USF Commander - Recon Company rework

Recon support is really good, I don t think it needs any helping. Jeep is still really useful, whole roster is good exept maybe greyhound

edit: but cmdr is good enough, even tho greyhound not great anymore

Jeep at Recon support? Are you even playing USF? Just asking... XD

I think part of the problem with Raid tactics is that it's a munitions dump in a munitions heavy commander combined with the fact that it's light vehicles only - so realistically you mostly use it during the early game when you most need to bank munitions. If you want to use Para Combat Group (200 munitions if you want upgrades right away) and then it's hard to use with Greyhound because Greyhound also requires munitions. It would be more useful if it applied to mediums (slower cap speed to balance) so that it has some late game use and doesn't become useless as soon as your Stuart dies. Another unique idea might be to make it a passive that gives some/all vehicles Soviet "Secure Mode".

I think part of the problem with Raid tactics is that it's a munitions dump in a munitions heavy commander combined with the fact that it's light vehicles only - so realistically you mostly use it during the early game when you most need to bank munitions. If you want to use Para Combat Group (200 munitions if you want upgrades right away) and then it's hard to use with Greyhound because Greyhound also requires munitions.

Thats completely true.

It would be more useful if it applied to mediums (slower cap speed to balance) so that it has some late game use and doesn't become useless as soon as your Stuart dies. Another unique idea might be to make it a passive that gives some/all vehicles Soviet "Secure Mode".

Either that or give all infantry greater capping speed while activated in addition to the light vehicle capping. A further alternative would be to add a sight bonus for infantry/light vehicles for the duration of the ability (recon theme). Either way there would be a further use after loosing your single light vehicle/tank.

I like one more doctrine with a jeep

Jeep at Recon support? Are you even playing USF? Just asking... XD

Yeah I saw someone say they want add Jeep to the cmdr. Im saying i think its good enough as is

I think part of the problem with Raid tactics is that it's a munitions dump in a munitions heavy commander combined with the fact that it's light vehicles only - so realistically you mostly use it during the early game when you most need to bank munitions. If you want to use Para Combat Group (200 munitions if you want upgrades right away) and then it's hard to use with Greyhound because Greyhound also requires munitions. It would be more useful if it applied to mediums (slower cap speed to balance) so that it has some late game use and doesn't become useless as soon as your Stuart dies. Another unique idea might be to make it a passive that gives some/all vehicles Soviet "Secure Mode".

Raid tactic still has its use on late game with the greyhound. So obviously I'm not talking about 3v3 or 4v4 here but on 1v1 and 2v2 a greyhound is a really good unit to keep your flank and harass opponent points using raid tactic.
But I still think a jeep would do better than raid tactic because that's an early game unit.

Imo the pakhowi should go now that it has been nerfed, I stand on my proposal to replace it with an HMG and articulate the commander into Captain tier selection.

Imo the pakhowi should go now that it has been nerfed, I stand on my proposal to replace it with an HMG and articulate the commander into Captain tier selection.

that would be a huge nerf for recon support in my opinion. i'd take the pack howie drop over an mg any day; in fact the bundle is so cheap that it's still worthwhile to go for even if you went cpt tech. not to mention the howitzer itself isn't anywhere near less potent than what people claim it to be, that thing still packs a great punch.

Just a thought about design:
Changing the drop to an MG would eliminate all need to back tech into Lieutenant and force a Captain+upgrade tech path. Same goes for ATG drop, just the other way around.
Dropping a pack Howie favors a Lieutenant tech, but also allows for double officer tech. It also keeps the need for a later back tech into the respective second officer squad regardless of the first choice.

There is nothing wrong with a single commander forcing a build strategy, but from a design choice it limits the decision making. Just a random thought I had.

Just a thought about design:
Changing the drop to an MG would eliminate all need to back tech into Lieutenant and force a Captain+upgrade tech path. Same goes for ATG drop, just the other way around.
Dropping a pack Howie favors a Lieutenant tech, but also allows for double officer tech. It also keeps the need for a later back tech into the respective second officer squad regardless of the first choice.

There is nothing wrong with a single commander forcing a build strategy, but from a design choice it limits the decision making. Just a random thought I had.

