Profile of Strummingbird

It is not reasonable to state that comparison of the differential in Support weapon crew sizes, is somehow not a valid balance concern or element. It "exists" and is part of the game, and as such is up for and subject to scrutiny as an element of that complex interweb of balance you refer to above, in the same way as is everything else.

You can't just write off the difference.

If the MG42 performs in it's role and is balanced, and if the Maxim performs in it's role and is balanced, then the difference is of no consequence and can be written off. You can't bring up a list of pros and cons of both HMGs and argue that each must have the same number of advantages and disadvantages to get perfect balance. If the MG42 has less statistical advantages, for example, it may have other advantages on its side- example would be in-situ reinforcement is much easier due to the much easier access to the halftrack the Germans get, whereas with Merge may leave conscripts undermanned and dangerously low on health so close to the front line. This is just an example,and not a very good one, of course- I'll think of a better one in a bit.

Time will tell if the MG42 and Maxim are balanced in their current state, and with continual updates and balance patches to the game they might have to be adjusted to compensate. But if they are balanced, then there's no problem if one is more survivable than the other.

On Mortars, the 81mm RoF is offset by 82mm greater AoE.
On ATGs, the PaK RoF is offset by ZiS Barrage.
On HMGs, the MG42 Arc is offset by Maxim setup time.

None of these asymmetric arrangements account for the support team crew count discrepancy, especially not when considered against Merge, and weapon capture potential overall.

The problem is, these support weapons (and indeed all units in both armies) face different circumstances and different counters, while appearing at different times from different buildings to fufill not-necessarily identical tasks. You can't just compare them directly.

For example, the 81mm has higher ROF but a lower AOE than the 82mm. But the 81mm comes from a tier no player would skip in a 1v1, and is thus available earlier and cheaper to an extent, is used primarily to get conscripts and infantry out of houses, has a very mediocre counter-barrage, lower crew size, etc etc. The 82mm has an awesome vet 1 ability, but is horribly slow firing, comes from a different tier that not all players choose to go for, primarily used to counter support weapons like Paks, doesn't have to face 120mm mortars as a counter but has to face Mortar Halftracks and their flame barrage, so on and so forth.

Then there's the Pak and the Zis. The Pak appears in a tier almost all german players go for, but has to face hard-to-hit T70s, is vulnerable to snipers only if the soviet goes T1, not very useful against Soviet M3s due to snipers in the same tier, fires faster, but has to deal with soviet mortar precision barrage and KV8s, not very useful against Soviet T4 due to long range of SU76/SU85, etc etc. The Zis appears in a tier only some soviet players go for, has a barrage ability, is more survivable, has to face mortar halftracks, has to deal with blitzkrieging Ostwinds, not that vulnerable to Snipers but poor against heavier vehicles, works well with ram/button from Guards/T34s, etc etc.

There are so many factors to consider when looking at the effectiveness of the unit in each role that a simple 6 man versus 4 man survivability question isn't appropriate. It's whether the unit fits into the faction arsenal as a whole.

Ostheer damage reduction would be larger, though a 0.0525 difference would be incredibly small anyway.

My guess is that if Snipers returned to CoH1 levels of effectiveness versus garrisoned structures, it would infringe on the niche of the mortar too significantly.

I've heard that Relic implemented universally similar/identical veterancy for just about all units of the same type for the sake of balance. However, does it not take away much of the variety and faction asymmetry dissimilar veterancy could offer?

Take a Pioneer squad and Combat Engineer squad. As they are, they fill almost identical roles, with the Engineers being slightly less cost-efficient in terms of DPS while having additional synergy with M3s. So instead of granting them nearly identical veterancy bonuses past the vet 1 ability, why not differentiate?

For example, the Pioneers could fill a more support-oriented role with veterancy like this, capable of keeping the heavy Ostheer panzers up and running quickly while actually making the field first aid ability cost-effective:

Vet 1:

• Field First Aid

• x0.8 received damage

Vet 2:

• x1.5 repair rate

• Mine-laying cost -5 munitions

• Field First Aid cost -5 munitions

Vet 3:

• x1.5 repair rate

• Mine-laying cost -10 munitions

• Field First Aid cost -5 munitions

• No received-damage penalty for repairing under fire

While Combat engineers could live up to their name with veterancy that augments their direct combat capability:

Vet 1:

• Trip-Wire Flares

• x0.8 received damage

Vet 2:

• x1.2 Movement speed

• Weapon upgrade cost -10 munitions

• x0.9 received damage

Vet 3:

• x1.2 accuracy

• x0.9 received damage

Different infantry types could have different veterancy types. For example, Panzergrenadiers, Shock Troops, and Penals are entirely combat-oriented, hence could have more movement speed/accuracy/damage resistance bonuses. Regular line infantry like the Grenadiers, Conscripts, and (to an extent) Guards could mix ability-cost discounts with combat and line-of-sight buffs.

While these statistics are just examples (and may not be balanced) and such a significant change is unlikely to be implemented at this stage of the game, it's still an idea I think would significantly add to the depth of the game.

Thoughts?