Profile of Cannonade

In have had 3 matches as the axis in 2p AT with Richarddear||AD||1215. That's just with him. My games as OKW and Ost are more numerous and the majority of them are in auto-match without any arranged allies.

So how many Ost games since beta?

The StuG has higher anti-infantry performance than several SU76/SU85 combined

Ill take your word for that.
But.
SU76 free barrage.
SU85 AT efficacy.

Im not sure why you compare these two specific units to a Stug.

PIV is stronger against infantry than the T34 is. Since the last buff to it, it now has the slightly more accurate gun, while having nearly 3.5 times the DPS of the T34 in machineguns when the pintle has been upgraded.

Oh, so its stronger vs AI when it upgrades, at Muni cost and gets within range of the Pintle?
Seems alright to me.

The Tiger maingun is much better than the IS2 against infantry, while they both have roughly the same DPS from machineguns (the IS2 MG dps being 90% from the munition upgrade, while the Tiger gets 50% from upgrade)

Granted, Tiger and IS2 are still two problematic units.
But, as related to this point, the Tiger is firing at 6man units in Sov, wheras the IS2 on only 4man units.
Stands to reason the AI efficacy is necessarily nominally greater, to offset the infantry hp pool of the respective targets.

Don't try to say Panther, because nobody makes them.

Hmm I wonder why though, eh? Probably because its shit? Which sort of reinforces my position, dont you think?

ISU is in fact the only soviet armor unit that is notably better against infantry than its counterpart.

Which counterpart are you referring to?
And when you sat its the only one, I think I have already demonstrated how the Pintle upgrade, at Muni cost, is that which increases the AI efficacy? Is that unreasonable? No. What would be the point of the expenditure if it sidnt improve performance? None.

Yes, aside from the 60 munition upgrade that permanently increases the DPS of a grenadier squad by over 80%, they scale roughly equal to a conscript squad. That is if you ignore that riflenades and fausts are much more valuable than atnades and molotovs later on because of their greater range and damage/penetration.

Im disappointed in you Cruzz. You are being dishonest, like Katitof.

Whats wrong with a 60 Muni upgrade increading AI efficacy?
Especially when located on an inherently more vulnerable 4man unit?
Especially when they lack any direct equivalent to Oorah or Merge?

Faust vs ATNade:
Yes, (tiny marginal )better penetration, but also directional. Range is identical iirc. ATNades, due to parabolic trajectory, frequently can and do hit rear armor in a way no Faust can, meaninf the penetration value is applied to a lower armor quotient. Furthermore, ATNades are a guaranteed hit, whereas Fausts still do impact on terrain rather than the target. The ewuivalency is fine.

RNade vs Molotov:
This issue has been discussed absolutely to death, ages ago, and many times. Im tired to death of this.
Yes, RNade has greater range which is conducive and inline with Grens range optimum, same as Molotov is to Cons optimum.
It would be very silly, if Cons had RNade (especiallynvs 4man units) and Grens had Molotov.
RNade has a range prerogative, whereas Molotov has a persistent area denial preorgative.
Crucially, Cons have Oorah to fill this gap, for purposes of applying Molotov.
Especially in building combat, an RNade will cause attrtition, but a Molotov will flat out, without question, require you to vacate the building or fry to death. Also, though it is less prevalent in current meta, essentially due to Pgrens being shit, a Molotov can also be thrown to deny cover/approach of an enemy unit.

I am so dissappointed to hear ypu try to bring these long established and essentially balanced elements into this discussion, somehow in aupport of Katitofs categorically and deliberately one sided portrayal of Cons/Grens.

This shit has been done to death, a hundred times over. All these points, and counterpoints, have been expressed a hundred times over too. And to what conclusion? That they are balanced. That is established and fact. Repreating them does not change that. It just hearkens back to some of the worst troll wars we ever had here, and which finally reconciled by mass aggregate and concensus that they are "ok".

Crucially:
I dont understans why you rehash the old Faust/ATNade+RNade/Molotov issue when NOTHING in your fantasy patch actuallyneven remotely involves changing them? There is no entry for any of the,. Why suddenly now, in defende of Katitofs obviously partisan and one sided expression of Grens/Cons balance, tonwhich I listed the essential omissions he left out, do you bring up this old trash?

