Profile of Cannonade

Artillery is a very complex variety in CoH2, and I think each "form" should carry its strengths relative to its weaknesses.

Lets run thrhough them, and I will place them in order of direct dmg effect:

1) Offmaps: The king of artillery. You cant kill it, ypu can only hope to avoid it. Costs being what theyr are on different versions, these generally telepgraph themselves well in advance, and though small changes are always welcome, I think are alright, especially in the interbalance of callins and abilities associated with the Commander you choose to field.

2) Field Artillery: Imo seriously overshadowed by the following forms of artillery in this list. Generally immobile, they are vulnerable in all kinds of ways that other artillert arent. My perception may not be popular but I think these fkers should hit very hard. In the interbalance of different artillery forms, for these, Id recommend a very long range (potentially more than now), a longer, but slower, barrage and a better overall AT/AI profile, depending on which one we are talking about. And especial care to building destruction, keep it within reason. We dont want this decimating bases too quickly.

3) Kat/Stuka/Pwerfer went through the roof in previous patches but has been returned to a level I havent tested enough to comment on. Ideally, as a compromise for mobility, I recommend a reasonable burst, with differential AoE profiles, but overall inferior to proper field artillery. I seriously think the mobility difference to field artillery needs to be considered in the output of these units. For flavor and asymmetric design:
-Kat: Larger more random template with less AoE, less penetration and and a slightly shorter CD than PWerfer.
-PWerfer: A more concentrated smaller template, more penetration but less AoE.
-Stuka: This really needs a longer period between impacts. The template is so narrow, that it is murderous for retreat kills. The missiles need a slower impact difference. There is no time to react on a frontline parallel align, and its more or less a given retreat kill due to the speed of the impacts, on a predicted retreat path.

4) ZiS/SU76+equivalents: Largely ok as they are. Avoidable, slow.

5) Mortars: Fine, except for 82mm. I recommend a lateral improvemebt to add a Suppression factor (which, ironically, iirc, is actually missing from ALL indirect fire/artillery, which personally chafes me for a degree of historical accuracy. When you are being shelled, ypu hit the motherloving dirt) . MHT incendiary...ngghhh right on the line. Its an enormous template, but at cost, and considering general opposing unit size, it probably needs it to try and score some flame crits, thoughbthe template really is tbh quite enormous. I consider it a reasonable Commander specific compromise especially to Sovs otherwise core indirect options like ZiS/SU76 barrage, but its an edgy balance there.

No your proposal would remove call-in units as we know them and make them tiered units with or without build times.

It doesnt "remove" them at all.
They are still Commander specific, still provide variety and choice, but yes, they would coincide with tiers. And they do so, ironically, for good reason, exactly for the points you explain below.

Havint the option not to tech and invest the ressources you save by doing so in more units should be a viable strategy but also have distinct drawbacks. Thats currently not the case as call in units are just too effective compared to tier core units. Making every unit a tier unit is the most simple solution, but also the one that reduces the amount of strategies the most.

Everything in the post above is infact supportive of the suggestion, and supports it on the points you made.
Its a strange irony. If you wish, I can detail how it does so in PM. Id rather not do so here in the thread since it would potentially lead to a long semantic argument that is in none of our interest, nor the threads

Overall, I think its my fault, because I didnt elaborate enough on the repercussions and details in my OP.

TLDR:
Goddam my complex sentence structure that confuses even me..

Tiering Call-ins would improve diversity by:
A) Making core units more viable.
B) Still allowing Commander Call-ins.
C) Making non- Call-in Commanders more viable and competetive than now.

As we stand now, we depend on Call-ins.
So much of the meta revolves around them.
That is not diversity.

What exactly qualifies as a "super" vehicle here? Do medium tanks such as the T34/85 qualify or is it limited to the big beasts like the ISU-152?

T34/85 is an anomaly, indeed, that is tough to fit into this suggestion.

Is the double, or the single, a T4 equivalent, or even a Super?
Hard to say, considering mostly its a regunned T34 which exchanges AI for AT.
But I think the other stats on T34/85, iirc, do justify it as a T4 unit. Its sufficiently "better" than T34.

Ive re-written this post no less than 6 times in the last hour, cos I keep critically thinking of angles that negate my previous proposal for this anomalous choice.

I think the best I can do, especially considering Sovs intrinsic split Tier structure, is to propose the following, if Supers became T4 dependant (which so far seems to be the polls preferred option).

Are they a Super? For cost and the efficiency of 2×chassis + 2x barrels. Sort of. The single build option however, is certainly not a Super, and just scrapes T4 equivalence (as compared to the usual T34 chassis)
But its also just basically a regunned T34 (T3 unit), with a small overall stat improvement.

____________________________________________________________________________________

So as a compromise, Id suggest it so:
-That T3 can "upgrade" existing T34s to T34/85s, for the difference in cost, with T34/85 Commander.
-That T4 can build/callin them as they are, with T34/85 Commander.

____________________________________________________________________________________

This way, atleast in part, Sovs split Tier options are reconciled, so that both Tier progressions can build/upgrade for them.
Also, in this way, even a T3-T4 Sov build, can still access T34/85s, in two different ways, and still keeps other unit builds open without undue cost, in either or both tiers, by upgrading existing T3 built T34s, or callin at T4.

You hit me with a hard one, dude!

Discussion definately open on this one.

God damn it Sib, why are you so toxic, abusing OP things like the Su76?

Sarcasm is generally considered to be toxic

But yeah, goddam, dat SU76 abuse

How about this:

-Change Supertanks to be built from T4 per specific Commanders.
OR
-Make all vehicle callins to be built from buildings per specific Commander.

Pretty radical change that presents a few problems, but also fixes a few.

Thoughts?

So as not to derail, I started a thread on it:
http://www.coh2.org/topic/21824/suggestion-attach-call-ins-to-buildingstier-again.

Edited to add: Dont hate on pros/casters using what are considered OP units or strats.
They publically showcase the game, and it helps inform and point out balance problems and puts pressure on Relic to change them.