cons cant uprade mobilize reserves after ptrs upgrade

Camo, mines, devastating at nade barrage and PTRS' fantastic upgrade

You actually get the mines on cons without the upgrade. Comes for the Commander. Vehicle detection on the minimap also comes with the upgrade

Which is countered by sending infantry ahead, recon planes, flares and common sense

You also still have hoorah so you can set up the snare that way too. And ambushes are very possible, especially since you can see the vehicles on the minimap beyond normal LoS

Vehicles push forward all the time, it's part of risk-reward of trying to finish off kills/wipes

The commander’s theme is “tank ambush”. This is achieved by deception and heavy damaging abilities that rely on such deception.

More specifically, you have PTRS conscripts which have camouflage and can saturate areas with ultra cheap 10muni stun mines. Tanks and tank destroyers also get camouflage to position themselves to strike at enemy vehicles, either by ramming (76) or shooting (su85). The damaging abilities are the conscript grenade assault, T34s coming out of camouflage to flank and the carpet bombing ability.
Here we come to the ML20 or your B4 proposal. You cannot know exactly where an enemy tank would hit a mine allowing you to pounce, hence you’d have to reposition the B4 to actually get it to fire, which is a 15seconds minimum process from starting to use the B4 to actually landing a hit. Most engagements are over way before that. Thus the ML20/B4 does not fit the core of the commander’s concept since it takes too long to deliver a hit. Now, if the B4 had a wider firing arc you could use it defensively with the direct hit ability, but as it stands you”d have to reposition it to get it to fire, which would take too much time and your opponent knowing you have a B4 would avoid close proximity, making it harder for you to utilize the ambush part of the commander since he’ll be very cautious about getting close to the B4.

Now contrast this to the T34/85, a tank that can beat a Panzer IV J 1v1 and can brawl with a Panther with favourable RNG. Such a tank would benefit immensely from being able to ambush enemy armour that’s been stunned or grenade assaulted. It would provide a huge late game lift to this commander by replacing the T34/76 as the main power unit in your late game composition, while fitting both commander themes perfectly, being able to ram, camouflage and flank. The commander’s theme is “tank ambush”. This is achieved by deception and heavy damaging abilities that rely on such deception.

I agree that the ML20 doesn't fit from a gameplay perspective so no argument there. The B4 however does in my opinion. Who said you need mines to hit/kill tanks with the B4? B4 tank killing is all about anticipation. Most people use their tanks static in combat and this goes double for casemate tanks so hitting is not a hard as people think. This only becomes easier as game goes on and it acquires vet. People also tend to be predictable where they repair their tanks since its usually in the same place, especially for OKW mechanized building. So again I don't agree with the notion that it doesn't fit since it can provide the doctrine with some much needed lategame firepower to counter axis super heavies. But if it is deemed too weird to be in this commander I would ultimately understand.

I still think that the M4C would fit better then the T34-85 if you absolutely need a premium medium. It can buff nearby tanks with radio net, a bonus that should not be under estimated and it has more at power then the 85 due to the HVAP rounds. It would also be able to camouflage like the other tanks of course.

Besides putting the 85 in another commander would be too way much, if you really need ram you can always get a 76. This game stay interesting due to the different strategies and tactics a person can use. Giving too much of the same tools to commanders breaks the most interesting part of game.

Artillery pieces with HE have little place in a "AT" themed commander regardless of Soviets WWII practice. Both ML-20 and B-4 can be used vs soft targets and should not be available in the commander.

What is a shame is that Ambush has a rotation penalty to SU-76 and SU-85 and makes the ability unsuited for 2 AT Vehicles.

Other than the current meta is about super heavies and all commander that do not provide super heavies are simply not used.

The purpose of the arty is to give the enemy a reason to push into your ambush. It originally was going to be the b4 but it was such trash at the time it was changed. I think it could be reverted back to the b4 now though

And the ambush is a fun ability. The commander is a fun commander. Even if it's not a top tier commander

The purpose of the arty is to give the enemy a reason to push into your ambush. It originally was going to be the b4 but it was such trash at the time it was changed. I think it could be reverted back to the b4 now though

And the ambush is a fun ability. The commander is a fun commander. Even if it's not a top tier commander

The idea of "tank hunter" commander is to give better tools to deal with armor and providing a tools that is good vs AI is a step in the wrong direction imo. The idea of artillery is flawed even if it was originally intended by MOD team.

Actually I like the original "scavenger" ability more.

The idea of "tank hunter" commander is to give better tools to deal with armor and providing a tools that is good vs AI is a step in the wrong direction imo. The idea of artillery is flawed even if it was originally intended by MOD team.

Have you used the B4 recently? It deletes mediums in one shot and heavy become repair trap for the next shot.

Have you used the B4 recently? It deletes mediums in one shot and heavy become repair trap for the next shot.

I used it today.

Regardless of its AT capabilities it also has AI capabilities and unless that changes it is not suited for the commander imo.

I used it today.

Regardless of its AT capabilities it also has AI capabilities and unless that changes it is not suited for the commander imo.

This is a non argument. Many commanders have 1 or sometimes even 2 abilities or units that fall outside of it's theme. The B4 does fit theme regardless.

This is a non argument. Many commanders have 1 or sometimes even 2 abilities or units that fall outside of it's theme. The B4 does fit theme regardless.

And the point of revamping them is to make abilities available that better fit the theme.

In addition the commander has little reason to have an artillery because it its bombing run can delete enemy howitzers.

Giving an advantage in static play via ambush and the ability to strike at your opponent from far is something that should be be avoided.

