Smartie's commander reworks: USF

Because the Calliope has thrice the HP of the Pwerfer and Katyusha, and enough armour to bounce rounds.

It's unreasonably hard to kill for the type of unit that it is.

Go blame USA for putting rocket launcher on a TANK then.

Also, after the nerfs, it has nowhere near the impact of first katy barrage part or any pwerfer barrage.

Go blame USA for putting rocket launcher on a TANK then.

Also, after the nerfs, it has nowhere near the impact of first katy barrage part or any pwerfer barrage.

"The model is a tank so it should get to take three shots" isnt really much of an argument, Katitof. How a model looks shouldn't be the basis for balance. Two shots to kill would make it more than twice as difficult to kill as a Katy, Pwerfer, or Stuka, three is absurdly excessive.

How "Nowhere near" the impact are you talking? Can you quantify that?

Two shots to kill would make it more than twice as difficult to kill as a Katy, Pwerfer, or Stuka, three is absurdly excessive.

+1

Two shots to kill would make it more than twice as difficult to kill as a Katy, Pwerfer, or Stuka, three is absurdly excessive.

Don't forget the 160 armour which will bounce pz iv shots 21.875-31.25% of the time. Realistically, 4+ shots would be needed unless facehugging & stationary.

That situation is not really the same since Calliope is a lot more durable than Kat and Panz.

The only fair rocket launchers are Kaitusha and land matress because they have a combination of low hp + long firing cycle. You can kill them with fast counterfire or a quick dive in. Stuka and Panzerwerfer are hard to kill too because they aren't at the place they fired from when their rockets hit you. While Calliope should have lower hp, Stuka and Panzerwerfer should have something like a few second period where they can't move after shooting.

In addition the combination of doctrinal rocket AI arty like Calliope and an AT off map is bad to begin with.

And why is nondoctrinal rocket AI artillery (and it seems there will be a low angle barrage for Panzwerwerfer too) with doctrinal AT off map in any way less of a problem?

Mostly for soviet and none of them have the AT capability of rangers.

Each faction plays differently now imagine how broken it would be one combined 5 men grenadier with a Super heavy like Tiger or Elefant.

Now imagine how broken it would be if you had Panzerfusiliers with two Shreks and super heavy Jagdtiger/Kingtiger or a Tiger I. Gladly thats not in the game or is it? XD


Edit: And to be fair I wrote a long time ago that here should be no units in the game which are running around in jolo mode with two Shreks or three super bazookas, thats just too much AT for an infantry unit...

The only fair rocket launchers are Kaitusha and land matress because they have a combination of low hp + long firing cycle. You can kill them with fast counterfire or a quick dive in. Stuka and Panzerwerfer are hard to kill too because they aren't at the place they fired from when their rockets hit you. While Calliope should have lower hp, Stuka and Panzerwerfer should have something like a few second period where they can't move after shooting.

If you want to talk about kati/Stuka/Panzerwer start a thread about.

And why is nondoctrinal rocket AI artillery (and it seems there will be a low angle barrage for Panzwerwerfer too) with doctrinal AT off map in any way less of a problem?

PW dies to small arm and 1 AT shot, Calliope does not. If and when it does it would less of an issue.

On the other hand commander should be of about the same power level. Having a commander with Elefant and stuka is bad for the game. Having an commander with Calliope and AT loiter would be equally bad or worse.
It is a simply as that.

Now imagine how broken it would be if you had Panzerfusiliers with two Shreks and super heavy Jagdtiger/Kingtiger or a Tiger I. Gladly thats not in the game or is it? XD

Pf are simply not Rangers.

Edit: And to be fair I wrote a long time ago that here should be no units in the game which are running around in jolo mode with two Shreks or three super bazookas, thats just too much AT for an infantry unit...

Glad to see that.

If you want to talk about kati/Stuka/Panzerwer start a thread about.

I only talked about this units because you called out a problem that already exists at other fations in a similar way. Panzerwerfer/Stuka have more durabiliy because of short shooting cycle, Calliope has more durabiliy because of more hp and armour. You can't just look at one faciton if other factions have similar mechanics.

PW dies to small arm and 1 AT shot, Calliope does not. If and when it does it would less of an issue.

Again, short shooting cyle creates a similar problem. Imagine Calliope would have shooting cycle of Panzerwerfer/Stuka. It would be impossible to kill it at all.

On the other hand commander should be of about the same power level. Having a commander with Elefant and stuka is bad for the game. Having an commander with Calliope and AT loiter would be equally bad or worse.
It is a simply as that.

You have to take into account the stock units. If a commander fills in two spots at a faction that has two blank spots it is something different from a commander filling two spots at a faction that has three or four blank spots.

Pf are simply not Rangers.

