The 57 is fantastic for its price.
Look at it this way:
Say you had grens. 240mp squad that ain't shit compared to 280mp squads. No imagine they had an ability called "meth chocolate" that made em into obers for a while.
You then have all the advantages of cheap grens, but the ferocity of obers when you need it.
As is the 57mm
Its 50mp cheaper than other at guns, but with only 30 mu when you need it it will shot faster, further and with more pen.
Alternatively double AT gun-often regarded as the fuck you of choice for fighting tanks. For many, it will set you back 640mp. For USF it'll only cost you 540mp and for the cost of a BAR you will have the best chance of any faction for securing that kill! You will out range, or pen and out reload the competition! While saving 100mp to put towards your already powerful infantry game.
This is the way MORE things should be, performance spikes at the cost of economy make for far more dynamic play. It's really too bad that weapon upgrades are as they are - specifically designed to suck as much dynamic out of the game ass possible...
The 57mm is an ATG that is 50 MP cheaper and needs at least 30 mun to perform slightly better to similar at best compared to other ATGs. It is not that bad, but 30 mun times however often you use it is not necessarily worth the 50 MP. And the higher ROF is lost at veterancy compared to other ATGs, often already at vet2. At this point you basically pay mun to get the same ATG as the other factions (with a tiny bit more pen if you pay the mun and way less pen if you don't).
The resource argument works in reverse too. For only 100 MP that I need to invest more I can get reliable AT from the very first shot and save the mun for mines, grenades, offmaps etc.
I am not saying the 57mm is a bad ATG, but the plus sides it has certainly has a lot of downsides as well.
i agree with your last part though, in the case of ATGs this would require a complete rework of how deadly tanks are. With the current effectiveness of them, ATGs must counter them quickly and reliably.
We can make up many "traits" that a faction has. I agree on what yours are as well, but at the same time these are not the "one and only trait that defines the faction". Ostheer has small sized infantry squads and an inherently defensive early game. This is shaken by doctrines via Assgrens and on the squad size part via Osttruppen, as well as by some 'recent' core faction changes like PGrens coming earlier.
Soviet's core vehicles do not have any heavier armor. Any standard Axis tank, ATG and even handheld PSchrecks have guaranteed penetration vs all their stock tanks. The faction has, by design, no stock heavy tanks (in the sense of heavily armored) and they are also supposed to play without one. Soviets are supposed to have worse tanks and compensate this by either using their SU85 to keep Axis in check or by amassing vehicles. The doctrines that give them heavier armor are supposed to shake the Axis advantage and add something absolutely new that they usually don't have access to. It therefore goes against the design of the core faction. And this is fine. Because Axis can deal with heavier armor as well.
And I agree, USF is supposed to get their tanks back in action quicker via crew repairs. The Pershing shows us that it can also work completely differently if necessary. If a unit is balanced and will cause issues does not only depend on the faction itself, but if other factions have a means to properly counter it. And Axis do, so I think a "mini Panther" is worth trying. If it does not work then fine by me, but it is one of the very few niches that is still available for USF tanks without making them either redundant or useless.
What the point of creating pottentually broken stuff to begin with? To later discover then when someone finily diside to make them meta and constanly spend time fixing them?
It has completly different reasoning behind it. Bringing back VSL as an example, it was added because the idea behind it sounded "cool", thats it. Ostheer didnt need VSL, but it was added to give a "viriaty" creating only problems. Same with Raid Sections (which is balance team pushing into the game) its been 3-4 patch changes so far and they are still dont know how to make them resonable.
UKF\USF having SPGs are not only very specific units, but the factions from the release had them as an option, same with Elephant. And even considering this SPG\Elephant\ISU are a cancer or team games which imo should have never even existed in the game.
UKF mortar is a different story. USF getting stock mortar has the same reasoning why UKF got one as a commander call-in. An in case of UKF mortar - is nothing more then a bandage faction have, because they dont have proper inderect fire units, except one immobile and expensive. At all.
