Profile of hannibalbarcajr

I would also add that rather than making upgrades make you worse at certain ranges every time and better at others you should just give players more choices so they actually can specialize more. G43 could be non doctrinal and same with LMG Browning. Add MP 40 to OKW and DP28 for SU.

Lastly. Give all units with rifle and LMG weapons a penalty for firing out of cover. It will penalize attack move blobs and anyone who has fired a rifle knows how much harder it is to aim when standing straight up alone vs resting on a tree, stand, lying prone, etc. this simple change would promote maneuvering to cover as soon as meeting with the enemy rather than standing in open blasting away with a blob. You could also slightly increase received accuracy from being in open ground/no cover and exposed/red cover.

I read a book called "The Last Full Measure: How Soldiers Die in Battle" and in that book, which traces warfare from ancient times (through the Iliad) to modern day. In the WWII section, there was one frightening statistic: 50% of all casualties were caused by indirect fire.

I believe that artillery is an integral part of coh. That being said, I think heavy artillery (anything larger than 155mm) shouldn't be build-able in game, but used as call-ins (like most artillery pieces are).

I think one thing that would be interesting to do would be, in the original factions, to swap the rocket artillery with the emplacements and put the rocket artillery into commanders. The rocket artillery is much more effective than traditional artillery simply because a player is able to instantly saturate an area with rockets, while traditional artillery is more about area denial or destroying fortifications.

I think every faction should get some sort of field howitzer and/or mortar and the overall effectiveness of them should be reduced (at least in terms of accuracy; German mortar sniping moving infantry is absurd).

Another note about artillery is the craters; heavy call in artillery (240mm, railway) should create huge craters with heavy cover.

indirect fire should play a big role in games, but with the current popcap system, adding more diverse artillery options would only serve to allow players to specialize in an area in large team games, and force players in smaller game modes to choose wisely.

In general, Artillery should be more accessible but also restricted both in terms of popcap and accuracy while still maintaining effective damage.

If there is some magic set of numbers Relic could come up with for these units that would minimize insta-wipes of lone squads in heavy cover yet allow artillery to accurately hit blobs, that would be an amazing step forward in strategy.

Reducing cool down of all built field artillery by 30-40% and then reducing damage a little and shell quantity to 3-4 would make it less an all or nothing unit and make its damage output more consistent as well as you could use it to support offensives more

thats not how balancing works.
An underpowered unit is a underpowered unit, it doesn't matter how well the rest of the faction is doing. Balance is done by a unit by unit basis and just because a faction is doing well doesn't exclude its underpowered units from getting buffs.

The Pershing currently isn't worth it's cost and needs changes.

True to an extent but each commander should take into account the faction's existing strengths and weakness. For instance people are complaining that Pershing doesn't rank with axis heavies but if it did match them for same cost that would be very bad as the USF already have a dominant early game. They should simply decrease the cost of the Pershing a little on both manpower and fuel. If you give the USF a heavy tank that is as good as any the Ostheer can field plus the Rangers for better AI than any Ostheer infantry (stock or doc) then the USF are better in every stage and in matches between equally skilled opponents the USF will be winning 75+%.

I see lots of people make points and counter points about something not being historically accurate and then a reply that this game can't be historically accurate as it is an RTS not a comp sim war game. This is true, but it's no excuse to not use historical parameters to help dial in theme and asymmetric balance. What I am trying to say is sometimes doing things that aren't just not historical but actually completely 100% anti-historical is nonsense and should not be defended with "well we have to forsake accuracy for balance". Rather than just stabbing in the dark with unit values and then tuning they should try to get all their comparative data right not in absolute terms but in relative terms among other common units. Then we could get rid of ridiculous things like an SU-76 being same penetration as SU-85 and 34/76 having worse armor/hp than PIV ausf G despite being better armored with its famous 60° front armor slope.

This all happens because it seems like Relic just makes educated guesses at where values should be and makes the decisions almost in a vacuum then they start tweaking and tweaking and tweaking each unit without referencing it to its peers to get the game play not be game breaking based upon feedback. As they keep tweaking, you get to points where many weapon/unit comparisons don't make any logical sense. They should use weapons data from field tests to determine comparative accuracy and penetration between all armor and their guns then tweak cost and mobility/special abilities to get them into the right spot for their respective faction.

You think I dont have good positioning? I can do it, but I am having the least fun out of any vs artillery players. Slip up for even a second and poof the squad is lost. The very presence of artillery is so annoying because if im not being super careful with all my units at any given point, a surprise squad wipe could happen anywhere on the map. Its dumb how hard it is to set up units to get wipes (like quick combined assaults, nade placement, flanking around into retreat points) while arty just clicks on an area and the RNG explosive rain will just one shot squads and rain down on buildings. Artillery is the weapon of the skilless.

I've got nothing against a mortar or 2. But anything beyond that is just pure faggotry.

"Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl." -Frederick II of Prussia

I am very glad for the changes to the ISG/Pack H that was just made because they were over-performing. I don't want artillery to be just mortars because one that kills theme of having massive engagements with shells/rockets soaring over heads and two as others have said, when an enemy turtles up on an area, the best method of punishing them and forcing them to move or die is with heavy artillery. I find that heavy artillery/rockets actually promotes fluid gameplay precisely because it punishes the turtles....if I play soviets and 2v2-4v4 and I don't see an Ostheer CAS commanders then I usually go Terror for the KV-8/shocks/ML-20 and have a field day against campy players.

With the most recent change to ISG/Pak H i think the indirect fire part of the game is as good as it has ever been.