Profile of wooof

The OKW HT is actually pretty durable for a HT. It has the same health as the American HT and actually 1 more frontal armor than the American HT has rear armor.

how does having front armor almost equal to the US ht rear armor make it durable? the only hts its actually more durable than are the mortar hts. the 251 and infrared ht have the same durability but the infrared obviously isnt a combat unit and the 251 isnt either at this point.

both the US and soviet hts are much more resistant to small arms.

Whether it's him or not it's still a poor example to discuss balance with and you are wrong that the US flak truck would have done any better. It would have still done minimal damage due to the luitenant being in heavy cover and taken the same amount of damage, it wouldn't have even suppressed the squad since it's suppression is lower. And it would have still been finished off by the flanking bazooka squad. Poor play is poor play.

10 rear armor vs 5.5 rear armor

0 set up time vs 3 set up time

you really think the US ht wouldnt do any better? i wont even get into the fact that the US ht has 50 cals that fire on the move

Sorry, dude. He's generalizing and not giving proved facts, but your reply is just as wrong as his.
The fact that he has lost all his games as axis doesn't prove that axis are weaker in 3vs3+ games.

my post wasnt meant to imply axis is weaker. i was pointing out that from queenratchets experience, axis is consistently losing, not the other way around, which leads me to question their claims. they clearly dont have the experience first hand to make such a claim. i know that one players playercard does not reflect the overall game balance.

All maps don't have the same number of strategic points :

Steppes = 11 normal +2 fuel + 2 mun. = 15 points (13 producing fuel)
City 17 = 9 normal +2 fuel + 2 mun. = 13 points (11 producing fuel)

ok youre right. there is a slight amount of variation in points. but the point i was trying to make was even 1v1 typically have that many points. 14 points is the norm for the vast majority of maps regardless of size. so you can make the claim that large team games should have reduced income because it is multiplied by the number of players, but to reduce fuel because large maps have more points is inaccurate.

Result it mean only 1 or 2 less tank... is it enough to make a difference ? maybe not.

thank you for using real numbers and taking the time to make a factually accurate post. i wish more people would do the same.

while your changes would reduce tanks by 1-2 per player (which i would actually welcome), i think the negative consequences would outweigh this.

changing fuel incomes by such a big amount would impact early game timings for every faction other than soviets. for example, the germans pak and 221 would be delayed making soviet t1 harder to counter.

my original point about okw munitions conversion also still stands. reducing all fuel incomes by about 6/min indirectly buffs the munitions conversion relative to other factions. but on the other hand, these changes would also have to be lessened for okw because of how their income was designed. you would have to take less than 1 fuel away from each point for okw players since they already only get 2 fuel per point. then okw is getting a weird fraction like 1.4 fuel per point...

another negative effect this change would have is to make call ins even more attractive. people already dont tech because of the high fuel costs. if you lower fuel income, theres even less reason to tech for tanks. youre not only delaying non doctrinal tanks and making them come out closer to the call ins, but youre also making teching costs have a larger impact. so you either have to redesign teching costs and/or change CP requirements for team games as well.

the point im trying to make is, while having less tanks in team games would probably be a good thing, its not nearly as simple as cutting fuel income. that would have a lot of side effects beyond just what you intend to change.

Now let's compare both of those tanks destroyer :
M-36 Jackson :
Su-85 :

As we can see the Su-85 is (with the exception of being slower) is better at surviving panzershreks and is a lot better overall.

i think a lot of people would disagree on this point. the jackson may be harder to use, but its one of the best tanks in the game when used well. 60 range, 240 damage td with high speed and a turret and for a low cost as well. its also more accurate than an su85. once it hits vet1, its able to further increase its accuracy by 10% and penetration by 40% with its ability. really the only drawback this thing has is its durability. just keep it at long range and away from infantry (which is where tds should be anyway).

death is considered a crit. for most vehicles, there is a 75% chance to die, 10% chance for a destroyed engine crit, 10% chance for a main gun crit and 5% chance for abandoned. so 20% of the time, your vehicle can survive a hit that should have killed it. this can happen even if a vehicle had 1 hp and got hit by a jagdtiger for 320 damage. it could actually happen twice in a row if you were lucky/unlucky enough (losing both its gun and engine) but thats only a 1% chance.