Profile of rofltehcat

I think the problem isn't as much about the late game, big shot (somewhat) predictable weapons: Railway artillery, KV2, ISU152 etc. all have very high chances to wipe squads but they come rather late and one of their main purposes is to kill infantry.
Even artillery barrages tend to leave a good chance to escape unless the first shot is really spot-on. Other very strong wipe potential attacks just have a way to telegraph that something big is incoming (e.g. offmap artillery).

It is more about completely unpredictable behavior like your guys bunching up just the moment they activate a mine or a tank shot that would normally kill 1-2 guys suddenly killing 3-4.

It is also about cost: Something expensive (e.g. demo charge) and specialized (e.g. big slow tanks that are also not very good vs. tanks) can be justified to kill a whole squad
whereas a standard price unit that just has a tendency to get lucky (random overperformance) or a cheap unit (mine) should not wipe a squad without a chance to react.

TLDR: Less insta-death, more damaging. Overall less randomness, both underperformance and overperformance created by randomness.

I think there are mainly two different kinds of OSWP explosive weapons and they require different aproaches (see explanation further down).

For problematic OSWP weapons, I suggest the following two steps for most problematic explosive weapons (mainly those of 160 and 80 base damage but with large explosion radii):
1) Reduce the AoE Distance Far value but keep the AoE Distance Near value and the AoE radius the same.
2) To compensate for statistically reduced overall performance, increase the AoE Accuracy Far value from 0.6 to at least 1.0 (possibly higher) and thus balance (problematic) explosions.

For problematic OSWP weapons with very large base damage (e.g. 250 demo charge, 200 Soviet Mine) I suggest the following two steps:
1) Slightly Increase the AoE Distance Far value to compensate for step 2. Keep the AoE Distance Near and AoE Radius the same.
2) Decrease the AoE Damage Far multiplier to a very small value, so that Multiplier*BaseDMG < 80, ideally Multiplier*BaseDMG=60 or something around that.


Explanation how explosions currently work (required to understand what the above changes do):
A explosion has a base damage (often 80 or 160). This value is chosen so that infantry close to a explosion will always die because they normally have 80 health (or less).
Inside a circle around the explosion center with the radius of AoE Distance Near, it will always (over 100% accuracy) deal its full damage DMGmultiplierNear=1, normally).
Around this circle, there is another cicle with the radius of AoE Distance Far. Between those two circles, the damage of the explosion decreases from its full value to a reduced value (DMGmultiplierFar) linearly. Note that this is not the case for certain weapons like the Soviet mine (near damage = far damage, which is stupid). Furthermore, the accuracy of the explosion (=chance to hit) decreases linearly as well (for most explosions: near and center normally 500% accuracy, guaranteed hit, far is 60%)
Around those two circles is a third circle of the radius AoE Radius in which the chance to hit and damage multiplier are the same as at the far range. This means inside this region the damage is not reduced any further.

Ok, so what do the proposed changes do?
The change for problematic 80 and 160 BadeDMG weapons means that units inside the center of the explosion will still die (as they should) but the zone in which units survive (heavily injured) is larger. To compensate for this, the randomness effect of the decreased accuracy is negated by the proposed accuracy change. So this means more units survive but also more units will receive damage at all, leaving the overall damage roughly the same. This is also desirable for both sides because the explosion is less random. Example: "kill only one guy and leave the others unharmed" VS. "kill all of them in one shot" will both be a lot less likely.

The change for problematic high damage weapons means that the insta-death radius would still be roughly the same but units farther out would survive heavily damaged (if they are in good condition before the explosion).

Some commander abilities require a certain tech level.
Assuming this turns out to really be a general balance concern after people have seen the commander (and not just a one-off):
How does requiring one of T3/T4 to be built sound? They could even decrease the fuel cost of T34-85s for this, it would delay them a bit and would ultimatelly add to unit diversity when using that commander(add the odd halftrack/T70 or Su85/Su76/Katyusha rather than just T34/85s). The delay would - assuming fuel income to be roughly equal - to get a Stug, so it would be Stug + P4 vs. 2 T34/85s, assuming the Soviet player goes straight for T3->T34/85.


If Mark Vehicle turns out to be a real balance problem, I'd suggest it to be either
a) changed to a accuracy/penetration buff (benefits normal T-34s, AT rifles and Su-76 the most) - However, this probably won't happen
or
b) have the plane apply the debuff every 10 seconds with a duration of 10 (or 11) seconds for each application. This would mean timing smoke could partially reduce the effect for a few seconds and it would mean the plane can be shot down to end the effect. It would promote the use of (rarely used) smoke from mortars, smoke pots and artillery officer and make investing in a Ostwind/armored car an interesting option, ultimatelly increasing diversity. To balance this out, I'd slightly decrease the cooldown.

However, notice the ifs. We still don't know if it will actually be a problem. The commander Pop used has the weakness of not having Ppsh SMGs nor any anti infantry call-ins. This means conscripts may suffer a lot and I think this is also the reason why Pop invests so heavily into M3s and flamers.
It doesn't look good but homefully there is some meta game trick someone can pull in the next rounds of SNF and stomp it. Pop is a good player but he never varies his strategy and if the meta would work correctly (guards in M3 >> SdKfz222), he shouldn't be able to to that.

I agree with Nullist.
He isn't free of bias himself - nor am I or anyone, for that matter, - but at least he is posting in a mainly constructive manner and in the posts he makes in a non-constructive manner, he was often lured into petty arguments with people who harbor personal animosity against him. He certainly isn't perfect.

However, compared to some people with blatant favoritism for one side, his main posting style is leagues above theirs. Disagreeing with him isn't bad, nor disagreeing with anyone, really.
These people are trying to grind favoritism and misconceptions into a balance thread without any evidence (replays, videos, stats, etc.) to back it up while at the same time ignoring evidence, personally attacking people and actively trying to derail constructive discussions.

In a balance thread, people should at least try to consider "both sides" of a discussion topic and try not to take "one of the sides". Ideally, there shouldn't be "a side to be taken" but as I said, people aren't perfect. So all people can do is to at least try to be at their best rather than trying to stupe the forum down.



On topic, the teased 10% suppression buff will likely mean that the MG42 still needs a bit longer to suppress than the maxim (has then ~30% more suppression per second whereas right now it is ~40-45% higher). The main reason why the Maxim will suppress in one burst is its longer burst duration. So keep this in mind when testing the changes in the next patch and discussing them: The number of bursts means little.
I expect the current situation of "one suppresses faster, the other takes longer to suppress but pins faster" to persist. However, I think variances like the ones created by small light cover areas to be of smaller importance.

How large is the medic heal radius?

25. To compare it: Panzergrenadier SMGs have 30 range and their bundle grenades 20 range.
It maybe doesn't sound like much but it is often around where you will want your Pak in a engagement.