Build limits in multiplayer

[T80U]

As i do not oppose the idea of build limit itself, there's one thing that makes it horribly artifical and immersion breaking. I assume that build limit's supposed to show fundamental limits of ww2 industry from historical prospective and avoiding minmax from gameplay. But it has one issue now - when events add unit they ignore the limit, if it's full, but still eating up a slot, if there's one avalible. That makes it somewhat abusable - for example allied player is encouraged to build at-gun early, to get african at on overlimit. This is not cool, as player's decision is affected by entirely artifical element. And even more, after gaining this unit you are afraid to lose it much more than you should be usually, as you couldn't regenerate it even for full price.
I think when event offers you a unit, it should increase limit accordingly, so there won't be any reason to specifically study events that give units, or tremble in fear of losing them.
I'm specially talking about MP, because in sort-of competitive game vs human both sides try to use all instruments avalible, so such breaking immersion things happen more often.

[OxfordGuy3]

Yes, that would seem to make sense, I think. I do think the hard limits are needed, though, especially as the game does not model manpower

[Sugar]

The brit. AT is a minor issue I guess for it`s vulnerabilty against inf.-attacks, together with the problem, that research for a single unit makes it the most expensive of the game, like the german heavy bomber.

Both sides are able to extend the forcepool in their favor, the Germans in case of the DAK and Russia in case of the Siberians. But in contrast to your oppinion, I don`t think they will use them suicidal, since they won`t be able to replace their losses and lose significant punching power.

If this would be able to significantly influence the balancing, I would agree to change, but more in a way to limit or extend the forcepool.