Tank supply imbalance

[goreblimey]

No i was asking in respect of the S76 or a Tiger he seems to believe they are equal ,so which one would he choose.

[drkmouse]

2 hours ago, undercova said:

it shows the current and prior campaigns. so prior campaigns is an average and better to use. sometimes you lose ... sometimes you win. and the K/D then varies a lot

the  THREE campain b4 thsi one  the 76  av   .85 to .9 kd vs the tiger. (  dif here may be   op  vs  up)

[fidd]

7 hours ago, drkmouse said:

the  THREE campain b4 thsi one  the 76  av   .85 to .9 kd vs the tiger. (  dif here may be   op  vs  up)

Unsurprising in 3 campaigns lost by the axis. Losing brings UP, which generally means lower KD's achieved by units on the losing side. To have any statistical merit, the stats compared would need to include several lost campaigns, and and equal number of victorious campaigns of similar length. This is why raising "stats" of only 1 or 2 campaigns is often as not meaningless, and stats of specific classes or individual units even more so. General trends in stats are of more worth, especially when they affect both sides. For example, the trend of ATG's, especially heavier ATG's no longer being used to any degree in defence, by either side, is of more merit as a "stat" than the overall KD ratio of Sh76's v whatever Pz. CRS have access to far more detailed and reliable stats than we do, and can measure all sorts of metrics we can't, such as the probability of any given tier making a capture of a cp, or a town, and that's of FAR more relevance to tier composition than anything we think we can extract from the stats we see.

[Kidd27]

8 hours ago, drkmouse said:

the  THREE campain b4 thsi one  the 76  av   .85 to .9 kd vs the tiger. (  dif here may be   op  vs  up)

we have over 180 completed campaigns. Why use stats from the last 3?

[fidd]

56 minutes ago, Kidd27 said:

we have over 180 completed campaigns. Why use stats from the last 3?

Because, self-evidently, they can be used to imply an imbalance which would not exist were a much longer period of stats used. It's a put-up job, pure and simple. That said, as there have been so many changes in game over those 180 campaigns, it's also pretty clear that some care needs to be taken to disregard the stats from campaigns fought when God was a boy. I'd estimate the last 20-40 campaigns would be enough.

 

[tater]

Campaigns are won/lost based on numbers of player, nothing more.

if you use stats from a lost campaign the numbers will look worse for the losing side than if you use winning campaign stats. The overpop side gets more kills, and dies less often per player. They have mutual support, they are "rolling" and camp the enemy, so the TOM is better for OP as well. Since every campaign tends to have an OP side, the stats are pretty much meaningless for assessing relative unit quality. The stats tell you what actual play is like—as a function of player balance. That's it.

Want unit stats? Set up scenario play with even sides, and see what happens. Even then local imbalance will drive the stats Unless the scenario is designed to force combat in a different way.

[drkmouse]

2 hours ago, fidd said:

Because, self-evidently, they can be used to imply an imbalance which would not exist were a much longer period of stats used. It's a put-up job, pure and simple. That said, as there have been so many changes in game over those 180 campaigns, it's also pretty clear that some care needs to be taken to disregard the stats from campaigns fought when God was a boy. I'd estimate the last 20-40 campaigns would be enough.

 

BS and  you i do not like the inferance . read the whole  quote......

and btw i onlyu have been taknig  stats  past  5  campains ( you want teh 5ht were the  tiger was EVEN WOURSE????)

you  blatent insults belong in  off topic not here..

[tater]

6 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

BS and  you i do not like the inferance . read the whole  quote......

and btw i onlyu have been taknig  stats  past  5  campains ( you want teh 5ht were the  tiger was EVEN WOURSE????)

you  blatent insults belong in  off topic not here..

Stats are sadly not useful.

I can hit someone running at a few hundred meters with a rifle a decent % of the time in game. If I was to take a tank, OTOH, I'd likely get killed quickly, I rarely do it (not sure the last time I spawned one, certainly not in the last few campaigns).

