What's OP? What's UP?

Generally speaking planes need an overhaul. Imo instead of being shot down so frequently they should be instead suffer "suppression" from AA and thus have reduced efficiency according to number of AA hits them.

Currently the quad is clearly not UP as an AA.

This honestly sounds like a pretty solid idea, and would potentially remove the effect of "RNG planes" obliterating armies if we removed them crashing all together.

add maxim (UT) (Done)
remove clown car Unsure, still a large threat vs OKW with late fausts
remove m20It works well enough, but the skirts are probably overpriced and at mine is cancerous with immobilze imo., m26(Currently I think it is ever so slightly OP, due to 1 shot wipes, but if we changed explosives so that doesn't occur, a scatter reduction would make this tank near perfect.), both m8(Disagree) and sherman(Disagree)
at gun is already fixed Which AT gun?(same as pak) bofors is just bugged Didn't know this
comet and cromwell UT Added
remove kubel (Will do)

You should really get your own 'Soviets OP' subforum in the ballance section. What you write is surely fun to read, but I think ShadowLinkX37 wanted some serious ballance discussion here.

kv-1 is a bit OT but more about desing and less about raw stats, it just needs less rear armor and more speed (to medium tank lvl)
kv2 need a rework
and isu 152 should be brought in line with the jagdT and ele rear armor changes
so he is right

You should really get your own 'Soviets OP' subforum in the ballance section. What you write is surely fun to read, but I think ShadowLinkX37 wanted some serious ballance discussion here.

Thanks for you advice.

If ShadowLinkX37 needs any clarifications from he can simply ask for them.

If you think that "ShadowLinkX37 wanted some serious balance discussion here" I would advice you to provide it, instead of writing personal things to me.

kv-1 is a bit OT but more about desing and less about raw stats, it just needs less rear armor and more speed (to medium tank lvl)
kv2 need a rework
and isu 152 should be brought in line with the jagdT and ele rear armor changes
so he is right

KV-1 is pretty weak, I would give it UT at best in the scale of this thread. Yeah, it has high rear armour, but without it, it would be completely useless. So there is that. Even now there is little point of building it. The only reason why it sees any action is becouse it has been put in one commander with newly overbuffed IL-2.

KV-2 doesn't need rework as a singular unit. The whole commander needs it. As it stands now, KV-2 is not worth its price for how late it comes and how easy it is to counter. Would give it UP in the scale.

ISU-152 is not in the same class of units as jagd and ele any more. Sure, when supported it can be worth its price, though only on the most favourable maps (that are also unfavourable 95% of other soviet units) It definitely doesn't need any nerfs to its armour, especially taking into consideration how quickly it dies when attacked from the front by TDs. In the scale I would give it 'ballanced', with additional description 'situational'.

KV-1 is pretty weak, I would give it UT at best in the scale of this thread. Yeah, it has high rear armour, but without it, it would be completely useless. So there is that. Even now there is little point of building it. The only reason why it sees any action is becouse it has been put in one commander with newly overbuffed IL-2.

KV-2 doesn't need rework as a singular unit. The whole commander needs it. As it stands now, KV-2 is not worth its price for how late it comes and how easy it is to counter. Would give it UP in the scale.

ISU-152 is not in the same class of units as jagd and ele any more. Sure, when supported it can be worth its price, though only on the most favourable maps (that are also unfavourable 95% of other soviet units) It definitely doesn't need any nerfs to its armour, especially taking into consideration how quickly it dies when attacked from the front by TDs. In the scale I would give it 'ballanced', with additional description 'situational'.

i said rear armor of the isu 152 front is ok but medium shoots shouldn't bounce when close and flanking it

i said rear armor of the isu 152

Yeah. I know. I just said one doesn't even need to flank to counter it, like in case of JT and Ele, so there is no need to lower the rear armour.

KV-1 is pretty weak, I would give it UT at best in the scale of this thread. Yeah, it has high rear armour, but without it, it would be completely useless. So there is that. Even now there is little point of building it. The only reason why it sees any action is becouse it has been put in one commander with newly overbuffed IL-2.

