Profile of Mazianni

Could bring Hetzer HP to 560 (Stug III/M10 Wolverine HP) and possibly lower the fuel cost some from 100(I think it is?) to high-end light tank levels, then put it in the primary HQ and require 2 trucks set up.

Oversight lol

Explains why relic used the awful, buggy slot item system previously for upgrades like this.

Is rewarding planning though if they are commonly available? Cause then you don't really have to think about it, you'll just have cover wherever you send your squad

I think cons should be the only mainline with sandbags, and I like the changes storm suggested to limit their use

Assuming you can manage to put down the cover in the first place, sure, yes.

It's either this or sandbags and green cover get a hefty durability buff, since all the natural green cover is gone in the first 10-15 minutes of the game and engineers have a billion other things to do besides put down sandbags that are going to vanish in 10 or so seconds of combat. Maybe mortars would have more of a reason to exist too, to drive enemy infantry out of cover that doesn't just vanish with a single tank shell or a quick infantry skirmish.

As it is, the idea of a mainline sandbag nerf is really just more Ostheer main sobbing by proxy and I don't know why this forum still kowtows to it after the last few updates. Removing sandbags from volksgrens in particular, and this bleed-focused Sturmpio rework, are enough to open a can full of OKW balance worms, and I don't see the actual controversy over actually being able to have your troops dig in without dragging one of two squads from across the map, especially when, as I've already said, the cover itself vanishes faster and faster as the game goes by, and engineers have more and more to do.

I really have no idea why this forum cries about a-move blobs so much when it seems every other proposed update is meant to nerf some counter to blobbing or another.

M4c though, iirc has the same vet as the t34 which is designed for a poor gun. It ends up shooting quite fast and accurately and has radio net instead of cap.

Its a bit of a misfire comparing the M4c against the p4. While it is fighting the p4 its replacing the t34. It's effeciency doesn't care for the p4 but the t34 it's replacing as it shares the same economy.


Compare stock vehicles against one another for balance but doctrinal units should be compared against their stock counterparts in their own faction as that is who they need to be viable in comparison to. If it fills a niche in the fa tion it doesn't matter how it stacks up againt the opposition (as much) as its opening a new avenue for the faction its in.

CTRL-F "M4C": 2 results, both in your post. Conversation between Stug life and Applejack, and my own posts, were about the M4A3, the generalist medium tank of the USF faction.

Likewise, my stats were about the stock USF M4A3, the stock Ostheer PzIV, and the PzIV ausf J (because it incidentally shares the relevant stats with stock Ostheer PzIV at vet 2; both have 234 armor, both have the exact same penetration ratio).

I have no idea why you are bringing up the M4C. It is off topic to an off topic discussion on a thread that has wandered on and off topic already.

better penetration

Thread is already derailed horribly, but M4 Sherman only really has better near penetration, with worse far penetration, and the armor difference means Panzer IV will always have a favorable penetration ratio in any case. This combined with better ROF and target size will almost always favor the Panzer IV.

Ostheer PzIV
(range 0: 78% vs 77%, range 20: 72% vs 67%, range 40: 69% vs 56%)
after vet 2 (or OKW PzIV ausf J)
(range 0: 78% vs 60%, range 20: 72% vs 51%, range 40: 69% vs 43%)