So even a head to head with me in one tank, and a good tanker in the one we wanted to test would give screwy results. I don't know where to shoot, I don't have the practice driving/hiding/etc.

Any direct comparison between armor units probably needs to be utterly standardized testing. Pick a few ranges, array target tanks at different angles (head on, rear, side, and front and rear quarters—and separately for the turret in the same directions), and shoot.

If the results are consistent with RL data, the tanks are modeled correctly, and any outcome differences are player skill within the terrain they are constrained to play in (which might be completely at odds with reality).

[fidd]

2 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

BS and  you i do not like the inferance . read the whole  quote......

and btw i onlyu have been taknig  stats  past  5  campains ( you want teh 5ht were the  tiger was EVEN WOURSE????)

you  blatent insults belong in  off topic not here..

No insult was made or intended, beyond the fact that taking stats only from the previous series of axis losses, is deliberately and intentionally misleading, whoever posted them in support of "imbalance in tanks". If that was you, consider yourself bollocked for 'acting the goat' by doing so. If it wasn't you, clearly I wasn't insulting you. In any case, I don't consider this insulting, as the reason for such a selective use of stats is clearly deliberate and with an agenda. If so, I'm merely calling a spade a spade, not an "earth-inverting agricultural-implement" to save your blushes. It is crass stupidity to select stats from a series of losses only, and then trumpet these as "evidence" of imbalance. I could not give a hoot in hell that you do not like the inference.

If it waddles, quacks and lays eggs, I call it a duck. Or a purveyor of the most pungent, aromatic and finest quality BS, in this case. Had you taken stats from 5 won, and 5 lost recent campaigns, you might have had a point worth at least respectful reading....

[N8]

1 hour ago, drkmouse said:

BS and  you i do not like the inferance . read the whole  quote......

and btw i onlyu have been taknig  stats  past  5  campains ( you want teh 5ht were the  tiger was EVEN WOURSE????)

you  blatent insults belong in  off topic not here..

Don't even respond to him, he's just going to write a 45 page essay that is very unnecessary. 

[drkmouse]

1 hour ago, fidd said:

No insult was made or intended, beyond the fact that taking stats only from the previous series of axis losses, is deliberately and intentionally misleading, whoever posted them in support of "imbalance in tanks". If that was you, consider yourself bollocked for 'acting the goat' by doing so. If it wasn't you, clearly I wasn't insulting you. In any case, I don't consider this insulting, as the reason for such a selective use of stats is clearly deliberate and with an agenda. If so, I'm merely calling a spade a spade, not an "earth-inverting agricultural-implement" to save your blushes. It is crass stupidity to select stats from a series of losses only, and then trumpet these as "evidence" of imbalance. I could not give a hoot in hell that you do not like the inference.

If it waddles, quacks and lays eggs, I call it a duck. Or a purveyor of the most pungent, aromatic and finest quality BS, in this case. Had you taken stats from 5 won, and 5 lost recent campaigns, you might have had a point worth at least respectful reading....

bs again  tha includes the  map weare in also ( as i STATED it may be do to up/op and why di d you not Q the  rat who brough up  ONE  maps stats that FAVORED  allies?  the  DELIBERATE and INTENTIONA MISSLEADING  was done  by you

you egnore  the  "good map" ratio for the allies bougth up by a perons, but attacked the post stating 4 mpas wourt and  WITH a dislaimer   on up/op...

[drkmouse]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Stats are sadly not useful.

I can hit someone running at a few hundred meters with a rifle a decent % of the time in game. If I was to take a tank, OTOH, I'd likely get killed quickly, I rarely do it (not sure the last time I spawned one, certainly not in the last few campaigns).

So even a head to head with me in one tank, and a good tanker in the one we wanted to test would give screwy results. I don't know where to shoot, I don't have the practice driving/hiding/etc.

