Profile of Muxsus

Now to await OKW only players who come in and say its fine, while lieing about a time when it was ok.

Honestly British arty should make up in number of shells to make up the lack of acc or damange. A small decrees in mun for abilitys to get the base howtzers to fire and increase the number of shells for both the base and sexton. Im. Talking about 9-12 shots per gun.

It should be a fear for the axis when that red smoke pops up, not a "Eh whatever".

That would simply make it more deadly to structures, infantry and tanks still wouldn't care about the shells. Just a straight, noticeable buff to AOE is the way.

and i'm telling you after having played the brits as well: the AEC does not need buffs.

if you need an AEC to deal with Luchs, get one. Your cromwell will be delayed, so you might need something as a stopgap, and since you already have an AEC, you can also elect to build a second one. together they'll arguably be as good as the cromwell at AT. if you don't need AT, you can simply rely on MP only units until you get the cromwell.

every other faction has to make choices like this as well. the brits never had to in previous patches, which is the only reason people complain about the AEC. it's not as ridiculously OP as all the other brit units were, so in comparison it feels weak. the AEC was never supposed to be a medium tank hunter or an anti infantry plattform. and, again, for the 10000th time: it has a role, just like the 222 for example, and it fulfills its role just fine without any buffs (like you said, counter a luchs, maybe a FHT or 222, though i'd claim that neither of the latter actually needs an AEC to get countered, but anyways...). the only real "problem" with the AEC is that against ostheer you pretty much never need it (no vehicles pose a threat until you can get something better than the AEC), against OKW right now you might need it vs the Luchs (because 6pdr/sniper/mines as a counter to the luchs force you to play way more defensive and give up map control, delaying your teching alternatives). it is, like you said, more of a reactionary, niche unit. and if you buff the AEC, it will most likely be too strong after the inevitable OKW nerfs. the unit IS fine.

For the 10000th time: 600 MP obers would fulfill their role too, but their cost would prohibit their use.

I also doubt we can really come to a consensus here when you believe that the puma has a different role than an AEC. Not that I disrespect your opinion, but this arguement will probably just come down to personal opinion, which is why that poll is there.

only that it isn't. both ost and brit sniper get oneshot by each other. even if it was legit asymmetrical balance, you are still cherrypicking here, because, like i mentioned above, there are multiple other instances where allied units are quite clearly and obviously stronger despite exact same role and similar costs. again, you only use the argument when it fits your narrative and not in general.

Ost sniper has a higher fire rate, therefore it is more effectvie vs infantry. Also, where do you see these "quite clearly stronger allied units"?

It does serve its purpose, because it IS countering light vehicles, it just cannot take on medium tanks on its own (and again, if it could, it would be OP, even by your definition). it very well can take on medium tanks if you have two or three of them, negating the argument that the unlock costs can be added to the price.

Refer to the 600 MP Obers that serve their purpose too. Making 2 or 3 AECs does not make sense by your own definition, you'll just be better off with a cromwell, because its single advantage over a cromwell is its arrival time.

And i want rifle vet for grens... and 5 man squad upgrades, bars instead of lmg42s, a sniper that can counter light vehicles, emplacements that have a "can't kill me" button, forward retreat points with weapon racks and reinforcing, having to spend only 30 muni once to be able to heal all my squads all the time, cloakable infantry that is deployable everywhere on the map with insane dps, tanks that can survive roundabout 20 pak shots and throw grenades, indestructable artillery pieces in my base and so on and so forth.

Rifles have stronger vet and combat effectiveness, grens are cheaper, and they get literally everything for free (lmg42, nades, faust). Why'd you want bars instead of lmg42 is beyond me since the lmg is clearly better. Ost doesn't need 5 man upgrades because their mainline infantry is cost-effective without them, emplacements with brace on have as much EHP as an okw truck, idk why you have trouble killing it, its so easy for allies after all . FRP with reinforce costs 450 manpower, I'd really love if that was also a tech structure... I also can't understand why you consider weapon racks as an upside, opposing to upgrading on the field. Commandos cost 500 MP, churchills can throw nade at about penal satchel range and have a bad gun, and don't get me started on the all-powerful 25pounders that cost 45 muni to fire and won't kill a bunker off of that.

The only thing that could be arguably strictly better is tommies' self-healing, but it is negated by the fact that it's the only source of healing, leading to awkward situations where the only tommy is on the other side of the map and you have 3 unhealed squads sitting in the base.

Still no reasons for buffs. All i hear is "but puma is better, i want puma!". And i want rifle vet for grens... and 5 man squad upgrades, bars instead of lmg42s, a sniper that can counter light vehicles, emplacements that have a "can't kill me" button, forward retreat points with weapon racks and reinforcing, having to spend only 30 muni once to be able to heal all my squads all the time, cloakable infantry that is deployable everywhere on the map with insane dps, tanks that can survive roundabout 20 pak shots and throw grenades, indestructable artillery pieces in my base and so on and so forth.

Also: your tech cost thingie makes no sense.

Why do I have to explain the basics of RTS to you?

All of your examples illustrate different units with different roles, having different strengths. That's called "asymmetrical balance". The puma and the AEC have the exact same roles, and their performance to cost ratios are radically different. That's not asymmetrical balance, that's an underperforming unit.

The explanation for the tech cost thingy is above in the thread, I don't want to write the same thing over and over again.

you cannot skip T2 or you pretty much auto-lose.

and which light tanks is it incapable of fighting against?

T2 is tech cost. AEC tech + unit cost is unit cost.

"light tank hunter" implies that the AEC is light, not the tanks it hunts. Should have worded it better, yeah.

everything BUT medium tanks the AEC can take on handily (as in, doing its job). the bigger tanks it can't take on alone, but it's not like it cannot damage them/finish a damaged one off.

Exactly, that's what a puma does except the "BUT mediums tanks" part.