Profile of Hannibal

After issues a retreat order to "dodge" a grenade, I always love to see this one dude not moving a single centimeter and patiently waiting for his death until the grenade explodes.

I also think that this ability is very, very good. A small nerf is in order for me. When supporting an attack it is just so efficient in finishing tanks that have already been hit 1-2 times. Even in a failed attack it allows you to secure a kill or two, especially if your opponent needs to micro his infantry as well.
When playing with friends in 2v2 and 3v3 as Allies, one of us almost always picks it, and I rarely saw it as a mistake.

Anecdotal:
I also remember playing against a 3v3 team that always comboed AT overwatch, USF's P47 loiter and the (pre nerf) UKF early warning flares across the whole frontline. It was a huge investment, but it basically always deleted a couple of tanks and forced us to abandon the front line almost completely.

I hope coh3 has game mod modifiers that allow different units to have different stats due to game mode. Would make balancing 1v1 and 4v4's much easier.

While this would fix the balance issues, I hope they'll find a different solution. Since no stats are communicated and the mechanics are fairly complex for the average player, it would be stupid to have units all work slightly differently between modes as well.

I think most issues are fixable by map design and potentially a better unit upgrade system

We are simply talking about different things. You are taking about the g43 weapons and I am talking about the whole PF squad.

The myth is that 6 men g43 PF squad lose only 10% DPS on the move. And it exactly that myth that is false.

My misread on that part, I thought it was about the G43 itself.

This is secondary myth. That G43 PF somehow have significantly superior DPS on the move than other units. As your state the difference far is only 6% so their far DPS on the move is not really that special.

You are correct to point DPS retention and that is why I pointed it out also in my previous posts.

Why do you only point out the far DPS difference?
Their close moving DPS is 44% higher than Penals', I'd say this is pretty special, while retaining a vastly better DPS after model drops. But I'll move away from the Penal point since I don't see a reason to use Penals as a reference.
To the highlighted point: Normal squads in that function lose between 40-50% (sometimes even more) of their DPS across all ranges on the move. PFs lose 25-30% of their static DPS. Only Shocks achieve this, but even then only on the close range with heavier losses mid and far (not that these ranges really mattered, but still). But if we need a completely different class of units that is meant to do heavy damage close range which to justify PFs moving DPS, this should be a clear sign that PFs need changes, also regarding their DPS.

Phrase the issue as you want: Too high DPS concentration so that model drops are not punished, too high standard moving DPS: PFs do too much damage on the move for various reasons.

PF are not the topic either.
What has been argued is that the MOD team should have for foreseen the issues with PF and they should be nerfed:

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see 90% DPS on the move units is pretty stupid and when they're picked every game maybe there's an issue."

What I have pointed out is that is not the on the move performance the issue (since it similar to Penals) but the design so fixing PF might not be a simple as it looks at first glance.

The claim was that balance team did not care enough if issues exist outside of high level games with taking PFs as an example (no one has seriously complained about Penals for quite a while now). While I agree that PFs have multiple issues, the comparison to Penals still does not make sense. Those squads, especially Penals, fight in completely different army compositions and even face different enemies.


Off topic from our discussion:

PFs need a REAL weakness. They literally are a complete squad. Acceptable static DPS at all ranges, good to very good moving DPS, very good DPS retention, grenade, snare, even a utility flare. Decent RA and reinforcement cost. The only "bad" thing about them is a relatively mediocre mid range DPS, but that is not an issue due to their mobility.
This squad needs more punishment for losing models. Afaik they have their own G43 version: Make it shittier but give them 4-5 of them. Or just nerf their RA, even if reinforcement costs have to get a bit cheaper. There must a some decision making for leaving cover and pushing in, but currently there is none. That's what makes them so blobbable.

As usual, you seem to be willfully oblivious to the fact that despite the hefty nerf to the AoE the Scott received major buffs to barrage scatter, reload and shell count to make up for the loss in raw damage. The problem with the revised AoE back then was that the shells were no longer able to one-shot full-health models, which arguable made the barrage less valuable overall. However, the "small for nothing" buff in the beta aims to fix exactly this by giving the Scott at least some OHK potential back. That may not look like much but is actually a significant performance boost, even though I personally think the unit deserves better than TD-level OHK radius (maybe at least 0.5 to 0.75 m). If that alone will be enough to make the Scott viable remains to be seen I guess.

The more I look at it, the more the changes failed.
The scatter was the only thing out of this list ending up to be a real buff. The other buff was the barrage CD, but that was traded for autofire reload.
The barrage reload buff is about 90% of the previous reload, which is decent. But what does it do? AoE has been changed from 'one hit does very good damage' to 'one hit barely matters' (at least for healthy squads). This means you absolutely need a second hit to get something out of it. The scatter buff increases the chances to do so, the reload as well but overall very little. You have about 4.5 seconds to move out of the barrage, so I assume in most cases the second shot will have a chance to hit the team weapon again. The 4.5 s delay is obviously better than a 5 s delay, but overall not THAT much. To repeat myself, especially since the second shot changed from 'bonus damage' to almost mandatory to achieve actual damage.
This leaves us with the shell count buff. The barrage got a 5th shell instead of previously 4. Against infantry, this does not matter since they will be long gone when the fifth shell is fired anyway. It also does not contribute much to area denial since it comes only about 2 seconds later than old barrage due to the reload buff. The fifth shell is only good against static emplacements. However, damage got nerfed at the same time, giving both new and old barrage a max damage of 400 if all shells hit. With the better scatter, I'd say it is a minor buff against emplacements, but nothing more.