Profile of MMX

There are a lot of unused cover types which could be utilized, also it would of course means adding this interaction with every single weapon.

Aura's and Near Entities would not provide directional cover. Crits could be designated between frontal and rear of entity, assuming infantry even have rear armor, but that would make side shot very unknown.

Target Tables are likely the only way, easy but time consuming.

UI would be another problem. Would green be incorrect? Would prebuilt map sandbags count? It would probably be best if sandbags remain heavy cover.

thanks a lot for your insight on this.

a bummer that target tables seem to be the only way to make it happen. this would obviously be way too complicated to implement and likely open the floodgates for more unforseen bugs in the process.

[...]
Soviet: Defensive Tactics
This commander is not entirely bad, but it fills none of the soviet blank spots. Usually you go for a commander with elite troops, ML-20 or premium med / heavy tanks. With 4 of 5 abilities at 0-2 Cps and one at 12 CPs it leaves a huge gap in CP progression. I would suggest to swap M42-AT gun for a KV-1 or ML-20. Both would fit defensive thematic very well and would close the CP game in midgame without making commander op. In addition it would be an interesting option to add a heavy anti-tank mine like Ostheer Riegel or USF M20 mines. The Soviet had such mines too (TM-41/TM-44).
- swap M42-AT Gun with KV-1 or ML-20 commander ability
- add heavy tank mines for engineers with Advanced Fortifications (probably with additional T3 or T4 techlock)

funny that you'd want to replace the one ability (m-42) that makes this commander a viable pick for me. defensive tactics is ideal for t1 openings since you get anything you'd want from t2, and in case of the dskh and hm-38, even in superior form compared to the stock options.
without the baby at gun you'd be forced to back-tech for a zis rather sooner than later, so imho one of the other mediocre commander slots (tank traps and those ap-mines no one ever builds) would be a much better candidate for an ability swap.

So are you saying the only types of bugs that can be fixed are those that can be altered by the official modding tools. Jesus that's rough.

well, by the community anyway. everything beyond this has to be done by relic afaik. that's why some bugs are deemed unfixable and any unit/ ability associated with them is most likely to be axed

Very good point. Do you think a change to make Infantry AT unable to fire from a moving vehicle (Or fire from a vehicle at all, perhaps, as the former is also cheesable) would be a good idea? It would leave room to improve PTRS performance in other areas without them being unbearably cheesy.

It would also nerf the Pgren Battle Bus and similar tactics, if you applied a change like that broadly, but maybe that's also a good thing.

why would you ever want to remove one of the most fun mechanics from the game?

In a vacuum 200 damage would mean a whole lot, but the soviet have a some "sub standard" AT that it would make a difference for. A wham bam with a su76 and an IS-2 would be half a p4s health for example, or in conjunction with PTRS' you cound find some ttk shaved. Half the stock AT the soviet have would see a difference.

Plus, even though it's only 40 more damage, you notice when a firefly hits you. It would do a bit to make the tank FEEL more powerful, even if ttk itself is wholey unchanged.

Yes I've had situations when that increased damage would help a lot while fighting light vehicles. And even if it's not so common, the change would still greatly increase IS's potential while used in conjunction with PTRSs and SU 76s.

i see where you're coming from and i agree for the most part that the +40 damage would absolutely make a difference in some scenarios. but the thing is, that +40 damage wouldn't (and shouldn't) come for free: if damage per shot goes up, so should reload to avoid making the is-2 too powerful against other heavies or its intended counters (i.e. the panther). and with lower rate of fire you're not only reducing the performance against those 640-hp mediums and 320-hp light vehicles, but also amplifying the effect of misses - in essence you're going back to the random cannon the is-2 used to be a couple of years ago.

i think there are better, easier and most importantly less risky paths to increase the viability of the is-2 than tinkering with its performance (especially in the AT department, which no one complained about during the heavy tank meta era and which hasn't changed at all ever since).

Right now the is 2 is a good tanks, a reliable tank, but not an interesting tank. And since it's only in 2 commanders the lack of interesting sort of waters down the draw of those commanders. At least for me.
Again, it's not necessary. But it would be nice

i think the is-2 is quite a unique unit in the soviet roster, even though it admittedly gets overshaded by the kv-2 in most aspects.
my personal opinion is that it's just too expensive at the moment (same goes for the tiger and pershing) for what it does, especially compared to the kv-2. though this may not make the is-2 more interesting as a unit, maybe increasing the price and/or timing difference between the two would make it a bit more of an appealing choice?