No they are not. But they have the same AT power you were talking about. You talked about infantry AT power + super heavy tank. Ranger AI is ruined with three super Bazookas, same for PFs with double Shrek. But in addition PFs have super useful and cheap Vet1 flares for self spotting (or to spot for other units) and they have lower reinforcement costs so you can afford to maintain more of them in the late game. Double Shrek PFs are as much off a problem as three Super Bazooka Rangers.

Glad to see that.

Yeah, we can have the same opinion. It is possible XD

I only talked about this units because you called out a problem that already exists at other fations in a similar way. Panzerwerfer/Stuka have more durabiliy because of short shooting cycle, Calliope has more durabiliy because of more hp and armour. You can't just look at one faciton if other factions have similar mechanics.

Durability has mainly to do with armor and HP. Calliope is has much more of both.

The time a rocket launcher is firing is not the only time it vulnerable and the reason why PF fires faster is because of it sorter range and its performance when firing max range.

Again, short shooting cyle creates a similar problem. Imagine Calliope would have shooting cycle of Panzerwerfer/Stuka. It would be impossible to kill it at all.

It easy already very hard to kill it if it was firing with lower CD it would very little difference to ability to survive but it would be far better at getting wipes.

One can counter katiousha and land mattress with artillery and even a 222 will kill them. In order to kill a Calliope one needs medium tank to dive.

There is simply no comparison.

You have to take into account the stock units. If a commander fills in two spots at a faction that has two blank spots it is something different from a commander filling two spots at a faction that has three or four blank spots.

Not really you simply have to compare commander with other commanders. A commander that bring too much to the table in different areas (AI,AT) is not good for diversity of the game. A commander that Calliope and P47 loiter would be an obvious choice in most modes.

No they are not. But they have the same AT power you were talking about. You talked about infantry AT power + super heavy tank. Ranger AI is ruined with three super Bazookas, same for PFs with double Shrek. But in addition PFs have super useful and cheap Vet1 flares for self spotting (or to spot for other units) and they have lower reinforcement costs so you can afford to maintain more of them in the late game. Double Shrek PFs are as much off a problem as three Super Bazooka Rangers.

Ranger AT power is superior that PF.

Yeah, we can have the same opinion. It is possible XD

As long as we understand each other it is not even necessary to agree.

Imo it a combination of Calliope and AT loiter would simply be bad for the game because:
It would make diving vs calliope a lot harder
The commander would simply bring too much to the table making too popular and reducing diversity.

Durability has mainly to do with armor and HP. Calliope is has much more of both.

The time a rocket launcher is firing is not the only time it vulnerable and the reason why PF fires faster is because of it sorter range and its performance when firing max range.


It easy already very hard to kill it if it was firing with lower CD it would very little difference to ability to survive but it would be far better at getting wipes.

One can counter katiousha and land mattress with artillery and even a 222 will kill them. In order to kill a Calliope one needs medium tank to dive.

There is simply no comparison.

I don't think we'll come to an agreement here. I do agree with you that a Calliope with a shorter shooting cycle wouldn't increase its durability by a lot, because its main source of durability is hp + armor. But for the rocket artillery which is easily destroyed by counter fire or a dive in the length of its firing cycle means a lot for their durability. Its for example really hard to Vet a land mattress when Stuka is on the field, because it will be constantly dewcrewed by counter fire while shooting.

Not really you simply have to compare commander with other commanders. A commander that bring too much to the table in different areas (AI,AT) is not good for diversity of the game. A commander that Calliope and P47 loiter would be an obvious choice in most modes.

But so would be a Commander with Ranger and Pershing or a Commander with Ranger and Calliope (two existing commanders). Both obvious choices. USF has some blank spots in their roster, even a Calliope/AT loiter commander would still miss some spots (for example how to kill onmap artillery pieces).

Ranger AT power is superior that PF.

Super Bazooka on Ranger is only better versus low armor tanks (Ostwind or smaller), overall they are roughly equal in combat situations for some reasons:

1) Shrek penetrates every stock allied medium tank at any range automatically while
Super Bazooka only penetrates an Ostheer PZIV at long range (which is most realistic) for about 77% and an OKW PZIV for about 60%.
2) Damage and deflection damage of Super Bazooka is lower.
3) While shrek accuracy is slightly lower at long range (higher at med and close) PFs reach Vet2 way faster than Rangers and get a 40% accuracy bonus while Ranger only get a 25% bonus. After that PFs hit any tank of the size of a medium or higher automatically at any range while Ranger still have a chance to miss at long range.
4) It doesn't mean a lot that Shrek has a 2 second longer reload cycle since you only get one salvo at a tank in normal combat situations (unless vehicle pathfinding hates you).


In the end Triple Super Bazooka cost 80 munition more to upgrade and takes away one more regular weapon. I don't think they perform better than PFs. In the end it is quite comparable op.

As I said before: Double Shrek and triple Super Bazooka are both bad for the game.

As long as we understand each other it is not even necessary to agree.

I have nothing to add.

...

