Profile of Pip

In that design I think it would be more interesting if sniper had weapon similar to JLI with critical kill on a threshold vs infatry and critical kill vs support weapons or critical full hp kills required come with restrictions or timed ability better suited vs support weapon and not infatry. (although it might be a little complicated to mod)

It's been suggested before that snipers as-is be replaced with Light Infantry units for all armies. As much as I like snipers, they are an unit apart from almost all others in how they function, and how certain factions struggle to fight them.

I'd like to see Mortars and MGs more useful in the lategame, but i think predicating their usefulness on veterancy might not be the best method. Team weapons are much more vulnerable to being wiped than any other type of infantry, but this is accounted for by their ability to be recrewed. Even with buffs to survivability from veterancy, this still means they'll be just as terrible

Would it be an issue if each faction instead had a similar bonus to Ostheer's BP3 Gren reinforcement reduction? Not in terms of reinforcement reductions, but in terms of an universal "Improved team weapon crew training" bonus in the (later) game, that inherently gave them better RA and/or some other assistance?

Perhaps that's a somewhat "gamey" solution.

To be fair, I hope people realise that "Make equally as strong" isn't a term that implies or necessitates a buff. This seems like a semantic argument for no reason, when you could instead just focus on the actual topic being discussed, which is Brummbar (and similar unit's) projectile speeds.

The Brummbar and the 105 are the two most comparable units, they have effectively the same role. Despite the potential of "reducing diversity" I think their projectiles being somewhat normalised would be perfectly reasonable. Whether it be reducing the speed of the 105's projectile (And consequently increasing its AOE and slightly improving its falloff... while also nerfing its scatter), or increasing the speed of the Brummbar projectile (While reducing it's AOE, nerfing its falloff, and buffing its scatter).

I'd vote for the 105mm becoming more similar to the Brummbar, personally. Perhaps it could do with a slight armour buff, as well, though the utility of being able to create cover, and the fact it has a turret might mean it should still be less armoured than the Brummbar. It also gets extra HP from veterancy, in comparison to the Brummbar getting armour, so I should imagine there is a little maths to be done.

The Stug-e and other units are rather different, I don't think they're hugely relevant to the discussion. (On an unrelated note; I might like to see the Stug-e act more like the Scott than how it acts now... though both could perhaps do with the buff of being able to autofire over shotblockers.)

T1 as a whole needs buffs. (see my post in Soviet thread) I don't think the M3 itself really requires more buffs. It's just that by going T1 -> Penal -> M3 you enter a total dead end once axis LVs hit. The fact that the opponent can just spot your T1 in the FOW and react accordingly immediately (-> Füsil second unit, blob his grens) doesn't help either. Not sure if fixable.

Honestly I think Penals need entirely rebalancing and reworking to be a workable line infantry alternative to Conscripts, and then removing from Tier 1 and placing in tier 0. They would be replaced by some alternative unit that might make Tier 1 attractive over Tier 2, and provide an alternative pathway to an AT solution. (MicroAT gun? 120mm mortar(Doesn't fix the AT issues)? Non-doctrinal Guard variant with more a focus on AT?).

I have some vague ideas as to what Penals might look like as an unit in this scenario, but it's a large change that would probably require more work than can be expected from the balance team, or allowed by Lelic.

Okay but why is that problem?

I mean your last post you gave reasons for them to have it, and then gave the very confusing statement that I was referring too


The m3 is also getting an armor reduction in exchange for health. That trades survivability against infantry for help against mines. Increased range would effect all light vehicles too, like I said it seemed like you were arguing for that too

Who said they weren't powerful? Were getting way offtopic here. Especially with talking about grens who are part of a whole different army

The M3 increase in health/reduction in armour isn't "Trading survivability vs infantry for survivability vs mines". That was a buff. It is similiarly survivable against infantry, while being less prone to dying instantly to mines, and being somewhat less vulnerable to AT guns and the like.