Profile of Hannibal

In game I have seen Churchill being used I guess because the loss of fighting power is not that great to begin with.

I suspect that the Croc would make a good command vehicles since the debuffs probably effect main weapon only that in the cases of Croc is probably the flamer although I have not checked.


IS with the aura are quite capably of providing the AI and in large mode the AT of the combination is very useful. FF can fire from distance and AEC can stun diving tanks.

If it really only affects the main gun, then indeed it makes more sense to put it onto a Churchill. I assumed it will affect all weapons, but it is not specified anywhere.

It's a good point that the Churchill's fighting power is not that great. It is roughly on the level of a medium tank though, and it's probably not a great deal to put the aura on a Cromwell.
Anyway, with the staying power of the Churchill, maybe it is overall an acceptable deal.

C.Panzer is not really that good in small modes. That changes I suggest will improve its performance in those mod and not really effect larger mode.

Yes, that's what I also agree upon. But your suggestions are far from "not really effecting larger modes". You only suggested buffs, but those buffs also hit the large modes. There is no gun buff that would only affect small modes. There is also no population buff that works this way. The main thing that is scewed are resources and the security of fuel. If you want incentivize building a tank in smaller modes, you need to reduce the fuel price and increase the MP costs. High fuel costs hit harder in small modes because it is easier to take points, while MP is generated equally and due to the abundance of artillery in large modes, they tend to have quicker wipes (at least this is my experience).

Allow me to reverse your the question:
Is there a reason why the C.PzIV should have higher manpower cost than PzIV?

Is there a reason why the C.PzIV should gain veterancy so much slower than PzIV?

Is there a reason why a AI vehicle should have the same pop as all around medium tank?

Is there a reason why Valentine should have a better gun than C.PzIV?

In that order:
1. Overall cost is reduced. The tank is overall cheaper. You're framing it as if it were more expensive. You pay 10 MP more and 20 FU less.

2. To this I already responded in a previous post: Given they have exactly the same vet, they should also vet up similarly.

3+4. Yes. The P4 has a very strong aura. You're comparing functionally different units there, there is no reason why one should be used as a benchmark for the other. You can't straight up compare them, because they do different things.

They are the same arguments you used from the beginning in this thread, and your main argument is still that the Command P4 is not as strong as a combat vehicle (name the P4) despite having roughly the same cost. Again: You're comparing functionally very different units, with different roles on the battlefield. Why?

UC was actually so broken as command vehicle that the had to remove the upgrade from it.

Still other vehicles can be used and I do see command Churchills

As for FF and AEC their performance vs elefant is not a benchmark. They can delete panther in matter of secs.

I can see some virtue in making the Churchill a command tank, but on the other hand this is a huge waste of resources. This tank is quite expensive, and you're basically halving its fighting power. Although you can keep it in the fight for longer, I somehow don't think it is a good move.

All of these comparisons are lopsided. The 2xFF+AEC combo is so expensive, almost every tank will die quickly. That's how its supposed to be if you pour a ton of resources into pure AT vehicles.

Specifically for the PzV chance could include:
Lower manpower price
Lower XP value
Lower pop
Increase accuracy so it can hit light vehicles
Increase penetration to about Valentine levels

You still did not convincingly say why the Command P4 needs buffs in the first place. Your only arguments so far were that
1. It were too expensive for a support unit
2. It does not have the fighting power of dedicated combat vehicles.

The first is not a point at all. The cost depends on how useful a unit is, not an alleged class. The second one is self-explanatory by the fact that you get a ton of utility out of it.
I repeat myself: You get the durability of a normal P4, you get the AI capability of a normal P4, you get slightly decreased cost, and you get a good aura buff for not only you but all your allies as well.

What you don't get is the AT of a normal P4. That's what the utility has to compensate, and especially in larger modes it does.

Most of USF/UKF in general is poorly designed, just look at Pathfinders and IR Pathfinders, two units that were essentially copy and pasted and tweaked slightly just to be a filler instead of creating/designing something unique.

I personally have no issue destroying USF with Pathfinder spam when I play axis but when I see the same shit every game it gets old real quick.

Pathfinders in real life were used as an advance unit that would set the way for other airborne units and thematically that is very easy to implement.

Limit Pathfinders to 1
Allow them to place Beacons on the map, Beacons can drop/call in 4/5 man Paratrooper squads (think USF Panzerfusilier but requiring a beacon) and they would scale later on to current paratrooper strength and you will have something that not only fits the theme but is much better balanced.

Yes, I completely agree.
The current state of USF pathfinders, especially in airborne, is sad. Not because they were weak, but because it leads to boring games.

I think I had this issue years ago when I played bot matches with friends.

Back then, it depended on who hosted the game. What I also remember is that my slow ass potatoe PC had issues keeping up with the game. I had to zoom into a corner where nothing happens so it could catch up again. It might be the issue for one of you too, I could imagine the game goes out of sync for one player if the difference is too large.

C. Panzer 4 is still in weird place.

Cost more manpower than a normal PzIV.

Has worse AI than ostwind for the same fuel.

Combines low accuracy and penetration so is not very good vs light tanks.

Has the same tech requirement as PzIV/Ostwind.

Has same XP value as PZIV ans similar vet bonuses.

Has the a pop of 12 although a support unit.

In most cases building an ostwind or PzIV is a better choice.

The Command P4 is a utility unit. Comparing it only based on combat performance with combat focused units does not make a strong argument.

The odd position the Command P4 has is that it is not really worth it in 1v1, but quite strong in 4v4, especially for arranged teams.