Profile of JibberJabberJobber

Does, say, an AT gun where the gun is at half health die a lot faster than a crew with a full health AT gun?

Not at all

Allot

I think it can be kinda misleading. It's better to understand how to read AoE profiles than rely on that number.

It works for me, I can read AoE values just fine, but not scatter values, which the AoE score takes into account.

And again, it fits with my experience, for example:

• I feel the 'nerfed' Tiger is on average much better against infantry than it was before the whole scatter/AoE rework -> AoE score agrees.
  
• P4 J and T34/85 feel like they have a much more consistent main guns than their cheaper versions -> AoE score agrees.
  

Well, i'll start with a simple question. What do you think it's more lethal. A normal mortar round or a Zis barrage round ?
The AoE chart gives the mortar a better value, but that's only because the mid to far AoE damage is better.

They're not really comparable, zis barrage has much shorter reload and each round takes far shorter to land.

If mortar rounds would be fired by the zis gun in as fast a succession, I wouldn't be surprised if they were on average more lethal.

Better would be to compare similar weapons like leig, 80mm, pack howi and 120mm with each other, then the AoE score aligns with how I experience each in-game. Of course, you'd have to take into account the reload time yourself.

Now, do you think the the pre nerf Zis barrage was roughly 40% worse than the current one even though it was nerfed?

Ye, it feels stronger than it was before against units in the open. Also gets used constantly by pretty much everyone now, so I wouldn't call it a nerf.

Mid to far dmg masquerad es the AoE value. If i were to give a weapon with a huge AoE radius an improvement on the far damage from say 5 to 10, the AoE value will rise drastically. Even though we both can agree it's pretty much negligible. If you were to cut down the dmg of a grenade in near dmg by 2, the effects are great even though the change is minimal.

I'm not sure how it's calculated, the answer lies somewhere here (functions at the bottom): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view

I assume the AoE score is some kind of representation of the average damage done to the center point the weapon is aiming at, if taking into account the AoE and scatter profile.

I'm more concerned that a higher near damage might inflate the AoE score, while it wouldn't help much against infantry. That's why it's probably better to only compare units with above 80 near damage with units that have the same near damage.

The reason why the Comet is far better than the T85 while having a smaller 0HK is due to the far damage not been meaningless at 32 vs 8.

Ye, and the better scatter.

OHK radius is overrated anyway.

I have no idea how suppression works exactly, but I'm under the impression you have to take suppression of the weapon as well as suppression recovery of the target squad into account.

Say you need 100 suppression 'points' to suppress a squad. A squad recovers 1 suppression per second, your HMG deals 2 suppression per second, you'd do 2 - 1 = 1 suppression per second. If the HMG would deal 3 suppression per second, you'd do 3 - 1 = 2 suppression per second, which would be a 100% increase in effectiveness instead of 50% as you might've thought.

why should a unit`s usefulness be tied to veterancy? units need to be viable at vet 0 not at vet X..

Because nerfing Conscript veterancy in order to buff the PPSH upgrade would be stupid.