Smartie's commander reworks: USF

Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2021, 08:23 AMEsxile

you're out of your mind, I haven't ask for anything about the Ez8 and you should be more careful with the way you speak with other people here.
You don't like my ideas fair enough but stick to it and stop trying to insult the person.

Now about your arguments, I'll answer that is it far more efficient to build a dozer to force the panther than an Ez8. I'm pretty sure that if you replace the Ez8 by the dozer blade upgrade the doctrine would be picked even more.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2021, 20:48 PMthedarkarmadillo

i stand by what i said.

a panther that can self heal with rifles infront of it and jacksons behind it is a horrible idea

[From a standpoint of 3v3 player this response]Agreed

a slightly improved Sherman is also a bad idea, not to mention super boring and then it could also overshadow other armour and would directly compete with every single Sherman variant there is.
Don't know why anyone would go for a slightly improved Sherman in the first place

an OP commander to surround it doesn't even need further explanation.

True

the E8 gives you medium armour supremeacy. its nearly as durable as an okw P4 but with much more pen, meaning itll beat it in a slugging match, let alone the ost p4... its got great resilience to all non heavy AT the axis can field, stugs, JP4s, pumas, even shreks will all struggle with the armour.


Stug will penetrate it most of the time in long range (170/215), JP4 will penetrate it most of the time as well. Shrecks will not struggle as well. About 75% chance I believe, or sth like that on long range. Pumas on long range will, but Puma is not really at E8 timing a unit that you really want to use all the time against it, that's why Stugs and paks and raketen are there. Good for sniping though. OKW P4 will struggle against it, but not a huge struggle. OST P4 will struggle more, that's true.



while its true the dozer sheamn can slug with p4s too, it cant guaranteed win aggaint them and it pays for the power with reduced speed.
the dozer sherman is more like a churchill, while the E8 is poised to be more like a comet. of course nither are at that caliber but thats the closest likeness in game.

True, but don't see the point of that comparison. At least not on hindsight. Dozer has it's uses.

the tank itself is great, the commander around it is poor making the tank undesirable, and no it doesnt need calliopee/pershing/priest/105dozer/rangers all in 1 slot to make the tank viable...

That's true. The E8 needs slight buff to it's survivability and even slighter buff to it's AI with a slight price increase. At least IMHO.

aside from the commander, there lies the issue that usf doesnt really NEED a front line brawler, or a front line AT tank at all for that matter. the jackson can out fight any axis armour if there is a spotter, and some even without. the fact that the jackson is SO good against all targets means something like an E8 m10 or 76mm sherman dont really have a place.
improving stock MEDIUM AT and toning down the jackson in this area will open up space for these medium AT options in doctrines which in combination with a rifle commander overhaul would give the E8 a great space to shine.

Wouldn't really agree. In 1v1 it might not need a frontline brawler but in games where the artillery and heavy tanks rule the day, it's better to have something that can engage infantry as well if needed. Had many times where perfectly positioned mines and TDs were overwhelmed by (King)Tigers and a couple of Panthers with artillery shelling the whole place before the tanks move in to trigger mines. Once the Panthers and Tigers started rolling out, Jacksons, SU85s, etc. were obsolete due to the sheer HP of that mass. Truth be told, that happened on Fart Of Hamburger map which is a hooorible map and such pushes are viable since the TDs don't have a lot of maneuvering room once the push occurs (plus sight blockers)

in short, the commander doesnt offer enough for the E8 and the jackson also overshadows it. thats why we dont see em, not because its bad, but because its not NEEDED and the commander is so terrible, its not even worth picking for the fun of it.

True. And true that Jackson overshadows the E8 but IMHO, only because the E8 does not offer a big enough edge over mediums to be viable (that's why I think a small buff to armour is needed). The only tank it really takes a dump on is the OST P4. It will win vs OKW P4, but not by a large enough margin to actually go for it. I've used the E8 and it is indeed a good tank but the statistical margin for it's armour vs axis cannons is not really in favor of picking a doctrine for it. But that's the commander issue.

