Profile of Katitof

JP4 is supposed to take out other tanks from a longer range, that is what a tank destroyer is for!

Yes, but not all tanks, its penetration clearly stats which tanks its supposed to engage.

Serious=?

Yes, serious - there is a reason why panther exists for both axis factions, while their T3 TDs have limited penetration.

If panther didn't existed, JP4 would have 220-260 pen like SU-85, but it does and countering heavies is specifically why it exists.

You may not like it, but it doesn't make it any less real.

Four-man squads:
Can't recrew setup weapons or vehicles (because you'll never have a full squad after an engagement)

Bullshit 1, don't even need to explain.

Do get instawiped by all explosions

Bullshit 2, unless they try to play human centipede with weewees inside each other, there isn't weapon outside of arty pieces/offmap that is explosive and can OHK them anymore.
Source: patch notes nerfing everything that could

Can't hold ground long enough for artillery or other indirect fire to hit visible targets

Against what?
At which stage of the game?
With what support?

Have to retreat after losing just two models

Unless you have 251 right next to them.
their models individually are stronger then all allied inf but tommies when it comes to mainline inf.

Lack any serious* defensive stats/bonuses to justify only having four models

*except
-long range grenades encouraging sticking to cover
-ability to build bunkers
-having 80% of DPS centered around singular entity
-having lower rec acc then most mainline inf in game
-being able to self heal
-having weapon profile that allows them to excel at longer ranges
"The list goes on."

Only real questions are why this is being implemented as only one commander rather than for the entire faction and why it costs such an absurd amount of munitions per squad.

Because if you had enough personal skill to be capable of beating anything harder then easy AI with AI turned off via cheat commands mod, you would see the faction for what it is - strongest faction in game together with soviets.

Alright, I'm bored so I'll bite.

I urge you all to have a thoughtful, flame-free discussion of these ideas.

Alright, but don't try to run to safe space when you won't like the answers.

1) Retreat defensive bonuses should be higher. Playing for (and avoiding) retreat wipes discourages single-unit harassment and encourages blobbing for safety in numbers.

If you need to retreat through whole opponents army, it means you made a bad decision and should be punished for it.
Retreat is not free out of jail card, if it was infantry would just teleport to HQ upon activation.

2) Infantry combat when the attacker charges a unit in cover should be much more consistent. RNG is too high a factor here, one should be able to know exactly what will happen 90% of the time when an SMG unit charges a long-range unit in cover (so players can judge whether it's worth it or not). These outcomes are way way too random currently, not in terms of the final result (SMG unit usually wins) but in how much DAMAGE will be taken by the charging unit. This dice roll is incredibly frustrating for both the defender and attacker.

Unless you are using pios to assault CEs, you can tell 90% of the time what the outcome of that maneuver will be. If you can't, its a matter of lack of experience.

3) Consider some very manpower heavy late game call-ins as was the case in early COH2 and COH1. While the call-in game was much derided, if properly done it could add some strategic spice to the game, with clear trade-offs between more late game field presence and getting the call-in unit. At current manpower income, say, 1100-1200 manpower minimum. Also, call-ins can reward skilled play by helping the clearly winning player close out a game faster, instead of allowing it to drag on and on and reward him with something to use his manpower on.

a) there were call-ins like that, they did not worked, because you never have a lot of mp in late game if you play properly, unless its one sided stomp
b) if you're talking about non fuel costing armored units, that's not coming back, it was lame, gave another free out of jail card and rewarded you for losing territory.
c) trying to sim city into a super unit isn't a good gameplay and most certainly not coh suitable

4) Stop giving every faction a damn mobile suppression unit. The fact that 3 factions (4 if you count the British Centaur) have them and they're near copies of one another is evidence of uncreative and boring faction design. Hey, remember the nebel? Artillery units that suppress an area for some factions is a good solution.

Centaur doesn't suppress.
Also, which units you talk about?
Because each AA halftruck works very differently and plays differently.
Its also WW2 game.
Its set in WW2 setting.
It means it is going to use units that existed in WW2, not some black samurais or female cyborgs.

