Profile of Serrith

I actually feel that sustained fire is one of those underrated abilities, simultaneously boosting DPS AND suppression makes it great for trading with other mgs, firing from being suppressed, firing on retreating troops and of course suppressing infantry blobs.


The issue with sustained fire is its accessibility. There are two aspects that make it harder to use.
First is the vet 1 requirement. To me this is a bit of an oddity as I was under the impression it was to assist in the maxim's poor stock suppressive capability. Its sort of counterproductive then to lock it behind vet -as a side note, I was a strong advocate for this ability when it was implemented but with the condition that it not be locked behind vet-.

Secondly is the forced reload. I understand the need for the reload on AP related abilities to prevent MGs from completely shutting down light vehicle play. However, the sustained fire ability doesn't fulfill the same purpose, being able to activate it instantly wouldn't result in infantry being completely shredded.


I'd like to suggest that the sustained fire ability receive one or more of the following changes.

-Make it a vet 0 ability with an increased cost(20-25) that decreases at vet 1(10-15)
-Remove the reload at the start of the ability
-Make the ability more powerful(+5 range increase or something)which will make pre-emptive usage more rewarding but at an increased ability cost

I agree for the most part, but being able to create situations where you can fight from a position of strength is a huge aspect of this game.

If you take it from volks, storms should be given the ability to make tank traps.
If you take it from cons, either combat engineers should get it or give it back to cons upon 7 man upgrade.
I'm mostly ok with it on infantry sections given how reliant they are on cover though you could have them build a light cover instead of heavy cover.
Rifles are fine since its doctrinal.

I said before, read what I put, you clearly havent:

"- Pinatas

Nothing, absolutely nothing infuriates me more than dropping weapons and them getting picked up by the enemy. It's bullshit and really needs to be reworked. Gren LMGs, Ober LMG's very rarely drop, very very rarely. Flamers are next in rarity and then shrecks are the most common (from Pgrens) I simply dont understand why, after the brens have been nerfed that the UKF player has to spend 15 fuel, 45 muni (90 muni for 2), pick them up from base, all for the privilege of dropping them when a bullet hits the floor near them, are they secretly french?"

Tell me how many times a bren has dropped Vs an LMG, the bren is far more often and as for the thompsons not dropping, I've already addressed this previously stating that they should drop as should all weapon upgrades but thats not going to happen.

Double Tommy brens are NOT pinatas. Guards with DP28s are pinatas. Nobody else complains about the drop rates of squads with 2 droppable weapon upgrades, not about panzergren or panzerfusilier shreks, or double bar rifles, or ptrs penals, or double zook rear echelons, or double bren commandos, or LMG paras. Why? its a non-issue. They have the exact same drop rates as double bren tommies.

I also disagree every single weapon upgrade needs to be droppable. If you are going to make G43s dropable, why not make gren K98s(which conscripts would love to have), or if you are going to make volks mp40s droppable, why not pioneer mp40s and so on and so forth. That is a can of worms that does not need to be opened. If you want fully lootable weapons go play men of war.

No need, I can record a video showing you how often bren guns drop from tommies Vs LMGs from grens seen as though you dont seem to believe me, it needs changing. Thanks for your input.

Just because you get unlucky with one or two drops does not mean this mechanic isnt applies evenly between the units and weapons you've listed.

The only unit which is effected differently is guards and that is because they carry a large amount of droppable weapons.

I could show you a video of a T-34 penetrating an OKW P4 frontally with every shot until death, that does not mean the T-34 has good penetration, it means it got lucky a couple times in a row.


If you understand how the weapon drop mechanic works, you should understand the reason units equipped with more than one droppable weapon drop weapons more often than a unit with only a single droppable weapon. Panzergrenadiers with shreks drop shreks just as often than double bren IS drop lmg.

If the design of the JT was actually to 2 shot TDs, it would have 20 more damage and about 300 less penetration. In reality, the Jagdtiger has the highest penetration in the game at 550. Combined with it's slow fire rate, this tells you it is designed to put holes in very big tanks.

The Jagdtiger fills a niche in the OKW lineup that is otherwise not great at killing high armour vehicles.
I agree that the unit is 'unnecessary' against the massed tank destroyers you're complaining about - so why make it better at performing this role as well?

Again, there is no more efficient unit you can build as OKW if you're up against KV1s, IS2, ISU, KV8, KV2 backed up with at guns. If you're not seeing very many of these, maybe don't bother building it and just take advantage of the other really good abilities in the commander.

Against USF or medium spam a Jagdpanzer is almost always a better option. Again, we're talking about 2v2 - there are almost always situations where you can get Stugs and Jagdpanzers into effective range against allied armour and they are CHEAPER and do MORE DPM because of their fire rate.

There are certain attributes that make units good counters to others. High penetration does indeed help against heavy tanks, but what makes a good counter to a 60 range tank destroyer?

Normally infantry would be the way but if you are looking for specifically a vehicle counter, matching range with superior 1v1 attributes(JP4) or longer range(JT/Ele)gives the advantage. In the same way I disagree with your statement about stug being good against their counterpart allied TDs, I disagree that allied TDs are a "counter" to the super heavy axis TDs.