Profile of Kubelecer

The Raketten has 55 range, the Pak 40 has 60;
It has 200/190/180 pen as opposed to 210/200/190, but at lower ranges, so technically even worse;
It has slightly worse accuracy than the Pak 40 for the same reason;
It doesn't have a gunshield, and even though gunshields don't function properly they do offer additional protection in some situations. Though the extra crewmember is supposed to compensate this;
Reload is 0.12s slower, but practically negligible;
Its gun traverse is better than the Pak 40 at -35/35 vs -30/30;
Pak 40 gets better veterancy bonuses, most importantly getting better penetration and faster reload.

Thank you.

Based on these stats raketen is a viable AT gun than what it previously was. It is also the only AT gun to be able to garrison buildings. It having retreat is not a huge problem personally but it might be something that needs to be looked eventually.

God please look up the stats before saying stuff like this.

Literally 10 less range and 10 less penetration.

Prove me wrong.

Can we consider removing retreat from raketens? They're really cheesey against USF because of the lack of rocket arty and can just retreat away after gibbing tanks in blobs of 2.

A valid argument is also that the raketen released with the worst range of any AT gun in the game, and had the retreat option because it had to expose itself compared to other AT guns, but now it has been buffed to match other AT guns. Should be updated.

Not sure why it took this long to get individual threads for the patch, but it's a good idea to have them.

For USF, the current state of the M36 has been heavily criticized for months, if not longer, and there's nothing to address either it, nor its counters. Similarly, the changes to the Scott/Pak Howie a while back made them RNG-wiping machines (I guess that's better than consistent wiping machines); they're still annoying to deal with, but now they;re also annoying to use (due to the RNG).

The problem is USF has no other reliable AT option. The USF AT gun is complete dog shit above a vet 2 p4/p4j.
Zooks are a joke that struggle to pen mediums.
Riflemen need vet 1 for AT nade(ROFL).

I'm sure most USF players would like to not rely on the crutch M36 to fight armor, myself included. I hate microing that paper tank with shreks walking around. The AT gun needs a buff and then Jackson can become not a core unit for USF lategame. Maybe a sherman tweak is in order aswell, because that tank is very rarely seen.

The grenade change seems reasonable, although a little unasked for. 50MP isn't going to make a huge difference, so I don't see this making USF that much better, but leaving them at 150mp also wasn't causing too many issues. I'm not sure where this came from, so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

The change is there because noone gets nades. It's a sidetech USF was balanced around at release, and now we're here years later.

I'd argue that OST is the most muni-starved faction, at least early/mid game. Being even vaguely useful with them requires dumping tons of muni:
fausts/MG42-AP, since AT isn't available until later, while allied LVs are available quite early
Rifle-nades, which while they have more range, have less AoE
LMG42, which is required for Grens to be viable mid/late
Med-Bunker, which is a mandatory upgrade (unless an OKW player goes med-truck)
Mines, Sweepers, flamers, flame-HT, schrecks, etc. are all early/mid muni-sinks as well.

Every faction has a muni dump for their core infantry, which are basically a necessity. USF and Ost are the most expensive at 60 ammo, but everything Ost can spend ammo on besides that is completely optional. They don't need sidetech for nades, so they can yeet them whenever. Pgren shrek upgrade is very situational as pgrens are insane without it, incendiary rounds are also incredibly situational as no light vehicle that can get owned by it sees play, except maybe clowncar. USF also has AP rounds on 50.cal in any case so the argument is moot. Ost has mines, that's completely true but compared to USF which has joke mines and no AI mines, I see that as an incredible upside.

Flame HT is a sidegrade, as a counterpoint I'll point to the m20 that has a MANDATORY 70 AMMO UPGRADE ON A 20 FUEL LIGHT VEHICLE(?????), that also relies on the smoke discharge that costs ammo to survive.

USF at gun having an ammo ability to even get normal AT gun penetration value is also something no other faction has to rely on.

I agree that Ost has a lot of options for ammo expenditure, but besides the gren lmg I don't see many necessary upgrades.

The problem with clusters were that they deleted everything 'soft' unless the enemy player had perfect reaction time, since they hit the entire area at the same time. This was extremely problematic for team-weapons, since often their pack-up would take about as long as it took for the clusters to fall; this was extremely punishing for OST.

I am all against offmaps that delete stuff without room for reaction, just saying in my opinion it didn't seem powerful enough to warrant a nerf, but I might be wrong.

You missed a 0 on the nade tech cost.

I believe the new nade cost is still not enough. USF is the most ammo starved faction in the game not accounting for commanders, and there's just little room to get nades, especially considering the tech delays your light vehicle and infantry upgrades. The fuel cost needs a look or the nade cost itself.
USF is supposed to have smoke grenades as their counter to MGs earlygame, yet it's an annoying sidetech with a really steep cost. Not to mention only REs have smokes now.

Against good players rifleman nades are just a waste of ammo unless used on MGs in buildings. 1 nade = half a BAR, that also requires fuel to unlock.

Cluster bombs were really fast, but really not that good in my experience, they didn't wipe that much due to their nature of not hitting the same spot twice. 130 ammo for a forced retreat and a few models was debatable.

Compared to light artillery for ost that is also extremely fast, their use was limited. Maybe make clusterbombs actually mines like in the campaign?