Login

russian armor

Easy change to commander to make it decent

3 May 2020, 13:02 PM
#21
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1096



Orangepest uses it in a niche situation. Ask him about it.


They could change panthers to 330 fuel and 50 popcap and I'm sure high level players could still make the unit work in rare situations.

Because one person can make use of it does not validate the unit or ability as a whole though.

3 May 2020, 13:22 PM
#22
avatar of OrangePest

Posts: 570 | Subs: 1

Noobs l2p, leave my advanced warfare strafe alone.
3 May 2020, 13:32 PM
#23
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

What orange said.
3 May 2020, 13:37 PM
#24
avatar of KONIUX27

Posts: 148


USF:
Recon Support: Remove paratroopers from combat group, just drop the pack howie for 100mp 60 muni.


pls no
3 May 2020, 13:43 PM
#25
avatar of KONIUX27

Posts: 148

id rather leave only paras, cuz you pay now 20mp and 80munnies for pack howie, worth it
and these paras are diff from airborne ones so it would be viable
cuz you get 700mp for 455mp and 80munnies now :(
3 May 2020, 20:08 PM
#26
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Noobs l2p, leave my advanced warfare strafe alone.


I would love if Relic after 5-6 years finally fixed the targeting system to be aligned to what you ACTUALLY are aiming for.

It's the same with USF strafe run. The damage can be obscene but it doesn't track so it's more like a bullet based bombing run.
3 May 2020, 20:44 PM
#27
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954

jump backJump back to quoted post2 May 2020, 17:26 PMFarlon

Can we just have the B4 back in it?


It never had a B4 in it. It had an over-the-top bombing run and salvage when originally released. It does need to be reworked, but any commander without Mark Target and some type of tank that can chase something down is always going to be a worse "tank hunter" than Mechanised Support or Guard Motor.

I would like to see a "command" T34/85 added to it, which has a 20% reload aura and Mark Target as an ability.

PTRS penals would need to be reworked. They're okay in small games, but bad in large games.
3 May 2020, 21:22 PM
#28
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post3 May 2020, 20:44 PMGrumpy


It never had a B4 in it. It had an over-the-top bombing run and salvage when originally released. It does need to be reworked, but any commander without Mark Target and some type of tank that can chase something down is always going to be a worse "tank hunter" than Mechanised Support or Guard Motor.

I would like to see a "command" T34/85 added to it, which has a 20% reload aura and Mark Target as an ability.

PTRS penals would need to be reworked. They're okay in small games, but bad in large games.

It did had B4 briefly tho.
3 May 2020, 23:00 PM
#29
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3


It's the same with USF strafe run. The damage can be obscene but it doesn't track so it's more like a bullet based bombing run.


It does track, but it has other caveats:
- The strafing area is a short horizontal rectangle instead of the long vertical rectangle you see when ordering it.
- Damage gets spread out between each squad in the strafing area. A single squad will likely get nuked, 2 squads get like 50% HP damage, etc. This kinda proves it tracks.

If you know how to use it, it can be a quite reliable hard to dodge wipe on single squads or team weapons.
3 May 2020, 23:10 PM
#30
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

They could just replace the IL2 strafe with a version of the Vet 1 Airborne Guards ability. That one seems to work no problem
4 May 2020, 00:24 AM
#31
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954


It did had B4 briefly tho.


If you say so. I really don't remember it being in there. I used the commander sometimes when it was released. At one point, the bombing run got worse and I stopped using it so it's possible that it was added for a bit and I didn't notice.

It would need nearly a complete reworking anyway. The camo implementation on SU85's is terrible. Cons lose access to molotov's when upgrading to PTRS. Inability to mobilize reserves makes PTRS cons too likely to get wiped. The stun mine is of marginal use. A clone of the Riegel or Teller would be much better. Guards would help PTRS cons work better. PTRS cons would also need to be able to build tank traps. The abilities would need to be something like Guards, PTRS Cons, Camo, Command T34/85, and Rocket Strafe or IL2 bombing Run.

Given all the animosity towards ram plus IL2, that might be too much in one commander, in which case maybe put a B4 in it instead of the offmap, as the B4 is really good in direct fire.
4 May 2020, 07:47 AM
#32
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

B4 was never available to the Tank Hunter Tactics commander.

Imo a "tank hunter" commander should not even have access to any sort of AI howitzer in the first place.
4 May 2020, 08:17 AM
#33
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833

Add b4 to dank hunter and give it back precision shot and double damage at vet.

Then the doctrine will see use
4 May 2020, 08:20 AM
#34
avatar of RollingStone

Posts: 173

jump backJump back to quoted post4 May 2020, 07:47 AMVipper
B4 was never available to the Tank Hunter Tactics commander.

Imo a "tank hunter" commander should not even have access to any sort of AI howitzer in the first place.


IMO, it is more of a bait for enemy to dive for. You set it up somewhere next to frontline, heavily saturate area with mines - both cheap and heavy variation, place a couple of cons with PTRS upgrade around most obvious routes, and then start firing with howitzer.
Enemy immediatly starts to crap their pants, screams about "artyfest" and tries to destroy your howie. And thats where your traps come in.

