Profile of Hannibal

If we really want to compare mortars/howitzer etc, we would need the following infos:

- scatter values (check)
- AoE profile (check)
- range, barrage and auto fire
- rate of fire
- cost

I think we're missing some info to fully compare them.
If somebody could give me the "raw data" for AoE (by that I mean the damage modifiers instead of the exact damage at the reference point), I can make a plot out of it to visualize.

Let's take a simple example to show to you that you really don't know what you are asking:
Lets assume grens and cons are perfectly balanced in 1v1. What change do they need to make to balance them in 2v2? My point is if the factions are perfectly balanced in 1v1 why they need to be balanced in 2v2? How are they umbalanced?

Gameplay shifts quite a lot. 4v4 is way more crowded than 1v1, since front line and map size do not quadruple. In team games it's less likely to be cut off, so resource income is WAY more stable, caches become more relevant, so gameplay shifts away from LV to late game vehicles. Artillery is more potent since it has more targets, loiters can be more devastating, but most of the time they are just shot down. And also a player can be taken out more easily if two or three players focus one down in one specific attack before the team mates can react properly, which can't be the case in 1v1 (obviously), where it is also much easier to predict the enemy, since you can keep track of the units and you only play against a single faction.

Balance in small modes is easier to achieve since there are less synergies (only units of the same faction can synergize) and there is no coordination with other players involved. In team games you can compensate mediocre micro by good teamplay, this is a level of complexity that 1v1s cannot have.

In short: Team games are mostly about teamplay and team synergy on a densely populated map with few gaps, while 1v1 is more about unit micro and exploiting unavoidable gaps in the enemy's front line.

If the structure's durability is the problem, why not just lower it's health?

The change would be a huge nerf to partisans and other infiltration units that could spawn in from buildings.
The StuKas damage vs buildings was lowered quite some time ago by 50%, and I think it was a good change. Otherwise one StuKa would completely shut down any garrison play to the point where it will be safer to stand in the open field than going into a building.

My gut feeling tells me that also the also the grenades might be a bit too much, they're pretty much balanced at the moment, allowing them to easily destroy buildings would probably also mean increasing their cost, which would make them worse against infantry on open field.

If a building is annoying, there's always the option to wire the entrance (although it's a bit buggy), which - at least for important buildings - could allow for wire cutter upgrade on the engineers.

Also it might be possible that anti garrison abilities with high wipe potential would mean that the buildings themselves must be buffed for example by removing sight blockers. At the moment many important buildings have one wall sight blocked to allow enemy squads to approach from that direction. If they could throw a grenade and easily kill the building (with your squad inside), the approach for the enemy should be made more difficult.

If you mean like do the models have a health bar separate from the gun, it seems like it. Stuff like sherman HE and pack howie shots seem to be able to decrew it separately from just blowing up the gun, and vice versa.

Wait, you can decrew them?
But no, I meant the actual emplacement itself. Have not fought against them in quit a while, but from what I remember they eat the first shots like nothing happened (maybe the weapon health drops?), and after that the actual health bar takes the damage.

Very good work Harry! The community will surely appreciate the effort, you've clearly invested quite some time into this.

I will disagree on the way of choosing the list of premium medium tanks. You either forgot of Pershing (no one considers it a heavy) and I would suggest you to include Panthers if you did with comets. Where are cromwell's? Even Ost P4 are premium mediums, they are costly because of that tag.

Other than that great post

OP clearly stated that he'll try premium mediums. Why I don't know, but I assume that he wanted to shed some light into the premium medium tier that players usually don't see that often, while everybody from low to high level play can get a decent grasp on standard medium performance and balance.

Also: I do consider the Pershing a heavy. And since when is the OST P4 a premium medium? Health and gun are absolute standard and the armor is nothing super special as well.