KV-1 is actually pretty solid tank at the moment.
Hardly overpowered in any way, but it now finally has a distinct job it actually performs good at.
With recent change, it really is in a good spot and since its both, doctrinal and in not breath taking doctrines, it doesn't really have any potential to be too good as long as you get a singular PaK and Panther, which will deal with them very efficiently, but meds alone finally can't walk over it.

KV-2 doesn't need rework as a singular unit. The whole commander needs it. As it stands now, KV-2 is not worth its price for how late it comes and how easy it is to counter. Would give it UP in the scale.

KV-2 is pretty UP.
Its direct mode is terrible and its unable to engage anything better then P4, even singular StuG will massively punish it in regular slugfest.
Its arty mode isn't that great either with range making you expose it, setup and de setup times and horrible accuracy, but for whatever reason "people" still want to nerf it, one of the most underused and avoided tank in game...

ISU-152 is not in the same class of units as jagd and ele any more. Sure, when supported it can be worth its price, though only on the most favourable maps (that are also unfavourable 95% of other soviet units) It definitely doesn't need any nerfs to its armour, especially taking into consideration how quickly it dies when attacked from the front by TDs.

ISU is really fine as well.
For its tier, axis actually DOES have units to engage it.
JT and Ele got rear armor nerfs, because they are literally almost impenetrable frontally, while single Panther can be enough to kill ISU.

Yeah. I know. I just said one doesn't even need to flank to counter it, like in case of JT and Ele, so there is no need to lower the rear armour.

well right now is 340/155 , 340/110 seems more fair

well right now is 340/155 , 340/110 seems more fair

Why change a unit that is in the ballanced state? You never know how it is going to backfire. There is no gameplay reason to change that stat. The only reason is that some players feel one number in the stats is too big.

Armour values are especially tricky to modify, as thanks to the lack of side armour even a tank shot from the front can get hit in the rear armour, which means it is really hard to think of all scenarios when the unit will perform worse than it should becouse of such change.

Why change a unit that is in the ballanced state? You never know how it is going to backfire. There is no gameplay reason to change that stat. The only reason is that some players feel one number in the stats is too big.

Armour values are especially tricky to modify, as thanks to the lack of side armour even a tank shot from the front can get hit in the rear armour, which means it is really hard to think of all scenarios when the unit will perform worse than it should becouse of such change.

same reason for the is-2 and tiger changes they were both ok but flanking should be rewarded for both factions

same reason for the is-2 and tiger changes they were both ok but flanking should be rewarded for both factions

Which changes do you mean exactly? I don't think any of these two got its armour changed recently.

Rather than limit damage to members in a squad, which I really dislike, one could adjust the blast radius profiles to create a smaller lethal radius for full health entities. At the same time, making a larger radius for small to moderate damage would give mortars more consistent damage to static positions, and more reliably damaging their barrage AoE with less total misses and total wipes alike.

Statwise:

Reduce mortar AoE near distance from 1 to something like 0.1 or 0.25.
Increase mortar AoE far distance from 3 to 4 and/or increase damage from 0.005 to 0.025-0.05
Adjust mortar AoE mid distance or increase AoE mid damage slightly.

The 120mm and the various HE shells could retain more their destructive radius. Or be reduced from 1.1 or 1.5 depending on mortar.

=======================

Sounds like please remove one of last few anti-blobbing mechanisms to me.
I'd add suppression to any HE/Grenade/MG/AA vs INF/Brummbar/105mm Sherman/Barrage/Mine.

"I think BAR is OP, it has stronger propellant per bullet" vs STG44.
BAR should be nerfed, or STG44 should be buffed.
"Well, I think STG44 is OP, it has 30 bullets per clip where BAR has
only 20 bullets per clip"
"I think BAR is OP, because of it's bipod improving accuracy at range"
...

Finally, BAR loses bipod, range, power, but gains 30 bullets.
The two are now exactly the same. BALANCE! We now have Peace!

Then someone walks in : I don't think the two being the same is
okay. Historically, they were quite different. BAR shouldn't have
advantages that STG-44 had. BAR should still be nerfed hard, but
STG44 should be supreme, because it was an elite weapon and...

