I somewhat agree with this.
The M-42 is one smol gun, slightly taller than the Raketen but generally retains a skeletal framework that looks to be the very minimum you need for an Anti-Tank field gun so it should be able to be retreated. The counter-balance for this is to lower the squad size to 5 men instead of 6 so the M-42 isn't going to be unkillable. They'll be easier to micro and retreat en-masse but they're more vulnerable if they ARE caught out; encouraging them to be used for aggressive anti-tank and anti-vehicle ambushes instead.

The issue however, begins with the design philosophies of the Soviet T1 and T2 buildings.
One is dedicated and emphasizes mobile offensive units while the other is all about support specialization around defense.

If the M-42 is made this way; it's very difficult to define it's existence in either tier.
It has both an offensive role due to how you can play aggressive with it but it's a defensive support weapon at the same time. Justifying it's placement in either building is pretty difficult, especially when you consider that putting in Rifle Command might overshadow the Support Kampenya. (It also just doesn't fit in.)

I practically always get Rifle Command because the need for good infantry is more important in my opinion than picking up a maxim or support commissar from the get-go.

So I have two proposals in how the M-42 could be handled.

• Squad Size reduced from 6 men to 5 men
  
• Requires either Special Rifle Command or Support Weapon Kampenya
  
• Can now be retreated
  
• Placed next to Conscript Repair Kit
  
• Cost reduced to 220

• Squad Size reduced from 6 men to 4 men; Operated by Partisan Models
  
• Requires either Special Rifle Command or Support Weapon Kampenya
  
• Placed above Partisan Tank Hunters; Partisan Sniper Squad moved below Partisan Rifle Squad
  
• Cost stays at 240 Manpower
  
• Gains passive Anti-Tank Gun Ambush Tactics
  
  
• Support Kampenya M-42 is different; Cannot Retreat but retains current iteration and requires Anti-Tank Gun Ambush Tactics to camouflage

The M-42 was designed with anti-vehicle and anti-armor ambushes in mind, so why it doesn't come with camouflage immediately doesn't make much sense for a unit intended to conduct ambushes.
With this in mind, such a fighting style is very reminiscent of the Partisans and fits VERY well thematically with their gameplay.

The design of T1 and T2 is far from perfect. Most players have a strong preference for one which suites their playstyle best and never use the other. Unlike the US and OKW, where both can be used for more playstyles. I think the biggest issue is their duplicate units: 2 mortars, two snipers, two MG's and two AT's. And also all partisan variants. In each case, one of the units is clearly better. One option is to delay the Zis gun like the HM-38 and DShK (3 CP), however I fear many players won't like that.

I don't think adjusting the unit with retreat will improve the situation enough. But I acknowledge the issue and have no better idea yet..

The Partisan idea is very interesting. Preferably keep the unit in one structure and not in two. I'd even consider to merge the Maxim and PM-41 too (maybe keep 6 men). It would introduce more early game options and less overlap. It is a big change though and will cause confusion.

Thank you both for your input, I need some more time to think about it. But more suggestion are welcome.

Great input!

First, I'd like to note that the specific issue I had in mind when suggesting changes to the M-42: The T1 reliance on lacklustre handheld AT vs mediums.

For it to fill that role it's lack of raw power is OK if it's beefing up (not replacing) handheld AT. To do this effectively I'd argue it has to move (and retreat) with the squads it is to work with. Thus, I believe adding retreat is necessary to making this work.

I really like the idea of this being a Partisan unit, it does align with their theme beautifully. I also agree that adding the passive cloak/ambush just makes it fit even better. But, without retreat, I can't help but ask what hole it is filling? Does it contribute towards a problematic area?

It would offer an AT gun without T2 which is nice. It may seem cheaper but as it can't stand on it's own, it's actually a more expensive as you need 2. Would I actually build one instead of Assault Guards w/ 'zooks to top up my mobile AT? If I'm not able to use it aggressively to push with my infantry perhaps an emplacement which already comes with 2 would be better?

