Profile of ElSlayer

I think devs have made wrong decision when they reworked sov Sniper Team to 1 model. They had to do the opposite - make all other snipers 2 model with approximately same total EHP as current one model.

This way if you will flank sniper - you will inflict bleed upon his owner by dropping one of the models and it wouldn't be too frustrating for sniper user as he kept his squad alive and veterancy is not lost. Same for countersniping.

It is a win-win for both sides. It is also consistent with all AoE changes that we had through last couple of years - they've reduced one-shot potential (and removed precision strike abilities) and increased mid and far AoE damage a bit.

Correct question is:
"What would make you want to build Ostwind right now instead of waiting a bit more and build Pz.IV?"

I fear that ability to deal with Light Tanks is not enough because of Ostwind's time of arrival.

I see you little campaign of proving Vipper wrong still goes on with the usual poor result.

The penetration is high this is a fact not a personal opinion supported by stats:
Vetted SU-85 Penetration 312/299/286

Vetted Panther Penetration 260/240/220

Chance to penetrate at max range:
Vetted Panther 100%
Vetted Tiger 95.3%
Vetted KT 76.3%

Vetted top tier Tank Destroyer has high chance to penetrate armor of late game tanks.

I don't play 1v1s so my perception of balance in this game mode is distorted by casts and replays I watched, but I got feeling that USF generally have hard time to hold ground against 1st Pz.IV as it comes earlier than your Sherman or Jackson because as USF you try to rush out an early LV and push as much as you can from shock effect.

So, I've tried to make roughly the same army compositions and place them on timeline. The picture is very rough, but it is enough to represent the idea.

1) ---------T3-----Scott-----------Jackson------Scott
2) -----Stuart---------T3----------Jackson------Scott
3) -----Stuart---------T3--------Sherman------------Jackson
4) --222------BP3---T3--------Pz.IV--------Pz.IV

I know, not really a correct question, but still - what is stronger here by overall effectiveness (timing/cost/synergy/AT vs AI balance/whatever).

Personally I think that double Pz.IV just wreck stuff at the time 2nd one hits the field. And if I counted fuel correctly - after 222 they hit the field much earlier than Stuart + Jackson + double Scotts so heavily discussed here. As usual Wehrmacht will have hard time surviving LV phase.

If you use an underpowered infantry to compare fine, but add in ppsh and they are sure stronger. Doenst change lethality is to high for grens to blob them effectivly

I guess thats the reason why we see so much grensblob in comparison to rifle,IS,Volks and penal blobs.

Just to clarify, blob counter is AoE, and 4 models are way more prone to beeing wiped by AoE. Yes conscripts have more models, but we all now that conscripts are not Strong at the moment.

You are using metric of how Gren blob prone to wipes to AoE in comparison to other faction blobs to justify performance of Wehrmacht HMG over other HMGs.

The only logical connection I see here is the assumption that "you don't want to use Grens in blobs (because they are prone to wipes from AoE) therefore it is ok for factions opposing Wehrmacht (Allied factions) to have weaker HMGs".

If that is what you wanted to say then it is wrong due to these facts:

- Wehrmacht is not only faction on Axis side and volksblob is strong against Vickers because low suppression and 4-man crew and against Maxim because of deathloop. The only good option here is USF HMG, but this is what OP said.

- Grens (blobbed or not) are as strong against HMG as other factions infantry because how their LMG good in picking off models (which is the way how HMG fall if attacked frontally) and because of range of rifle grenade

EDIT: okay, you've said other thing -

Other factions can counterblob

Well, this is the worst and most disgisting thing to do in this game. This is not Starcraft or other "blob vs blob"-style title. I see you point - you state that Allied infantry is stronger and therefore they can't have equally strong HMG. But I disagreee with both points. HMGs should work well on both sides.
END OF EDIT

Personally, I disagree with both you and OP. Grens are not that weak and MG-42 is strong, but not as unbeatable, as you, guys, trying to portrait them.

I always value consistency over anything else - random wipe potential, cost effectiveness, whatever.
If I get HMG I want to get a tool against blobs. I don't want to pick off models as Vickers does, I don't need so-called "offensive HMG" as Maxim was labeled here by some people. I want AoE suppression tool. A no-go zone for enemy infantry.

For me the balance problem is not in "MG-42 OP" but in allied HMGs not doing their job despite some of them cost the same or even more while being locked behind certain tier, doctrine and just plain timing.