Profile of MMX

If these weapon do the same thing then one should compare the commanders if one these offer different things then the what they bring to the table.

Why though? If you wanted to compare the KV-1 and T-34/85, or KV-2 and IS-2 then you'd go ahead and compare these two units, not the commanders they're in, wouldn't you?

Also, both the B-4 and ML-20 may do 'the same thing' aka lobbing explosive shells at the enemy, yet they are very much different from each other in many ways... in what way does looking at the commanders they come in help to analyze these differences?

If I understood you right, this is about a squad out of cover. But what if squad is clumped up in yellow cover and you just want to attack ground it, or you are rotating around squad in green cover and then shooting at it, so shells won't overshoot and just hit against green cover? There are a lot of instances where infantry can be clumped up and good OHK can be pretty useful, the question is how much it is the case thought?

yeah, OHK capability is undoubtedly very important. you can easily see this, for example, if you compare the cromwell with other mediums. even though the crom deals more AoE damage per shot to a squad than the Pz.IV, it doesn't kill as many models in the same time frame but instead spreads out that superior AoE damage more evenly over multiple squad members. for the same reason heavies tend to feel a bit underwhelming, even though after only 2 shots fired on average they already perform better (i.e. more kills) than any medium or premium med.

but to come back to this case; the OHK radius reduction for the comet means that the OHK area is around 20% smaller. this applies in every case - in yellow cover, in the open, bunched up in a crater or spread out as wide as possible (but not in green or negative cover, as the damage reduction would shift the OHK threshold up or down in this case). so at best, you're now 20% less likely to kill a model in one shot. and this also doesn't depend on distance to the target, how clumped a squad is or the presence of shot blockers as everything else stayed mostly the same for the Comet prior to after the nerf (yes the scatter angle is a tad bit higher, but this doesn't have such a drastic effect as the scatter distance).

now i do agree that 20% is quite substantial. but you have to keep in mind that this performance difference already shrinks to about 5% within two shots (a 2HK ?) and gets rather negligible from there onwards.

Didn't it reduced 80dmg radius by around 15%? This is similar 80dmg distance difference of old comet vs any medium tank like t34-76 or P4.

true. however the actual difference is a bit smaller as infantry models have a hitbox as well (though i don't know the exact size and shape a circle with a radius of 0.5 m around the unit is a good approximation). if you add that the difference drops from a 16.7% to a 10.4% smaller OHK radius.

in-game this difference should only be noticeable for the 1st shot and if my calculations are correct you should get around 20% less OHKs against a full-health squad.
but since the portion the AoE nerf cut off from the overall AoE damage cone (the volume you get by rotating the area under the AoE damage curve around thy y-axis) is very small, the average AoE damage dealt per shot doesn't change much. that means, after 2 and more shots fired both the old and new Comet kill almost the same number of models on average with every shell. obviously this will be different if you look at units with some form of DR (e.g. vet3 grens or units behind heavy cover) as here the AoE curves are quite different.

so to sum up; if you look at OHKs of full-health models or damage against units with DR then, yes, the AoE changes made the Comet quite a bit worse. but in all other cases i'd argue the changes are barely noticeable.

the New changes to Osttruppen make them way too strong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOfXAtUA-tQ (28:06)

Perhaps scarp the LMG upgrade give them a upgrade similar to cons mobilized reverses upgrade which would fit better into there cannonfodder role

just saw the video and, wow, that's really insane. but instead of nerfing the modifier back to 25% i'd rather reduce the in-cover bonus of the squad by an appreciable amount. that way the MG would still remain a noticeable upgrade without being too strong as it is in the current beta iteration.

Giving Partisans merge is like setting a nuke off inside your manpower reserves. Not only are you taking a squad that takes 36mp to reinforce and making it have to reinforce more, but you're taking a squad member with above 1 RA and putting it into another squad where he will immediately die if the breeze blows a bit too hard. Fun, hilarious, but an awful idea with current iteration of Partisans.

I'd like to see a way for Partisans to reinforce off ambient buildings when not in combat. Might actually justify the oppressive reinforce cost and make them a little more interesting than Soviet Stormtroopers. (Assuming this is even possible)

+1

in addition, the high base RA combined with relatively high reinforcement cost is what makes Partisans a huge burden the more the game progresses, and i wish there were ways to mitigate this to some degree.

i like the idea to allow on-field reinforcement from ambient structures a lot, though i agree this would be way too powerful if enabled permanently. my personal favorite is to tie this to the activation of spy network, since it would not only fit thematically but also restore a bit of the utility lost with the proposed nerfs to spy network in the beta.

alternatively, a reinforment cost reduction for partisans while the ability is active would also be a neat way to lessen the MP bleed a little bit.