In short, adding retreat fundamentally changes HOW you use the unit. Changing cost/availability doesn't. My premise is that if you want to make the M-42 useful, you need that kind of fundamental change in utility. It's already cheap. That is not enough.

Just my 2¢ as always.

It needs a buff, the cloak thing can really work but retreat option or any stats buff isn't the answer.
OKW already have problems dealing with the cheap and reliable early/mid infantry against soviet on top of the t70, if you add to that mix a cheap antitank weapon that can control your early vehicles like the scout car or the halftrack flamerthrower you are dead on arrival. The thing is that this at gun is designed to keep at bay early enemy vehicles and (if hits side armor) hits panzer 4 hard enough so it must back up.
A cloak mecanic can make that event even more likely if you play smartly around it so it could be a great buff, but change any other thing like, arrival, cost, stats or squad size is gonna to do pretty well against the already weak okw vehicles and costly panzer 4.
And remember this at gun isn't the answer to kill medium tanks, is just a tool to destroy early vehicles and keep the panzer 4 aware of his sides.

Good luck!

I am currently considering to shuffle T1 and T2 a bit to provide a more interesting choice instead of solely infantry vs team weapons. JLX already suggested to move the M-42 to T1, but I'd like to try a bit more. T2 keeps the better defensive team weapons (maxim has a larger cone than the DShK), but is a bit more flexible with Assault Guards. T1 keeps the better infantry, but can be supported by two team weapons which cannot hold the front on their own, unlike T2.

What are your thoughts? Do you like these combinations? and would you play with both? Do you think one of them is clearly better? Is this a step in the right direction to give the M42 a more important role?

Current setup, red border means moved:
https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2359511886

Edit: Changes to the M-42 itself are still being considered. The T1/T2 design is bothering me for a while now and possibly a part of the problem. I think it is easier to fix that first and adjust the M-42 afterwards to the new situation.

I like it!

Makes the the T1/T2 decision less black and white. And removes the reliance on commanders with Shocks/Guards for T2 builds.

Assault Guards are very flexible (AI/AT) which is good if only a single inf unit is available in T2.

The DShK is an even more offensive MG than the Maxim making it a good fit for T1.

As stated, I like the AT boost the M-42 can give to T1. But, personally, I still believe it needs to retreat so it can run with the pack. Otherwise, I'd probably stick with my usual Assault Guards with double 'zooks to boost my AT. However, after the the switch, that won't be an option anymore.

I guess I find that non-retreatable units cramp the mobile assault style I like about T1.

All in all, I like the proposed change and think it does offer more useful variety. I generally play T1 with SOV but this lineup is much more flexible and the decision wouldn't be a foregone conclusion. That's a good thing :-)

Glad to hear that!

I just discovered that the vanilla M-42 has camouflage by default and I tend to do the same in the mod since everyone in this discussion agrees to it. However, combining the current camo ability with retreat introduces the same strong situation which was removed from the Raketenwerfer. The current camo ability on M-42 and Zis reduces movement speed. The Raketenwerfer cannot move while camouflaged.

I can think of a few options:
1. Add camo by default, can still move while active. Don't add retreat.
2. Add camo by default, cannot move while active. Also gets retreat. Cost from 200 to 220?
3. Gets retreat. Cannot move while camo is active. Cost to 220?
(In case of option 2 & 3: The Zis camo ability will also lock movement to be consistent).

Of the options presented, I think the last is the most fitting:

3. Gets retreat. Cannot move while camo is active. Cost to 220.

In moving the M-42 from T2➜T1 we're exchanging the benefit it has for being small from sneaky/ambush to mobile/retreat. I don't think it needs both at the same time. Like the Raketen, if goes sneaky, it shouldn't be able to move.

Hmm... as i said, I never build the M-42 so I thought I'd do a little test. Check it out: DROPBOX HOSTED VIDEO[www.dropbox.com]

That test was a real eye-opener for me.

I thought the M-42 might be comparable to a Raketenwerfer or at least be a bit of a step up from double 'zooks. But, even considering RNGesus, it appears this isn't the case. It seems that this tiny gun leaves a bigger hole than it fills.