Any direct comparison between armor units probably needs to be utterly standardized testing. Pick a few ranges, array target tanks at different angles (head on, rear, side, and front and rear quarters—and separately for the turret in the same directions), and shoot.

If the results are consistent with RL data, the tanks are modeled correctly, and any outcome differences are player skill within the terrain they are constrained to play in (which might be completely at odds with reality).

they CAn be when they show a side that runs out of a certina  group of equip  LONG before the other side does, thus infern a huge diadv( weathe rit be  tanks/  autos etc) 

once out of  med and hvy armor  the other side can and DOES  go inot  camp mode eazy  peazy

once out of ms' it is had  to hold or take cps if the opppnet stil has  50% of ther suppy still

so the stats can show and help to infer were ther may be a problem( and you wil find 75%+ of the timje it corilates to ingame) the other 25%  the one side is too op/up does nto make much dif or one side has  extra flags in an area to compensate for th elack of needed equip.

stats in there pure  form can be used to make almost any argumetn, but  to use fo showing certain aspect, they are very  usefull.

[delems]

*** taking stats only from the previous series of axis losses

lol, no need to look at stats to see the unfairness.

12 s76 to 4 tigers ----- three to one -- how is that even?

18 s75 to 10 IVG/H ----- nearly two to one -- how is that even?

And, no, the IIIF, IIIH etc don't complete as they are 3rd line tanks. (if not 4th line)

Yes, we have 2 IIIL, to face 3 stuarts.....

And don't forget, the 5x DAC, while not a tank, can easily kill every panzer --- not so for the 232.

Edited May 17, 2021 by delems

[fidd]

1 hour ago, drkmouse said:

bs again  tha includes the  map weare in also ( as i STATED it may be do to up/op and why di d you not Q the  rat who brough up  ONE  maps stats that FAVORED  allies?  the  DELIBERATE and INTENTIONA MISSLEADING  was done  by you

you egnore  the  "good map" ratio for the allies bougth up by a perons, but attacked the post stating 4 mpas wourt and  WITH a dislaimer   on up/op...

it's quite simple, I didn't notice the 1 map stat to which you allude but do not quote. The disclaimer is meaningless, as it's plain as a bloody pikestaff that your "4 maps worth" was equally misleading, and deliberate misinformation. You're not a complete idiot, you must have realised that quoting stats from a slew of axis lost campaigns was (obviously) misleading. There's no "may" be down to UP/OP about it. It's clearly the case that it was. That's a bit like saying shooting yourself in the foot "may cause injury"!

[drkmouse]

4 minutes ago, fidd said:

it's quite simple, I didn't notice the 1 map stat to which you allude but do not quote. The disclaimer is meaningless, as it's plain as a bloody pikestaff that your "4 maps worth" was equally misleading, and deliberate misinformation. You're not a complete idiot, you must have realised that quoting stats from a slew of axis lost campaigns was (obviously) misleading. There's no "may" be down to UP/OP about it. It's clearly the case that it was. That's a bit like saying shooting yourself in the foot "may cause injury"!

was not plain a s a whaterver you  said,  you say waht you wanted and insulted to a  fualse point.  

Funny you did not see the  pst RIGHT above mine, and   did nto see the ENDING of my post, but  wnet into attack mode AND ARE STILL IN IT

why is it hard for some opeel to admit they made a amistake instead of doubling down??

[fidd]

9 minutes ago, delems said:

*** taking stats only from the previous series of axis losses

lol, no need to look at stats to see the unfairness.

12 s76 to 4 tigers ----- three to one -- how is that even?

18 s75 to 10 IVG/H ----- nearly two to one -- how is that even?

And, no, the IIIF, IIIH etc don't complete as they are 3rd line tanks. (if not 4th line)

Yes, we have 2 IIIL, to face 3 stuarts.....

And don't forget, the 5x DAC, while not a tank, can easily kill every panzer --- not so for the 232.

