Profile of somenbjorn

TAB EU vs SMED first match 4v4 ladder.

My only problem is that they have made any attempt to use the lend-lease fuel call-in useless.
"you'll get fuel to your base for the cost of muni, but if the enemy has AA you'll lose it."

Okay makes sense, there is a risk involved.

"LoL we'll give one team 4 AA-guns in their base which the plane with the fuel will fly over. Good Luck"

Thanks relic, way to think things through

Elite Rifleman: Agreed it is a no-brainer atm. No real downsides except that you have to shift around the initial build order a bit.

Like the idea about reducing the experience income of elite riflemen but then again, would they not still get more kills early because of superior initial veterancy? So that all we are doing is pushing their eventual maxlevel back by a minute or three?
It would still be pretty much a no-brainer with little to no drawbacks.

Soviet Weapon Team: I take it this is Maxims, since Mortar and Zis do their intended duties, support the rest of the army.
Maxims seem to have the same problem like MG-42 had like a year back.
They function not as support-weapons but instead can be used equally well as frontline units, replacing the units they are meant to support.
Question is, how to limit the effectiveness of the Maxim-spam without completely destroying its as a support-weapon. As it still needs to function as an integral part of a "proper" soviet build.

I've always seen the Maxim as an offensive unit, as opposed to the MG-42. (Maxims are better in supporting a push, and MG-42s can be a good fallback point, giving time to regroup and stop your army from having to retreat.)
Why aren't MG-42s spammed nearly as often as Maxims? Well much slower set-up time. So perhaps that is the way to go, but it must then be done in a manner that doesn't remove its capability to perform it's role as an offensive unit. (If Im wrong about the offensive part then that's the way to go IMO. )
But it is a tough nut to crack, how to remove the viability to spam Maxims, without making them useless.

Long Range Combat:
Don't think this would be much of an issue if it weren't for the obvious that one side have units that mostly excel in long range and the other side have units that are mostly mid-short.
Napalm had a good idea for a fix in his thread about the Soviet faction:
Make Penals excel in the long-range. Two birds with one stone, Penals get to be more distinct from Conscripts and Grens would have something that does damage to them from afar.
That being said just a buff to Penal long-range will ofc make them the go-to unit for Sovs against OH and thats not intended, so make them worse than cons at short-range.
Meaning a flank from lets say Pios or AssGrens would reduce their viability.
I think that would also make the PzGrens more used today, now Grens-LMGgrens are a no-brainer. This all being said, no I don't think a Penalsquad vs a Grensquad (especially LMGGrens) on open ground should give a victory to Penals all of the time, but right now LMG-grens in the open attacking Penals or cons in green cover means the soviets will have to attack and close in.

I know I know, that was perhaps way to faction specific for what the OP intended. Overall I think long range combat is more or less fine, Long-range should be defensive but since allies lack in this department.

Disclaimer: cut short, gotto go play

I applaud you on your efforts to really dissect the study in an objective way and point out all its flaws on a case by case basis. You are proving yourself to be quite the intellectual here, a man of intellectual merit to the highest order. Your proper grammar only helps your case.

But I must disagree with your thorough, objective analysis that is in no way a case of you getting pissed off when reality says otherwise about your worldview because fundamentally, war is humans killing humans, and that does not go down well on the subconscious level, and most troops weren't at the front, while those that were were quickly rotated out, at least in the case of the Allies in both world wars

Ohh pls Marshalls findings have been more less been debunked since the late 80s. He was a journalist who was skilled with a pen and the sucked up to military professionals, now people refrain from taking to much credit from him.
The Men Against Fire isn't backed by the kind of research Marshall claimed and he never did explain or show on what data he made the "75%" claim. He pulled stuff out of his ass and was caught making stuff up.

And no during his After Action Interviews in WW2 nobody seems to have heard him ask the soldiers who had or hadn't fired their weapon.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/articles/03autumn/chambers.pdf

DISCLAIMER: All below based on Teamgames

As a guy who has B-4 as this months most beloved unit: I don't see a problem with the Stuka Zu Fuss.

The OKW has this as an only counter to a piece of equipment that will kill everything else with ease.

Will probably make a video compilation and post it here. Last nights tallies on a single B-4 in a game:

2 Tigers, 2 King Tigers, 1 Stuka Zu Fuss, 1 Panther, 2 Panzer IV, and assorted blobs. (tried to find out what units but failed to match torso, arms and legs. They where Germans though, hopefully..)


The B-4 is an effective hardcounter to everything if used correctly, a shiteload of munition is needed and an effective front so that it is far enough back so it doesn't get stormed aswell as anticipating where it will be needed to face when it has reloaded.

The OKWs only real chance (falls please, no buildings will be left standing around it.) is to drive a Stuka zu Fuss close enough to fire. This means sneaking it right up to the front and sending a barrage.

Remove the Stuka zu Fusss' ability to have that accuracy and OKW will struggle hard to win against soviets.

Not saying it doesn't need any changes but just think you should ponder on how this would affect gameplay. Nerf one thing and another becomes OP.