.... did you not read the post?... it was explained pretty clearly. Or are you still fantasizing over your perception of closer to realism = quality game that not only do you choose not make gameplay related arguments, but also close yourself off from hearing gameplay related arguments too?
Oh, yeah, but there were also concerns in other posts. I remember quite a long time ago all rocket arty shot in the air and dropped down somewhere. It was just as nasty bc in urban warfare you could bombard entire city blocks without fear of hitting a house that is in between them. And hearing the sound of rockets going straight up the air and raining down anywhere with massive damage isnt fun at all: e.g. 210 nebler. You arent save anywhere and one missile deals massive damage to pretty much everything.
If i imagine now two very mobile hotchkiss shooting 8 missiles that can come down anywhere dealing massive damage is even worse as a single clumsy 210 nebler that fired just 5 missiles that came down anywhere. So i dont see how your solution is better. It just takes away the need to properly position your hotchkiss so that you can hit the area you want. Its now just "parking" behind a TD and a building and shoot 360 degree in all directions without worries.
It would limit its capability to quickly repel enemie attacks. But once you see which direction the first missile is flying, you can try to avoid the others. Shooting vertically means you have to guess where they land and once they do so they strike more or less all at once since all are in the air by the time the first missile lands.
So its a trade, not a solution. It would make offensive area and spawn bombing a lot easier and a no brainer for urban areas.
This will fix the key problem that was highlighted: there is no time to react when you know it's coming. The point of it shooting straight up is that from the point where you know it's coming (the sounds of it firing) to when the rockets land, players need time to react and reposition rather than have an instant fire and impact.
which helps only when you know that he is trying ruin your attack. But when fired and the target area is unkown, it will be just like the 210 nebler, just that hotchkiss is a lot more mobile and perhaps acting as pair. And as mentioned above, the hotchkiss would gain on the one hand what he loses at the other. He can keep staying in cover while giving you no chance to cover your units behind stuff like buildings. So it makes using hotchkiss even easier at least during your own offense. No need for proper posititiong.
So you are comparing assault grenadiers with sotrmtroopers and combat engineers.... you know the assualt pios in PE still exist right? And you know what they're called? ASSAULT pioneers. And about the LMG...
Not quite. Each is different afterall. Assault grens would be a mix of Stormtrooper but less specialized in doing that (lack of ambush and crawl and assault ability etc.) but still more combat orientated than combat engis and sappers.
Stomtroopers clear the path for its tanks with explosives, house spawn, crawl or engage actively in in tank battles with schrecks which can also be used to shell emplacments.
Combat engis and sappers use in close proximity to tanks but are squishy. They are clearing units and more durable repair units.
In armor doc they get support from many different and cheap tank and vehicle types. In RE its the same and are able to reinforce near certain tanks.
In PE Tank doc the idea was that the inf attached to tanks has to fight with less but powerfull multirole tanks. But that also means that they stay more often on their own and are less embedded between various tanks that provide cover. Thats why i think they should be able to fill a role similiar as combat engis but more durable and versatile in real combat.
I would make the assault pios more usefull in SE doc. There they can already be upgraded with flame packages. I would add a vet system there with slight combat buffs for them.
The reason why i would improve storm pios in SE doc is simply bc they have more use there and are some sort of core element. They construct the mortar bunker and other important buildings and the roadblocks. So you could use one and the same unit type for construction, repair and attack to some degree and thus improve overall fun playing with SE with easier swaps between constructing and limited attacks. Otherwise you need assault grens for proper attacks and stormpios for construction which is MP intense. The Stormpios would attack on limited scale and backed by the buildings they construct and TD´s.
Meanwhile Keeping the elite heavy assault grens combined with flame nades makes the SE doc quite an elite inf doc as well capable of handling even comandos (thats not even a joke. I did it when PE inf wasnt as strong as now and more expensive).
