By the way, now that you can modify the unit models, wouldn't it be possible to fix the AT tommies Boys rifle that has buggy magazine? It's floating in the air below the gun instead of being attached to the top of the gun (sniper is fine tho). It's a tiny detail, but for some reason it has bothered me for quite soem time now.
The new spirtes are great, but I wouldn't use conscript models for guards, that's just too misleading. The visual information that they are elite infantry is imho important when quickly glancing over the battlefield. Perhaps you could use the capeless guard model that is now unused instead? That will give them clear visual identity different from classic guards and cons, while also remaining consistent with the portrait.
For the same reason Guards airbourne should not be using engineer models for their winter variants. Just use a different tint of the sniper winter overalls that is used on live. That will make the unit more consistent in appearence and distinguished from engies. And again, it will remain consistent with the portrait.
The jäger command squad looks absolutely great, but the portrait should be updated as well – I suggest using sniper gear as a base and jäger/stormtrooper portrait for the face. This is basically what you are currently doing with new units like guards airbourne, assault tommies and assault guards, right? By the way, the smaller portrait for JCS is incorrect too, it uses artillery officer portrait instead of jäger one.
The summer version of the MG34 team look perhaps a bit low-res compared to other skins. Isn't it directly ported from COH1? I wouldn't do that if that's the case, because too much variety in resolution between comparably sized assets is very noticeable and kinda damages the overall picture, but perhaps I'm too nitpicky here.
On a related note, would it be possible to bring back the improved cape physics for standard guards? It was in the game briefly when guard model was used for the 7th conscript and it looked glorious, much better than the glued version.
I tend to agree that it should be toned down, and yes, ideally in the survivability department so that it can't be used at such close range. Sure, it's a tank, but Axis rocket arty is also mounted on halftracks that normally take 2 160 dmg shots, yet they die in a single shot. Let's just assume that thy are all so fragile because the rockets explode when hit and call it a day. 2 tank shots should reliably take it down. Vehicle durability makes no sense anyway, I mean Kubel can tank a direct shot from an IS-2...
Pershing does not compete with Jackons or Shermans, just like Tiger doesn't compete with Panzers and Panthers. It's a heavy, and as such you expect it to perform these roles, which mediums simply cannot:
Provide staying power, the ability to directly remain in a fight for longer periods of time before resorting to hit/reverse strategy.
Converting recuperation costs from resources (manpower, fuel) into repair time, thus helping to spread resource/repair economy more evenly across your composition and generally saving resources in the long run.
Frontload DPS into big blasts, resulting in more wipes.
Fitting multiple roles (damage sponge, AI, AT) into relatively small amount of pop, making your overall composition more efficient in relation to popcap.
Tiger can do all of that in accordance with its price. IS-2 too, but being more clunky and less dangerous at that, hence its lower popularity. Pershing kinda does fit these roles too, but does so at a very high price despite having comparably low durability, which is the key stat if you want it to perform well at #1, #2 and #4. As such it's simply not so desirable at its price, especially considering that sticking to the baseline composition is goood enough and leaving you with the option to pick the best possible doctrine.
Performance is noticeably better (can be felt especially during victory strike), main menu feels smoother, but the long automatch boot is a persisting issue from the beta. Not a terribly impactful one, but a bit annoying.
Very well said. I don't think Katy/T34/T70/Quad are cheesy, except for live T70 their killing power is not extreme and all of these units except for katy require heavy micro and good positioning to be effective, but otherwise I agree with everything.
Royals have to do most of that too (except for healing) while also being the only source of snares. They spend all of their time just running between vehicles that need repairs, places to lay/defuse mines and skirmishes with vehicles that need to be snares. They can't be further burdened either.
While I believe Assgren are not problematic (they just put some extra strain on SOV in the early game, which is something you need to deal with when facing OKW anyway), I dislike how they promote bad habits and cheesy builds at lower ranks. It's way too easy to punish new players with just Assgren rushes + MG44 into Pgren, which has mutiple bad consequences. The allied players feel bad because they feel like they have no way to compete (especially SOV), which probably causes some unnecessary attrition among new players, which is bad for the playerbase as a whole. The axis players don't learn to play properly with snares and using cover. The axis players also rely on winning the game almost right away, so they do not learn how to micro in the late game.
This is hard to fix without butchering Assgren as a consequence, but perhaps it could be looked int owhen commanders are finally reviewed. PPSH cons could be rebalanced and made available at 0CP too to counterweight them for example, this would target only the SOV/OST matchup, which is the only problematic one.