COMMANDER REVAMP IDEAS
- flares/flamethrowers also gains the old recon company forward observers ability- it was buggy, but as a passive in an already ok ability and it focusing around improving rifles... seems ok to me. minor but still a nice extra

fire up do... more. idk what, increased rof on garands?

perhaps move the WP barrage to the E8 smoke pots, minor change, but gives E8s a bit more AI.
Might be either too OP or too expensive. Can't tell

fill remaining slot with something, perhaps m1919s? an off map perhaps?
M1919 does not really synergize with fire up. Bars dominate if moving and shooting. Offmap might be better


something like that will be enough i feel, to make the commander attractive despite the state of the jackson, although imo a jackson change is needed for the health of many USF AT options. again, stock options will need tweaked as a result, but itll open the door for doctrinal options which would be great for diversity.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2021, 21:44 PMProtos Angelus

Stug will penetrate it most of the time in long range (170/215), JP4 will penetrate it most of the time as well. Shrecks will not struggle as well. About 75% chance I believe, or sth like that on long range. Pumas on long range will, but Puma is not really at E8 timing a unit that you really want to use all the time against it, that's why Stugs and paks and raketen are there. Good for sniping though. OKW P4 will struggle against it, but not a huge struggle. OST P4 will struggle more, that's true.

i guess struggle isnt the word, but having any chance to bounce is better than none! weve got people elsewhere braying that a ~3% increased chance to be penned will kill the brummbar, so a ~20% chance to bounce is practically invincible!

also worth noting, the E8 has a bit of extra health, meaning itll take an extra shot from standard AT ontop of the extra armour which helps it out against all targets.


True, but don't see the point of that comparison. At least not on hindsight. Dozer has it's uses.
wasnt my comparison, just addressing it


That's true. The E8 needs slight buff to it's survivability and even slighter buff to it's AI with a slight price increase. At least IMHO.
i persoanlly disagree, USF iosnt supposed to have super durable units and with 215 armour and 720hp the E8 is already the most durable non comet allied medium. it can self heal, which is there to make up for its "squishiness" (in quotes because it certainly isnt squishy)

ideally sherman variants should completely replace the m4. AT versions should want to have one around for AI. increased AI will mean critical mass E8 are revived and id much sooner keep them as medium counters that can fight infantry as needed.

Wouldn't really agree. In 1v1 it might not need a frontline brawler but in games where the artillery and heavy tanks rule the day, it's better to have something that can engage infantry as well if needed. Had many times where perfectly positioned mines and TDs were overwhelmed by (King)Tigers and a couple of Panthers with artillery shelling the whole place before the tanks move in to trigger mines. Once the Panthers and Tigers started rolling out, Jacksons, SU85s, etc. were obsolete due to the sheer HP of that mass. Truth be told, that happened on Fart Of Hamburger map which is a hooorible map and such pushes are viable since the TDs don't have a lot of maneuvering room once the push occurs (plus sight blockers)

even in that scenario, inorder to get a more durable allied tank, the next step up is actually a kv-1, and it doesnt have the AT punch of the E8. in the scenario you provided the E8 would fair the best out of all allied mediums bar the comet and you would still have jacksons behind it, which when push comes to shove is the absolute best TD kicking, especially in the scenario you provided. it can shoot and attempt to flee rather well and pathing doesnt guarnatee the end of it should pathing be unfavourable. plus HVAP will deffinately cut that HP pool down to size (on jackson)


True. And true that Jackson overshadows the E8 but IMHO, only because the E8 does not offer a big enough edge over mediums to be viable (that's why I think a small buff to armour is needed). The only tank it really takes a dump on is the OST P4. It will win vs OKW P4, but not by a large enough margin to actually go for it. I've used the E8 and it is indeed a good tank but the statistical margin for it's armour vs axis cannons is not really in favor of picking a doctrine for it. But that's the commander issue.

statistically the E8 does well against the okw p4 as well, i dont recall the ecxat numbers, but i think they were in the 170s up close and 150s at max range compared to the 125/105 of the p4 it more than offsets the armour advantage (20 more armour vs 50 more pen) plus that extra bit of health... RNG is still RNG but again, to get a better matchup you need the comet, which the USF cannot have due to the crew and jackson.


the rest

im not a huge fan of m1919s in the doctrine, was just throwing out something that would help improve rifles a bit. soemthing that might be interesting, if a bit oppressive.... in this commander, allow rifles to use smoke again. since its a bit of an off beat commander and rifles cant use flamers anymore.... it MIGHT work... especially if the E8s did get WP barrage...

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2021, 20:48 PMthedarkarmadillo

something like that will be enough i feel, to make the commander attractive despite the state of the jackson, although imo a jackson change is needed for the health of many USF AT options. again, stock options will need tweaked as a result, but itll open the door for doctrinal options which would be great for diversity.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2021, 08:50 AMEsxile

Yeah let's nerf the Jackson because we give the faction one doctrine with a tank that can dominate the medium tank meta.
Good idea. And let's call it diversity of course xD!

Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2021, 09:13 AMVipper

USF have plenty of commander with extra AT options:
4 commander with elite bazookas
1 commander with M10
1 Commander with Pershing
2 commander with dozer upgrades
1 Commander with Easy8
1 Commander with 76mm Sherman

Actually out of the 9 commander there only two do not have an extra AT unit and they are both artillery commanders Infatry (Priest) and tactical support with Calliope.

To claim that is only one doctrine that give an edge over medium tank is simply false.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2021, 09:28 AMAarotron

So in your terms usfs only non doctrinal way of reliable mobile at should be replaced by crutching with doctrines to do that? Yeah no thanks.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2021, 09:34 AMVipper

Try to read more carefully:
"To claim that is only one doctrine that give an edge over medium tank is simply false."

This is what I have posted so your response completely irrelevant.

In addition the idea that USF have trouble vs medium without using M36 is simply false. In many of the game tournaments USF dealt with PzIV without building a single M36.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2021, 10:17 AMHannibal

With your response you're either implying that doctrinal units should be counted as AT for balancing of stock units (which makes the whole faction rely on doctrines then) or you are missing the actual point that Esxile made.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2021, 10:17 AMHannibal

With your response you're either implying that doctrinal units should be counted as AT for balancing of stock units (which makes the whole faction rely on doctrines then) or you are missing the actual point that Esxile made.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2021, 11:03 AMVipper

My response is not implying anything, it is pretty clear in what it says and I am not missing Exsile's point.

I have simply pointed out the error in Esxile claim:

"Yeah let's nerf the Jackson because we give the faction one doctrine with a tank that can dominate the medium tank meta.
Good idea. And let's call it diversity of course xD!"

There not "one" doctrine with a tank that fight medium. The majority of USF doctrines have AT solution vs mediums.

If you want to debate weather USF stock option are sufficient vs axis mediums without the M36 we can debate, which is another crack in Esxile's theory but his claim about the "one" commander is simply false.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2021, 11:53 AMHannibal

You have just proven exactly what I said.
How many commanders there are is irrelevant to the main point.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2021, 11:53 AMHannibal

Focussing on a side note is just derailing the thread for nothing. That's also why I don't want to further discuss this. Smartie made some nice suggestions that are at the very least worth discussing, I'd rather focus on that.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2021, 12:05 PMVipper

It is when the main suggest that is only one commander where there are 7 out of 9. And the following posts I pointed if the main point is that USF struggle vs mediums with their stock option without the M36 even that claim is not really supported.


I have not focused on anything, I simply pointed out a false claim and I would had leave it to that if people where not quoting me.

My point so far is that original claim is false unless some one want to claim that is true I have no reason to add anything on the point.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2021, 11:53 AMHannibal

You have just proven exactly what I said.
How many commanders there are is irrelevant to the main point. Focussing on a side note is just derailing the thread for nothing. That's also why I don't want to further discuss this. Smartie made some nice suggestions that are at the very least worth discussing, I'd rather focus on that.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2021, 15:56 PMthedarkarmadillo

If every, or almost every commander provides the tool in one way or another its not quite as big a problem. Not that I'm even suggesting only doctrinal options-I'm not nor was I. Exile is pissy because a usf Panther clone is a God awful idea and I told him such so he ignored my multiple declarations that usf medium AT needs brought up to snuff to accompany the Jackson nerf to try and make me look like he.

Elite zooks on officers would help not only with usf medium AT but also make the officers feel... More,for example.
More accessible HVAP on the 57mm via price reduction would help
Sherman AP could be looked at and made more AT with a bit less AOE.

There are options but I maintain, the do it all Jackson is overshadowing a number of USF vehicles and smothering diversity.