Profile of ZombiFrancis

Okay, the 57mm also deals 80 damage. ZiS deals 160.

There's two ways this goes: It's a unit that is a poor choice for Soviets, which is obviously not a great idea, or it's a unit that is strong enough to hold off axis light vehicle play. Which would mean both Soviet tiers would have the direct counters to Axis light vehicles.

The use of the word 'terrible' was clearly too sensitive an adjective.

Honestly, we've made more of a deal of it already than it is.

I'm just saying an Ostheer player that builts two MGs or rushes a mortar or a Soviet player that builds a second CE (for more flamethrowers/mining capabilities) instead of a conscript can completely sway the balance of map presence in the early game. Ostruppen and Assault Grens are a major factor too.

Ostheer is not a fast-capping faction. Even if they are able to spread their forces out to outcap Soviets, T1 or not, it is extremely difficult for them to hold all that territory until much later into the game.

If you state opinion, try to elaborate it becasie without it, such opinion has no value so...
Why do you think M-42 is terrible option?

Must it be restated for every single person every single post every single thread?

The m42 is firstly a doctrinal unit, which necessitates redesigning the commanders its in. That's out of scope.

The m42 is in its own right a particularly terrible AT gun. Like the PTRS is becomes outclassed. T1 doesn't need more units that become obsolete by the midgame.

The m42 has been suggested to have a T70 gun (I've publicly tested that mechanic on my own in the past and found it to be awkward and unnecessary for the faction and tier.) and also to be garrisonned and retreatable like the raketen. The gun looks silly when garrisonned because it wasn't ever meant to be, and a 6 man retreating AT gun squad will likely be as obnoxious as maxims retreating. Hello deathloop.

T1 is not actually suffering from its lack of AT counters. It suffers from redundancy with T0 and T2. (Specifically with conscripts and maxims forming suitable frontline infantry units.) Adding an overlap in the form of an AT gun will only add to that redundancy. All the m42 does is provide another unit to spend manpower on that's detouring a player from building the necessary T2 for ZiS or teching to T3 ASAP. You're still going to need a ZiS against heavier tanks.

T2 has the maxim and ZiS which overshadows T1. Overshadowing T1 doesn't make T1 useless or have no viability. It just means that one option is clearly superior to the other.

It's also worth noting that T1 currently synergizes well with T2. This means a great deal for 2v2. (I think that synergy could be improved, but again, that's another issue and further out of scope.)

I could go on.

The m42 is a terrible option and the furthest thing from a 'solution' to a perceived problem that doesn't exist.

The best thing I've seen so far for Soviets is:

Show Spoiler

Nothing else has to be adjusted, changed, or added. I could offer suggestions and ideas of where to go from there, but that'd be superfluous, (and out of scope).

Hmm if you talk about Guards with DPs/PTRS then i'm afraid that at that point, you have to leave M3/Sniper/Shocks.been barely usable.
At this point, we are just tring to over-engineering a solution to a problem which is solved by adjusting other factors which aren't Penals.

Oh I was just talking visual style and artistic feel.