Profile of comm_ash

I really like this idea for a conscript buff. It makes them very good defensive troops, synergizes with their abilities (better sandbags and merge), and helps newly created squads with gaining vet late (like weapon upgrades do for other squads). It does all this without being derivative and just adding an LMG. It is a very smart and thematic addition, and I applaud the mod team for coming up with it.

The only thing I would change maybe would be a cosmetic/ flavor change - have the 7th man look a little different to represent the addition of a veteran NCO to the squad. This would fit with the theme of not just gaining a new man, but also getting general combat upgrades. Maybe give the new model the soft cap or non-caped guard fatigues.

I love me some Scotts. I love to build two of them. They are the best lategame tool for USF to deal with entrenched MGs, ATGs, and infantry from either axis faction.

They are definitely too strong for their price. At 70 fuel, they are far too efficient. Part of the issue with them is that they are almost a crutch for USF in teamgames. Without Scotts, there really isn't much to write home about in terms of USF lategame.

I think the best fix for them would be to lower their autofire range to 45/50, and remove their ability to OHK models on autofire. I think this would be a fair nerf, as it would keep its strengths, while removing some of the aspects of the unit that lead to frustration on the hand of the opponent. I would absolutely not touch the units durability, which is a requirement for any lategame unit, and which will be needed if the autofire range is nerfed. However you look at it, the Scott is definitely designed as a mobile assault support unit, and will need the durability to support Shermans and Jacksons in combat.

If the unit is then found lacking, I would rather see a buff to the barrage, either by making it HEAT, or making it able to fire WP shells.

I think it would be interesting to fully embrace the mobile/ offensive theme of hammer:

Nerf:
-Lower armor to Cromwell level
-Lower health to 720 (maybe)

Buff
-Increase accuracy on the move to .75
-Increase penetration
-Better Vet
-Better MGs
-Increase turret rotation speed and reduce target size (maybe)

Would make it the opposite of a Churchill. Now the comet relies on speed and hit and run tactics to defeat the enemy, instead of fighting 1 on 1 engagements with enemy tanks. Not sure if it would be viable at that high of a price, and would probably ruin the unit for teamgames. Still, I think it could be interesting.

Heads up, I don't have the game open and I can't remember most CP values. We can obviously use the correct values.

Assault Doctrine:

0CP: Sherman V (Literally the American Sherman M4A3-75(w) in British Army Terminology)

1CP: Recon Infantry Section (Infantry Section with 1 scoped rifle or 2 stens, with ability to cloak, shoot flares. Scoped rifle could make squad like JLI or Pathfinders if used instead of sten. Scoped rifle or stens would take up 1 weapon slot.)

2CP: 3-inch British mortar team (US 81mm mortar with IS crew.)

4CP: Advanced Cover Combat

11CP: Typhoon Attacks

I would like this doctrine to give the brits a more flexible and aggressive strategy.

The British historically used many American Shermans, to the point where they outnumbered Cromwells. This doctrine would finally give the Brits in COH2 access to their workhorse tank. The early mortar would give the brits access to a mobile barrage/ smoke tool, and could by combined with spotting from recon infantry sections to allow a more aggressive playstyle. Advanced cover combat is self explanatory, and the Typhoon gun + rocket strafe would give the doctrine a bit of late game oompf.

This is an interesting question. Should all units have similar percentages of strength gain with veterancy? Should more expensive units get better vet, or by simply having higher stats out the gate, be more benefitted by having the same vet bonuses as weaker units? What about across factions, should vet be applied based purely on unit cost and role, or be tweaked to help individual factions with different niches?

These are all questions that come down to game design. As the game is currently, vet bonuses have nothing to do with balance based on cost, but more to do with a unit's role, faction flavor, and overall faction strength. Medium tanks are the best example of this. All factions have medium tanks, but the vet varies drastically based on the factions. Axis armor gains defensive bonuses though armor at vet 2, whereas Allied armor gains offensive bonuses through DPS.

TLDR: Looking at vet balance based purely on unit cost or numbers is the wrong way at conceptualizing it. Unit vet is more broadly related to faction flavor, unit role, and faction relative strength.