Profile of Sander93

Compare it to the StuG E

Scott & StuG accuracy: identical

Accuracy is only relevant when targeting vehicles.

When targeting infantry, scatter is what matters and the StuG ausf.E has way better scatter than the Scott.

Scott:

Scatter angle 6
Distance offset 0
Distance ratio 0.125
Distance max 10

StuG ausf.E:

Scatter angle 5.5
Distance offset 0
Distance ratio 0.075
Distance max 3

I think your point about AT weapons already being modeled around caliber specific damage actually helps my case. The interaction of damage, accuracy, rate of fire and range is already there, using caliber specific damage and it works!

??? the damage values for tank cannons in the game are not standardized at all. The IS-2's 122mm gun does the same 160 damage as a 50mm on a vetted Puma. There's even guns that have several different versions all doing different damage, like the 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71 that deals 320dmg as the Pak 43, 300 damage on the Elefant, and 240 damage on the Tiger II. While the 8.8cm KwK 36 on the Tiger deals only 160 damage.

Tank gun damage values are actually the very definition of gameplay over realism.

The same differences could be done by varying other attributes.

No they can not. Firstly, because different damage has different effects. For example one of the reason Bolstered Infantry Sections are so effective is because they can potentially deal 80 alpha damage (5x16), which could alpha/burst kill a model in one volley. That is why all other 5-6 men rifle squads do not deal 16 damage per rifle. Alpha damage is also generally more important in (heavy) cover fights than accuracy, which is why a small long range squad like Grenadiers needs to have high (16) damage.

This dynamic was pretty straight forward in CoH 1, where Riflemen and Volksgrenadiers had the same accuracy and damage as each other at vet 0, but Riflemen fired slower at long range and faster at short range while Volksgrenadiers fires at about the same rate regardless of range. This was easily understood by the player and was also a more realistic way to balance the interaction between the two units.

And Grenadiers had higher damage with the same Kar 98K rifles as Volksgrenadiers, because they needed to feel like a significant upgrade, while having only 4 models, without having over-the-top visual stats (laser accuracy or insane ROF).

So secondly, accuracy and ROF are way less adjustable (without making units feel artifical) than an invisible increase in damage per shot. In CoH2 most infantry rifles already have 65-80% accuracy, increasing to 80-90% with veterancy (Obers Kar 98Ks even go above 100%), so there is no wiggle room there. That only leaves ROF, but that would need to be unrealistically high to facilitate a large increase in DPS. And as I mentioned above alpha damage itself is an important factor in balancing units anyway. There's also the difference in the amount of rifles/models in the squad to account for (from 4 up to 6). So in summary, again, varying damage per rifle is very important for gameplay and balance and it can't simply be standardized.

Also I'd personally say that the price of a unit is self explanatory for their performance, even if they share the same weapon with other cheaper squads, and the average player probably won't have a clue whether it's accuracy or damage that is different anyway, so there is no need to change it (and essentially make tuning balance and gameplay harder).

I must admit that I focussed on pathing and visuals, but completely forgot about the retreat point. Would it be fair to set a retreat point on the Company Command Post?

I'd say just make sure it works like the UKF headquarters. Infantry retreats to the border of the HQ of whatever side they retreat from and have it require player interaction to move them inside the base (to protect against dives).

Where do units retreat to? The truck in the middle? That would make it pretty unfair compared to other bases because retreating infantry would be much more protected against dives by all the tents and weapon racks around it.