Those are commander dependant and on different factions.
No, the M4A3(76) I mean is the USF commander based vehicle. It's a 1:1 comparison with the T34-85 in both availability and its distinction compared to its mainline baby brother.
I'm saying it isn't 100000000000000% apparent, INSTANTLY. Units should not confuse people because they look just like another unit. Why don't we just make p4s look just like panthers and then keep the p4 stats. I'm sure people won't complain about that.
You also seemed to completely skip reading this
The point is to be able to differentiate between different units without overall confusion. I have never seen ANYONE complain about shermans being indistinguishable. Point those people out to me if you see one.
I skipped reading that because I don't agree. Unit recognition is something players will have to learn, just like tactics. I could distinguish a T34-85 from a T34-76 100/100 times at first glance.
And how is this any different from a comparison like the M4A3 Sherman and M4A3(76) Sherman?
Unit recognition is part of mastering the game. The turrets are easy to distinguish instantly once you know what to look for.
Let's put them in another perspective. Are you seriously having trouble seeing the huge difference in turret size and shape? The completely different gun mantlet area?
Not to mention a distinct difference in engine noise and gun sound.
I don't understand why people are comparing other mediums to this. There are FAR larger changes between for example, the snub nose p4 and long barrel p4. The command p4 not only has 1/4 the length of the barrel but also a different icon that is much easier identified. The t34 differences are far less obvious as seen in OP. The barrel is slightly longer and the chasis is slightly different. It is easily the most similar 2 tanks you can field simultainiously.
How is an entirely different turret (and even a bigger gun) less obvious than the gun being the only difference between a regular P4 and a CP4? The T34-85 even has different sounds.
Other mediums/vehicles are a fair comparison. It's just down to personal knowledge to distinguish units based on vehicle model details.
I personally think the difference is easily noticable by having a quick look at the turret and gun, but I kinda understand the point.
Then again, the same applies to other vehicles like the Panther and Command Panther, the Stug G and Stug E, the Panzer IV and the Panzer IV Command Tank, all 10 Sherman variants and to some extend the King Tiger and the Jagdtiger. All these vehicles might need a second look to identify the exact type.
I don't think WW1 fits into CoH's dynamic and combined arms nature. Too few vehicles to supplement the infantry.
I'd rather see either just another WWII setting or something between WWII and the end of the Cold War. I think a 1980s scenario could be a nice setting as it's the pinnacle of the 'mechanical' warfare era.
I think the MG34 performance is fine considering its role in the faction, but I do think it's overpriced. A worse HMG in every way should be 230 manpower, or 220.
Just like the Raketten is a worse AT gun but actually is 50 manpower cheaper than regular AT guns.