OK, we've gone from the "stats" prove it, to delems has a feeling about it. Progress.

My presumption is that CRS know what they're doing, are not biased (which would be nuts) and have access to better data than we do, and, as we've stated many many times before measure different things than simply the numbers of particular classes of tanks. They'll be looking at the "likelihood of cp capture", and "likelihood of town capture" for many many campaigns, covering many UP/OP situations. In particular, they'll be not be persuaded that selective poorer stats from a sequence of lost campaigns is a good basis for long-term decision-making, I would think.

You know my thoughts on flanking through bush-lines with A/C's etc. I've not fought much as axis with the 3h v the Sherman, but I imagine it's reasonably capable for tracking them, and can penetrate from the side at typical ranges. It's not entirely useless in tier 3. The 3f with it's fast traverse=speed is an excellent supporting tank v ei PIATs/sappers, indeed I used to use one in close support for Tigers back in the day. The whole argument about imbalance here is what I've been saying all along that "axis armoured Bde's are very fragile once the Tigers are gone". This should ring a bell, I've typed it often enough. It's the reason I've been suggesting that:

1. Axis get more devtime in the medium term, specifically to get cheap and cheerful TD's such as Marders, (to gain an improvement in the  # of gun-tubes) When was the last time you saw an allied player arguing for more devtime to be spent on the axis?

2. That axis be split into 3 arrmees exactly as per the allied nations functionally, with 3 different TOE's per tier, so that you can optimise the front line as we do, and you can deploy "expensive" vehicles where they can do the most good, and avoid deploying them where they are easily dealt with.

If you chaps would just get over yourselves, and think for a moment, you'll see this is both entirely an improvement in fairness, and addresses the problems  of operating - and losing -Tigers in flat terrain where their effect on the remainder of the TOE composition puts you at a disavantage after they are lost. Which is the actual problem here: You have a single TOE across the entire map, including all sorts of terrain, and this "vanilla" TOE of axis Bde's will in some areas where the Tiger will perform very well, and others where it can't (as a rule). The allies are able, up to a point, to optimise our frontline to make best use of the three different TOE's and to preferentially - within some constraints, garrison likewise. It is not right that the axis have no equivalency in this respect.

THAT is the Problem, right there. 

[tater]

1 hour ago, drkmouse said:

they CAn be when they show a side that runs out of a certina  group of equip  LONG before the other side does, thus infern a huge diadv( weathe rit be  tanks/  autos etc) 

once out of  med and hvy armor  the other side can and DOES  go inot  camp mode eazy  peazy

once out of ms' it is had  to hold or take cps if the opppnet stil has  50% of ther suppy still

so the stats can show and help to infer were ther may be a problem( and you wil find 75%+ of the timje it corilates to ingame) the other 25%  the one side is too op/up does nto make much dif or one side has  extra flags in an area to compensate for th elack of needed equip.

stats in there pure  form can be used to make almost any argumetn, but  to use fo showing certain aspect, they are very  usefull.

All I see in stats are the side with the numbers. Supply is meaningless, all that matters are player numbers.

3ABS and every single BDE piled into 1 city are useless if the side defending the city doesn't have at least anough people to guard every single CP/bunker, AND have floaters to hunt/camp/kill FMS. Even if they have those numbers, that;s a min defense, and then numbers on the other side in excess of that wins. Supply plays zero role.

[fidd]

26 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

was not plain a s a whaterver you  said,  you say waht you wanted and insulted to a  fualse point.  

Funny you did not see the  pst RIGHT above mine, and   did nto see the ENDING of my post, but  wnet into attack mode AND ARE STILL IN IT

why is it hard for some opeel to admit they made a amistake instead of doubling down??

