yes but as you said no turret, and also slow manual aim time and reload and 35 range,
it needs to move in and out faster than ATG and 60TD with twice its range.
and i believe brumbar needs to be stationary for its rounds to land near where you click
But that is good. Brummbar is exceptionally strong frontally while weak for flanking. That is good design. Of course it has weaknesses, but it is also the almost only unit that can stand in front of an ATG (its supposed counter) and wipe the floor with it.
My point was that for casemats, the Brummbar has decent rotation and in general it has decent mobility for a heavy unit.
The Brummbar needs to be stationary to fire while manually targeting. It can fire on the move like any other unit. I don't know the multiplier by heart, but it has such a low base scatter that moving the unit should not do much.
1- The tech timings is more or less related to p4 timing, the light vehicles (puma execpted) aren't very good, and making luchs come a bit later at the cost of being able to choose between a stronger early LV game (with luchs having increased cost+ performance) or an earlier medium is far more interesting than the binary of either going puma,luchs or puma but ultimatetly regardaless of having picked between either choice your medium/heavy (ie p4 or cmd panther) will still arrive extremely late.
I have nowhere indicated that obers need to be nerfed. Rather that volks need to be buffed because obers while decent enough, require a lot of investments to be worthwhile and having more than 1 is more of a detriment than a boon in my experience.
Edit: The soviet change was also an extreme buff, having t70 come out at 7 minutes consistently while retaining a very large part of its firepower makes its an auto pick no matter what and combined with certain doctrines (guards or svt cons) becomes oppressive as all hell.
1- T3 tech timings for OKW are not off by far as well. Iirc, OKW T2 builds need to gain ~10 fuel more than USF and Soviets (UKF is cheaper depending on the side techs chosen) to tech to the "tank tier". T1 builds even out. Therefore, the P4J comes 1-1,5 minutes later than other tanks because it costs 30 fuel more. But as you said it is the best tank, so that should be fine I guess? Unless your point is about its timing, but I don't think this should be sped up without nerfing the unit.
2- My bad, I scrolled to the wrong post while writing this part and was reading Stormjagers suggestion of tying Obers to T3.
The usual.
Cost of upgrade divided by amount of units that will likely benefit from it.
In USF case, 6 would be a good number.
You still keep perpetuating this as if it was the only way to do and as if there were no arguments against it.
So I'll just keep pointing out that most Allied side techs are meant to delay the main tech, so the costs are also there to delay the main tech.
Don't think that making a low mobility vehicle with one of the shortest range even slower is good idea.
And many people complain about it ability to defend (and not attack) where mobility is less important(although it a SturmPanzer and designed to help in attacks).
Imo what has to change it offensive properties, increase projectile speed reduce AOE and go from there.
The Brummbar has decent speed, especially if you consider that it still is a good HP/high armor unit. Only it's rotation is lacking but for turretless vehicles still one of the best.
I probably will post more later about your other points, but one quick question regarding the teching:
Why should OKW need quicker timings?
They get their LV out at about ~120 fuel gain depending on tech choice. Soviets at ~140 (without AT nade), USF at ~110 (with ambo), UKF at ~120 as well (with bolster). OKW also can generate a lot of map control/fuel advantage through aggressiveness in the early game.
T2 has not been changes for ages and it was the meta choice beforehand, and only Soviets have recently seen a slight rebalance to their T3 timing and units. But those I would not call a buff.
I don't see how all of this indicates that OKW LVs arrive too late. Some further explanation would be good.
Second, just came to my mind:
If you say OKW had problems in their infantry department (Volks too weak), why do you want to nerf Obersoldaten? They are an important supplement for OKW to trade well in the late game.
A Tank can be counter by cheaper, with less pop tank hunter. The Tank hunter is not actually a "stronger" unit than the tank. It simply its hard counter.
The TD has no AI option. If both tank and TD have the same AT, the normal tank is more powerfull overall and the TD should have a lower cost (resources and pop, all assuming same survivability). If the TD provides stronger AT, it's price increases. That's how Allied TDs end up at their current cost, because they provide an extremely strong AT capability.
The common denominator is the power of the unit, not the role. We also don't see strong correlation between the role and population in game that could not be explained by 'power' (I'll just keep this as an abstract thing since most of it is derived from how well a unit performs in the game).
That imo is because SU-76/Stug main role is counter mediums tanks with a Pop of 10-14, M36/FF/SU-85 are meant to counter Heavy/Super heavy with a pop of above 20.
This is your personal ideal. Jackson and SU85 are the primary choice for all targets, and UKF has no "light TD" so you buy the FF to kill mediums as well.
Mainly because it is vehicle costing fuel and not infatry.
Cost has so far not been a point to influence population. This was a response to your claim that counters are always cheaper than what they counter, which is not true.
I am not sure how you compare strength between main lines and support weapons but if one uses cost as an indicator, HM-42 is 260 6 pop and grenadier is 240 7 pop.
Again this relates to both the "counter is cheaper" claim as well as the claim that the role influences the population. We see units of completely different roles costing the same population. Therefore the role is no predictor for population cost.
And one has to keep in mind that many units have seen changes in cost and power and pop was not always adjusted.
Not sure why you quote that as a counter to my point. The note says that population has been adjusted to the power level as well as to create a higher cost for spamming Grens because you can't fit as many other units into the build anymore. Which is exactly what I originally postulated.
Units can be balanced by both cost and power adjustments. Both have been extensively used in the past. High impact units get high population, low impact units get low pop.
As one can see Tiger was artificially "over populated" to reduce the power of building more than one.
In sort population role is imo a little more complicated.
Tiger has previously been high pop because the meta was to get two which created a huge power spike. The attempt was to counter that by high pop cost. Heavies got limited to one, power spike was lowered, population adjusted accordingly. Exactly what I initially claimed.
I have no idea where you are going with this thread. What I initially debated was your claim that the role of a unit influences the population cost, nothing else. Please refer to only this point then.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
