Profile of Hannibal

The Cromwell is a terrible tank and I'm actually not even sure what useful purpose it serves besides countering Pumas. It costs as much as a Sherman but is worse in every way, Bad AI bad AT.

I'm sure you have the data of thr Cromwell's 'horrible' stats to back up your claims.

Churchills, like literally any other armored unit in the whole series, are best countered by specialized TD vehicles, anti tank guns and infantry/mines screening for AT guns.

If you want magical one type only unit solution, you have ele/jt.

If it doesn't push and retreats instead for repairs, you've countered it.

That's why I wrote >best< countered. Maybe you should try to read a post correctly before giving your ever so smart answers.
Of course the Brumbär will take damage if it attacks an AT gun, but this does not mean that the AT gun is the best counter for the Brumbär. You should chose a TD. Similar thing for the Churchill.

Some stats for direct comparison (I used OKW P4 as the front armor values are similar and it is the most costly medium tank and guns are comparable):

name OKW p4 Churchill difference
Manpower 380 490 -110
Fuel 140 160 -20
Pop 14 16 -2
Armor 234 240 -6
Hitpoints 640 1400 -760
Rear armor 90 180 -90
Target size 22 26 -4
Speed 6 4 2
accuracy - far 0,025 0,025 0
accuracy - mid 0,0375 0,0375 0
accuracy - near 0,05 0,05 0
Damage 160 160 0
Penetration - far 110 105 5
Penetration - mid 115 120 -5
Penetration - near 125 135 -10
Range 40 40 0
Sight 35 35 0
Reload avg 5,5 6,5625 -1,0625


So, what do you get for 100 MP and 20 FU more?
Mostly health (which is huge) and rear armor, so even medium tanks will bounce regularly from the rear armor. Jagdpanzer IV and StuGIII will have 71% frontal/94% rear pen chance, Panther has 92%/100% at their respective max range.
You pay for with a worse gun (due to higher reload), and a waaaaay slower tank. Also higher target size that translates to ~10% higher chance to be hit.

Other factors are:
- utility: Churchill: lobs a grenade and can create a smoke screen that nobody ever uses / P4: Blitzkrieg at vet 1
- side-tech cost: Churchill needs side-tech, that also brings other benefits for UKF, so you can't add the cost completely to the Churchill.



I think Churchill is mostly fine and not as broken as many think. In my opinion, it maybe could cost 1-2 more population.
One weird thing I find is that the health is not dividable by 160 nor 80, which means that a Churchill can limp away with 120 health or even only 40 if snared, which can be very frustrating for the axis player.

EDIT: I just saw that the forum screws over the format of the stats. Quoting gives a nicer, more readable format.

Changing it's role completely to a howitzer could be interesting, but let's be realistic: 1. It's difficult to not make it redundant with the Katjusha. 2. The game is waaaaay too old for that. We should aim for simple, yet effective solutions.
Soviet T3 actually has a good unit mix. AA/AI-support unit. AI specialist light tank, AT specialist light tank. The SU76 is not an unreliable unit, but there are cheaper ways for Soviets to get the same performance by back-teching and buying a ZiS. So the problem is, as correctly stated previously, the cost/performance ratio.
So we have two options:
1. Make SU76 cheaper -> In my opinion a bad idea due to how many problems this could lead to regarding spammability and suicidal dives by using it's long range.
2. Make SU76 stronger -> In my opinion the way to go.

The earlier SU76 had mostly reliable hit/pen chance against a P4, 160 damage and 60 range plus a free barrage. The new version got accuracy nerfed and damage nerfed to 120 damage, which means 6 shots to kill a medium, plus an expensive barrage.
Upping the damage back to 160 could lead to random P4 RNG kills in a the 2v1 situations that the Axis player will likely face. So I'm not sure if this reversal would be so great or not. Lowering accuracy could counter that but makes the unit frustrating to use and fight against for both players.
As a first step to test how to get SU76 back into the meta, I suggest to give it a timed ability (heat shells) that increases damage to 160 and maybe penetration as well for ~30 mun. Also make the barrage ~20 mun.
In my eyes, SU76 could be mediocre unit for standard use that can be boosted to a strong TD or artillery piece if you pay muni in the correct moments. Due to the munition sink that a SU76 will be, it won't be spammable, but might fit into more builds since it can be very useful and be "a poor man's SU85" as originally intended. Also we would preserve the Soviet theme of utility with multi-purpose units.
This could come along with minor cost adjustments. If it's enough, we keep the unit like that. If not, we can discuss if we make stat buffs permanent.

Actually not so many unit need access to it.

The ability should definitely be replaced from Stug -E.

It could also be replaced Puma or even the Elefant.

We surely can discuss about this, but at the moment I don't think that any version of TWP is overperforming, so for start a simple name change would be nice.

Suggestions:
- turret lock = target turret ring
- blind = target vision slits (would explain that the driver can't drive due to panic and missing orders from the tank commander and gunner can't see the targets)
- stun = target weak point (there's no real logic for that ability though other than the crew panicking)
(what other versions are there? can't remember)

Changing/removing abilities might cause other issues with the unit that uses the ability and could be a project for the long run.
And to get to your points: What do you want to replace it with? Or do you mean remove?
I do like a TWP ability on the Puma (funnily enough I can't recall if the Puma has a stun, blind or something different). It enables the Puma to be useful as a support unit even after the medium tank phase has begun, just like the Stuart.
StuG could do with a blind in my eyes (not sure what it has at the moment), since the PaK already has the stun. Elefant's TWP could also be removed in my eyes.