Profile of rofltehcat

AA performance is pure RNG anyways (x% chance per shot to shoot planes down). There is simply no way to make it reliable on a slow firing weapon, other than increasing the chance to levels where it'll shoot down a plane pretty much always.

However, why not allow the OKW player to buy upgrades for the truck? He could choose between a HP/Armor upgrade, an AP upgrade (worse anti inf, can now 1v1 medium tanks) or an incendiary ammo upgrade (worse anti tank, better anti inf, maybe slightly better anti air).
Though I propose that just for fluff, I don't think the T4 flak building needs real changes. It is in a dangerous spot where it theoretically allows a player to camp the enemy's cutoff if it is just a tiny bit too strong.
Or add a anti air mode in which the emplacement is better against air targets but can't target ground targets (switching takes some time, of course).

They probably just forgot about it. Let's hope it is added just like for all other troop transports.

I would be more interested to understand what process they go through with the testing. Seriously. I don't see how the Kat could have been tested with the current values and someone said - these are good. What are the steps. Who does the testing.

I've seen examples where 2 tanks are shown attacking each other. Is that done with the tested values for the same scenarios? Kat on Inf. Kat on Tanks. Kat on multiple units. Kat on Kat (ummmmmm)

My guess: Someone saw that some of the Katyusha's were not equal to the Stuka's values. Basically whoever did this probably saw the exact same information someone posted in a coh2stats screenshot a page back. Needless to say that those stats are only a very small part of a unit's performance and therefore discussing on them alone is complete nonsense.
If people want to talk stats, then they should look at all of the stats of a unit. The same counts for whoever made the changes to the Katyusha: Changing or discussing values without understanding how they relate to other values does not make any sense and just leads to pointless trench warfare on the forums, basically just heaping lots of resentment on Relic.

My guess at the QA process involved in this process:
1. Katyusha is not very popular, must be UP (which it kind of was).
2. Stuka is complained about on the forums and seems to be popular with axis players, so it must be more effective (which it was).
3. Set some of Katyusha's stats = Panzerwerfer's/Stuka's stats. Only takes 5 minutes, go to lunch break early.
4. Insert Katyusha by console command, shoot it at something. Something seems to die. Effectivity of changes confirmed.
5. Upload patch. Go home early today, enjoy some summer sun.

Ok,I am sure this depiction is completely unfair and the people at Relic are surely doing a lot of work in tight time tables and the Katyusha changes are just a small portion of the entirety of work they are doing. However, for the love of god Relic, react a little bit faster when it is evident you messed up. I know a week is very little time to get something going in a corporate environment but for us short-sighted internet people it feels like an eternity.

The commander and gunner overlapping is obviously intentional. It is possible thanks to the newest developments in Nazi phase shifting technology.

Seriously, though, this sounds like a collection of pretty stupid bugs. At least the scatter shot speed difference should have been detected.

Played on it only a couple of times, vetoed it ever since. Just have to remember to, because the game seems to forget my vetoes all the time.