Profile of Pip

Apologies for the delays with the 64 bit update. We're trying to ensure a quality product at launch.

Without going into all the speculation here, two main reasons for the delay are;

A) We were working to resolve technical issues, some of which required collaboration with external parties.
B) Our game is now on two platforms. Aside from the additional scope for issues, our release pipeline has become a lot more complicated, with differing requirements between platforms.

We hope to have the update live in 1-2 weeks.

Thank you, Andy. I expect most people don't mind waiting so long as the expected wait time/reasons for the wait are communicated.

I look forward to the update.

i feel the T-34-85 should just be an upgrade for the T-34-76 tbh... it could use a few stat reductions but i feel it could be doable... the SU-100 could take the place of the T-34-85 in doctrines imo...

still design wise i feel that the PPSH is more appropriate for conscripts than 7 man.... 7 man gives conscripts defensive potenal instead of increasing the units offensive potential and close range damage...

Ideally a faction has both offensive and defensive infantry options stock. OST have Pgrens and Grens, UKF have IS/(Anvil)RE and now the Assault Officer, OKW have Volks and Obers, USF rifles sort of pull double duty, though the LT and CPT are a bit more "Assaulty" thanks to the Thompson, bit more ambiguous in this case.

7Man cons are very good defensively, and still have oodles of utility. SOV should have both 7man, and another option stock. Im still saying Frontoviki.

Im led to believe the 64 bit version still has some issues that are being worked out, which is why it has been delayed. I think it'll be alright once it eventually does release.

I doubt they will do a WOW level fuck-up, assuming they're smart enough to retain the 32 bit version when they DO attempt to push the 64 bit one. Then again, Lelic, anything is possible.

Yea, the l2p argument...I'm talking about anyone, not just me. There's people out there better than me. I've seen people play as axis and then play USF and they do way better with anything but USF, even other allied armies. It's not about I suck at USF. It's that ANYONE who plays USF will have to work harder than their opponent. If you are a 7/10 skill with other armies, you are a 5/10 skill with USF. Just because you chose USF.

You can ignore RE's basically. They are the lowest priority USF target. They do close to nothing, unless you pay to arm them.

Yes you can't fully judge effectiveness via endgame stats, but you can gain a piece of the overall perspective. When you are putting out way more damage and still struggle, there is an imbalance. It doesn't mean the higher damage or higher k/d team should win, but battles and risk/reward should be playing out differently.

I can stop a panther easy with m20 mines for now. Until the community deems them to be OP vs axis(you know, because they do their job making dives even more risky). When the top players decide to discover them during some patches meta, I'm sure it's eventually going to come under the microscope. USF can stop panthers. Usually, the panther will still get it's job done though, if it's after a soft target, like artillery truck. The allied stuff, especially usf, cannot do that. Axis weapons are ALL effective. I can't think of a single axis weapon that sucks at its job.

The ostwind is not going solo vs a sherman, it will lose. The sherman will take damage though, which it shouldn't. From the front, it should block every shot (fail to penetrate). Honestly, I don't even bother to position my armor as USF. Nearly everything penetrates, it's extra micro I don't need to bother with. I will position with smaller weapons, like the ostwind gun and other 37-40mm guns, they are the only exception. You can block some of those shots. I think there is tiny itty bitty chance to block a panzerIV shot. It's super rare, much less rare than panzerIV blocking a sherman shot.

The thing Im going to focus on here is the idea that the Ostwind can penetrate the Sherman from the front.

It cannot.

The Sherman has a 55% chance to pen the P4 frontally from max range, both being vet1. The P4 has a 68% chance vs a sherman.

Use this spreadsheet to see your mistakes. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H5z6szCfhmAAnDprmgwLzc-viZg4HPhKZshNLErvnck/edit#gid=1638665511

Also: The M20 mine is merely a worse teller. Why would it be deemed "OP"?

I don't think it illustrates it well.

Snipers ARE killed basically immediately in a fight. EHP shows effectively that they are squishy as intended. There are some other factors such as camouflage and extended sight that would allow a unit to have less EHP than an otherwise identical unit, but for comparisons within the same unit category they are an okay mark. If some stats are "too low" (whatever that means) for the price of the unit, you can deduce that they need to make up for it in utility. To stay with the snipers: They are very squishy and expensive compared to front line troops, therefore they make up for it with high range, sight, camouflage and insta kills. The EHP correctly shows that they would lose a 1v1 despite being more expensive.
The comparison of Obersoldaten and Commandos is quite off in most cases, but Stormtroopers fit quite nicely into the picture.

Not quite, I'd argue. In a 1v1 between a Sniper and any squad but another Sniper, the sniper wins every single time without taking any damage, assuming it's being used as it should. It's EHP doesnt come into it because the Sniper simply isn't meant to be getting shot. Best case scenario, of course.

Perhaps a better example might be a TD versus a medium tank. Similar story. The idea is that the TD fights mediums where it cannot be touched, or at least is able to output damage to offset it's lower EHP before the medium can retaliate.

"1v1 final destination" isn't a great way to compare units in many cases. Many units are intended to not take "fair" fights. Assuming they are, and getting hung up on EHP, can lead one to the wrong conclusion.

Even in the Commandos/Stormtrooper comparison it's not all that enlightening. Commandos do indeed have higher EHP, as Vipper has stated, but differences in the units' function and abilities make this even more pronounced. Stormtroopers are intended to make themselves much more vulnerable to fight at full performance, with Tactical advance reducing their EHP, and slowing them. Commandos, in comparison, fight at full efficiency merely by beginning to shoot from camouflage, they don't need to become more vulnerable. They also have their Gammon bomb, whereas Stormtroopers have no explosive.

I really just think EHP is too highly regarded when trying to compare units. It certainly is important in 1v1 slugfests, but it's really not the be-all-end-all stat.