I don't know if this was discussed somewhere already but I do think the reason Penals with PTRS scale so badly into the late game is quite obvious.
Other infantry units with AT weapons get better in accuracy and received accuracy with vetting. This means Shreks/Bazookas/Piats will hit better while the soldiers get less damage by incoming fire themselves.
Penals on the other hand trade Vet received accuracy bonus versus accuracy bonus, resulting in a huge accuracy bonus but only a small received accuracy bonus once they are Vet3.
Guess what: Since PTRS trades damage and penetration versus accuracy by itself the whole Vet accuracy bonus means absolutely nothing for PTRS shooting at vehicles. Vet0 Penals with PTRS in winter patch version hit every vehicle at axis roster at every range automatically (at live version they have a 16% chance to miss a Kubel at long range). 60% veterancy accuracy bonus completely down the drain in AT combat.
The Vet1 ability "To the last man" is no exception to this. While the whole cooldown bonus is only about 0.1 seconds cooldown reduction when 5 man are dead the 20% accuracy bonus with 5 man dead is wasted versus vehicles again. So the only good thing about the ability in AT combat is the 3% received accuracy bonus per man dead (but most tanks will ignore that with main gun AOE nevertheless).
So the whole Veterancy concept of Penals is centered about getting better in AI combat. But with upgraded PTRS they are not great at AI alltogether. That is a strange concept. Shouldn't they get something like a PTRS vet penetration or damage bonus to scale in AT performance?
Durability has mainly to do with armor and HP. Calliope is has much more of both.
The time a rocket launcher is firing is not the only time it vulnerable and the reason why PF fires faster is because of it sorter range and its performance when firing max range.
It easy already very hard to kill it if it was firing with lower CD it would very little difference to ability to survive but it would be far better at getting wipes.
One can counter katiousha and land mattress with artillery and even a 222 will kill them. In order to kill a Calliope one needs medium tank to dive.
There is simply no comparison.
I don't think we'll come to an agreement here. I do agree with you that a Calliope with a shorter shooting cycle wouldn't increase its durability by a lot, because its main source of durability is hp + armor. But for the rocket artillery which is easily destroyed by counter fire or a dive in the length of its firing cycle means a lot for their durability. Its for example really hard to Vet a land mattress when Stuka is on the field, because it will be constantly dewcrewed by counter fire while shooting.
Not really you simply have to compare commander with other commanders. A commander that bring too much to the table in different areas (AI,AT) is not good for diversity of the game. A commander that Calliope and P47 loiter would be an obvious choice in most modes.
But so would be a Commander with Ranger and Pershing or a Commander with Ranger and Calliope (two existing commanders). Both obvious choices. USF has some blank spots in their roster, even a Calliope/AT loiter commander would still miss some spots (for example how to kill onmap artillery pieces).
Super Bazooka on Ranger is only better versus low armor tanks (Ostwind or smaller), overall they are roughly equal in combat situations for some reasons:
1) Shrek penetrates every stock allied medium tank at any range automatically while
Super Bazooka only penetrates an Ostheer PZIV at long range (which is most realistic) for about 77% and an OKW PZIV for about 60%.
2) Damage and deflection damage of Super Bazooka is lower.
3) While shrek accuracy is slightly lower at long range (higher at med and close) PFs reach Vet2 way faster than Rangers and get a 40% accuracy bonus while Ranger only get a 25% bonus. After that PFs hit any tank of the size of a medium or higher automatically at any range while Ranger still have a chance to miss at long range.
4) It doesn't mean a lot that Shrek has a 2 second longer reload cycle since you only get one salvo at a tank in normal combat situations (unless vehicle pathfinding hates you).
In the end Triple Super Bazooka cost 80 munition more to upgrade and takes away one more regular weapon. I don't think they perform better than PFs. In the end it is quite comparable op.
As I said before: Double Shrek and triple Super Bazooka are both bad for the game.
If you want to talk about kati/Stuka/Panzerwer start a thread about.
I only talked about this units because you called out a problem that already exists at other fations in a similar way. Panzerwerfer/Stuka have more durabiliy because of short shooting cycle, Calliope has more durabiliy because of more hp and armour. You can't just look at one faciton if other factions have similar mechanics.
PW dies to small arm and 1 AT shot, Calliope does not. If and when it does it would less of an issue.
Again, short shooting cyle creates a similar problem. Imagine Calliope would have shooting cycle of Panzerwerfer/Stuka. It would be impossible to kill it at all.
On the other hand commander should be of about the same power level. Having a commander with Elefant and stuka is bad for the game. Having an commander with Calliope and AT loiter would be equally bad or worse.
It is a simply as that.
You have to take into account the stock units. If a commander fills in two spots at a faction that has two blank spots it is something different from a commander filling two spots at a faction that has three or four blank spots.