However, idea of 400MP 40FU bait for me is rather strange - especially if enemy can just nuke it from orbit with stuka dive. Also, the ammount of troops you need to pull that off without loosing mapcontrol is enourmos - about 5 cons, 2 mg, at, 2 engies at very minimum.

So, yeah, B4 might be more straightforward and effective approach - maybe even too effective. I would switch howie for tanktraps as more fitting for theme of doctrine, and maybe switch out PTAB bombing run for AT overtwatch. Not very efficient, but true to theme at very least.
4 May 2020, 09:00 AM
#35
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post4 May 2020, 07:47 AMVipper
Imo a "tank hunter" commander should not even have access to any sort of AI howitzer in the first place.


this



IMO, it is more of a bait for enemy to dive for.


B4 isn't a bait, B4 is a game breaking piece of crap if RNGeesus frowns upon you and can be absolutely devastating in a truly competent player's hands. Putting it in a doctrine with PTRS Cons which can lay cheap mines to ambush with grenade assault is a horrible idea.
4 May 2020, 09:33 AM
#36
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Hi guys, propose 1 ability swap to make commanders usable. I don't mean to slap a Tiger to every commander and I don't mean to change commanders that are already good, but the trash ones. These are easy changes that could give the game more variety. Let me start.

SOV Commander - Advanced Warfare, remove useless 90MU IL2 strafe and replace with literally anything else, be it Incendiary barrage, AT gun camo, Recon Plane, Mark vehicle, just avoid overlap or another useless ability.

As you can see none of what I suggested is over the top or useless, please, follow the same logic.

Thanks.

Your turn.


One should try to bring all commander at about the same power level and that would include removing certain combination from commanders like super heavies and strong off map, weapon upgrades and super heavies and so on.

So imo one should start by removing things like Stuka/Elephant, IL-2/ISU-152, Mark target/ISU-152, Self propelled artillery/precision artillery and so on.
4 May 2020, 09:42 AM
#37
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

^ I don't think that's possible, there is waaaay too many implications following it and scope is too wide.

You basically want to fix unfixable, it is an issue, but there is too much work to put behind it to make it work and I really doubt balance team would even consider it for a second.

Better to take it as a lesson for COH3 if it ever comes.
4 May 2020, 10:19 AM
#38
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Imo it allot less work to replace some abilities in powerful combos with abilities that are less powerful than to try to balance these abilties for certain commander that already come with too many goodies.

And bringing commander to similar power levels by nerfing commander that are too good will help balancing the game enormously.

Having certain commanders carrying a faction is terrible for balance, anyone that faces those commanders would call tha faction OP while anyone not playing those commander would call the faction UP.
4 May 2020, 16:48 PM
#39
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954



this





B4 isn't a bait, B4 is a game breaking piece of crap if RNGeesus frowns upon you and can be absolutely devastating in a truly competent player's hands. Putting it in a doctrine with PTRS Cons which can lay cheap mines to ambush with grenade assault is a horrible idea.


Some people make "RNGeesus" frown on them. I have Counterattack in my loadout about 1/2 the time. When I see certain behaviors AND lack of a counter, I use it and often get 30-50 kills with it. When it vets quickly, it will fire fast enough that it doesn't seem so random.

Storm doctrine punishes the same type of behavior. I like it better than Counterattack, partially because it is a great vaccine for the Counterattack virus, and partly because it punishes blobs even better. I played on Port of Hamburg against 2 Soviets yesterday who liked to stack mg's, mortars, etc, and then push in with infantry. The LEFH killed 19 models on the first barrage. The stuka dive bomb in the middle of their retreat path kept most of their team weapons from getting back to base. The game was pretty much over after that.

Against better players, B4 probably is just a RNG generator, but good players usually have a counter for it, which makes using it a bad idea anyway.
4 May 2020, 16:51 PM
#40
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post4 May 2020, 16:48 PMGrumpy


Some people make "RNGeesus" frown on them. I have Counterattack in my loadout about 1/2 the time. When I see certain behaviors AND lack of a counter, I use it and often get 30-50 kills with it. When it vets quickly, it will fire fast enough that it doesn't seem so random.

Storm doctrine punishes the same type of behavior. I like it better than Counterattack, partially because it is a great vaccine for the Counterattack virus, and partly because it punishes blobs even better. I played on Port of Hamburg against 2 Soviets yesterday who liked to stack mg's, mortars, etc, and then push in with infantry. The LEFH killed 19 models on the first barrage. The stuka dive bomb in the middle of their retreat path kept most of their team weapons from getting back to base. The game was pretty much over after that.

Against better players, B4 probably is just a RNG generator, but good players usually have a counter for it, which makes using it a bad idea anyway.


I was talking about B4 in 1v1s, where most meta doctrines don’t have an off map arty.

In teamgames you can build it in 1 out of 10 games where you don’t face an off map that deletes it, but when you do it is game breaking if you can use it.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

492 users are online: 492 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49884
Welcome our newest member, Buchl759
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM