Powerful CQC weapons are weak at long range and that is a problem how?
Did certain someone spammed AGs and used them against rifles for long range cover to cover fights again?
SMGs had low effective range compared to rifles IRL too, and that is how you show it in game accurately AND balance friendly, by having them being ineffective at long range.
"game is balanced" is basically the problem here.
Actually read the post before commenting if you don't want to look stupid.
Nobody in this thread has suggested that SMGs being weak at long range is any sort of a problem.
What was said was that SMG DPS (With the strange exception of Pioneer/OST weapon crew MP40s and Royal Engineer Stens, who instead stop doing maximal damage at 8 units, which I assume is just intended to make them weaker) is the same between 0 and 10 range, whereas all other (non-LMG/"sniper") weapons continue to ramp in damage as you get closer to your target, stopping ramping at anywhere between 8 and 0 range.
As a result SMG infantry do not, in fact, want to be extremely close to their targets. They instead want to stand at precisely 10 range, as getting closer means you will take proportionally more damage, and standing any further means you will be doing less.
I'm not sure how this actually affects engagements in practice, and the alternatives would either to be that SMGs continue to ramp FURTHER as they get closer (likely reaching absurd levels of DPS), or to fall off sooner (Which would just weaken them), but the point is that you seriously need to work on your reading comprehension.
At 360mp with a muni upgrade I should bloody hope they can fight mainline infantry.
Although I find Pzfuss with G43 beat them handily.
Under what circumstances?
The scott can not hard counter an at gun, it has to fire from within range of the atgun. It can be done, but it's very dangerous. If you're outside the cone, it works great.
The Scott's barrage has a range of 80. It doesn't need to be within range of an AT gun to fire upon it.
Well if we ignore that it cant shoot over obstacles, it has slower rate of fire, it have to exlose itself to ATguns\TDs, that enemy inf always can see it unless pre-fired and that it dosnt have turret ... then you would be right.
He's talking about the Werfer, not the Brummbar. Though the Werfer isnt the same thing, and doesn't act the same way, and using it as the counterexample like that misses the point entirely.
Getting 20 pop of scotts (without pf)just to (hard) counter units of 5 to 8 pop a piece isent what id call balanced.
I personaly havent seen scotts when single or without pf do their job well. But i might just be watching the wrong games and suck at using it.
You're hardcountering MGs, other mortars, and AT guns, while also providing strong fire-support vs any other infantry.
It's 20 pop vs 21 pop (Assuming your opponent has two AT guns and one MG, which is fairly standard for Ostheer especially. This number rises if the opponent has any other team weapons.)
On top of this is the further utility vs infantry, though bothering to make a population-to-population comparison there is a bit pointless.
Part of what I'd consider the benefit over the Scott vs something like a Werfer, Katyusha, or Stuka is the constant pressure they create. Their barrage has less than half the cooldown of rocket artillery, and they can still contribute to a fight even when its on cooldown. People talk about the Scott as though it fires confetti for some reason, and I've never really understood why.
As for the scott, its imo quite bad already. The only thing to change would be remove smoke but increase its damage potential imo. Its damage output/bleed is not good enough for its timing and durability. You have to get 2 and even then..
The pf also arent that good on their own. I dont know how to tackle the synergy without making them usseless.
Everything I've seen from the scott in most games i've observed recently seems to show it being EXTREMELY effective, especially when the USF player has two of them (Though this, of course, takes 20 population).
They're used to fantastic effect in a lot of Tightrope's recent casts, reliably obliterating team weapons, and providing a lot of firepower against infantry as well.
i never said the jakson is bad. The reason i brought up the stug is because the jackson having a 5% chance to bounce is unexptable yet the stug wich is also a good td bounces a lot more then the jackson.
The jackons real weakness imo is its lack of ai entirely while it already had lower armour then most td's. The armour nerf didnt chance a thing apperantly so why do it?
The Jackson is significantly faster than the Stug, has a turret, has much better penetration (Absurdly so with HVAP), better range, better performance on the move, can repair itself for free, and can capture points (Though this is niche).
All of these reasons combined should give you some indication of why the Stug bouncing shots is understandable, and why the Jackson bouncing shots is not.
The Jackson doesn't have the "weakness" of no AI performance. Most TDs have little to no AI ability, excepting the ISU and Jagdtiger (Both doctrinal superheavies).
The Stug and Firefly's MGs are nice, but they're not really the most impactful things in most cases.
P4 could always pen a jackson from behind. Why wouldn't you flank the Jackson with your superior velocity earn at vet1 and use you superior firing rate to outgun the Jackson the same way you describes it with the T34 vs Elefant?
Because the Jackson has a turret, and moves significantly faster than the Elefant. It also turns twice as quickly as the Elefant.
This all combined means that getting onto the flank/behind an Elefant with a T-34 is a reasonable event to occur, whereas you have very, VERY little reason for a medium tank to get anywhere near the Jackson.
This is also ignoring the fact that you're trying to compare a casemate superheavy doctrinal TD to a nondoctrinal turreted TD in this fashion. This is kind of laughable.
Jackson is what it is because there nothing else to perform on the late game on its side. Be sure that if the balance team had the opportunity to bring the Calliope stock, Jackson would have been nerfed in return.
Talking about pure Jackson's stat and not taking account of the faction as a whole isn't going to make you having any point here.
The Jackson's incredibly strong AT performance doesn't have anything to do with the Calliope. If you're buying a Jackson because you can't get a calliope then I would want to know your thought process, given that the two units don't have any sort of use-case overlap.
I'm also seriously not sure why you're even implying there's anything weak about the Jackson. The Jackson no longer bouncing shots from the P4 has not stopped it being the best nondoctrinal TD in the game.
Scott use what every other faction has access too: survivability, but instead to be in a form of superior armor stats, its range, speed and smoke. Again here let's not forget that the smoke is vet1, the same way as P4 and P5 get blitz at vet1 negating any form of speed USF units could have.
The scott already has fantastic range, speed, survivability, and then on top of this ALSO has smoke. Your scott simply shouldn't be engaged by AT threats if you are using it at all correctly, given that it outranges them and can even move while performing its barrage (Which is, to my knowledge, unique among these units)
You're still trying to compare the statistics/abilities of medium (And premium medium, in the case of the Panther) tanks to what is effectively a small self-propelled artillery piece for some reason. What exactly does the Panther having blitz have to do with the Scott having smoke? How are those two abilities at all related, other than the fact they're both on (Completely unrelated) vehicles at veterancy one?
The p4 has no need nor justification to 100% pen its hard counter on hit at max range. Yet it can now because of reasons.
You would support a t34/stug change to pen the stug 100% at max range? They are simaler in price after all. Also no one bats an eye that the t34 cant.
What does the Stug have to do with it?
The P4 bounces when firing on the Firefly and SU-85 even from close range. This isnt an allies vs axis thing, this is giving the Jackson some type of weakness as it is otherwise the flat-out best (nondoctrinal) TD in the game. It has everything going for it, with the only actual downside now being that if it's caught out it will always be penned by PIVs. It's not even a hugely impactful downside, given that, as geblobt says, you went from an approximate 5% chance to bounce at max range to a 0% chance.
The Jackson is absolutely not an unit you can justify asking to buff, despite the nerfs it has received it is STILL extremely menacing.
This is pretty much a non-issue. As far as I know the BAR vs PGren STG 44 is the only instance where this even applies. And even then the BAR is still better beyond range 23, so it's an even trade at worst, and usually worth it anyway just to deny the weapon to the enemy.
The only inconsistency regarding weapon drops that could be improved upon is how it's quite arbitrary which weapon upgrades can be dropped and which ones can't. STG 44s (as a Volks or Gren weapon upgrade) and G 43s for example could be droppable too.
I still personally don't like weapon dropping as a feature to begin with. I'd say it either should act like Team Weapons, in that weapons are /always/ dropped when a squad is killed (And perhaps when one is picked up it replaces an existing weapon upgrade), or alternatively (and preferably) just have weapons never drop in the first place, which would put all infantry on equal footing. There would then be 0 consideration that needs be made when balancing/creating a weapon for how it would function on squads other than those it's specifically equipped to.
As it stands, and as you say, there's a disparity between various infantry squads and whether or not they have droppable weaponry (and how vulnerable a given squad is to dropping what they're holding), and even whether or not they can pick up drops (and how many), and on top of all this you have no control over weapon drops... It's rather like abandons/MGC in a way (Though generally much less impactful)
How far should droppable arms even go? Should STGs be droppable? G43s? PPSH? Thompsons? MP40? Scoped Garands? RE Grenade Launchers?
Arguably there are quite a few instances of weapon pickups being rather a downgrade. PTRS on most squads, LMGs (in particular the "weaker" ones) on SMG infantry, BARs on Conscripts (I'd argue that 7 man is simply superior there), etcetera.