It happened with the T-34/76 and Panzer IV matchup as well, that's why people are worried.
I understand, but it is whats called a "slippery slope" argument, and is recognised as a logical fallacy in debate.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
His argument also carried another logical fallacy, on the false presumption that "Peter is trying to make all the units identical", when infact the point is improving balance for a better game. Its sort of disingenous to misrepresent the motives and intent of a Dev as something they are not.
-----------------------
Hey Guys,
Design Team is currently reviewing a few key balance complaints in the game and we would like your feedback
Disclaimer: Everything you read below is work in progress and not guaranteed to go into the game.
Soviet Weapon Team:
This has been a hot topic for a while but we are experimenting with 4 men Soviet Weapon Teams. Issue being they are too durable. If a 4 men team loses 2 men, chances of losing that whole squad would go up exponentially. When a 6 men squad loses 2 men the chances of losing that squad still remain fairly low. If overall performances needs to be compensated for reduced durability that is something we could also explore.
Feedback would be greatly appreciated and thank you!
-Maxim, as a weapon, has adequate and unique stats.
Good dps, good suppression, and most importantly a fast de/setup time.
V1 Sprint is a bit marginal, but can be useful for fast delpoyment from one front to another.
-ZiS is more identical to PaK, with the tradeoff of rate of fire compensated by an artillery option.
Practical effect of rate of fire is imo marginal, considering that vs a competent opponent you only get 1-2 shots off anyways, and the rate of fire differential only comes into effect therafter.
-82mm Mortar needs a small buff anyways (unless I missed a patch on that).
I like to recommend a short suppression effect on its AoE, for some flavor and effectiveness.
-120mm does its job just fine, and is the least effected by a potential squadsize/hp reduction.
-Dushka also has weapon stats which mean the weapon itself does its job.
-Light-ATG could perhaps use a vet ability change. Perhaps even a native Camo ability.
Point being, the actual Sov Support Weapons themselves dont need any significant buffing.
They do their job fine, regardless of the unit size. The weapons performance is not as such directly related to whether there is one guy, or 6 guys, operating it.
What the issue really is, and the challenge of it, is finding a way to reduce the durability of Sov Support Teams to non-small arms fire, without upsetting the current small-arms durability balance (and especially considering Rifle Grenade).
Lets run through pros/cons of some options:
1) Reduce support squads to 4man.
-Pros: Now survives at the proper rate vs non-small arms
-Cons: Now survives below proper rate to small arms (due to how small arms units are balanced) Much more vulnerable to RNades.
---Result: Not really a valid option, afterall.
2) Reduce 6man hp pool to equivalent of 4man.
-Pros: Now survives at a more proper rate vs non small arms, with an intermix of larger squad having a larger footprint to snag a peripheral non-small arms AoE hit vs still having models to spare. Also helps soak MG fire from vehicles. Merge retains some usefulness, but Merged units "lose" hps in the exchange. 6man squad also still more useful for capturing other weapons, and the Sov flavor of larger units is retained. Small arms balance is retained, in proportion, as it survives like all other 4man support teams, in total.
-Cons: None that I can think of, considering that the purpose is to naturalise overall survival to that of a 4man squad.
A bit counterintuitive that the 6men have less hp per model, but since the total hp is the same as a 4man, I think people will understand and more easily "get it".
RNade is slightly better, depending on the RNG of which models it hits, which is notoriously unpredictable.
3) Reduce to 4man, and add infantry armor to survive at a 6man rate.
-Pros: Small arms balance is retained almost exactly as it is now (allowing for a small RNG factor regarding soaked armor small arms hits). Vs non-small arms which ignore infantry armor, it survives as a nominal 4man unit.
-Cons: Counterintuitive to have infantry armor on Sov Support Teams. Also RNades raises prominently as a wiper
4) Reduce to 4man and remove the current incoming small arms +% modifier
-Pros: Survives, in total, like a 4man unit vs small arms. Survives like a 4man vs non-small arms.
-Cons: Again, a bit counterintuitive that Sov Support would not have the otherwise universal incoming small arms fire +% modifier.
So of these three, #2 seems to fit the bill best, ino.
I dont agree at all that the weapon stats need to be improved, in order to fix the inherent survival issue on 6man Support teams. They are two different factors, of which only the survival element is a problem. As far as the actual weapon stats go, they are operating at good efficiency in their own asymmetric way.
The survival issue sits "ontop" of the weapon stats. Weapon stats are fine and not the issue. Survival of the units, is.