job for its price.
It's not like OST doesn't have their own cheap tank destroyer already - the Stug, that with target weak point can practically 1v1 a Pershing.
utterly irrelevant why take a stug when you can have a panther ? because they are 2 completely different TD's
I guess I just don't get why the M10 being "better" than the Puma is an issue given their defined roles.
You are not incorrect their is more to balance then just looking at 2 units and their stats. but the cost inefficiency of the puma is so blatantly bad that i believe that it needs a penetration buff
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
