700 * 1.15 = 805
Then it's got 169 HP more than a sherman. This is an entire penetrating cloaked pak shot more worth of HP. Either way, the unit needs to be balanced without doctrine buffs, and the buffs need to be balanced among themselves - don't bring them into such arguments, as they're fairly moot. And yes, excuse me. I was somewhat off - the MK 6 costs just 20 FU more than a sherman, on top of the 15 MP more - and it was balanced for a very long time. No change was done to the MK 6, so I fail to see your point as to why it has become unbalanced.
Both tanks fulfil the same role in the same doctrine. They perform very identically so could we just remove it from the game and replace it(MKVI)?
The units do NOT perform identically - the MK 4 gun is gravely inferior to the MK 6 in nearly every way.
Splash damage :
////////////// MK 4 MK 6
L 0.2 0.35
M 0.35 0.5
S 1 1
Splash radius :
///////////// MK 4 MK 6
L 0.5 3
M 0.25 1
S 0.1 0.25
So, the MK 6 gun deals the same splash damage at long range splash radius as the MK 4 gun deals in it's medium splash radius.
Furthermore, the MK 6 gun has 12 times more long range splash than the MK 4 gun has medium range splash - it does not mean the gun is 12 times better in fighting infantry squads, of course not, but basically - the MK 6 can actually be expected to repeatedly snipe an infantry man dealing serious damage to all the men around, while the MK 4 can only be relied on sniping a single guy without any retribution to the men around. This is, of course, excluding special occasions such as infantry leaving a halftrack and being bunched up, which aren't something to do balance on.
The penetration table of both guns raises an eyebrow :
it's nearly identical, with the MK 4 having 3 percent more base penetration at long range.
However, a brief look at the penetration tables against P4s and StuGs soon breaks the illusion of the MK 4 being at least somewhat better at something :
P4 armor :
MK 4 - 40.57% chance of penetration
MK 6 - 58.64% chance of penetration.
StuG armor :
MK 4 - 23.2% chance of penetration
MK 6 - 34.6% chance of penetration.
Looking at all the other penetrations versus various tanks(which I don't feel like listing) I find that overall, the MK 6 is a near 50 percent better at penetration versus all targets than it's MK 4 cousin.
Finally, the MK 4 has 0.5 moving accuracy.
The MK 6 has 0.75.
50 percent more accurate on the move is very, very important.
Rest assured - the difference in the effectiveness of the MK 4 and the MK 6 guns is in a completely different league when comparing the 75mm and the 76mm Sherman guns. It is that much more expensive, and costs more popcap for a very good reason.
Now that you have read the comparison : in an assault which involves protecting (integral to your tactic) ATGs from counter-attacking enemy infantry and vehicles with your own (likely moving) tank - which would you chose - the MK 4 or the MK 6? I'd personally just go crocodile, because that thing is awesome, but barring access to one - I'd grab myself the MK 6 without as much as a shadow of a doubt.
