Profile of Kasarov

Couple things to point out:

222's armor is laughable right now and it certainly does not overlap with the Luchs as much as you might think. Even after the armor buff it remains vulnerable to some MGs (.50 and DsHK)and more vulnerable than the Luchs is to AT rifle fire. OKH lacks any light armor other than the 222 and 251 and both of them can be dealt with via prolonged small arms fire. I support the buff because it gives the OKH more build diversity.

They specifically said that they were having trouble forcing the Soviet 120mm mortar crew to decrew at 2. I'd honestly like to see it keep the 1-man decrew but make it unable to retreat.

I hate the Soviet sniper change, mostly for faction flavor. I agree that snipers in general were overnerfed, but I think the light vehicles having bonuses versus snipers is long overdue and is a good thing. More options is good in this case, as snipers are usually well-microed and behind a protective screen of infantry or MG.

The reason why ML-20 was replaced with B4 is that B4 has a direct fire shot for antitank duty, essentially making it the closest Soviet equivalent to the Pak43. Is it still a meme unit? Definitely. But does it fit the theme more? Also definitely.

No other faction has free grenades right off the bat. Everyone needs to side-tech for grenades on Allied side. Would like to see grenades and faust unlocked with an undeployed sWS HT instead of deployed HQ. Also Volks firenade (and many things fire-related) are cancer and didn't actually exist IRL. I'm aware flame rockets and bombs existed for Axis, but can't find any evidence of flame arty for Soviets and flame mortar for Axis.

Panther did not get nerfed. If you've played OKW before you'd find that they can get their Panthers faster. Early(ish) OKW Panther + 5* veterancy with faster RoF is blatantly OP. Enjoy the Panther buff. StuG nerf is well-deserved and Tiger is far from "a shitty unit" because of its health durability and generalist nature. If used in combined arms warfare it can do a lot.

Rocket artillery does wonders on Axis team weapon concentrations. Before that, mortar barrages, mortar smoke, infantry flanks, and variations on that standard formula. In theory.

But the problem is team games open up avenues of cheese that wouldn't really be viable outside of team games. In 1v1, for example, if someone has 5 or 6 team weapons they likely have no infantry and can be punished for it. In 3v3 and 4v4, you've got 2 or 3 more players to cover your weaknesses, so you can afford to try crazy things.

I guess in big team games rocket artillery is also more accessible.

Anyway TL,DR: Cheese happens in big teamgames a lot more than in 1v1.

I'd go with putting it's dmg per shot from 160 to 200 (Panther's).
Especially in context with it's armor having been nerfed (rightfully as the 90'/180' angle thing)
- I believe that with the pop and armor nerfs, it's justified and can do a lot to bring back the
Panther into the yay range.

(And, yes, this coming from an allied fanboi)

The problem is this in practice does very little against mediums and heavies. For example, Soviet heavies are all 1040 hp iirc, which takes 7 (actual is 6.5) hits from a 160 damage gun and 6 (actual is 5.2) hits from a 200 damage gun. All mediums barring premediums have 640 health, which takes exactly 4 hits from a 160 damage gun, and still takes 4 hits from a 200 damage gun. Couple that with a Panther's (still) relatively slow fire rate and you'll find a minuscule difference in the heat of an engagement. The only benefit that is relevant would be increased vet per shot. Perhaps maybe it makes for one less shot for vehicles that are only 90% repaired or took some deflection damage from autocannons or damage from infantry AT.

I think that both StuG and SU-76 is overperforming still, and it wouldnt be "homogenizing" factions per se. Perhaps the "clone" part of my explanation was taken too literally. I would like a SU-76 armor pen (maybe also range) nerf while StuG gets a 40 damage nerf and a slight ROF buff. In the end, the guns wouldn't be equal, but the StuG and SU-76 would perform in a similar fashion. The StuG if given 640 health would mean it is as survivable as a medium tank (can take an extra hit) while the SU-76 dies in 3 hits. The two units are still very different, and we avoid making a new special snowflake 200 damage class when even heavy tanks still only do 160 damage.

==================
Casemate. Casemate gun. Not in my vocabulary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casemate Oh.
In armoured fighting vehicles that do not have a turret for the main gun,
the structure that accommodates the gun is termed the casemate.

Ok. Now I understand.

I suppose. But shouldn't that then also apply to Tanks?
Note: SU85, SU76, ISU152, Elefant, JgTiger, StuIIIG, JgPz4, JgPanther have casement guns.

Are you saying ATG should not be nerfed, but TDs should, and tanks shouldn't?

*Confused*

Also not valid in context to him saying StuIIIG shouldn't be nerfed

Personally, I'd like to see all closed-top casemate vehicles have that restricted vision cone thing that the JP4 has until they receive a top gunner upgrade. (SU-76 is open top, so no vision nerf there) I'd also like the StuG III's damage to be nerfed to 120 1) to match the SU-76 and 2) to create a further distinction between the roles of the StuG as a medium killer and the Panther as a heavy killer.

Anyway, ATGs shouldn't be nerfed, but TDs should because Allied TDs are a bit overperforming right now, and StuG still vies for AT roles vs even the recently buffed Panther. Tanks shouldn't be nerfed per se (if following cramped compartment train of thought: logically, because most tank guns ATM are nowhere near as effective as the dedicated ATG) but should have their target sizes tweaked to further differentiate HT and MT and even LT sizes.

I think TDs should be nerfed via RoF (for heavy tank killers like SU-85, Jackson) and mobility and possibly even sight, but not a blanket nerf to accuracy. To reflect how hard it is to hit the tanks, the tanks themselves should get their target sizes tweaked.

- No reason why ATG should be discriminated against as compared to Tank Destroyers.
Why should Tank Destroyers which are more expensive be LESS effective than ATGs?

The issue that comes to mind is that PaK-walls can be dealt with by indirect fire, while tank destroyers and assault guns are harder to displace. The way I see it, casemate guns (ideally) trades effectiveness for mobility and protection.

A flavorful way to describe it is that it's a lot easier to engage things when you're not in a cramped fighting compartment and when your view isn't restricted to a few periscopes.