Profile of Mazianni

Skirts are fine, and were fine, they weren't ever a problem and I don't think they are now.

But the build time double nerf I agree is doubly oppressive and the .50 cal mounted on the M20 could use a very slight base penetration buff (talking even just +1 at all ranges) or a better vet 3 penetration bonus. Unit would be fine with just that.

The purpose was to make MTs more viable in general, to the (slight) detriment of anti-armor capability versus MTs.

Sandbags being hard to assault frontally is WAD. Literally the whole point of their existence.

It's one of the last mechanisms in the game against mindless A-move tactics and so I don't know why everyone wants to get rid of it so badly. And why wouldn't it be placeable on a strategic point in the map? That's the entire point of fortification...

If anything it should be more resilient to small arms fire(or at least natural green cover should last longer), given how quickly MGs seem to shred through them.

Buy yourself an indirect fire weapon like a mortar or something if you struggle so much against it. That's the whole reason why they exist in the first place and part of the reason why they suck so much ass now is because positioning is increasingly less and less important in the face of raw DPS and out of cover durability. Instead, it is almost always better almost every single time to just buy another infantry squad or something instead of a mortar.

If anything, the incredible efficiency of AT guns (particularly the USF one, but also the Raketen) versus light vehicles is the main thing making countering entrenchment so difficult mid-game IMO.

Seriously, why does everyone want to nerf cover so badly?

Axis shorter cooldown recharge is a total non-issue.

If we are going to talk about snare inconsistency, it's stuff like the UKF sapper HEAT grenade that needs looking at:

...both rifle grenades have a wind up time of 0.75 seconds. I'm also probably correct in thinking the ready aim time of 2 seconds and the aim time of 0.125 seconds are included. In any case they have the same times involved pre-firing. These times seem about right to me and cement them as the slowest snares.

For reference, ostheer panzerfaust has 0.125 in both aim times (no post firing aim time) and a wind up of 1.53 seconds (and 1.2 wind down). I assume the OKW panzerfaust is the same but it wouldn't be too surprising if it was different (there are a number of other differences between them that I remember.) Conscript AT nade has the same aim values and a 0.125 wind up time (0.75 wind down) giving it the fastest reaction. Curiously the british HEAT grenade has much higher aim times and wind up / down times. (1-0.5s aim times, 0.25 wind up, 0.75 wind down) Penal AT charge has the same 0.125 aim times but a longer wind up of 0.75 (same as wind down)

There are actually some pretty big differences between the two rifle nade snares that I'm also not sure are actually active or relevant. For example, the PF rifle nade has a much smaller tracking cone (2 to 15) and the riflemen rifle nade has a very long post firing aim time (1.5 to 0.25)

No reason at all why they should have a much higher aim time than every other at grenade in the game.

M5 is bullet proof and the M3 isn't though correct? (are you talking usf/ukf HT or m3a1?) either way shocks in a HT rolling around too soon would not be a good move for balance.

M5 has very high armor for a light vehicle (28.5/20), but it isn't bulletproof. That would require armor of around 35 (like Ostheer bunker or M8 Greyhound).

This being said, if M5 comes earlier it could have armor reduced so infantry fire does more damage. It is already very vulnerable to any sort of AT weapon (though this is true for any light vehicle). MG42 with incendiary rounds will also make short work of it.