So as of right now, SE can be played as fully fledged Arty doc, powerfull anti tank doc or strong elite infantry doctrine but barely everything at once.
And so sonce SE has overall a good utility with one of the best arty and TD´s i would say that having a bit buffed stormpios would put SE right in the middle in terms of infantry power and would increase its flexibility as it could use one inf type for more. It enables the player to combine infantry and construction a bit better without being to powerfull as pure inf doc.
It's true that riflemen have BAR's, volks have lmg34s, brits have brens... But panzer supp have extremely mobile scout cars that are equipped with MGs that can absorb 2 shots from an AT gun that could potentially only cost 5 fuel. Panzer supp also has a 20mm car that has the ability to suppress which is significantly better than the LMG versions of suppression WITH the ability to call in a extremely short interval heavy mortar barrage. Is it really necessary to give a combined arms focused doctrine themed around vehicles a variety of infantry? Are assault pioneers and waffen SS with vehicle buffs that essentially make the pgrens unique as units themselves not enough variety? Are we just looking for variety for the sake of variety? Doesn't the more easily available g43s with their slow/suppress ability plus the buffs gained from vehicle passives essentially replicate the function of LMGs? What does the LMG do that panzer support cannot do now?
Exactly what I mean by are LMGs really necessary?
Yes. Vehicles and infantry with lmg is not the same. I mean every faction as long range anti inf vehicles with automatic guns and canons. And we do not remove and lmg there.
LMG´s are a vital part of all infantry gameplay. Vehicles have to retreat immediately once a gun or so shows up. Inf can still be put in cover or trenches and resist for quite some time even against HMG fire. Vehicles can not replace lmgs.
I cannot begin to fathom the irony of all these suggestions...
Your first suggestions on how to change the assault grens from a unit performance perspective makes them basically durable versions of assault pioneers with the ability to fire a panzerfaust...
Your second suggestion of "assault grenadier support squad" is basically the pgrens but just generally stronger, which I questioned above... is it really needed from a capability standpoint?
I think we already considered removing assault grens from luft during the luft rework, but we worried about how butt hurt players will be because we keep "taking things away from luft" which already is overloaded with so many capabilities compared to other doctrines.
Well, removing stuff like hetzer was something everyone (basically all PE) went for.
And to be sure: I wouldnt want the assault grens to be removed from any PE doc but since it seems that you would want to remove them somewhere i just pointed out why its the worst idea to remove them from new Tank doc where they could have played a core role (unlike in SE and luft doc where other unit types are vital).
The idea with different squad types and panzerfaust was just a suggestion of possibilites. But in any case i would say that Assault grens would have its best time in that new tank support doc if they would be tuned a bit more towards working together with the tanks.
And As pointed out, Luft is doing very well with its inf already. And in SE, as pointed out as well, would have a greater benefit when it focuses more on stormpios since this unit would be ideal for that doc.
Why is it okay that SE doesn't need assault grenadiers but panzer support does when you can essentially do the same thing with panzer support except basically have moving trenches since vehicles give plenty of buffs. The reason why SE has assault grenadiers is the exact reason you asked for assault grens in the tank support doctrine except MINUS all the mobility advantages and combined arms buffs. So of course a more durable, capable, version of infantry are needed in SE because they just don't have the same luxury of getting the same support from vehicles. They only get artillery as an advantage to pair with their inf, which you've mentioned, is expensive and doesn't really handle well against anti-infantry dedicated tanks that might be overwatching a defensive position that would otherwise can't be cleared out by the less durable/capable panzer grenadiers.
Artillery is a big advantage. And as i said, i think SE would be better of if it would be able to upgrade more G43s´s (even scoped versions) on their basic grens and lmgs while having an upgrade that buffs the stormpios there with vet and improved combat (and perhaps construction) capbilties.
I think a number of combat buffed stormpios that can quickly construct support buildings are better off during offense as a limited number of assault grens that dont have proper support by buildings and other means.