cons cant uprade mobilize reserves after ptrs upgrade

Fantastic compared to what exactly?

Compared any AT package.... Not that it has to be compared to something.

Any AT package? I'm pretty sure against tanks a single schreck does equal or better. Try attacking Tiger with two PTRS squads and see how "fantastically" they perform at their job while having AI equal to combat engie with minesweeper

Any AT package? I'm pretty sure against tanks a single schreck does equal or better. Try attacking Tiger with two PTRS squads and see how "fantastically" they perform at their job while having AI equal to combat engie with minesweeper

Grenade assault.

Grenade assault.

Works great against AFK players and AI only

Works great against AFK players and AI only

You say that, because you don't use ambush camo.

Works great against AFK players and AI only

Try using in an ambush with the camo that comes from the upgrade for free...

Any AT package? I'm pretty sure against tanks a single schreck does equal or better. Try attacking Tiger with two PTRS squads and see how "fantastically" they perform at their job while having AI equal to combat engie with minesweeper

its one of the worst commanders practically. They tried to make sure that it's not strong in any way.
Conscripts need the +1 man ability, otherwise they are total trash. But for some reason some poeple here think it makes them "OP"

You say that, because you don't use ambush camo.

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

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

flares ?

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

So... you're saying players on the tournament didn't had common sense?
Because vehicles pretty often chased squads for wipes without any infantry, flares or recon planes ahead.
They didn't go balls deep all the time, but they did overextend often, backing only when infantry was in sight.

The entire commander is made useless by rushing the T70 and getting it as AT. I gave this commander a try and you absolutely have to get all your vet Cons the 7man upgrade, meaning you have to build a brand new cons squad for the upgrade and it’s just so much MP and munitions, alongside the light mines you absolutely need to get a grenade assault off.

I’d change two things with this commander:
1) No more PTRS upgrade. Tank hunter conscripts a 5 man squad with 2 ptrs rifles buildable from HQ building for 200mp.
2) Replace the useless ML20 with T34/85s.

The entire commander is made useless by rushing the T70 and getting it as AT. I gave this commander a try and you absolutely have to get all your vet Cons the 7man upgrade, meaning you have to build a brand new cons squad for the upgrade and it’s just so much MP and munitions, alongside the light mines you absolutely need to get a grenade assault off.

I’d change two things with this commander:
1) No more PTRS upgrade. Tank hunter conscripts a 5 man squad with 2 ptrs rifles buildable from HQ building for 200mp.
2) Replace the useless ML20 with T34/85s.

Yes the ptrs upgrade makes the unit an ammo sucker. Guards rifle also dont need upgrade they already have ptrs. The ability atm is more of a disability. Using the ability means sucking ur ammo empty.
but 6 man is ok with mobile reserves option to get 7.
And 3 ptrs rifles.
I also agree with removing the useless Artillery. It has nothing to do wiht the doctrine.

Yes the ptrs upgrade makes the unit an ammo sucker. Guards rifle also dont need upgrade they already have ptrs. The ability atm is more of a disability. Using the ability means sucking ur ammo empty.
but 6 man is ok with mobile reserves option to get 7.
And 3 ptrs rifles.
I also agree with removing the useless Artillery. It has nothing to do wiht the doctrine.

While i agree that PTRS cons are bad now saying that artillery has nothing to with Soviet anti tank is wrong.

All Soviet gun where always supplied with both HE and AT shells as doctrine prescribed at the time. They would even fire en masse at large tank formations. This is doctrine of having all gun with HE and AT is reflected in the game by the ZIS3 gun as well.

Perhaps replacing the ML20 with the B4 might work. The b4 when used right can be a potent heavy tank killer (and anything smaller). This would allow it to stay a artillery unit ability while still staying within theme.

While i agree that PTRS cons are bad now saying that artillery has nothing to with Soviet anti tank is wrong.

All Soviet gun where always supplied with both HE and AT shells as doctrine prescribed at the time. They would even fire en masse at large tank formations. This is doctrine of having all gun with HE and AT is reflected in the game by the ZIS3 gun as well.

Perhaps replacing the ML20 with the B4 might work. The b4 when used right can be a potent heavy tank (and anything smaller) killer. This would allow it to stay a artillery unit ability while still staying within theme.

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.

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.

You say that but many commanders have 1 or 2 abilities that fall outside of commander theme so this is not a good argument. Besides the shear panic that the B4 induces as you slowly zero in shots in on enemy heavy tanks would make it an absolute candidate for tank hunter.

The B4 has nothing to do with hunting tanks. Only units that could fit the theme are T34/85s and ISU-152s.

The B4 has nothing to do with hunting tanks. Only units that could fit the theme are T34/85s and ISU-152s.

WW2 Soviet howitzer docterine disagrees. Also T34-85 is a medium tank. that wouldn't fit then either because they where not deticated tank hunters.

WW2 Soviet howitzer docterine disagrees. Also T34-85 is a medium tank. that wouldn't fit then either because they where not deticated tank hunters.

Don’t give me history arguments. Molotovs can’t damage tanks and snipers can’t land criticals on machine guns. This isn’t a simulation.

The T34/85 was an upgunned T34/76 to better deal with Panther and Tigers since the F34 gun was deemed inneffective. They would absolutely fit the tank hunter doctrine and would perfectly synergize thanks to their very good main gun, mobility and ability to ram. They would also give a much needed late game boost to a commander that struggles in the late game.

Don’t give me history arguments. Molotovs can’t damage tanks and snipers can’t land criticals on machine guns. This isn’t a simulation.

The T34/85 was an upgunned T34/76 to better deal with Panther and Tigers since the F34 gun was deemed inneffective. They would absolutely fit the tank hunter doctrine and would perfectly synergize thanks to their very good main gun, mobility and ability to ram. They would also give a much needed late game boost to a commander that struggles in the late game.

I never said it was a simulation. The game however clearly tries to be a abstract representation of a ww2 battlefield so some degree of historical argument is valid. Otherwise why not give every German a STG and give the Americans lasers since historicity doesn't matter?

You are correct that t34-76 where upgunned to 85mm to better deal with Panthers and Tigers. "dealing with in'' this case is more trading shots then active hunting as the commander name would imply. The ISU152 that you proposed would fit better in this regard (still debatable though). As far as gameplay is concerned I you must have a medium tank in this doctrine then the m4c with it's HVAP rounds that can more reliably pen panthers and buff nearby tanks rate of fire would fit and synergize much better then the already over saturated t34-85. The overhanging discussion here is how do we define a commanders theme and how strictly should it be followed.

I never said it was a simulation. The game however clearly tries to be a abstract representation of a ww2 battlefield so some degree of historical argument is valid. Otherwise why not give every German a STG and give the Americans lasers since historicity doesn't matter?

You are correct that t34-76 where upgunned to 85mm to better deal with Panthers and Tigers. "dealing with in'' this case is more trading shots then active hunting as the commander name would imply. The ISU152 that you proposed would fit better in this regard (still debatable though). As far as gameplay is concerned I you must have a medium tank in this doctrine then the m4c with it's HVAP rounds that can more reliably pen panthers and buff nearby tanks rate of fire would fit and synergize much better then the already over saturated t34-85. The overhanging discussion here is how do we define a commanders theme and how strictly should it be followed.

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.