Profile of general_gawain

they are discussing the KV2

Sorry, I apologize. My bad. I got missleaded because he talked about the reload increase which sounded like a buff which KW-1 gets with hull-down.

Other than KW-1 the KW-2 is a good tank actually.

Id say it has. It great heavy tank that turns infantry to mush and makes any medium scale tank regret coming in front of it. It has infantry fighting boost and can become effectively mobile ml 20 with the ability to stay in place to increase range and reload.

So it can be breakthrough tank or defensive powerhouse, depending what units you surround it with. Only real limitations come when vs other heavy tanks, but its not as big issue when you build army to help against that.

You should know what you are talking about:

1) It doesn't turn infantry to mush. It has same MGs as T34/76, the main cannon is the same too but with 0,5 seconds higher ROF. T34/76 is much more cost efficient at dealing damage to infantry. You get the first earlier by far and the second not much after your first KV-1.

2) Range doesn't get increased with Hull-down. That is part of the problem. You have a 40 Range meat shield that just got shot from 60 range PAK/JPIV or 50 range Raketen/Panther. Free Vet for opponent.

Overall with the current nerf its just nort worth it anymore. You want a decent doctrinal soviet tank for medium fights and AI that can take on a Panther if paired? I would go for T34/85 any day.

The Greyhound is close to a T-70 in terms of AI power. Its 4 CP timing is fine in 1v1. It needs that gate otherwise it would become too powerful. It was heavy meta before Mechanized took over. It's too bad that 4 CPs is too late for teamgames, but you can't buff its timing without potentially breaking it in 1v1. So there's not much to be done. Some units are simply only good in one mode.

What is the problem of binding it to tech? Double officer or officer + tech. Buildable in HQ, you can further adjust timing by buildtime. It has pretty much the same timing as Stuart then and is the same across all modes.

I have not claimed that the ability is fine in the patch, I have not tested enough to have an opinion.
My only point was that your expectation to always penetrate was not justified.

I'm not sure if my expectation should be justified. But I'm sure that IL-2 rocket strafe and JU-87 AT strafe should be handled equally. Both sides have access to snares/stuns, both can call down a similar AT strafe.

As for your the comparison with MBTs, flanking with MBT is more dificult than calling planes from a certain direction and the rockets are superior because they have deflection damage.

Yeah, a succesful flank is even harder, but it is just not clicking plane abilities. You need snares/stuns to be successfull unless your oponent doesn't pay attention.

My point is that expecting from IL-2 to serve as the prime sources of AT imo is expecting too much from a commander that already give players superior AI.

Since tanks without snare/stun can move aside it is just a supplementary AT ability. I would say ZIS, SU-85 and PRTS Penals are still your prime AT source at Airborne commander. In my soviet postgame statistics there is always the ZIS on top of them all when it comes to AT damage.

The AT bombing does not delete LeFH and the you are correct ability is bad in its role and does need redesign.

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes. You compared IL-2 rocket strafe to IL-2 and PTAB. I thought you are talking about IL-2 Precision Bombing, that clearly kills howitzers (tested it a couple of times some minutes ago) and brings down health of OKW Trucks pretty low. Il-2 Precison bombing isn't compareable with Il-2 rocket strafe. That was my point. But maybe you talked about something else?

Main point here is that the AT commander should have the most cost effective AT off map. AB commander already provides superior AI and does need one of the most cost efficient AT abilities.

I absolutely would back that up. PTAB is worse in cost efficience. But this is not necessarily the problem of the rocket strafe beeing too good/cheap since the comparable JU-87 AT strafe has pretty the same effect at 15 MU less. Anti-Tank Overwatch for 200 MU at two other commanders is also pretty strong and I would say cost efficient. PTAB just sucks. It costs 180 MU, so it is only 20 Mu less than AT-Overwatch or JU87-Loiter, and barely brings a PZIV in the middle of the ability down to half its health. Even regarding its bigger AOE it is still embarrassing. The only think PTAB is good at is destroying large concrete buildings in one go. Maybe we should rename it in "Building Hunter Tactics". That would fit the new B4 design in that commander too.

Tell me, where is the selling point of Tank hunter tactis right now?

1. PTRS cons that get outstripped by nondoc PTRS Penals?
2. Heavy AT mines (oh no, they only get that light one instead of the heavy one)?
3. AT-Artillery? The Vet1 direct shot of B4 for 70 MU can't even destroy a non moving HT. I tried three times with a direct hit. The HT survived always.
4. AT Bombing run for 180 MU that can only kill light vehicles and maybe a light tank with some luck?
5. It seems it has to be the last ability that grants stealth to ZIS and TDs.. or am I wrong?

It isn't the AT bombing run in comparison to the AT rocket strafe alone. This commander is pretty dead in the water right now.

So, As I said can not kill a full 800 hp tank.

Yeah, but you said:

Well, CAS single pass can't kill a full Health 800hp tank unlike IL2 which could bring down a 960 HP Panther.

..and that is not true either.

Ju-87 single pass can deal 800 damage in one pass, but the tank has to be longer/bigger as the typical allied medium tank. Something like a ISU or IS-2 can get about 800 damage or even slightly more.