Coordinated fire is "ok". Mark target is far superior and in better doctrines to boot.
I'd rather both mark target and coordinated fire be replaced with the better designed usf version that reduces rng instead of increasing the value of a good roll.
Posts: 5279
Coordinated fire is "ok". Mark target is far superior and in better doctrines to boot.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Coordinated fire is "ok". Mark target is far superior and in better doctrines to boot.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Which Brit commander has a flare that costs the se as a recon plane with none of the drawbacks that allow you to see any specific thing you want upto and including the enemy base if you so please?
Posts: 5279
Which OKW commander has a bullshit 5CP "I win" unit that can be paired with a Puma and wreck even a Panzer IV?
Which OKW commander has a garbage cheap 2min artillery overwatch that shuts down any offensive across the entire map?
Maybe nerf the most cancerous 1v1 doctrine before complaining about flares?
Posts: 320
why dies goliath cost 5 cp here?
It normally 0 cp
Posts: 5279
Because of my super duper mspaint skills ;-D
Edit: Coordinationed Fire and HEAT is OP, but elite infantry with abilities is not?
Edit2: Well, if the commander would be changed into that what i suggested, i would not mind losing an ability like coordinationed fire or gaining another one as exchange.
Posts: 2358
For me the commander could be reworked in general.
This would fit more thematically in my opinion.
Than you also do not need a Cmd Panther buff
Posts: 731
Posts: 187
I call all variations mark vehicle. Mark target is the USF one and anecdotally the worst one (harder to use and if ability guide is correct it doesn't modify dmg).
Mark vehicle is the SU version and the superior.
What i'm saying is that you won't get a damage modifier ability on top of another damage modifier ability on the same commander.
Posts: 810
10 | |||||
205 | |||||
38 | |||||
24 | |||||
1 |