as if paying 50-60 munition isn't enough of a drawback to retreat a single unit.
I don't think 50-60 (let's say 50 because of how incredibly easy it is to rank the Offizier up to vet 1) munitions is a drawback at all for a guaranteed retreat on a key unit like an HMG or an elite squad (or just any squad) without having to fire a bullet (or more importantly, not having to receive any), when that allows you to win the fight and take map control. It turns munitions into saved manpower and more map control. It's a much safer investment than grenades for example.
But... we've seen Stuka kill half health AEC and more then 25% health T-70 during torunament games, haven't we?
The rockets deal full AOE damage according to the AOE profile with near misses, because AOE ignores armor, which is why they can still severely damage vehicles (and the mortar pit too in rare occasions). The problem is that direct hits involve a penetration check, which Stuka rockets will always fail because they have 0 penetration. It's why an Ambulance can easily survive a direct hit from a Stuka rocket, but dies instantly to a near miss. And given how big the Mortar Pit is, it's more likely to get direct hits than it is to get near misses.
Here's an example of the Ambulance surviving a direct hit with only minor damage:
The biggest problem is that OKW tech isn't very flexible. They usually need Mechanized, but back-teching to Battlegroup to get an ISG or two to counter the mortar pit is too expensive and time consuming. Ostheer can relatively comfortably avoid it and go for T4 and counter with a Brummbar or a Panzerwerfer (which can both shoot over obstacles and deal significant damage).
On top of that a major issue is that the Stuka is consistently ineffective against emplacements because its rockets have 0 penetration, which means that when directly hitting the 5 armor Mortar Pit they will "bounce" and cause only a measly 40 deflection damage (maybe 60 because of the target table but I'm not sure if the 1.5 multiplier applies to deflection damage) rather than the full 200 damage (it has the same issue against units like the Ambulance). This makes it noticeable worse against emplacements than the Panzerwerfer.
And another problem is simply bad map design, like on Arnhem Country south or the trialling Wolfheze south, putting big LOS/shot blockers to hide a Mortar Pit behind near 1 or even 2 VPs or other critical areas which makes the Mortar Pit next to impossible to kill with anything besides indirect fire.
Also, the Sturm Offizier gets -10 cost on all abilities at vet 1 bringing the price down to 50, as well as getting 5 more range with vet 2 compared to the Commissar (+10 vs +5). And the Offizier is mostly geared towards being a combat unit now (with vet becoming a light Obers squad for a really cheap price) while the Commissar is more geared towards utility, which would make it fair to have slightly more cost effective abilities.
Given how the Sturm Offizier is already a very good unit and how the Commissar is a bit meh, I don't see any reason to change this.
For the following data was created at a distance of 40 meters on standard formations of Volks and Riflemen (as they would be in open terrain) with the model in the center being targeted
[…]
Sadly for Sanders, under the given conditions (which are not the exact in-game situation obviously), the King Tiger can barely do 40% of squad damage.
First of all thanks for backing up arguments with actual numbers, which is always refreshing.
However in my defence I was talking about actual combat experience, in which infantry squads are generally more clumped than fully spread out due to numerous amounts of obstacles or cover in their way. And as soon as squads are even a bit more clumped, which is usually the case under real battlefield conditions (especially at the time the Tiger II finally arrives, at which stage the map is usually riddled with craters), the Tiger II quite reliably does heavy damage because of its huge AOE radius and relatively low scatter.
For example: squad comes around the corner which makes the models clump up and they run into the Tiger II here, which immediately fires and hits the squad for as much as 60% health in a single hit:
Now obviously under similar circumstances the (OKW) Panzer IV can do similar damage with a good shot, but I personally find the Tiger II with its huge AOE much more reliable at dealing heavy enough damage per shot (on average) to force off squads quicker. For the same reason the ingame ISU-152 is such a beast at AI because it can quite reliably deal enough damage to more clumped up 4 or even 5 men squads in a single hit to force a retreat instantly.
In conclusion, I would be interested in seeing the results of the script when squads are more clumped up compared to their perfectly spread out formations.
