Profile of Hannibal

If you always win it means that the units you use are absolutely broken OP

Stuka’s incendiary barrage is underrated af. Not sure why you want to replace it if you’ve never used it.

I rarely used it because I think it comes quite late. The times I used it it was alright, but honestly a direct hit with the normal barrage would probably be more effective. It's not a Katy rocket that kills a model and deals AoE, one of the StuKa rockets can kill 4-5 models if it hits right. I just think the advantage is maybe not worth it for the mun cost. Then again I'm not that experienced with it, so if you have further insights feel free to share.

I mean i don't know how strong they'd be but if you WP barrage and then immediatly HE barrage that could be deadly in its own right.

Not immediately. As I said, shorter CD than the normal barrage. Normal barrage is ~2 min, so maybe 1 min would be appropriate? This could also allow for a completely different use of the units if you want to invest munis in it.

Since a discussion about giving incendiary barrage to the Panzerwerfer started, I figured it kight be a good idea to discuss alternative fire modes for rocket arty in general. Let's face it: all of them are currently shit.

PWerfer has counter barrage: honestly next to useless. You don't want to hit a shitty little mortar at max range.
Katyusha has creeping barrage: An ability that probably was thought to be a small StuKa zu Fuß, but turns out to be bad as well because you pay quite a lot of mun to get less rockets with (correct me if I'm wrong) higher pauses between the rockets.
StuKa has napalm rounds: can't remember the costs since it takes a lot of time to get this unit to vet4. I think this ability might actually be useful, but it comes late. Also I'm not sure if the normal barrage might not be straight up better as well.

Keep in mind this thread is NOT about discussing which unit might be a bit better than the other, but about giving them a decent alternative firing mode as it was intended by the game's design. I think this also might be within the scope of a new patch.

I think we have 5 basic choices: incendiary barrages (see StuKa), different firing patterns (see Katy), anti tank rockets, muni for lower cool downs or a range vs scatter trade off.

I would kick out the latter two for probably being harder to balance across game modes.

I suggest the following:
-Katy: keep the creeping barrage, but either make it an area denial tool, increase damage, lower the mun cost. It's a good idea, but absolutely not worth the price and does not give much advantage over the standard firing mode.
-PWerfer: Either AT or incendiary barrage. Everything will be an upgrade over the counter barrage ability. The circular firing pattern would be great zo make it a small incendiary barrage like the Soviet off map ability.
-StuKa: I would go for an AT barrage. It could somewhat help as an additional counter to Allied TDs. It should not kill one obviously, but deal decent damage while also significantly lowering damage vs infantry.

For our keyboard warriors that are now discussing pioneers and whatever: Go back to the topic.

I believe the game has some issues with an overabundance of scouting information, which limits some of the nuance that the truesight system introduces. I look at maps like kholodny ferma and see that there is no way to get passed the territory points in the hedgerows without revealing yourself or capping it. This slows down the game somewhat as the aggressive player either slows down to cap the point or gives the defensive player
information and time to preposition machine guns and counter the unit. Removing this would require more planning and scouting, require more defense in depth than just a mass frontline.

The game would be better off without the territory point vision, but it's really not that important to change so late into the game's life. It would be a bit of a nightmare to balance. You're going to need to make a bunch of changes to help defensive factions because it's a huge buff to light vehicle play and aggressive factions like USF with riflemen and early sturmpio flanks. I'm speaking from a 1v1 perspective, it wouldn't matter in team games where the maps are more spread out.

Do you really think that this change will make such a huge difference?
I agree that defensive factions are nerfed since the points can't be defended with an MG as easily, but you make it sound as if it were a change that required major rebalances.
The additional sight of Britisb hammer tactics is conceived as a weak bonus and is absolutely far from being a game changer although it makes thr whole circle visible (I know that it comes quite late in a match).