And the point of revamping them is to make abilities available that better fit the theme.

In addition the commander has little reason to have an artillery because it its bombing run can delete enemy howitzers.

And as was already established, howitzers fit this doctrine from a thematic and gameplay perspective.

Whatever artillery the enemy might decide to get has no bearing on the doctrine we are discussing right now, especially the at nade airstrikes (which is in a fine place by the way).

And as was already established, howitzers fit this doctrine from a thematic and gameplay perspective.

???

I upgrade G43s to storms and they then throw away the mp40s like wtf relic they have 2 healthy hands and 2 weapons each do the math and introduce dual wielding!

???

Thematic:
Soviet doctrine used artillery to destroy tanks in both a direct and indirect manner with both individual guns and large sized batteries and had amour piercing shells for the job.

Gameplay:
In game the thematic aspect will not translate well to the ML20 but it will to the B4 that can kill mediums in 1 shot and make heavies think twice about punching.
This commander lacks serious punch late game so a dual perpouse super heavy artillery piece would round out this commander nicely.

Gameplay:
In game the thematic aspect will not translate well to the ML20 but it will to the B4 that can kill mediums in 1 shot and make heavies think twice about punching.

What the hell does the B4 killing mediums in 1 shot have to do with ambushing and having quick strike heavy damage abilities/tactics that rely on said ambush? Lik I said earlier, the B4 takes forever to traverse which makes it non-viable for this doctrine because it would take forever to use unless the ambush is right in front of it, in which case might as well get rid of ambush abilities and get recon ones to spot for the direct shot ability, then rename the doctrine to counterattack tactics.

B4 doesn’t fit the theme. Stop recycling arguments.

What the hell does the B4 killing mediums in 1 shot have to do with ambushing and having quick strike heavy damage abilities/tactics that rely on said ambush? Lik I said earlier, the B4 takes forever to traverse which makes it non-viable for this doctrine because it would take forever to use unless the ambush is right in front of it, in which case might as well get rid of ambush abilities and get recon ones to spot for the direct shot ability, then rename the doctrine to counterattack tactics.

B4 doesn’t fit the theme. Stop recycling arguments.

You need to stop recycling counter bad arguments.
The doctrine is called Tank Hunter not Tank Ambusher.
It doesn't matter that the B4 takes time to traverse because predicting where a enemy will be is a big part of hunting. People tend to repair their tanks at the same places and push the same avenues of attacks with their tanks so it's perfectly possible to aticipate and kill a unit at long range with a B4, ''hunting'' if you will. The direct shot of the B4 is for emergencies. The normal shot is perfectly capable of shooting and killing tanks at long range.

The idea of "tank hunter" commander is to give better tools to deal with armor and providing a tools that is good vs AI is a step in the wrong direction imo. The idea of artillery is flawed even if it was originally intended by MOD team.

Actually I like the original "scavenger" ability more.

It does give good options to deal with armour, but also gi es a reason for the enemy to run into those options. Mines, ambush camo, camo for AT cons all requires the enemy to come to you, the arty gives good reason for that. Since the Soviet lack fortifications normally I think it's perfectly fine for them to have a slightly turtley commander. There are often outliers for the core theme of the commanders too, defensive tactics for example has a 120mm mortar hardly defensive. Breakthrough has the Jagdtiger, probably the most defensive unit in the game... Furthermore, while the arty DOES do work on infantry, it can also do damage to armour as well. I think it's very much in theme with the commander

the camoflage makes the SU85 even more immobile...

That's generally how ambush camo works.... What's next? Hull down reduces mobility too much? Kv-2 siege mode shiuld work like blitz? Take a walk buddy.

already someone agreed with the sniper pop reduction, and im sure there are more

the camoflage makes the SU85 even more immobile...

I've tried using the camo on the SU85. IIRC, it affect rotation speed so unless your enemy dives into the normal arc, you won't be able to fire unless you exit camo. Usually by then, the SU85 is flanked and probably lost. It makes the SU85 much more vulnerable.

PTRS cons are much worse than 7-man cons. You can't make more than one or sometimes two without having infantry problems. The exclusivity with mobilize reserves is not a bug, but it should be looked at. A 7-man PTRS squad would still be bad against infantry and bad against anything heavier than a P4 but they would be a lot more surviveable.

A B4 would suck. I'd much rather have something like a "command" T34/85 with mark target and maybe a cooldwon aura. It wouldn't be the equivalent of a command Panther so I would make the limit be two of them instead of the normal one.

What the hell does the B4 killing mediums in 1 shot have to do with ambushing and having quick strike heavy damage abilities/tactics that rely on said ambush? Lik I said earlier, the B4 takes forever to traverse which makes it non-viable for this doctrine because it would take forever to use unless the ambush is right in front of it, in which case might as well get rid of ambush abilities and get recon ones to spot for the direct shot ability, then rename the doctrine to counterattack tactics.

B4 doesn’t fit the theme. Stop recycling arguments.

You're misunderstanding the ambush point. You aren't using the b4/ml20 to carry out the ambush, its the target to lure things through your ambushing units (tank hunter cons, AT guns, AT vehicles). That is the reason relic put the howitzer on the commander

From the patch notes where the Ml20 was added:
"Our initial testing has found that the commander lacks strong measures to draw opponents in to take advantage of the commanders ambush capabilities. In order to resolve this we are adding the ML-20 howitzer to the commander."

Unless your opponent picked a commander that has an off-map to delete howitzers, they're gonna need to send a tank back there to destroy it. Which you then ambush