On the topic of the mortar pit it should be noted that the maps that were played most (Wolfheze, Elst and Arnhem Country) all have positions on the Allied side from which a mortar pit can cover 1-2 VPs with near impunity. As opposed to maps like Rails and Metal or Fields of Winnekendonk. It also surprised me to see even the best teams not even attempting to properly counter them (ISGs, flame grenades, etc.) and instead either tried to ignore them or used ineffective Stuka barrages.
Not seeing USF too much isn't very surprising, even though the faction is really good at the moment it simply isn't as reliable as UKF. And USF has always been a bit worse at 2v2. And Soviets are a no brainer pick because of their nondoc rocket artillery.
Wolfheze seems like a pretty bad map in its current state, with a huge amount of clutter (platforms, train carts and buildings) blocking proper armor movement in the center (which makes pushes and flanks really hard if not impossible because they're either predictable or get bogged down easily), effectively dividing the map mostly into two separate fights, and allowing (mostly Allied) artillery to easily target the (Axis) base sector. I honestly hope this map won't be used in the finals weekend.
One thing I was a bit disappointed in was the lack of Axis counterplay to Perimeter Overwatch (even if it's overperforming) by using some of the faster capping abilities (to neutralize territory quicker and thus mostly nullifying PO in that area), even when a commander that has such an ability (German Infantry) was used quite frequently.
Yes that is what I said. But it's not good design that a faction is forced to highly rely on one doctrinal unit (/two commanders) as it severely hurts diversity. Every faction should've had all the basic tools (flamethrowers, indirect, 60 range TD, etc.) available to them stock. With commanders either complementing their stock line up (with things like recon or camo), supplementing parts of it (G43 or other doctrinal weapon upgrades) or offering unique tools (like elite infantry), rather than filling holes.
Anyhow this is all a bit off-topic as it doesn't really have much to do with the SU-76.
He does kinda have a point, in teamgames Ostheer can really struggle against Allied TD and rocket arty combos because they lack a 60 range TD. Infantry based AT (Schrecks and Pak 40) usually just get annihilated by artillery. PTRS Penals obviously have no real AT DPS late game but they prevent flanks because even a full health Panther will get engine damage from the AT satchel. Not to mention Panthers simply don't work well on certain maps. Ostheer combined arms can work but it's really not as easy as you're making it out to be. It's one of the reasons the Elefant is used almost every game because it's the best thing in Ostheer's arsenal that can reliably counter Allied TDs.
I consider a 60 range TD to be one of the core faction tools (amongst indirect fire and flamethrowers) that every faction should've had by default and the fact that Ostheer doesn't have one does hurt their versatility and strength. They currently have enough to compensate (again, mostly relying on the Elefant), but it isn't ideal.
I think the two biggest problems with the SU-76 are:
1. It's not actually bad at all, it's just doesn't have a real role within the Soviet roster. Meta is simply getting a T-70 with Guards/Penal PTRS or a ZiS, and transition to T4. No one really needs a T3 light TD unless they are behind and they need a Hail Mary.
2. The SU-76, like the StuG, has a very problematic cost efficiency potential in teamgames. Before the barrage nerf, it was very common for players to just spam like 5-6 of them and annihilate anything they came across with pure DPM. It was very toxic to play against.
So any buffs would quite honestly be mostly artificial, trying to push the unit into play while it still doesn't have a role. And any combat buff risks moving it back to the cost efficiency that would allow players to spam them again in teamgames, which would be highly undesirable.
I'm not a fan of the Soviet hybrid units (ZiS, SU-76) anyway because it upsets the game economy (other factions must invest solely in AT when getting an ATG or a TD, while the Soviets get bonus AI with it) so I don't feel like pushing the hybrid role in the first place. If it were to receive any buffs, it would have to be compensated to keep away from the cost efficiency problem. Like a range decrease to 50.
Though I personally think the SU-76 is mostly fine as is. It's quite good at fighting mediums and lights, which makes it quite good at its sole role as a comeback unit, and it just doesn't see much other use because there are better alternatives. But nothing can be done about that.
The purpose was to nerf handle AT: Piat/zooks/schrek. And it might have work with schrek and piat (they miss between half and a quarter of their shot per game)
It wasn't. The goal was primarily to make mediums a bit better against double ATGs, and a bit more durable in general.