Profile of Firesparks

The penetration changes for the Churchill and Cromwell aren't necessary. Reducing their penetration (to T34/76 levels) by 15-25 reduces their scaling significantly. It's especially egregious on the Churchill as the Cromwell can, at least, flank. Against the Panzer IV, this becomes a 8.33-13.89% decrease in their ability to penetrate its frontal armour (which was already a 75% chance in the best possible conditions). In addition, the USF Sherman has exactly the same penetration and costs the same amount as the Cromwell.

The fix to Tommy vet 3 is simply uninteresting. I'd prefer another solution.

The weapon rack change doesn't address the big picture. Tommies already receive worse veterancy and a worse LMG. They need both Brens to have the same percentage scaling as an LMG42 Grenadier squad, especially with veterancy.

1)churchill with 105-135 penetration, 1280 hp and 320 armor will reliably beat a panther one on one. However, if the penetration was lowered to 80-120 then the panther will win. Durability and HP are more important for the churchill so I nerf the pen instead. The new churchill will still reliably beat the panzer4.

similar case with the cromwell. I prefer the cromwell to keep its small size in exchange for lower penetration. As you said the cromwell can flank to get around a lower penetration, and the small size help it survive against the axis late game. the 23 size cromwell and sherman are just too easy to kill. I doubt a size 20 cromwell will fare much better.

2) the scoped lee enfield is nice to look at, I don't think it's worth the problem of keeping the look.

Your solution would need to make "exception" for every pick up weapon in the entire game. It's not enough to just account for the british pick up weapon. There's also an additional fact that every tommies except for the gunner will be using a scoped lee enfield at vet3. That's just gawky.

3)the tommy doesn't need the same percentage increase in dps as the grenadier. The tommies are probably the most durable squad once they've gotten their fifth man. The grenadier are well known to be fragile. The tommies are the stonewall to the grenadier's glass cannon.

I will have to agree that 1600 hp with 300 armor is too much.

however, this is just arguing the specific. Stuff like the king tiger and croc get limited to one because they will be too powerful other wise. the king tiger combined both excellent firepower and durability into one package. The croc is probably the best infantry killer in the entire game, better than the king tiger.

the normal churchill should have excellent durability, but mediocre firepower. As long as the panther can 1v1 the churchill, the churchill should not be limited to one.

Something needs to be done about the Panther. It is not worth it in about any realistic scenario in the game. There are no swarms of Allied heavy tanks with high armor. Thus the penetration (while great on paper) is not needed. To compensate this high penetration the Panther has a slow reload. Thus you end up with the slow reload yet none of the practical benefits of the Panthers gun.

It simply fulfills an unneeded role. At least give it some better AI capabilities or a higher rate of fire so it is worth building.

ost still have stug for use against medium. Panther's specialty against heavy might not be that common but it's s still important to be around when the situation arise.

Churchill's in a weird spot as a veterancy feeder that also gives no damns if its flanked since its low armour is compensated by its high health pool. It lacks proper firepower and mobility as well. It also costs quite a bit and for some reason is more population than a Panther.

I like the idea of a meatshield/shield but:

-Company of Heroes 2 AT lethality is high and in the late game double ATGs are common and will strip quickly HP from even the mightiest of tanks.

-Unless you can do something, you just eat shots. Churchill's not threatening enough with the grenade being fixed and no longer being a nuke and has a slow rate of fire.

-You can probably ignore the Churchill for the most part and shoot at the glasscannon units.

I'm wonder if giving the Churchill some sort of aura would be an idea, either passive or timed. Not to improve effectiveness of units, however. Instead, a de-buff that would hinder the enemy and weaken their effectiveness. It could maybe work on both vehicles and infantry and would force units to shoot the Churchill to get rid of the de-buff. This indirectly makes the Churchill harder to kill indirectly as well as nearby forces which it should be supporting.

I'm not sure what sort of de-buff we'd be talking about, that's my idea aside from a few suggestions of increasing armour so it can deflect, but reducing health.

the churchill have access to grenades and smoke to make them useful beyond being a target. Of the three tanks in game currently with grenades, the churchill is the one best suited to make use of it.

the smoke should lose the movement debuff. It would be able to double as escape smoke.

Decent unit placement should mean that the churchill is the only unit in danger of being shot. Most axis player are not keen on exposing their own rear armor by driving past the churchill.

You cant nerf crush without nerfing cromwell\M10\T34 mobility. Crush happens because of really fast turning speed. Sure if you want to nerf crushing for thouse allied tanks, you have to nerf their rotating speed, which is nerf in general, because all thouse tanks based on mobility.

I'm not fine with that, but I dont rely fully on crushing, its not main tanks AI, and I wont miss it so much, because crushing for axis is already situational. Crushing as allies is regular thing, no matter what.

But ok, if ppl want to trade mobility of T34\Cromwell\M10 but keep crushing in the game (and it would be same situational feature, which would appear in 1 out of 10 games) then ok, let it be.

32 is still decent, and it's the "safer" value.

34 match the sherman, and it already remove most of the crushing.