From my point of view, this is a problem. My thought was that it would supplement the AT of T1 but now (with the loss of Assault Guards) I fear it may do the opposite.

Thoughts?

The Raketenwerfer has the same damage and penetration as a ZIS. The M-42 has half damage (160 vs 80) and worse pen. (200/190/180 van 140/110/90). The Pak and 6 pdr have 10 pen more. The US M1 has also lower pen (150/140/130). The M1 and M-42 have better reload times.

I hesitate to buff these stats. It is certainly bad, but any change to damage/pen needs a cost increase. Maybe pen to M1 level with a 240 cost. or even damage to 100-120 with 250 cost. As comparison, M1 is 270mp.

I understand the reluctance to buff the damage and essentially create a new unit. That was not the intent of my initial suggestion.

I thought it might be a modest AT bump for T1 which I felt was warranted and also possibly a welcome niche for a seldom used unit.

However, now that I see how poor the unit actually is, I'm not sure that's possible. Perhaps making it a Partisan unit may make it fit better thematically, but I still wouldn't use it. It just seems like a waste of resources.

My concern at his point is actually not the M-42. It's the loss of assault guards (and their double 'zooks) in T1.

I do like your idea of making the tiers a tad more heterogeneous. But if the cost removes already sub-par T1 AT options I fear it may do more harm than good.

But, to keep exploring the idea a bit: If the DShK and AssGrd swap did occur (regardless of what does or does not happen to the M-42) might an option be to allow an upgrade on AT Partisans to get an additional 'schreck? As they are available to both tiers, they might fill the AT gap left if the AssGrd move to T2?

Anyway, just a thought.

What is your opinion about the current Anti Tank Conscrips in T1 with up to 3 PTRS rifles and the AT Satchel?

I did some more tests (including with tweaked values) and it already seems pretty good for its cost at close range. With tweaked pen for mid and far range to 130 and 120 seems enough to make it more reliable. Its low reload compensates the low damage.

It still cannot solo engage tanks, but I hope it makes a good combo with the AT Conscripts or in pairs. That needs more tests.
I don't intent to move Assault Guards without adding/changing anything good in return.

AT-Cons are perhaps my favourite SOV unit! A "must have" in my build. I'd actually go so far as to say it's perhaps the best designed SOV unit as it addresses the exact AT challenge that T1 had and lets Penals fill the anti-infantry/anti-garrison role they were "supposed" to.

AT-Cons and Penals (as you've designed them - not vanilla) are largely what make SOV infantry play so fun for me. They're like chocolate & peanut butter ;-)

The reason I talk about a (slight) bump to T1 AT is not due to lacklustre AT-Cons. It's just that when mediums hit the field, the time it takes for the deflection damage of 3 PTRS to be a deterrent takes a while.

This is where AT-satchels come in of course which can scare even heavies. But, because they are difficult to connect with (as they should be) I look to supplement the PTRS with a bit of burst damage (Bazookas/Panzerschrecks) vs medium+.

That's where Assault Guards come in really handy. It's an option to do exactly that! Sometimes, I prefer to run with a pair of AT-Cons anyway. Depends on what I'm facing but the option is great.

Ah, I see we must have been typing at the same time...

If the M-42 can offer an alternative middle-ground vs mediums that I described, I think what's on the table might work very well. But without a stat/cost bump & retreat to the M-42 (which I understand comes with balance risks) I don't think in it's current state, the M-42 is up to filling that role.

Slightly tweaked pen may just be enough to do what we're discussing. Maybe that will do the trick! :-)

Thanks for the detailed explanation! I am starting to understand the issue about lacking a good damage dealer to get the kill.

I calculated the average dps of a few units against a target size of 20 (Panzer IV):
M-42: 26,1
ZIS: 32,1
Bazooka: 14,1 (2x = 28,2)
PTRS: 7,75 (3x = 23,25)

This looks very good actually. The only stat left out of this is penetration. The Bazooka has the same pen as the M1 at gun and the proposed pen for the M-42 is only 10 less.

I will also run tests with Guards and the tweaked M-42 to compare their performance ingame. Calculations are sometimes deceiving :)