I made no mistake. I read your qualification that the UP/OP situation of these stats "may" cause the difference. I simply viewed that as a bloody silly statement, because there's no "may" about it. Any campaign that is won will have stronger KD ratios than a lost one, and conversely any campaign that is lost, will have poorer KD ratios. Ergo, trying to imply an imbalance from stats purely from lost campaigns, is either stupidity, or deliberately and intentionally to create the spectre of an imbalance that would not occur were the population neutral with little or no UP/OP. You choose which explanation you prefer.

[drkmouse]

11 minutes ago, tater said:

All I see in stats are the side with the numbers. Supply is meaningless, all that matters are player numbers.

3ABS and every single BDE piled into 1 city are useless if the side defending the city doesn't have at least anough people to guard every single CP/bunker, AND have floaters to hunt/camp/kill FMS. Even if they have those numbers, that;s a min defense, and then numbers on the other side in excess of that wins. Supply plays zero role.

number are also usles if you are camped by  tanks  / have not  mgs and try9ng ot def with riffles.

everything matter  EXISPEILAY when  numbers are close.

[drkmouse]

15 minutes ago, fidd said:

OK, we've gone from the "stats" prove it, to delems has a feeling about it. Progress.

My presumption is that CRS know what they're doing, are not biased (which would be nuts) and have access to better data than we do, and, as we've stated many many times before measure different things than simply the numbers of particular classes of tanks. They'll be looking at the "likelihood of cp capture", and "likelihood of town capture" for many many campaigns, covering many UP/OP situations. In particular, they'll be not be persuaded that selective poorer stats from a sequence of lost campaigns is a good basis for long-term decision-making, I would think.

You know my thoughts on flanking through bush-lines with A/C's etc. I've not fought much as axis with the 3h v the Sherman, but I imagine it's reasonably capable for tracking them, and can penetrate from the side at typical ranges. It's not entirely useless in tier 3. The 3f with it's fast traverse=speed is an excellent supporting tank v ei PIATs/sappers, indeed I used to use one in close support for Tigers back in the day. The whole argument about imbalance here is what I've been saying all along that "axis armoured Bde's are very fragile once the Tigers are gone". This should ring a bell, I've typed it often enough. It's the reason I've been suggesting that:

1. Axis get more devtime in the medium term, specifically to get cheap and cheerful TD's such as Marders, (to gain an improvement in the  # of gun-tubes) When was the last time you saw an allied player arguing for more devtime to be spent on the axis?

2. That axis be split into 3 arrmees exactly as per the allied nations functionally, with 3 different TOE's per tier, so that you can optimise the front line as we do, and you can deploy "expensive" vehicles where they can do the most good, and avoid deploying them where they are easily dealt with.

If you chaps would just get over yourselves, and think for a moment, you'll see this is both entirely an improvement in fairness, and addresses the problems  of operating - and losing -Tigers in flat terrain where their effect on the remainder of the TOE composition puts you at a disavantage after they are lost. Which is the actual problem here: You have a single TOE across the entire map, including all sorts of terrain, and this "vanilla" TOE of axis Bde's will in some areas where the Tiger will perform very well, and others where it can't (as a rule). The allies are able, up to a point, to optimise our frontline to make best use of the three different TOE's and to preferentially - within some constraints, garrison likewise. It is not right that the axis have no equivalency in this respect.

THAT is the Problem, right there. 

4 tigers  vs  12  76 YOU egnore tha and blaimn the tiger  drives.  sigh....  and lets nto forget  teh  zook alies have and axis do not in tier  2 ( yes i know   historical)  even thoug   alies get non historical planes in ther  brit supply tier 0 and 1  AND   m1' in brig forn line ( thog  ONLYU used in  rear  lines aka home fornt) but axis do not get ther para  fg42 on front line THOHG THAT WAS HISTORICAL

 

[delems]

*** OK, we've gone from the "stats" prove it, to delems has a feeling about it. Progress.

Are you absolutely blind?

12 to 4 is not some 'FEELING'.  Cold hard facts.... 12 > 4 substantially.

