....
I agree with a fair bit though some things are a bit iffy.
I think the 4man gren vs 4man IS matchup is close, slightly in the IS favor. The balancing factor is of course IS are also a bit more expensive out of the box. Rifle nades im not sure are much of a factor here since close range is where the grenadiers actually best the IS in dps but you cant use a rifle nade from this range. The advantage of rifle nade vs a unit that needs cover is going to come down more to situation and player skill.
5 man grens are better than 5 man is definitely. Only thing is that grenadiers don't get the "Sniper" G43, so they don't get model crits. Otherwise I agree.
Even with pintle MG, comet is better than panther in AI due to the main gun and other anti infantry attributes(wp smoke, crew grenades). Panther is better at anti tank naturally. Plus it can take an extra hit and has longer range.
I'd say they fairly even in terms of what they bring to the table overall.
Some other things-
AEC > 222 and 251.
Bofors > Bunkers.
Centaur >>>> Ostwind.
Id hesitate to say AEC is just flat better then the OST lineup. It does scale better and it does beat both the 222 and 251 in a straight match, but both vehicles are substantially cheaper and offer a lot more utility then the AEC. The 222 is better vs infantry, is better at recon, and has AA. The 251 can initially reinforce and heal, and the flamethrower upgrade is absolutely devastating if your opponent lacks mobile counters.
Bofors are worse then bunkers in cost effectiveness. Bunkers are better at suppressing blobs, have no fuel cost, do not require tech, and do not lock the player out of a different unit.
The ostwind is far better then the centaur. Its faster, its better against vehicles, and its projectiles dont collide with terrain as much as the centaur. The only real advantage the centaur has is anti aircraft power.
United States
λυκεπραισεστονε
Serrith
Conscript reporting
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
Heartless Jäger 
