Lusche, i understand your point and charts; but if the flight model has a touch of realism, Spits out turn 109s, the amo load is modeled realistic .... this instant town resuping is total .... 
;
How would you rebuild a town in 5 min ? the concrete needs 2-3 days to solidify.
There is a clue here............ The model is building one compromise v reality on top of another.
The towns are great but the model of destroying so much concrete prior to enabling a capture with a few grunts is very poor IMO. This is then compounded by allowing a solitary vehicle to repair said concrete.
How many times in the history of war did capture become more difficult due to having to progress through ruins created by air bombardment or artillery barrage?
Infantry enables capture via occupation, armour& artillery supports infantry, air superiority supports both the former.
Actually IMO the M3 should be the key instrument of capture and defence as the provider of infantry to occupy / defend a town. Armour / artillery should be a key provider of infantry attrition either by direct fire or destruction of the buildings or ruins that infantry takes refuge in. And in defence of such vehicles that bring infantry to the war front.
Get rid of the map room........ enable capture via overwhelming occupation by enemy infantry.
Armour should also fight for local dominance via tank war fare.
Armour should be subject to attrition from the air....... Vive la bomb****! It was actually the core tactical air role! Air warfare should fight for superiority over the town/ target.
Then do it in a way that retains balance and fun.
