I had this idea, but they said no "anti everything" infantry allowed. Therefore allowing a downgrade back to the initial 6 SVTs seems to be the best idea since PTRS package is best suited for the LV phase.
If it unlocked at T4, when actual tanks start rolling out, I feel it wouldn't be as anti-everything, because against tanks they would only be able to do chip damage.
Alternatively, if we're looking for something unique and unexplored, allow them to swap between SVT and PTRS, but only in the HQ sector.
Tune PTRS Penals to counter LVs with the upcoming PTRS change, then once T4 is up give players the option to pay 60 munis to downgrade back to SVTs as a stock penal squad that can’t upgrade again and doesn’t have a satchel snare anymore.
Perhaps allow Penals to swap between PTRS and SVTs after T4? Just like Pios can swap sweepers.
The Emplacements in general can return more MP when dismantled with each vet. Like now they all give back 100mp, may be vet 2 can return 150 and vet 3 200 MP.
This was proposed for Withdraw and Refit back when it was still a thing, if I'm not mistaken. Personally, I find this to be a fair solution. The exact MP values would have to be adjusted (I'd propose exponential growth as a starting point, so something like extra 50/100/200 MP for vet 1/2/3), but overall it would reward players for holding on to their emplacements.
Also you should check an excel sheet yourself once in a while. You now twice stated (even in capital letters for further mockery) that the KV1 has exactly the same gun as the T34 which is not even correct.
[...]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only difference between them a marginally better reload speed of KV-1?
My proposal would be to change this ability, so that the fuel is deliverd by two planes. Increasing the survivability. So change it to two planes and reduce the fuel crates to two , but increase the amount of fuel per crate to 15
Why stop at two planes?
Jokes aside, I do think this ability is far less interactive than Ostheer's Supply Drop Zone and could use a small rework. In Drop Zone's case, both player have the incentive to fight over the point designated as the drop zone. It becomes a new objective on the map, which you can't just ignore. In case of Allied Supply Drop it's just binary "you get it or you don't if opponent has AA unit in the right spot".
One potential fix that was already proposed, was to have a dedicated "AA Mode" for all units that can shoot at planes, so Axis players would at least have to take a conscious action to shoot it down. It's a good start, but in my opinion something else could be done too.
I personally never liked that implementation because you had to plan to lose models and it was kind of weird like that, nobody 'plans' to lose half their army, and especially not for Osttruppen (and especially not old Osttruppen). I'm not sure what the best implementation would be here though, because straight up Munitions for Squads is an odd concept as well. Maybe I was just never good at foreseeing losses and using that to my advantage.
Note that you're not getting an actual normal squad, but pretty much just equivalent in manpower with few extra steps. The "bonuses" you get from those Relief Squads is ability to reinforce weapon teams and capping points in a pinch. Plus, getting them for munitions wouldn't leave much counterplay for the opponent (although the counterplay against Rapid Conscription/Relief Infantry isn't stellar either).
Soviets have several unused (in multiplayer) icons, they can either use the one with a horizontal bar or the single Mosin-Nagant icon (like Conscripts, except it only shows one rifle). I think Ostheer and OKW use all of their icons though, so they'll likely need a new one; or alternatively both sides just use the neutral 'bar' icon for their replacement unit.
I also thought about repurposing that exact horizontal bar icon too. I assume that balance team/whoever is in charge at Relic would still prefer having new icon, but that one works.
I really like this idea, how would they deploy though? Maybe one large squad or two smaller ones? The Soviet one could be 7 men and the Ostheer one 5 men, or alternatively 2 of 5/3 (fully reinforce 2 squads). They could either be armed with Conscript/Panzerfusilier rifles or just crew rifles (crew nagant, crew karabiner) if you wish to completely discourage their use as infantry. Could give them Sov/Ost AT Gun Crew models so they stand out as being distinct from any regular infantry.
I thought that keeping the original mode of deployment (lose models to earn squads) would be fine with this implementation. You wouldn't be killing yourself with popcap of extra squads, so it shouldn't be as unwieldy as original abilities.
Also, using gun crew models is pretty solid idea too, though using regular Ostruppen/Conscript models is fine, as long as they get a new proper squad icon.
Instead of providing the normal conscripts/Ostruppen you get the different "new" squad. Lets call them "Relief infatry squad" for now.
Relief infatry squad has entities with target size of 1
Number of entities can be from 4-6
The squad has the ability to merge
The squad does not have the ability to reinforce
In the sort the "Relief infatry squad" can be used to reinforce front line infantry via merge or re-crew support weapons.
It does not how ever increase the size of one's army since the squad can not reinforce and will eventually run out of entities.
Any questions?
I've said before that this is kind of a good idea, but after some more thought, I think this could work quite well.
Weapon teams recrewed by squads that cannot reinforce actually can reinforce. If you set the model cost of those Relief Squads to be equal to the default weapon team crew reinforcement cost (22 mp for OH, 15 mp for Soviets), then it should be fine (note that weapon teams recrewed by Ostruppen have 16 mp reinforcement cost).
Considering how such Relief Squad would be unable to reinforce itself, would arrive without any veterancy (and probably shouldn't earn any experience at all) and would (likely) have combat stats equivalent to vanilla Conscripts/Ostruppen, you would be incentivized to use it only for merging. I can't think of any other crafty ways of using them, but I'll leave that as an exercise for better players than me.
But that doesn't fix the problem, it just makes games shorter by default. I want to see stalled games occur when there's a bigger intention on both parts on actually trying to cap the VPs. So even though the bleed is faster, you are still "rewarded" the moment you put units under fire inside a VP. Whether you are able to can/neutralize it or not.
I think it does fix the problem, just in a more straightforward way. If there are only 300 VPs to go and you find yourself in a 2v1 situation, there's more pressure on you to flip an extra VP to your side. Likewise, if you are on 1v2 side, you clearly want to stay there.
In that direction with bunkers, it would be better rather than needing mp to activate them, that instead it would incur in a mp gain penalty.
I think that giving a permanent MP income penalty would be too harsh. Base MGs only have impact on early game rushes - they can't suppress or even damage enemy tanks. At the same time, early game is time when one has to be extra careful with spending their resources, so the MP cost is impactful enough. If you manage to survive into the late game, having spent resources to survive a base rush, then good for you! In case of MP penalty, it would haunt you entire game.
Both topics are theoretical for CoH2, but it's interesting thing to discuss for CoH-like genre.
Your previous post didn't specify that. 
mais niquez vous
Chocolek
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
Heartless Jäger 
