I guess there should have been an Axis bid.

Paying 1 Pus more for just getting extra 1 attack or defence does not worth. It is just increasing offense/defence 17% but paying %50 more than the cheapest cannon fodder thats cost issue. Another thing is both have the same HP which make these kind of units even worse. The similar thing does exist in 270BC. Archer is %33 expensive than spearman and just get %17 more defense.

They are all obviosly bad units.

I agree for air and naval units. Maybe have to talk about unit costs for specific maps.

I would like to learn the best costs of this units and want to share my opinions.

1. Inf=3Pus, Artillery=4Pus and Armour=5Pus: Fits well for most of WWII maps with techs or without techs but what if we reduce or add 1 Pus cost to all of these? Would it be better alternative for specific maps?

Also my guess is if there is a conscript with 2 Pus cost and 0/1/1 stats,supportable then it makes infantry a bit useless. Without supportability conscript may be balanced unit along other units.

Would armored car (2/1/2) fit well with 3.5 Pus cost?

Also I do feel carrier+fighter combo is so much powerful than other naval units. I know they get cost reduction from techs but it never came to the games in the most ciritis parts and simple no reason to research them first. I also tend to like convoy zones and like to see incomes on the sea.

Long range is enjoyable but very overpowered tech not sure is that really balanced tech. Maybe would it be better if fighter cost was 12 and bomber one 14 not sure though.

Motorized (1/3/3) with 5 pus cost and Mechanized (2/3/3 artillery) with 6 Pus sounds reasonable. Would Heavy tank (4/4/2 support 2 infantry) with 7 Pus be any good?

I do feel the classic AA system is one of the weakest part of Triplea. It is kinda ok for small maps but definitely it is dull in big maps.

Enemy air units are undestroyable without them but on the other hand you can't really use them in battles for to take on enemy fighters since if they are in your main stack it won't matter because enemy already won't attack there and if you move AA to another place then enemy will retake without using air units then it will force you to retake it without using your own air units.

AA is the least useful unit in big maps because can't even fulfill their main mission in non-factory zones.

The solution would be making some land and sea units that slighly more expensive versions of classical units they would be way better counter if enemy using air units too much. There should have been units that has AA ability on the ground and sea. With that if you have more these kind of units in the same stack, they increase the hit chance of enemy air units.

In this case one unit shouldn't have 1/6 change to hit an air unit of course it would make air units useless.

What do you think about Russian colour from Great War?

There bugs should be removed.

1. Gases can take on enemy ships once deploted transports.
2. Miss connection British Columbia-sz153
3. Lame Connection of sz74-British Somaliland
4. Italy can buy armour without researching Tank tech.

Can one tech token's cost be 2.5?

I have similar doubts about tech costs. For Example +1 offense bonus for German field guns is much superior bonus for Communist creeping barrage. Germany becomes able to buy more fields and benefit much more also Commies have to relatively spends more (comparin their average incomes) to get creeping barage.

But gas has no defense power and can attack only once time. I would consider Mustard superior in this situation only if gas was just normal unit.

I do believe if Mustard provided +2 offense bonuses to gases then I would say Creeping and Mustard Gas techs are almost identically good.

The same situation is exist in defense techs. +1 defense power for Heavy guns isn't good as much as +1 offense for fields. Fields get %50 while Heavy guns just %25.

But at least offense and defence techs are relatively well balanced .Creeping is so much superior but offense category also contains one of the weakest tech.