No they are not. But they have the same AT power you were talking about. You talked about infantry AT power + super heavy tank. Ranger AI is ruined with three super Bazookas, same for PFs with double Shrek. But in addition PFs have super useful and cheap Vet1 flares for self spotting (or to spot for other units) and they have lower reinforcement costs so you can afford to maintain more of them in the late game. Double Shrek PFs are as much off a problem as three Super Bazooka Rangers.
That situation is not really the same since Calliope is a lot more durable than Kat and Panz.
The only fair rocket launchers are Kaitusha and land matress because they have a combination of low hp + long firing cycle. You can kill them with fast counterfire or a quick dive in. Stuka and Panzerwerfer are hard to kill too because they aren't at the place they fired from when their rockets hit you. While Calliope should have lower hp, Stuka and Panzerwerfer should have something like a few second period where they can't move after shooting.
In addition the combination of doctrinal rocket AI arty like Calliope and an AT off map is bad to begin with.
And why is nondoctrinal rocket AI artillery (and it seems there will be a low angle barrage for Panzwerwerfer too) with doctrinal AT off map in any way less of a problem?
Mostly for soviet and none of them have the AT capability of rangers.
Each faction plays differently now imagine how broken it would be one combined 5 men grenadier with a Super heavy like Tiger or Elefant.
Now imagine how broken it would be if you had Panzerfusiliers with two Shreks and super heavy Jagdtiger/Kingtiger or a Tiger I. Gladly thats not in the game or is it? XD
Edit: And to be fair I wrote a long time ago that here should be no units in the game which are running around in jolo mode with two Shreks or three super bazookas, thats just too much AT for an infantry unit...
Heavy cavalry
Ranger and Pershing should simply not be in the same commander.
There are multiple examples of elite units and heavy tank / super heavy tank in the hands of one player in this game already. In addition Pershing really isn't the best one. So I don't see your point either.
Just to clear this up, I play USF next to never. But I just don't see this points if they exist already at other factions in a similar way.
The T-34/76's strength is not initial timing, but cost effectiveness...
It's easier to achieve critical mass with it than with any other vehicle...
And with ZiS guns as support, it does about as well at fighting infantry and tanks as a P4 for a much lower price.
If you are right:
1. The manpower cost of ZIS + T34 is much higher than the manpower cost of a PZIV on a faction that relies more on manpower than other factions (but for example less on munition).
2. Talking about population I get 3x PZIV (36 pop) for 3x T34 and one ZIS (37 pop). I would rather take the 3x PZIV if you ask me. Something seems to be odd with the population comparison if getting a critical mass is the concept of a T34. The direct population comparison of PZIV to T34 is 5 to 6 (both 60 population). Thats feels absolutely wrong for a cheap mass tank.
I really like a lot of your changes and appreciate the work you put into it. I do like the T1/T2 and the T3 changes.
What I'm missing is a somehow bolder T4 rework. The T34/76 timing is really messed up. Comes way too late, especially if you build a M5/T70/SU-76 before. Especially building a T70 feels mandatory. Getting a T34 after PZIV as a result is somehow akward since PZIV beats it in AI/AT and armor. Maybe lower T4 fuel cost and take your proposal of a mandatory Mobilize Reserves to put Katiusha and SU-85 behind it in addition to doctrinal tanks. You would have your very own timeframe for T34 then that could be balanced.
I would like to have the tactical decision to rush a T34 if I do thing I can hold my territory just long enough without going for that T70. More diverse T3 into T4 builds would be nice. Atm it isn't very realistic to pull that off.
I think we may be thinking about different game modes in which case nvm.
Speaking from 3v3+, there are many lane-y maps such as Redball, Across the Rhine...
So we agree about 1vs1. Good.
Speaking about 3v3 there are two important aspects we shouldn't miss.
1. You have already taken the mid, including green cover spots and sandbags. If he goes for 3 maxims he maybe won't even build cons to get third maxim earlier. This means the moment he arrives with engineers and his first maxim you have already 2 units positioned in mid plus the third unit arriving at that very moment. At Redball this means you have the building at lower right + green cover for example.
2. Most allied players won't play very defensive, especially USF can't do that. So if you have a maxim lane player and can't manage it, just help out a teammate and double up another opponent. If the maxim player doesn't react and gives up his one lane block this won't play out very well for their team. If you push through the mid for example you can take maxim player from front and back. This is no difference to running into Ostheer multiple MG42 in one lane. Don't try to take it from the front unless you have a lot of smoke or indirect fire.
Very hard to see the need for maxim buffs when this keeps happening
I would question that. To be somehow effective with maxims and not get overhelmed by flanks you have to keep them together. So you are loosing a lot of map control.
A combo of Sturmpioneers and Kubels does well vs maxims which will get outmanoeuvred.
Suppression definitely needs an increase. It is quite pathetic that squads can just stroll in and out of the arc.
I do find it even more disturbing that a single grenadier squad can move in frontally and get its rifle grenade off. Same for squads with sprint but less ranged grenades. No single squad should be able to nade any MG frontally without camouflage or smoke.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
