The only thing that would make intuitively sense to alter the ROF would be aim time, but then the question comes up if this difference should really be THAT large. Logically all vehicles would aim longer the farther away the target is. "LMG profiles" on ballistic weapons do not make sense. The reason why this works for current CoH2 LMGs is to simulate the "clunkyness" of the weapon, which for vehicles is already captured in speed, acceleration and turn rate.
The proposed change is to create more dynamic play between vehicles. The current system where unit like M36 can kite from max range without very down sides vs most vehicles is rather boring.
Yes, to this one I agree. Some of these abilities need larger differences to tell them apart.
This part was a general agreement with you. However I'd like to get rid of target tables in most of the tank and infantry combat. I assume most issues could be solved by either switchable rounds or some other type of ability.
Only specialized weapons like flame throwers or explosive charges could get some modifiers for example against emplacements. In these cases it also makes more intuitive sense since e.g. explosives work differently in rather enclosed areas than in open field. The engine can't simulate that unless there will be special modifiers added.
The round of a heavy TD does not suddenly get stronger because it hits a heavier target. I'd rather not have stuff like this in there.
In real life some time it does.
For instance a hollow shaped charge will do less damage to open top vehicle while a SABOT can do less damage to this armored vehicle since it can go in and out on the other side instead of bouncing inside the vehicle.
But again this has to the interaction of units:
As an extreme example if one doubles the damage and the ROF of the SU-85 vs Super and keep the damage the same vs all other vehicles the SU-85 remains as effective as it currently is vs Super heavies but half as effective vs medium and that creates room for the SU-76.
I one is facing medium one uses the SU-76, is one faces super heavies one uses the SU-85.
I also see no big benefit in the 80+80 suggestion. The AoE against infantry would only be smoother in few cases where the base damage of the weapon is super high. But even explosives like the satchel or the ISU152 don't have huge issues that could not be fixed by normal tweaking of the current AoE values. The current system is fully capable of doing all of this already, in some cases already better. If you want an AoE profile with OHK radius but steep drop off after OHK and low but long range far AoE, you actually have more freedom with the current system. The near AoE distance stat can both define your OHK radius as well as the next starting point below 80 HP if you want that, from which you can define better steps for mid and long range AoE. Your 80+80 would already define the near AoE distance (=killing radius), everything just outside of the OHK radius gets close to 80 damage. If you want a steeper AoE curve, you're already forces to have a mid AoE distance that is fairly close to the near AoE distance, just to get that quick damage drop off. Which leaves you only with two further distances to define the rest of your curve instead of 3.
But even if you still want that 80+80 so much, there is no need for target tables. Just set near AoE damage modifier to 0.5 and you effectively have you 80+80 already.
There are some reason:
ballistic weapon damage vs infatry is "balance" by scatter but there are cases that shot do "scatter" normally but collide with world object and that make these shots have very high wipe potential.
From a realism point of view there is very little reason that 75mm tank shell would do more damage that 83mm mortar (or even 120mm) round.
And there are also other target like buildings there is very little reason why a ATG should do double damage to building than a mortar and making indirect fire weapon better than ballistic weapon vs certain target can create reason to build them without having to be OP vs infantry.