Profile of rumartinez89

Values for highly accurate weapons and vetted squads are fairly artificial anyway due to the aforementioned accuracy cap. E.g. the PPSh has a close range accuracy of 0.8. Combine that with the +40% accuracy modifier of Shock troops and you're technically at 1.12. This value will be capped at 1, meaning the calculated DPS gain will only be 25% instead of the promised 40%. But that's not what you will see in game. Your vet3 Shock will likely fight a vet3 Volks or something. The lower RA of the targeted squad will usually push the overall accuracy below 1 (to 1.12x0.77 = 0.86 in our example), which will not be capped and mean that the veterancy accuracy bonuses have the effect that they are intended to have.
Against a newly build Volksgrenadier, the calculated value would be true, but when comparing vetted units, they might not reflect the game properly.

A couple thoughts based off what you said, please correct me where I am wrong. (Mainly about SMG units)

Serelia data is fairly pointless even if it was 100% correct in a balance discussion as it uses a target size of 1 despite RA being the 2nd most important value. Hopefully, for COH3 we get a version that lets us test vs different target sizes.

Soviet units in general scale better with regards to RA than USF/UKF. Across the board most Soviet units get 40% or more ACC with VET compared to the 30% or less USF/UKF get. Normally the argument would be that USF and UKF start with better based stats which would take this into account.

For example Rangers start off great with their 4 Thompsons and great RA of .73 which was made apparent when I tested them against AssG and won everytime. However with VET, AssG RA outscales Ranger Acc and AssG Acc outscales Ranger RA bonus leading to a situation where they perform a lot more similarly then expected. As Axis elites usually get larger RA bonus than 25% this would mean Rangers(and Paras) perform better against mainlines unless Paras use Tactical advance.

Penal Acc bonus may not increase max damage but would make them the most consistent performer against axis Elites as Penals could brute force past Axis great RA.

This also means anything less than 10% Target size buff against most Soviet PPSH is pointless which is why most OST players skip G43 upgrade in short range maps. At VET3, the Gren would receive the same amount of damage from a VET3 Shock/PPSH Con/PPSH Partisan or Penal which makes it a fairly lack luster upgrade vs LMG.

On the flip side, the damage reduction removal was a much larger nerf to Rangers than was advertised as no matter what their is a CAP on the damage certain weapons can do per second as seen with Gren example.

It's less about DPS retention on the move, but about the absolute DPS on mid-long range in my opinion. PPSh and SMGs in general are great on short range, but unless you can body block the enemy or cut into the retreat path, they are not good at wiping. Especially in frontal assaults, where the enemy might retreat straight to the back once you're in optimum range, there is not much they can do because the enemy will exit the most dangerous zone instantly.

Yea you and Vipper are right about that. However do to map design and most users instantly retreating once SMG users get close I have tried really hard to change my approach. Frontally assaulting anything leads to most of the complaints we have as SMG units wont really pay off. I try to attack from the side or behind so I can attempt to get into the retreat path as much as possible which probably led me to confirmation bias of PPSH being better than Thompsons. (Just remembered that I am also comparing them to AssG which only have 3 Thompsons)

you forget StormStrooper MP40 and Volk MP40, Ass Rifle/Tommy and Pastisan PPsH
Still, Ranger SMG based on their pure raw power NOT tactical unit like Para, Stormstrooper, osber SMG...v..v.

I didn't forget them I was mainly looking at the elite units, really started as AssG, Airborne and IR Obers and the others joined in for the hell of it. What I said about Falls applies to the Partisan and Storm, you need to test them using cloak and I am not good enough with testing to not effect the performance of the cloak. With Storms you also need to use Tactical Advance to get maximum performance so a lot for a noob like me to get right. Without cloak/ability I would expect them to lose every fight due to sheer EHP of the competition.

This is not a balance thread, just testing various SMG units on test map at point blank. I originally got the itch a month or two ago, I was using PPSh Airborne and OKW went IR STG as I kept catching him off guard. Needless to say PPSH got shutdown but I switched to LMG so no big deal. I posted a recent game with 2 scout cars and AssG, OKW this time made IRSTG to counter but it didn't work out as well so I did some testing just to check.

IR STG beat Penal PPSh/Airborne at Vet0, Airborne when both VET3, but loses to Penals with both VET3.
As Airborne need camo to get bonus in real situation the IR detection would shut that down.

AssG/Shocks mop the floor with them.

For the hell of It I tested Shocks vs AssG, at vet0 Shocks win but at VET3 AssG pull the upset more often then not which caught me by surprise. Shocks dominate PPSH Penals, but PPSH Penals can beat AssG when both VET3.

SHOCKS stomp PARAS and Rangers

ASSG lose to Paras and Rangers at vet0, Paras with vet, but goes either way vet3 Rangers.

Edit: None of this testing was scientific in any way shape or form was just testing for fun.

Thoughts:
Even though IR Obers don't really win anything close range their mid-range performance along with ability to negate cover makes them a pretty good choice as real world situations will most likely have at least one squad closing in on the other.

Shocks are beast from the get go, not that was a surprise.

PPSH Penals put out a shit load of damage, they give shocks a run for their money but their inability to get close and clunky upgrade path makes it a nonstarter for most.

Airborne Guards are the weakest if looking from a base damage/durability point of view. However, cloak and smoke can give them the edge although their cloak is the worst. The biggest surprise was even after the PPSH upgrade I noticed that I could give them 2 more weapons. It may never happen but a double LMG cloaked Airborne could be cool.

AssGuards are fairly meh at VET0, but AT Vet3 they gave everything a run for their money except PARAs as a lot of matches had a slim win for AssG or massive win in favor of Paras.

Paras seemed to be fairly good against everything short of Shocks, not good enough with test mods to get a good test with Tactical Advance.

Rangers disappointed me the most, while they did decent I sort of expected them to dominate a bit more since they start off with good Rec Acc, however Soviet VET keeps it closer than it probably should be.

I didn't test Falls too much as they really need their camo to get best performance. They really should not be used outside of cover.

What is a "snowball faction"? If I'm not mistaken, any faction has the possibility of snowballing. Or is this just tacitly admitting that USF can't win unless it snowballs? I am confused.

I have heard Tightrope and other high level players call it that. My personal understanding is you are supposed to play aggressive and constantly force the opponent to react and any misplay heavily punished.

This felt more apparent when LT had bar along with fast 50 cal pack up. The 3 rifleman into LT allowed you to build massive pressure and once Bar was upgraded nothing at that timing was stopping you outside of a PG. 50 cal was ultra aggressive in that you could literally use it like an infantry squad since it packed up/down in a second. From their you were free to choose Stuart or other LV depending on commander. Each step snowballed into the next making it hard to slow down. However if you did stall out the USF player you gave yourself an opening as each unit is expensive to replace and hurts timing into the next if the USF player misplayed or didn’t get enough ROI on say the Stuart or 50 cal.