Profile of Hannibal

I don't watch tournaments and "pro" players. I believe you that SU-76 lacks a role, that's why it should get a better barrage or sth. In my theory, it would be viable. It seems logical that the original relic team thought it out like that... maybe, don't know. Right now it's role lacking due to the fact that P4s are really early and T70 is pretty powerful in good hands, albeit needs to play it safe if raketen and paks are on the field.

I did have some luck fielding SU-76 with conscripts in custom games, although the opponents weren't really skilled.

I might be wrong and maybe SU76 is useless right now but maybe, just maybe, the role hasn't been found. In theory, skipping maxims and zis to go for SU-76 with conscripts should in theory be viable, especially with the fast snare on conscripts. That's all in theory. Maybe somebody goes YOLO and builds SU76 and wins a game and shows that the SU76 has a role.

A lot of "META" was found. It was not straightaway clear from the patch notes. "This unit is getting these buffs" and then people go "Oh this unit was buffed, let's play around it", and hence a meta arrives. I mean, I've played Dota2 and often enough my experiments ended up in clear wins (top ranks in dota2). I don't believe that in a game with so many dynamic variables, there exists only one build order and few METAs. Maybe there exists a SU76 build that can be really viable vs distinct OST or OKW build orders. Who knows. I admittedly, don't

I mean we've had the issue of the SU76 already before, so I'll make my reply quick:
In my eyes, it lacks a role. It's stats seem fine for the most part, also compared to the StuG and the Puma. But you don't need the SU76 as Soviets.

If we look at the early-mid game in a somewhat even match, the worst LV you can face is the Luchs. But your T70 is already better than it and can beat the Luchs, so you're better off with the T70 since you also get excellent AI power. Similar reasoning for most things you could face: 222? 251? MG spam? Mortar spam? -> T70, the SU76 won't help you because it's barrage is relatively costly.
The only unit it could help you against is a Puma, but a semi decent OKW player won't build the Puma if you did not get a T70 beforehand.

And for the mid game, you always have the better option of the future-proof SU85. If you play T2 an need more AT, you're always better off with investing that bit of MP more into the ZiS and save up the fuel for the T34 or SU85 instead. If you play T1, back teching is often better as well since you will likely need an ATG for the late game anyway.

The SU76 is - as all AT units - a reactive unit that you don't buy proactively, but only when you need it. For the LV phase the T70 has all the AT you need. For the medium+ phase SOV has more reliable options. Additionally, the SU76 won't secure you points and support like a T70 does to get back the resource investment. And to top it off, SOV have to make this AI/AT choice in a phase where Penals have lost their initial shock value, Conscripts have not reached their 7-men plateau yet and Axis infantry is upgraded.

Sorry, but wtf are these unit counting comparisons?

Having 4 men on Grenadiers is not comparable to having 4 men on Partisans and Pathfinders. One is the mainline infantry that you build about 3-4 of every game (apart from specialized OST doctrines), the other ones are supplemental units that you usually only have one of.

On average, Axis have less large squads than Allies, although I'd add that this is mostly true for OST. Regarding infantry sizes, USF and OKW are quite similar, UKF at least mid-late game gets 5 men overall. Team weapons are 4 men for the most part.

The larger squad sizes help to not get wiped if you look at singular events (so only one or two tank shots or a grenade). For longer time frames, MMX has shown that squad formation is actually more important.
Overall though it's pretty safe to say that larger squad sizes also lead to more bleed, because you have a higher chance of getting one or two idiot models that just start weirdly twitching on top of the grenade instead of running away. Or actually running to the grenade because they really need to keep their formation etc.

Literally all of that applies to the SZF, just the SZF will be at max firing range.

When diving a medium, Allies pay either 5 fuel less or 10 more (neglecting MP here) than the SZF. If your medium needs three shots to kill it, you are actually very unlucky.
Conversely, if Axis mediums dive the Calliope and kill it with three shots you're already lucky while still potentially downtrading 15-35 fuel.

This completely neglects offensive capabilities of the rocket arty, but I think most people complain about the survivability.

I think the SU76 is fine in miragefla's mod.

What did he do with it?

Mostly Hans, he is pretty damn adept at retreat wiping with rnades.

Yes, he is the (almost?) only player known to pull it off somewhat reliably but even he fails regularly. But this just reinforces the point that your statement was wrong.

Regarding the other point, I'm perfectly fine with bundle nades, I'm simply saying that just because something is different or not "in line" with imaginary "benchmark" does not mean its wrong or imbalanced.

Bundle nades are fine and so are shock nades.
I see nothing wrong with 2cp+ elite CQC squad having better nades, especially if it has lowest CQC DPS in comparison to other CQC elites.

You just made two posts about saying bundle nade were not fine on stock units without further reasoning, just after saying that different factions and units have different abilities to then state that Shock grenade is fine.

I don't agree with Vipper's conclusion or actually ShadowLinks initial assessment of Shock nade being OP, but I can see the point that if two abilities cost the same and are functionally the same, but one is straight up better than the other, then this ability deserves a closer look. It might not always be the best option design wise, but standardizing it to some form of benchmark makes balancing the whole game much easier (and the game more dull unfortunately). CoH2 has seen other approaches as well, but turns out that this creates a monstrosity to balance, more than this community can handle with the few people working on it and the few patches we get every once in a while. Benchmarking stuff is the most effective way for CoH2 to make the game balanced, so a deviation from that should have a good reason.