[Charles22]

Yes, I hadn't considered that he may be playing with so small a force that he's not getting much quality opposition.

I'm not sure entirely what he was talking about, as the details aren't too specific, but surely the lack of USSR experience plays in there and I didn't consider that, but I do think their cost, if it's truly all performance-driven, is still out of proportion to their true performance (too cheap). For example, the KV series in the earlier years is invincible to all but the 88, and how many 88's do you anticipate he will see from the AI, especially if the force is small? Consider also that even the T34 is practically invincible if he's loading up with all the good stuff.

I understand also, that the problem may be the system, or rather, that the early USSR is an exception to the system. The problem is that you can only put so much value on armor (I'm not referring to armor in general here, but to the metal protection on armored units), since that same armored rating is ineffectual later in the game. Invincibility is priceless, but you can't give the true worth of that same armor at different periods when it's later vulnerable also, unless you make two or more of the same unit. I'm not suggesting they do that, only when you have invincible armor for a period of time it makes things very difficult to have it either a) underpriced for one period or b) overpriced for another period.