You comparison of shreck and Super bazookas is incorrect since you are not taking into account accuracy and ROF.

Rangers with 3 bazookas is simply superior to AT PF.

Rangers with 3 bazookas is simply superior to AT PF.

I chuckled.

You comparison of shreck and Super bazookas is incorrect since you are not taking into account accuracy and ROF.

Rangers with 3 bazookas is simply superior to AT PF.

If it's so simply superior. Prove it.

You comparison of shreck and Super bazookas is incorrect since you are not taking into account accuracy and ROF.

Sorry, but I did. Please read 3) and 4) of my post again. 3) is about accuracy and 4) is about ROF.

To talk about this some more:

3)
Shrek PF Vet0 accuracy from close to long: 0.069 / 0.052 / 0.028
Super Bazooka Ranger Vet0 from close to long: 0.063 / 0.048 / 0.034
As I wrote with PFs reaching Vet2 way before Rangers (because of lower vet requirements and beeing available from the start of the game plus getting the upgrade for a way lower price) they beat the accuracy of Rangers by a good margin.

4)
Getting a second shot at a tank with Shrek or Super Bazooka means the vehicle is either crippled (and dead nevertheless) game f...d up vehicle pathing seriously or your opponent has a l2p problem. Handheld AT is much less about ROF than about alpha damage. The Super Bazooka has a firing pause of 6,5 seconds already...

Sorry, but I did. Please read 3) and 4) of my post again. 3) is about accuracy and 4) is about ROF.

To talk about this some more:

3)
Shrek PF Vet0 accuracy from close to long: 0.069 / 0.052 / 0.028
Super Bazooka Ranger Vet0 from close to long: 0.063 / 0.048 / 0.034
As I wrote with PFs reaching Vet2 way before Rangers (because of lower vet requirements and beeing available from the start of the game plus getting the upgrade for a way lower price) they beat the accuracy of Rangers by a good margin.

4)
Getting a second shot at a tank with Shrek or Super Bazooka means the vehicle is either crippled (and dead nevertheless) game f...d up vehicle pathing seriously or your opponent has a l2p problem. Handheld AT is much less about ROF than about alpha damage. The Super Bazooka has a firing pause of 6,5 seconds already...

If in your opinion AT PF are OP or AT ranger UP I suggest you start a thread about.

If in your opinion AT PF are OP or AT ranger UP I suggest you start a thread about.

What about instead of consistently deflecting you actually for once reply? You brought the subject up yourself, so please provide the data.

What about instead of consistently deflecting you actually for once reply? You brought the subject up yourself, so please provide the data.

I think you're asking too much from a troll

If it's so simply superior. Prove it.

Vs heavy armoured targets shreks have better pen, but bazookas make that up with ACC and ROF. All other targets like MED and LV's, super bazookers are the best, but that doesnt mean shreks are bad vs them, ther still good.

Both are (for me) tied as the best hand held AT options in the game. this idea that "oh alpha damage is higher on shrek so its better" or "ROF is higher on bazooka so thats better" is nonsesense and is enterily dependant on the siuation.

Vs heavy armoured targets shreks have better pen, but bazookas make that up with ACC and ROF. All other targets like MED and LV's, super bazookers are the best, but that doesnt mean shreks are bad vs them, ther still good.

Both are (for me) tied as the best hand held AT options in the game. this idea that "oh alpha damage is higher on shrek so its better" or "ROF is higher on bazooka so thats better" is nonsesense and is enterily dependant on the siuation.

Agreed with that. I don't even claim they are superior or inferior. On one hand, Rangers can carry 3 zooks, which is more expensive but can lead to good skirmishes vs vehicles if all three hit. On the other, having 2 shrecks is cheaper and higher alpha damage as you have said but the accuracy is somewhat lower.

I'm still waiting for proof, for that claim that super zooks are simply superior.

If in your opinion AT PF are OP or AT ranger UP I suggest you start a thread about.

What is this about? Are you doing it on purpose? I postet in this side of the thread three times that double shrek and triple Super Bazooka are both too much. #165 / #167 / #169

In addition I wrote that double shrek / triple bazooka is quite comparable after all. #167 / #169

You even agreed somehow. #166


I don't know if you twist my words or if you are not reading my post completely. Clearify that please.

Either you have arguments/facts that you want to post to contradict my last posts about a comparable performance of double shrek / triple Super Bazooka or you can call it a day and agree with me.

So are there facts that contradict my argument? Let me know please.

I've already done the test, although it's a small sample.

Context:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/106984/winter-balance-update-sov-feedback/page/49#post_id846108




Considering all variables: PF is the best AT infantry squad.

Rangers are the infantry squad with the HIGHEST AT dmg output. But you are already paying for a more expensive squad AND puting 50% more munition into them. If they invest equally in term of munitions, 2 zooks, it's probable inferior unless hitting low armor targets/rear armor.