How about this - lets go 12 tigers and 4 s76 ------ how does that feel?

And then 18 IVG/H and 10 s75.....  getting a different feeling yet?

 

The fact that you can't admit 12 to 4 is unfair - shows you're biased 100% and not even in reality land.

And if you really think it is fair - lets try 12 tigers and 4 s76.... cause that should be fair too.

Edited May 17, 2021 by delems

[fidd]

2 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

4 tigers  vs  12  76 YOU egnore tha and blaimn the tiger  drives.  sigh....  and lets nto forget  teh  zook alies have and axis do not in tier  2 ( yes i know   historical)  even thoug   alies get non historical planes in ther  brit supply tier 0 and 1  AND   m1' in brig forn line ( thog  ONLYU used in  rear  lines aka home fornt) but axis do not get ther para  fg42 on front line THOHG THAT WAS HISTORICAL

 

I think I've been entirely fair and reasonable in my assessment of Tiger use. It's hard to see how they can be used well in flat terrain with hordes of sappers, zooks/PIATs, bloody silly foliage - and now AT aircraft in great numbers overhead just looking to shoot your engine out. That said, if you came over the allies for a day, and watch from our point of view, how many are simply thrown away by players advancing solo, and without a screen of vehicles and infantry ahead of them to mark stuff and prevent ei/atg's - or Shermans - from killing them it might give you a different perspective. Tigers are awesome, but they simply cannot be used to lead an attack with, and expect them to be still alive 10 minutes later. Nor are they any good in defence especially in flat-terrain, without bloody swarms of infantry and other supporting arms around them. YMMV of course, but I'd be literally amazed if your take on that differed. So commentary on how they are used, is entirely in order. It's not tweaking anyone's nose, it's simply a fact, that with Tiger's, they can do enormous damage in the right terrain, with the right support. Use 'em carelessly - and we see that a LOT - then you'll end up in a world of pain, almost regardless of the number of Shermans.

A few weeks ago I was supporting an attack with a CH7CS, from a "between berms" position about 700m out and within 30 yards or so of the road. A Tiger was reported on the road, coming out from town, so I traversed to my right and as he passed potted him with a single HEAT round, (of 5). Blow me down if the player concerned didn't repeat the same exercise in futility a minute or so later, where-upon I repeated the shot. Same player, a well-known and otherwise very capable one too, whose name I shall with-hold. We all have off-days. The point is, when good players advance them into the teeth of an attack, past hedges fairly teeming with sappers and zooks, and repeats the same event, to the same point, with the same result, what inference should be draw about Tiger use?

[fidd]

29 minutes ago, delems said:

*** OK, we've gone from the "stats" prove it, to delems has a feeling about it. Progress.

Are you absolutely blind?

12 to 4 is not some 'FEELING'.  Cold hard facts.... 12 > 4 substantially.

How about this - lets go 12 tigers and 4 s76 ------ how does that feel?

And then 18 IVG/H and 10 s75.....  getting a different feeling yet?

 

The fact that you can't admit 12 to 4 is unfair - shows you're biased 100% and not even in reality land.

And if you really think it is fair - lets try 12 tigers and 4 s76.... cause that should be fair too.

12 to 4 is irrelevant, if the overall figures of TOE's facing each other confer an equal chance of taking the town. That, HAS to be the metric applied first and foremost. The problem the axis have is the one size fits all "vanilla" TOE, and the lack of breadth of types devved, specifically the lack of Marders/Hetzers and the like. As it stands, once the Tigers are gone, you have inferior numbers of Pz IV's whose armour is at best indifferent, resulting in a lower overall number of gun-tubes than if you had more or less unarmoured TD's in the form of Marder's. It's the same story with the Stug G. It has just enough armour to make it more expensive than (and I'm guessing here) an M10, however, the armour is sufficiently indifferent that with our short-range engagements, you'd be better off, with the "cheaper" Marders replacing some PzIVs and Stugs. IMHO.