Again, soviets have Guards\Shocks in every single commander, because originally Relic didnt thought of the UKF like unlocks system. You might aswell count guards\shocks as a part of the core army, just made in a retarded way. Thats the reason why they are presented in almost every single commander.
Still Pershing is the lightiest of all heavy tanks and Dozer just gives you pure armor and durability, which helps but not a full unit changer.
The patch in which the Brit mortar, VSL and Conscript SVTs were introduced were badly thought out. It was partially attempted to fix faction issues with commanders rather than providing a different play style. Nevertheless, I'll sum this up since the arguments of both of us all go into a similar direction:
We have plenty of examples where doctrinal units "break" the original faction intention. Some of these became larger issues in the meta, some completely disappeared from more competitive play, and some others work exceptionally well. This also has been the case with tons of other units in the game, even if they followed the design of the faction. What I initially said and what I am saying is: A unit "breaking faction design" does not as necessarily mean it will break balance as some made it out to be. It might still happen in the end, who knows, but it is not a good enough argument to shut down a potential solution already at the "discussion phase".
Why USF objectively need mini panther for? Its not like Axis mediums compeltly shut down USF shermans, its not like Jackson cant deal with heavy tanks and panthers.
Sure it would be cool for USF to have mini panther, it would be cool for OKW to have sniper and caches, it would be cool for UKF to have snares on tommies. But it should ring the bell, that combining it with other faction advantages\disadvantages it might create problems.
Yes, that's exactly the issue. Why does USF need another AT tank if they have the Jackson? The EZ8 needs a role. AI tank is already done by the normal Sherman on HE. Cheap TD is taken by the Wolverine, heavy TD by the Jackson, premium medium by the 76mm and and Brummbar-like breacher by the 105mm Bulldozer Sherman. Beefed up medium is taken by the Dozer blade upgrade. So what is left? If you can find a proper niche that is really worth filling, propose your solution. Mine is a "Panther-light", because that's the only thing were I could see myself use the unit in this lineup that is already overflowing from different shades of medium tanks. If the aim of this patch is to make all commanders viable - however achievable this might be - the EZ8 needs a new role, because the current one is overshadowed by at least two tanks. If we want to keep some historical authenticity we'll likely have to go with a better armored brawler type, because better armor was one of the main improvements of the EZ8.
Which ones? The only true heavy tank awaible early for allies - KV and its giving a real problems, everything past KV indeed can face counters be it multiple AT guns or Panthers, but what price mini-panther EZ8 should have then? 150 or 160 fuel? Should it main armored of the commander or it should be just and optional addition to the army which is not good at everything?
All premium mediums are still mediums, not heavy armor tanks. They are still vunerable to everything mediums are vunerable to, even to other mediums while having an upper hand.
The complete KV series, the complete Churchill series, IS2, Pershing, Comet. I think that's most of them.
I've made a relatively detailed suggestion how I think the EZ8 could look like, must have been a good week ago with a price point at around 160 fuel.
Then it was changed to always immobile, 5th man, range increase and the list goes on.
But was there any comment on why?
The Rak got overnerfed in the first iterations and buffed back up. The change might not be due to the Raketenwerfer being OP at vet1 with movement but because they just thought a different vet would fit it better.
This is bad comparison tbh. Doctines dont, in a global scale, break faction rules, they allow different playstyle with-in the faction rules.
When they are truly breaking the core of the faction we have VSL, pre-nerfed SVTs and osttroopens. Its been proven a lot of the times by now, that its very dangerious to add tools which potentually just strateforward changing how faction works.
Yet we still have all of those after they have been adjusted. VSL in particular have been in the game for a long time before they became meta, because at the time the Tiger - notably, a unit with which Ostheer was designed - overshadowed them heavily. The doctrines I mentioned all break the "rules" that the core of the faction indicates. We could even add more: UKF and USF getting long range artillery, UKF getting a mobile mortar and Ostheer having the best long range TD in the whole game. My point is that this "design" of filling holes in the line up with doctrines is not a new concept. I would even argue it was supposed to be like that from the get go, at least for the eastern front armies (especially considering Soviets getting elite infantry via doctrines while having only trash infantry in their main tech paths).
