Profile of steel

- Neither Semois nor Langres winter versions introduced in ranking rotation has blizzards (they could include it if Relic wanted to push the mechanic forward).
- None of the new maps from WFA has blizzard (it could be legitimate in Ardennes setting).

I'm assuming that Relic finally realized blizzard was failed mechanic for ranked gaming and withdrew from it.

Was blizzard really bad for ranked gaming? I can't seem to get why other than the fact that the player's vision was blurry because of the flying snow.

INTRODUCING THE ELITE TROOPS DOCTRINE. ONE EASY CLICK, AND THAT MG 42 WILL SHINE JUST LIKE NEW. YOUR ELITE MG 42 WILL EASILY SUPPRESS CONSCRIPTS, SHOCK TROOPS, AND EVEN MOBS OF RIFLEMEN. TIRED OF THOSE PESKY MAXIMS CHASING OFF YOUR MACHINE GUN? VET IT AND WATCH THOSE MAXIMS JUST MELT AWAY. LIGHT VEHICLES CAUSING YOU TROUBLE? POP THOSE API ROUNDS AND LIKE MAGIC, THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! ORDER NOW AND WE'LL THROW IN A TIGER ACE TO TAKE CARE OF EVEN THE STRONGEST ALLIES.

A $49.99 worth of items for only $2.99

Based on my research the puma's 50mm should have less penetrating power than the panzer IV

"The 5 cm KwK 39 L/60 (5 cm Kampfwagenkanone 39 L/60) was a German 50 mm caliber gun used during Second World War, primarily as the main armament of later variants of the German Panzer III tank between 1941-1942. It was developed as a variant of the towed gun 5 cm PaK 38. This gun proved successful in North Africa against British cruiser tanks and light American M3 Stuart tanks. However, it was not sufficient against Soviet T-34 and KV-1 tanks. Rottman says, that for this reason it was phased out in favour of shorter 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 gun that could fire HEAT rounds. Nevertheless, the first gun considered fully effective against these Soviet tanks was 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43 mounted on Panzer IV Ausf. F2." Wikipedia

I'm sure we can trust wikipedia on this.

In coh2-stats.com I found something that puzzles me.

Panzer IV's gun has a penetration of 120.0/110.0/100.0
Puma's gun has a penetration of 160.0/120.0/80.0

The question is why is the puma better at penetration the armour of T34 than a Panzer IV that was fitted with an anti-tank gun meant to fight the T-34. This causes some awkward situation where a Panzer IV shell bounce off the T-34 but the puma's inferior gun penetrates the T-34.

What's worse it that the "paperweight" M4 Sherman has more armour in game( Everyone knows that the Americans M4 was worse in terms of armour compared to the T-34, yet in game the T-34 has lower armour at front and rear by 10 ) making it even harder for a panzer IV to penetrate the armour of the M4. Balance I know, but can't we have at least a better representation of real war?

It makes like zero sense when you think about it. Shouldn't it be like the M4 has less armour but a top gunner, crews that can jump out and repair, smoke and High-Explosive shells.

Remember that the American tank doctrine was that the tanks will support the infantry while tank destroyers will destroy tanks. Why is it that everybody rushes their tank destroyer into the enemy, gets it destroyed and complains it's UP because it dies from 3 pak shots while all other medium tanks (except panther) dies from 4. The only flaw I see with the M36 Jackson is the lack of penetration ( High velocity 90mm shells bouncing off tigers, really... )

"The M36 was well liked by its crews, being one of the few armored fighting vehicles available to
US forces that could destroy heavy German tanks from a distance." Wikipedia

Another thing, the SU-76. That thing is using the ZIS-3 gun yet has the same penetration as the inferior T-34's F34 gun. Give it more penetration.

Also, T-34/85 needs better penetration. Why is it that the SU85 and T34/85 share the same 85mm D-5T gun yet the SU85 has way better penetration in game? Where's the logic?

TLDR

I propose these changes

Puma - lesser penetration than the Panzer IV gun.
M4 - lesser armour but price reduced to same as T-34 or lower.
T-34 - As long it's better than a M4 Sherman armour-wise.
Panzer IV - Superior penetration to a Puma's gun but more expensive.
M36 - More penetration for better realism and better balance as well as no more awkward
situation of shells bouncing off German heavy tanks' armour 3 in a row or more.
SU 76 - Penetration buffed to the same as the ZIS-3 or slightly worse to get rid of the illogical
state of it being just a weaker T-34 health and armour-wise without a turret.
T-34/85 - Penetration buffed to the same as the SU 85 or slightly worse to get rid of the
illogical state if it being a weaker SU85 firepower wise but better in armour, a turret
and health. Perhaps a slight price drop for the SU 85 or price raise for T-34/85 and
maybe even raise the price of heavy tanks ( Though I don't seem to see the reason for
this since calling 2 T-34/85 is pretty much equivalent to calling an IS-2, just choose
whether you want 2 mediums or 1 heavy ) so that the T-34/85 still has some use early on
in the game.

What do you think of these changes and state your reasons if you agree or disagree. If you see any contradictory statements or things that are not clear enough, ask away. I'm here to answer about my own post.

Then we wouldn't be having squad blobs, but instead mg blobs. Flashback to the beginning of the game. MG42 and Maxim paradise.


#OneProblemWillLeadToAnother

You definitely got a point there. If we buff suppression then people will go MG spam because even with low damage the enemy will die eventually. If it's a damage buff then people will go for spam as well.

All these sound bad but when you think about it, MG42 will take a while to dismantle and deploy. Maxim has got the tiny arc. Both 50 cal MG can't really be spammed since they aren't really cheap.

We could also go the COH1 route which from what I remember MG42 have damage multiplier if units are closer together. All MGs should be rewarding to use in it's own way.

MG42 can have the lowest damage out of the 4 but give it the most suppression.
Maxim higher damage and faster deploy/undeploy but slightly lower suppression.
50 cal MGs have highest damage but about the same suppression as Maxim. (They're not cheap so lower suppression than maxim makes no sense)

Blobs are definitely not hard to fight. It's just that they are troublesome when you're fighting American when they can run back to their ambulance and major just 15 feet behind them.

Also, give us that manual aiming of the MGs in the building. I only use buildings now to post a lookout while I set up a defense at my area.

If I had things my way, all small arms would be even more lethal than its current state. 1 MG burst = 3 kills

Give all MGs more damage and suppresion. Massive 6-7 squads blobs won't appear anymore. While we're at it, why is my MG42 gunner daydreaming for one second then starts shooting?