5) MGs should suppress everything in their cone of fire from the time the first bullets hit. Switching targets should substantially decrease time-to-pin and then damage to the targeted pinned unit, but mgs should not have to constantly be microed to simply suppress units in the cone of fire. Enough with blobs walking up to mgs and simply targeting the gunner #makesuppressiongreatagain!

"there should exist super overpowered unit that would hardcounter all infantry, regardless of the investment on opposing side"

Even King Tiger will go down if there will be enough conscripts with AT nades.
You either employ hardcounter to a unit, or throw more units at it, so it can't counter them alone.
Its called balance.

6) But game design should be sophisticated enough that not every faction needs to have its own damn MG. Again, find other creative ways to cause suppression (ie., bar suppression! RE suppression that works!)

"but not everyone should have it, because... balance?"

7) Some supply yard type upgrades for all factions that allow for a strategic choice between greater manpower/fuel/ammo income over the course of a game. This type of choice, if substantial enough, could make for some new creative gameplay.

Agreed on the need to have upgrades.
Disagreed on them being economical in any way - control the map for economy.

8) More aiming off-map abilities (ie., the old COH1 strafe). But artillery pieces should target areas and no one should have to draw a line for a barrage from an artillery unit (the OKW stuka is just too stupid, inconsistent and easily dodged.)

"more precision, but less precision please!"

Literally half of the planes work like that.
The other half can't, because that's not how loitering works.

9) Map buildings should all generally be wood with rare, super durable stone buildings, and let's not make any more "GG buildings" on cut-offs ok guys? It's just not fun. Alright, you can give the 4v4 players some urban maps and they can have fun shooting MGs at each other.

Its a game set in WW2 settings.
It plays across russian and western european territories.
Russians built stuff from wood.
French built stuff from bricks.
Mortars and flames are a thing for a reason.

10) Following that, garrisons made of wood should have substantially less damage reduction. It should never take 5 mins for three units to dislodge one unit.

Unless you refuse to use actual counter, it never takes longer then 15-30 seconds, because squad inside is DEAD by that time.

11) More creative abilities like the puma's aimed shot. This is one of my favorite abilities because it's creative, looks cool, and isn't a simple snare. How about some "dummy" abilities, such as making a unit look like it's somewhere it's not?

Its WW2 setting, there are panzers and T34s here, not GDI Mirage tanks.

12) It might be nice if there were no more than five useful, well-thought out and always available commander choices. Five is about the number all these stupid DLC commanders have boiled down to anyway in practice. Just make five good ones from the get-go.

It would not be nice, because it would lead to stale meta and lack of variety as well as impossibility to introduce new units to the game.

So unless your point is WFA style commanders > EFA style commanders, you're wrong.

13) We need a capping system that's a compromise between the COH1 capping (with one unit combat ineffective while capping) and the blob-capping that is the current system. Capping should be another tactical choice, like in COH1, not something you just automatically do once you win control of an area. Capping circles should be much, much smaller. Units should be able to be pushed off caps by vehicles.

Why?

14) I'd like to see base rushes be a thing again. Tactically attacking an opponent's base to achieve some goal (kill a production structure, or take out some high value unit) should be less risky than it is. We should all have a think about this and throw out some ideas (ie., really cheap transport vehicles, stuff like quick mines (bring back the M8 mine to stop the puma rush!) or map design.)

Its not red alert.
And you can commit to base rushes.
Just don't expect your units to come back.
In fact, there are a LOT of games, where attack on base sector is viable, people simply prefer to play it safe and comebacks are supposed to exist, that's staple of relic rts.

More likely that the meta will stick with one or the other, and leave the other.

Sturmpioneers perfectly makes sense in a doctrine that DOES NOT upgrade the AI capabilities of non doc infantry.

1 of each will be strong.
Storms for CQC, PGs to help pios with repairs and do I really need to remind benefits of 5 man shreck squad?