This... is basically every discussion here.

=======================

Sounds like please remove one of last few anti-blobbing mechanisms to me.
I'd add suppression to any HE/Grenade/MG/AA vs INF/Brummbar/105mm Sherman/Barrage/Mine.

It's more an alternative to flat limiting entities it can damage.

And I was wrong, I looked at the wrong value for the AoE far damage. It's 0.25 which makes sense. The 0.005 I referenced was for building damage.

I'd personally add:
Valentine (UP stats but maphax OP and still has crush)
Suxton (UP, pop and cost too high, performance is fine)
Vanguard Officer (Heroic charge is absurdly OP)
Goliath (Rework, loud engine noise + one-shot-wipes makes it miserable for everyone)
Vickers could also potentially use a rework to lower its DPS and increase its suppression.
EDIT: Assgrens are still meh and the StugE arguably got overnerfed

I like the list overall, a few minor details I disagree with but nothing worth nitpicking over.

Which changes do you mean exactly? I don't think any of these two got its armour changed recently.

Heavy armored Tanks

Developer Comments: We felt the risk associated with flanking a Heavy Armored Vehicle was much too great because of the high rear armor. To help balance this risk vs reward we are reducing rear armor on all heavy armor across the board.

Soviet IS-2 rear armor reduced from 205 to 140
Wehrmacht Tiger & Tiger Ace rear armored reduced from 180 to 140
Wehrmacht Elefant rear armor reduced from 150 to 110
OKW Jagdtiger rear armor reduced from 150 to 110
OKW King Tiger rear armor reduced from 225 to 150
British Comet Tank rear armor reduced from 180 to 130

Heavy armored Tanks

Developer Comments: We felt the risk associated with flanking a Heavy Armored Vehicle was much too great because of the high rear armor. To help balance this risk vs reward we are reducing rear armor on all heavy armor across the board.

Soviet IS-2 rear armor reduced from 205 to 140
Wehrmacht Tiger & Tiger Ace rear armored reduced from 180 to 140
Wehrmacht Elefant rear armor reduced from 150 to 110
OKW Jagdtiger rear armor reduced from 150 to 110
OKW King Tiger rear armor reduced from 225 to 150
British Comet Tank rear armor reduced from 180 to 130

That change is almost two years old. Mind that these tanks were either overpowered when the change was made, or had to be buffed later to compensate. Also mind that both units whose armour rear armour have been reduced to 110 have much better frontal armour than ISU-152.

I feel like the sherman is in a good spot, I was hoping for some info about that, is it the utility or its effectivness against multiple targets with HE and AP?

Cromwell is UP not UT it is awful same with the Comet.

That change is almost two years old. Mind that these tanks were either overpowered when the change was made, or had to be buffed later to compensate. Also mind that both units whose armour rear armour have been reduced to 110 have much better frontal armour than ISU-152.

"We felt the risk associated with flanking a Heavy Armored Vehicle was much too great because of the high rear armor. To help balance this risk vs reward we are reducing rear armor on all heavy armor across the board."
u see now all heavy tank they just forgit the isu and kv2 cause they were not in the scope
btw isu has ai ability too not just at diffrent tank diffenrt stats but thye said they wanted to reward flanking heavy tank isu is an heavy and needs his rear armor reduced
is-2 was not overpowerd and did not get buffed until last patch isu was just buffed this patch i would say it needs to be brought in line

"We felt the risk associated with flanking a Heavy Armored Vehicle was much too great because of the high rear armor. To help balance this risk vs reward we are reducing rear armor on all heavy armor across the board."
u see now all heavy tank they just forgit the isu and kv2 cause they were not in the scope
btw isu has ai ability too not just at diffrent tank diffenrt stats but thye said they wanted to reward flanking heavy tank isu is an heavy and needs his rear armor reduced
is-2 was not overpowerd and did not get buffed until last patch isu was just buffed this patch i would say it needs to be brought in line

Pretty sure they didn't forget about these tanks, they just didn't want to nerf underpowered units any more.