I didn't bring up partisans as an argument that they are good AT counterparts compared to Pgrens, I was merely listing the doctrines that have Mark Target available and that Partisans also benefit from that ability.
If they are cost balanced as you say, then there is nothing inferior about them.
There are a lot of RNG factors that those raw DPS numbers do not account for, meaning they are not a 100% representation of all that happens in this game.
I don't see anything subjective about this. You say that Germans have better DPS, I say that Soviets have better burst with Mark Target - both are true statements. I also said that Soviets can one shot a tank pretty easily using that burst, something that Germans have a much harder time doing - this is also true.
If you don't like to use Market Target, that's your preference. It does not mean that other players do not use it. Just because you happen to not take advantage doesn't mean it isn't part of the Soviet's arsenal.
DPS, of course, does matter. However, as I said before, the damage in-game is not calculated on a simple DPS basis like in Starcraft - there are misses, bounces, etc. Sometimes, you may get unlucky and have your Pak miss 3 shots in a row; when this happens, your DPS during that period is 0. Hence, DPS sheets can only be used as a reference, not an accurate reflection of every battle in-game ala Starcraft.
I'm not sure what you seem to be getting at here, so feel free to clarify in your next post. I'd also like for you to refrain from accusing me of subjectiveness when you yourself base part of your arguments on the fact that you only use Shocks. You also seem to say that German AT is better due to superiority despite admitting that units are cost balanced (ie, not superior or inferior when equal cost is spent). If that is not subjectiveness, I don't know what is.
I dont think you can be accused of subjectiveness or objectivness. Its based on a given action. You either are or arent be objective.
By definition basing something on numbers or other verifiable facts is being objective. Basing things of feelings or observations is subjective. Its not an insult because bothw are used to draw conclusions. Objectivity is just superior in most cases due to its ease to peer review.
You have a valid point on burst dps but it would actually be hurt more by RNG. As a miss on the burst hit is a huge loss rather than a single hit in a series of hits as sustained dps.
The dps numbers i reference do calculate accuracy however so it is an average.
My comment on ai is in response to your opinion on AT. Since it is regarded that soviets generally have superior AI and Germans have better AT.
A kind of Devils advocate if you will. Youll have to forgive my lack of grammer as i am on a mobile device so it makes it challenging to put certain emphasis on things.
On cost balance. Zis is cost balanced against a Pak but it is still inferior at AT. Its balanced by entity count and the barrage gimmick.
So having something cost balanced doesnt make it better or equal to another unit at a given function. Also if you really want to get into the weeds you can look at veterancy bonuses as well but that could fill several threads.
EDIT saying on prefer shocks doeant mean i havent tried yo like Guards. I have probably used Guards in my first hundred or so games before; after trying like hell to find how irreplacable they are; i just learned how i could accomplish most of what they bring ro the table with other units cheaper and more effciently.
I am aware Mark target is a part of the soviet aresenal. But basing the entire Soviet AT on this would be like basing German anti infantry on the availability of G43s.