Profile of Cannonade

Because Target Size and accuracy are the only values calculated.

For a hit.
But scatter effects whether a miss will still collide with the model.

Furthermore, against infantry, its actually more about AoE, than scatter.

If you count your pennies and play outside in summer, wait for price to drop.

Preorder only gets you skins, so nothing of substantial benefit.

Aside from that, sure, buy it preorder.

I agree with OPs post for the most part, but with a few exceptions:

1) Map/Commander interdependency exists, but should not be presented as a "problem". Owing to the nature of some maps, some Commanders have advantages owing to their ability spread. If this was not so, there would be no point in Commander selection, and in order for it to be so, all maps would have to be simply blank open fields. Sov has a generally wider and more diverse call-in profile (which intrinsically is Commander linked) to offset their building tier structure, as assymetrically compared to Osts generally ability based Commander variety and linear tier structure. Both designs present a different spectrum of dis/advantages, which to apply to whichever map you are currently on.

2) If the game was being built from scratch, Id agree that both factions (with Sov more so) could4 benefit from more vanilla light AT options. Infact I think the entire early tiers phase is quite squeezed out of the meta exactly due to its limited AT potential. Meta has responded to this in two ways. A) Hard teching to heavies B) Relying on call-ins to skip that phase as soon as possible. Its too late in the games design process to start re-creating Sovs non-doctrine light AT options. The cascade affect, in conjunction with Sovs generally better anti-infantry profile and secondary artillery effects, would systemically imbalance the factions.

3) The light ZiS was an interesting example of such earlier AT, and has its place, but only as a call-in. Imagine if it was built from tier building, the result would be simply fielding early AT, and then using another doctrine to bring in heavies ontop of those. The combined effect of the vanilla option AND Commander call-ins would stack into forces which dont really have any weaknesses for the opponent to form his force profile against.

4) If Ost had a T70 equivalent, Id agree that Sov would have more need of a mobile light AT option. But fact is, they dont. Existing options are sufficient to counter 221s and halftracks, and the tiering of both call-ins and buildings means that heavier vehicles hit the field at around the same time after that anyways inorder to respond to each other.

5) SU76 could somewhat fill the mobile AT role you propose, but you cant take it into cramped streets due to its weak armor. Any armor it encounters there will justnfacepunch it. And it has half its value invested as an artillery option, so yeah, its not the tool for the job. Stugs and SU85s imo are roughly aligned for use in fire lines in clutter. SU85 suffering in mobility abit, whereas Stug in turn not hitting as hard. Neither isnoptimal, Stugs having the small edgenin clutter, but SU85s having their cake if instead deployed at greater range. T34s and PIVs similarly have an arrangement of stats that make them roughly equivalent for use in clutter, or open.

6) So what to do vs Ost armor in cramped streets? Id recommend Mines on the exit points, middle of long avenues and on key corners to disable armor for your conventional AT lines of fire from outside or along long streets, and T34s if you want to venture into the streets. T34s can handle themselves adequately vs PIVs there, and if they happen to encounter a Tiger lumbering through, can harass it with better mobility and as a final resort, turn it into an enormous paperweight by ramming it (at which point you know where the Tiger is, know Ost is forced to consolidate around it and repair it, and are free to maneuver around it.) Id say it is much preferable for Sov if the Tigers are crawling around in clutter, rather than having to worry about them moving freely around the rest of the map. Yes, better lines of fire on it in the open for Sov AT types, but if its crawling in clutter, you are not having to deal with it, and can instead focus on other targetsnwhich are ALL weaker and easier.

7) Its a normal instict to try and engage your opponents strengths, because you perceive those as the greatest threat. But SunTzu and other military gurus always remind of this, that the better way is to always instead engage your opponents weaknesses. You, rightly, perceive the relative Ost strength of turretted tanks in cramped quarters. You, understandably, want a mobile AT option to counter that. But then what. Result would be one of Osts strengths being blunted, and Ost instead whining for example for more explosive AoE to nuke Sov infantry, resulting in one of Sovs relative strengths being blunted.

I understand where OP is coming from, but I think he has lost some perspective on the necessary assymetric arrangements between the factions to the tune of "My relative strengths do not counter your relative strengths", when the more accurate and constructive perspective is to instead think "How well do my relative strengths control your relative weaknesses".