This is not a new concept and we find it in a multitude of commanders, many of those are considered to be fine, some UP, some OP. If it is a balance issue, then not necessarily because this hole has been filled, but more often than not because the unit itself is not properly balanced.
I agree though that yes, it can cause issues. But I don't see how in the case of a "mini Panther" EZ8. If USF cannot have heavier armor than 160 there should be no Pershing, o dozer upgrade and no EZ8 in the first place. Pershing and EZ8 are barely used in the game. And on top of that, Axis can deal with heavy armor as proven with the existance of Soviet doctrinal tanks and UKF tanks.
So if a) USF already can field some heavier armor and b) Axis can field proper counters, I don't see a reason to cancel a "mini Panther" EZ8 already at the theoretical stage as OP.
Doctrine or not, and what the Panther can do or not has no bearing in the design of USF. That design dictates that they are not to have durable armour, instead they have mobile armour that can heal itself.
Every faction pays for their strengths with weaknesses.
Soviet have durable infantry but lack concentrated dps. They are designed to out attrition the enemy.
Ost has small squads but better than average team weapons and high impact squads. They are meant to outperform not out last.
OKW has no caches but has 5 levels of vet, non-doc elite infantry and armour. They are meant to outlast and out fight but not outproduce- nothing they have is "cheap"
Usf is extremely mobile and VERY aggressive. They are meant to lick their wounds quicker than anyone else be back in the fight before their enemy can. They are meant to keep the enemy on the back foot not to outlast them in a slug fest.
As Aarotron said, doctrines regularly break the core faction rules and they can still be balanced.
Assgrens make a very defensive Ostheer into an early aggressive faction (same for Assault Sections and UKF), G43s on Grenadiers make them mobile and aggressive as well. Soviets get multiple highly durable tanks on doctrines. There's nothing inherently wrong with USF getting a durable tank as well. The exact design is up for debate obviously, but USF having thin armor otherwise is not reason against the EZ8 being survivable.
But 57 has HVAP, with it it has 60 range + 225/210/195 pen + considerable higher fire rate.
The higher ROF only exists at lower vet. To be exact it is 0,5 seconds which is pretty much exactly 10% better compared to the Raketenwerfer. That's decent, but at vet2 the Raketenwerfer will already outperform the 57mm with them being equal at vet3 and the Rak being better at vet5 if it ever lives long enough for that.
Apparently, it would, given first rak camo nerf was speed reduction to 25%, so we've already tried that on live.
Maybe I remember incorrectly, but didn't the first iteration already completely remove any movement while cloaked?
That's at least what I vaguely remembered and also the first public iteration (checked the previews again). Or was there an internal version prior to this? How did the Rak look like back then? Because it got a lot of changes.
The pre-2019 Rak ran around the battlefield like crazy.
I also wanted to make a thread about ATGs recently.
The Raketenwerfer is fine. I think the 5 meter range trade off does not cause it to be less effective as AT, but that it is exposed a tad more than other ATGs which fits OKWs offensive theme. 5 men and retreat are there to compensate for those 5 meters and the missing shield.
The earlier timing is due to Allied light vehicle options. But let's be real: A UC will probably not bleed you enough in the first 5 minutes to force a Raketenwerfer. In most cases, it is better to just sustain the damage until you have Fausts because you need the map presence more than the AT capability.
Regarding the 57mm discussion:
The gun is good, but probably only in 1v1 because there are more mediums and LVs. The larger the mode, the more garbage it becomes. Especially because it scales quite badly with vet, probably the worst of all ATGs in the game. For it to work like other ATGs, you need to constantly dump at least 30 mun into it, which is not worth the reduced price of 50 MP in the long run.
Makes sense that doctrinal camo is better then stock one + it could move for years and we all know why it can't anymore.
The Rak had decent speed when cloaked back then, the ZiS was always slow af.
I doubt that a Raketenwerfer moving at the speed of a cloaked ZiS would be a huge issue. It still couldn't do anything that was causing issues back then.