It's unlikely scenario. I wouldn't dramatize so much.
Simple weapon upgrade or a sidetech upgrade would be as natural as a lmg upgrade for grens or riflemen. It doesn't make unit completely worthless, it just reduces it's starting power and splits in into later stages of the game.
As Vipper wrote it would allow penals to be a cheaper, easier to access infantry unit but with locked SVTs upgrade (assumingly stronger that current becouse of the sidetech upgrade) they could become elite infantry squad with good scaling in time and efficiency more appropriate for a mid stage of a match rather than first min of a game. Same as panzerfuzziliers are made after the revamp.
And what's the point then in the Penals if they have to buy SVT-40? This will be T1 Conscripts with the possibility of SVT-40 purchase. Then it is much simpler and more profitable to simply remove the Penals and transfer the SVT-40 to the Conscripts. This will solve the question of the disgusting design of the two starting infantry units. If we leave the Conscripts as they are and make the Penalts with the purchase of SVT-40, then in the end we will get instead of one unviable tier two unviable tiers.
I realise that some people would like to buy a bunch of these infantry and charge around, but I really think that would be worse design that what we have at the moment. You've got to look at the rest of the doctrine to see its viability.
The dshks enable you to lock down the map very effectively. In combination with the quadmount, you have very effective 'crowd control', which makes sniper play easier and more rewarding. On top of that you have assault guards who have serious shock value at 3 CP since another unit can be added to the M5 (such as a minesweeper, a flamer engie or a ptrs penal). When the get to vet 2 they can 1v1 pretty much any axis unit.
On current patch, the Guards are trash. Play the balance patch and test stuff out. I really enjoy the flavour of this commander at the moment since it enables some of my favourite Soviet units and playstyles.
Once again, if you need an HT, buy it separately, enough to justify the stupid design, because all the elite infantry require fuel, right? Let's add fuel for the Paratroopers and Fallschirmjäger. After all, the plane that dubbed them requires a lot of fuel, and you do not want their spam to be?
Keep the damned halftrack and make the guards inside even better. The HT bundle would prevent spam and the power of the Ass Guards would make the single investment worth it. Thompsons already probably accomplish this to an extent, but maybe reducing their RA to at least regular Guard levels and replacing their Vet 1 Trip Flares with something moderately useful would be good.
No, the combination of HT and infantry is a terrible design. If you need HT go and build HT. People in the Assault Guard need infantry, and notice this is much worse and less varied than Paratroopers and Rangers. If you leave AG in the current mode, it's just a huge stupid design that no fraction has: 51 0mp and 30 fuel for not the best infantry and HT that most players need only as an M17 AA. I need two squads of 1020 mp and 60 fuel and two dubious HT. Suppose I lost one unit and I want them to still be two, I will spend 1530 mp and 90 fuel and three dubious HT. Excuse me, but such a design can only support the mentally retarded.
USF elite infatry are limited by the CP3 restriction and by the number of infatry the faction gets by that time. One will usually see 1-2 elite USF infatry in game.
This suits me personally; I do not make more than two units of the same type.
On the other hand Assault Guards with Thompson are actually very powerful and they their should be restriction in their numbers.
Changing the M5 to an USF M3 and lowering CP to 2 might be enough to make them attractive even without drop-able weapons (which is actually a very design imo).
Paratroopers and Rangers are not limited, it’s enough to make the Assault Guard without an HT and leave it on 3PCs, but change the 1st veteran ability now is all a salvage mine and adjust the grenade damage - now it is terrible and random. So what I think should be SVT-40 at start and Thompson? Bazooka ammunition purchase.
Look at poster above you listing every single usf unit as "godlike". Thats probably what balance team thinks too. They are not concerned about usf having terrible results in tournaments or being meme faction among team players. 76 and easy8 will suck and it seems pershing will join them soon.
Recently, I played a lot of the USA and in my experience I can say for sure: 75-mm Sherman is the best
non doc medium tank of the Allies in terms of efficiency / ability to price ratio.
Lend-lease M4C is completely equal to the Easy Eight. So why not give the Soviet M4C such a crew as the Easy Eight, because the Shermans were supplied with a full set of helmets and weapons for the tank crew.
And another small detail, many people ask why the Soviet Sherman is called the M4C - this creates confusion, because the British called their 17-pound Sherman the letter “C”.
But this is not the English letter "C"; this is the Russian letter "C".
The United States supplied to USSR with two tanks with the same designation M3: M3 Stuart and M3 Lee. In the Soviet classification, they were called M3L - light (М3Л - Лёгкий) and M3C - medium (М3С or М3Ср - Cредний). M4C is the generalized name for all M4 Sherman medium tanks.
Used. But I mentioned that it was all mostly 1941 and possibly the start of 1942, rarely in the Marines, but maybe I just don't know shit about Marines.
I mean, at least they could be upgraded with them, not just come with them right away? Sorta like I suggested, idk.
And we aren't talking just about the Lend Lease, I am talking about putting them instead of Shocks, and maybe Guards with several upgrades, in my version 2, that would improve their capabilities vs Infantry or Vehicles, and also have the 3rd weapon slot to make them further more useful and attract players into using them, it's just the idea and I am asking the community about it, not asking the community to change them only in the Lend Lease, even the title says that.
Firstly, the photo shows Thompson at different dates from 1942 to 1945. Secondly, this is not a historical game. This is a game based on the Second World War: in one order the “conscripts” of 1941 and Katyusha ZiS-6 of 1941 together with the IS-2 of 1944.
And, No thanks, why replace the excellent Shock Troops with the mediocre Assault Guards. If it is valid to make them a unique unit of middle distance, between the Shock Troops and the Guard, and for this they just need the Thompsons (after all, they have good damage over the medium distance), can still absurd the replacement. Now there is no point in replacing.
I fucking said that HT shouldn't be tied to them, I said that in my post, why isn't anyone reading that part?!
And I have an idea in mind of them being worse than other 2, but also be able to have upgrades that would make them more useful in some situations where you need more Anti-Infantry or Anti-Tank capabilities, not like Guards being able to do both with maximum damage or Shocks that are literal 6 men Obers with Close Range capabilities.
So the unit would be used in the situations you need them fit a certain role, so they could be used differently, so it would bring more diversity into the Soviet playstyle and less Guards/Shocks spams.
AND NO FFS WE DIDN'T USE NEITHER THE ZOOKA OR THE THOMPSONS IN THE SOVIET ARMY WE HAD OUR OWN STUFF GOD DAMMIT.
WHY I SAID THAT THE SECOND UPGRADE WOULD GIVE THEM 3 THOMPSONS IS THAT IT WOULD BE MORE LOGICAL FOR THEM TO BE UPGRADED WITH THEM NOT JUST GIVEN STRAIGHT AWAY MY FUCKING GOD I'VE GIVEN A FULL EXPLANATION WHY WITH NORMAL LANGUAGE TRYING TO BE AS OFFICIAL AS POSSIBLE
This Assault Guard is tied to the Lend-Lease commander, therefore, to stay in the Lend-Lease theme and to be useful, Thompson and Bazooka is the best option, because both of these weapons were sent to the USSR and were even used:
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
