Profile of general_gawain

...
1) If you look at a certain timestamp, e.g. the 60 second mark as in your example, the y-value of the curves will tell you the probability the M4C will have killed the Panther (i.e. out of all shots fired 6 penetrating hits have been scored) within 60 s or less. In this case, the AP Sherman at 40 m (blue line) will have a kill probability of a bit over 50%, while the HVAP Sherman (red line) will have killed the Panther in over 70% of all cases. Hence, the HVAP Sherman is more likely to knock out its target within 60 s.
...

Thanks for the math. Somehow it makes very clear why the 76mm overall isn't worth it. If you look at it, you'll see that you need 51 seconds for a 50% chance at 40 meters to kill a Panther with the shell that is meant to kill tanks and does next to no damage vs infantry. Meanwhile Panther needs 20 seconds to 100% destroy a 76mm Sherman at 50 meters. Even factoring in population values doesn't change the outcome (you get 1,5 76mm Shermans for 1 Panther). It just closes the gap a little bit, but it is still far apart.

All this AT medium tanks are just only made for fighting PZIV and don't scale at all into lategame for fighting Panthers. This way you'll always take the Jackson instead which can utilize its range advantage to win vs a Panther. As long as AT medium tanks like 76mm (and E8) suck at killing infantry there will be no reason for their existence. This is true especially outside 1vs1. 76mm/E8 should be straight upgrades of M4A3 with somehow equal AI power but some additional advantages like better penetration, health, accuracy, armor or RoF. If you want an example: It works out well for T34/85 beeing a straight upgrade of T34/76.

Commands has no self propelled artillery (Calliope/Priest), no super heavy (Pershing), no normal off map (counter to static artillery pieces), no area off map (loiter/artillery), no Elite infatry (paras/rangers). That makes the commander unattractive from 2v2 to 4v4.

Thats one of the reason I proposed to exchange "Combined Arms" with some sort of normal off map or area off map in my original post. The other reason was to remove the timing push from 2x 76mm with this ability in 1vs1.

In 1vs1 the commander from 3/8/2021 to 9/11/2021 (commander was patched 26/2021) to 5 place right next to rifle company. (even if one looks at last patch it is in the same level as tactical infatry/tactical/mechanized with 4.099/4.087/4.081)

The patch which changed Mechanized and Rifle company to current state came out at 1st of june, was rolled back because of performance problems and brought online at 16th of june finally. If you use a custom range to look at loadout picks from that date up to today you'll see that Mechanized ranks at 6th place at top200 and at "all" players in 1vs1. Rifle ranks at 4th place for "all" players and 3th place for Top200 in 1vs1. Rifle company placement isn't bad at all.
The three companies ranking below Mechanized in 1vs1 all have a mode were they are ranked as either first, third or fourth pick. So Mechanized ranking 6th at 1vs1 and last one at all other game modes really is the bottom of them all.

...

Thanks for putting so much effort into it. The math you just showed lead to the nerf:

- Standard shell reload from 4.1/4.5 to 4.85/5.25

So the math isn't the actual one.

Together with previous WC51 nerfs and the removal of Dozer blade, this seemed to be too much to cover the weak spots of this commander anymore.

76mm has standard shell of Sherman with better RoF and penetration. Instead of the M4A3 HE shell it has an AP shell. I thought about two variations which could make the 76mm more tempting to take:

1) What if 76mm would have HE shell and AP shell instead, of course seperated by the 5 seconds shell switch? Would be interesting to have two specialized shells that need some foresight (and recon) plus user input to be used effectively versus the right targets.

2) Or let 76mm have HE shell and its already better standard shell but with AP mun as an ability that cost munition to activate.

Both variations would be more of a straight upgrade of the M4A3 similar to T34/85 beeing a straight upgrade of T34/76. Atm I do think 76mm isn't that attractive because M4A3 is just better at infantry killing while 76mm is no match for M36 at killing tanks. A 76mm that has the M4A3 stats versus infantry plus the option to be better versus tanks could be more interesting and would justify a higher cost and maybe the doctrinal choice too.

does the riflemen bulletin buffs work on pathfinders btw?

Pathfinders have a own bulletin and a second one if you bought Ardennes Assault and finished campaign with Able company. They can’t use the Riflemen bulletins.

Personally I do like any variation of the boring 3x Rifle standard opening. So a Pathfinder opening is welcomed. I would vote for 0 CP Cavalry Rifles with upgrades locked by tech too. More variation means more strategy and tactics and that is a good thing. There have to be ways to counter Pathfinder of course but I can see this counters, so I don’t see a general problem with Pathfinder openings. Of course you have to adapt. A defensive MG/mortar build won’t work very well. Grens with LMG upgrade (once MU is available) will work way better. If there is a lot cover where Pathfinders will stay and fire a supporting mortar could work out. Force into trading whenever possible since Pathfinder are expensive at reinforcing. Playing OKW Kubels are a great answer to Pathfinder openings, Pathfinders are way worse vs Kubel than Rifles are.
That are only nondoctrinal answers to a doctrinal thread. Try sprinting Assgrens for example, you’ll really drive Pathfinders back with them. Different openings require different answers. It would be boring if you could react always the same way with your standard build to different openings of your opponent.

Edit: It is sad already, that WC51 openings got nerfed a little bit too harsh to be of any relevance now. Nerfing Pathfinders would lead to another opening disappearing.