So long as the axis simply ask for more IVG's or more Stugs, or fewer Shermans, the arithmatic of "chances of taking a town" or "chances of taking a cp" will be likely over-rule any change of numbers in allied or axis TOE's. What (in my estimation) you need to do is put concrete proposals to CRS which will allow the variation of 3 different TOE's each optimised for flat, flat or hilly and hilly terrain use, with such vehicles as are required to confer a deeper strength to axis TOE's. That pretty much means Marders, Hetzers and the like to confer a greater depth to some axis TOE's, and so get around the inherent fragility of the current axis armoured vanilla TOE in flat-terrain.

My concern, is that when the Panther comes in, if it enters the same "vanilla" TOE, it'll actually exacerbate the problem, especially in flat terrain without linear colliders. The only thing going for the Panther is the likely pop-changes consequent from their initial introduction, but as with the Tiger, than eventually diminishes, at which point, I'd expect to see the current problems you are experiencing to recommence with a vengeance, because the underlying issue, inability of axis TOE's to be tailored more in deployment to the terrain, will continue to occur, only more severely.

One possible idea might be to give the soon to be released 251 with the Pak36 mounted, the large HEAT round it was capable of firing, as it enters a suitable tier, as a tier-specific load-out.

Edited May 17, 2021 by fidd

[N8]

Jesus, it’s like reading an English class book, while reading Fidd’s posts.

[drkmouse]

57 minutes ago, fidd said:

12 to 4 is irrelevant, if the overall figures of TOE's facing each other confer an equal chance of taking the town. That, HAS to be the metric applied first and foremost. The problem the axis have is the one size fits all "vanilla" TOE, and the lack of breadth of types devved, specifically the lack of Marders/Hetzers and the like. As it stands, once the Tigers are gone, you have inferior numbers of Pz IV's whose armour is at best indifferent, resulting in a lower overall number of gun-tubes than if you had more or less unarmoured TD's in the form of Marder's. It's the same story with the Stug G. It has just enough armour to make it more expensive than (and I'm guessing here) an M10, however, the armour is sufficiently indifferent that with our short-range engagements, you'd be better off, with the "cheaper" Marders replacing some PzIVs and Stugs. IMHO.

So long as the axis simply ask for more IVG's or more Stugs, or fewer Shermans, the arithmatic of "chances of taking a town" or "chances of taking a cp" will be likely over-rule any change of numbers in allied or axis TOE's. What (in my estimation) you need to do is put concrete proposals to CRS which will allow the variation of 3 different TOE's each optimised for flat, flat or hilly and hilly terrain use, with such vehicles as are required to confer a deeper strength to axis TOE's. That pretty much means Marders, Hetzers and the like to confer a greater depth to some axis TOE's, and so get around the inherent fragility of the current axis armoured vanilla TOE in flat-terrain.

My concern, is that when the Panther comes in, if it enters the same "vanilla" TOE, it'll actually exacerbate the problem, especially in flat terrain without linear colliders. The only thing going for the Panther is the likely pop-changes consequent from their initial introduction, but as with the Tiger, than eventually diminishes, at which point, I'd expect to see the current problems you are experiencing to recommence with a vengeance, because the underlying issue, inability of axis TOE's to be tailored more in deployment to the terrain, will continue to occur, only more severely.

One possible idea might be to give the soon to be released 251 with the Pak36 mounted, the large HEAT round it was capable of firing, as it enters a suitable tier, as a tier-specific load-out.

the us suppy for  hvy and med tanks is WAY out of  number   plain and simple

french on other hand  need more while us needs less the "majic"   panz 4'as and stug are  ou tnumebrs  by there counter part also,. so ther ARE NON  ot take on teh  left over  7  76's lets alone enough to take on the meds  alone in the  us  

( not inlcuing the fact alies get  ther toobs in tier 2) axis  tier 3.