Profile of ddd

I think it would be interesting to fully embrace the mobile/ offensive theme of hammer:

Nerf:
-Lower armor to Cromwell level
-Lower health to 720 (maybe)

Buff
-Increase accuracy on the move to .75
-Increase penetration
-Better Vet
-Better MGs
-Increase turret rotation speed and reduce target size (maybe)

Would make it the opposite of a Churchill. Now the comet relies on speed and hit and run tactics to defeat the enemy, instead of fighting 1 on 1 engagements with enemy tanks. Not sure if it would be viable at that high of a price, and would probably ruin the unit for teamgames. Still, I think it could be interesting.

Terrible idea. Last thing allies need is more squishy tanks. Also not sure why would you think squishy tanks are good offensive units. You think panther with paper armor and 640hp would make fine offensive oriented tank hunter?

Not only that, look at cost of that shitty single pass p47 strafe in calliope doctrine. Costs 135 muni while the EXACT SAME COPY in ostheer close air support doctrine costs 60 muni...

Not saying tellers are fine, but there is a big difference in being able to accompany the one light vehicle with a minesweeper versus being unable to accompany all the 3-5 spread out infantry squads with a minesweeper.

And what if i go triple t70 strat? Is teller fine then?

The Sherman is a good all around tank it probably as cost efficient as PzIV.

The 76 Sherman will beat the PzIV.

If you USF have a tank that can engage the Panther (which is designed to counter tanks) 1vs1 and win then Ostheer would simply be lose badly to USF.

USF already have better infantry, about the same Support weapons, better light vehicles about the same medium tanks and more cost efficient TDs, giving them a premium medium tank able to 1vs1 Panther would simply make them beat Ostheer at all stages of the game.

First: you still ignore the fact that usf doesnt need another tank destroyer. 76mm will beat p4, sure but jackson will do it too and they both have terrible anti infantry capabilities so whats the point in turning sherman into tank destroyer? Jackson is good at its role and if you want another TD you have m10 too.

Second: i didnt say engage panther 1v1 and win every time. Currently only pershing can engage panther 1v1 and it mostly loses but its good enough to have tank that doesnt have to run when seeing panther rolling in. Every other piece of armor that usf has stand 0 chance against panther and thats why i want some other more advanced piece of armor to be able to engage it with some chance to win 1v1 or at least deal some dmg without being absolutely destroyed.

Third: you act like im preparing another usf rework and giving them superior late game all around. Each of these tanks would be only in ONE doctrine that would lock usf player from other tools like: heavy tank, rocket artillery or elite infantry. Dont worry im not trying to create another ostheer or okw that has all of this NONDOCTRINALLY.

The flares and fire up abilities are weak but that is what is probably holding the commander in check.

Buffing units and abilities all the time is step in the wrong direction imo. It makes battles sorter and more RNG.

Its not about buffing, its about making units that are different and useful. Whats the point of having 3 sherman variants all in a 110-140 fuel price range? We already have 2 tank destroyers, one that is arguably the best medium TD in the game, so we have that covered but now balance team is trying to make 76mm into third tank destroyer (and it sucks). Now for e8, some people are saying that it has good stats so we cant buff it because it will perform above its price. But the tank is still useless, nobody needs slightly buffier 75mm sherman with much worse anti infantry capabilities. 76mm similar to t34/85 (800hp, ok performance vs inf and tanks) and Easy8 similar to comet/panther (bad vs inf, good armor and hp) is what will actually be useful.