I dont get it man, really, I dont. This stuff is handled LONG ago, and if it want in your opinion, whynis it not adjusted in your proposal?

As to the equally age old issue of Cons/Grens balance, the only point in your patch, is to provide an upgrade to EITHER 2xSVT or DP, for 50 muni. You dont touch Grens at all. On that topic, I prefer the DP option, but without testing, I cant honestlybtheorize on the outcome. But thatnis besides thenpoint here. I am not disputing your suggested patch, I AM however, disputing Katitofs biased and incomplete representation of Cons/Grens in his post. It was just flat out dishonest, and in some senses wrong.

There can be no constructive, respectful and objective discussion when someone deliberately leaves out core facts in their argument. Its wrongm and unfair, to do that on purpose, just so the other guy has to spend an entire post filling in the gaps on the things even the poster knows are true (but which he left out, strangely, and for whichever reason.)

Are we discussing for a better game and bteer balance? Or only in favor of one single persons preference at deliberate omission of key facts?

Grens RNade is BP1, not default.
Cons have native Merge and Oorah.
The difference in Con/Gren reinforce is a result of the last Gren model being unreinforceable, and hence indivisable in cost, because the unit is wiped at that point. It makes sense, mathematically, because you cant divide zero. Dont worry, it is balanced and already considered.

Grens scale, at Muni cost, to endgame, but are counteracted but generally stronger AI on Sov mid-late units.
Cons on the otherhand soak mid-lategame better, thanks to 6man hp dispersal, especially vs the general AI weakness of Ost mid-lategame armor.

Aside from LMGupgrade, at Muni cost, Grens and Cons scale very similarly to late game.
Vet is unilaterally quite unilaterally balanced on that. So the base balance, is maintained.
Note: This is now only comparing Cons and Grens, as was your argument. There is definately leeway for arguing Penals and PGrens also as native units, and even moreso on callin infantry, but those where not relevant to your own Cons/Grens specific comparison.

I dont know if you do it deliberately, but its considered dishonest to leave out such details in argumentation, unless you are one of the guys who doesnt care about the whole truth.

Its not unusual. Some kids unfortunately take the wrong lesson from school, and think arguing a point places responsibility to be show its flaws on the antagonist, rather than fairly representing them yourself. Its actually ones own responsibility to consider and include elements which weaken your argument, not your opponents.

Infact, if you do leave them out, you give the opponent a free automatic win in rebuttal when he matter of factedly refutes the veracity of your claim, quite simply, by expressing those elements which you deliberately left out. Basically, it makes you look pretty bad, and biased, and makes it easy for opponent to discredit your validity.

Thing is, leaving them out may supeficially make your argument "look" better, or STRONK!
But actually it leaves you wide open for a very easy and simple riposte.

Its like leaving yourself wide open for a sucker punch right to the jaw while being all bravado, and no technique.

Basically, it only works against the uninformed, the unprepared and idiots.
It relies on success to the fact that nobody will call you out on it.
However, as the case is here on Coh2.org (thankfully), there is always someone who knows the situation, and will respond accordingly. So a pretty poor bet, and option of argumentative maneuvering, considering where we are...

PS: I havent forgotten that you didnt answer my question for an explanation of how you claimed Snipers can outrun HMGs.
To my knowledge, all infantry has the same base movement speed. Care to answer that now, since you overlooked it before?

As I've just got back into playing Ost for the first time since the beta ended... I can inform you that players think this works at around the ~5000+ ranking, and it honestly does once you hit 8k and up.

You have only 3 matches as axis since beta, and that only in 2v2.

No disrespect, but I think its a bit premature to "inform" others from that basis.

Glad ypu got back into playing more factions, that is a good thing for sure, and commendable, but its quite a small experiential base still at this point to start literally founding your entire post on it.

Know what I mean?

Cruzzs fantasy patch is a completely different issue, and stands on its own right, in its own area, for what it is. Nor is it produced by you.

Its not an excuse for you to backdown from accusing me, whereas you provide nothing of your own that is better.

I asked you to provide a comprehensive and concrete detailed list of the exact changes involved in tying tiers to callins, since you claim you can.

I don't see that here yet.
Get to work.