I know but I after having given it many tries since the patch I don't think the pakh is anymore THE unit you want to build anytime.
The patch aimed to reduce the effectiveness of the pakh when paired so obviously its a direct nerf to the doctrine since it is basically what was making the doctrine strong.

It's not like I want the HMG at all cost but that HMG have more value than pakhowi at the moment, even more when you think you'll drop two of them. Another possibility could be to simply remove the drop altogether and stick to para that can upgrade Zook or Thompson with a price cut accordingly.

I know but I after having given it many tries since the patch I don't think the pakh is anymore THE unit you want to build anytime.
The patch aimed to reduce the effectiveness of the pakh when paired so obviously its a direct nerf to the doctrine since it is basically what was making the doctrine strong.

It's not like I want the HMG at all cost but that HMG have more value than pakhowi at the moment, even more when you think you'll drop two of them. Another possibility could be to simply remove the drop altogether and stick to para that can upgrade Zook or Thompson with a price cut accordingly.

I understand that point and I am also not fully against the HMG, but one should keep in mind that this change has further implications on USF's build order when playing this particular commander. So it's a bit more than just "replacing unit A with unit B".

that would be a huge nerf for recon support in my opinion. i'd take the pack howie drop over an mg any day; in fact the bundle is so cheap that it's still worthwhile to go for even if you went cpt tech. not to mention the howitzer itself isn't anywhere near less potent than what people claim it to be, that thing still packs a great punch.

But that could be the way to go maybe. Some people around here claim that Recon Support is quite strong at 1vs1, mainly because of the cheap price ot this bundle.

Changing this bundle would impact 1vs1 in a lot more negative way than 3vs3/4vs4. Imo it would have more of a positive impact at the big game modes actually, because you want to have more than one Reserve Para squad for sure and you want to drop them behind enemy lines to support the assault of your mates. The howitzer just hinders you to do that.

If Airdrop bundle would be changed (swap with MG for a cheaper MU price or remove support weapon completely) you could add some versatility to Greyhound and add additional effects like vision and capping speed to infantry with active Raid Tactics ability. In 1vs1 this would make up for the nerfed bundle and keep the commander at the same power level, in 3vs3/4vs4 this commander could get attractive with this changes finally. A more versatile Greyhound (recon for example) could even see some late game action at 3v3/4vs4, if it has to offer some unique options.

But that could be the way to go maybe. Some people around here claim that Recon Support is quite strong at 1vs1, mainly because of the cheap price ot this bundle.

Changing this bundle would impact 1vs1 in a lot more negative way than 3vs3/4vs4. Imo it would have more of a positive impact at the big game modes actually, because you want to have more than one Reserve Para squad for sure and you want to drop them behind enemy lines to support the assault of your mates. The howitzer just hinders you to do that.

If Airdrop bundle would be changed (swap with MG for a cheaper MU price or remove support weapon completely) you could add some versatility to Greyhound and add additional effects like vision and capping speed to infantry with active Raid Tactics ability. In 1vs1 this would make up for the nerfed bundle and keep the commander at the same power level, in 3vs3/4vs4 this commander could get attractive with this changes finally. A more versatile Greyhound (recon for example) could even see some late game action at 3v3/4vs4, if it has to offer some unique options.

well i agree that such a unit swap (pack vs mg) could work out if it is accompanied by buffs in other departments, like the greyhound as you proposed. but that would require a rather expansive overhaul of the whole commander tree, not just a couple of tweaks here and there to make individual units more viable/less situational.
i just don't think this would be the right way to go, especially considering it would be tricky to get the balance right in one patch (which for what we know isn't unlikely to be the last one on the horizon for coh2).

some slight changes to the greyhound, be it in the form of better utility, a bit more AT or earlier arrival, would be my personal preference for the next patch. and if really necessary, some additional way to call in recon paras besides the combat group drop could be implemented as well. i remember there was the suggestion some time ago to give radio beacons the ability to call in paras once the cp requirements are met, and for me this would probably be the best way to squeeze this into the commander without using one of the precious ability slots. this would also give the beacons a bit more utility while, at the same time, allowing some sort of counterplay against paras being dropped behind the frontlines.

some slight changes to the greyhound, be it in the form of better utility, a bit more AT or earlier arrival, would be my personal preference for the next patch. and if really necessary, some additional way to call in recon paras besides the combat group drop could be implemented as well. i remember there was the suggestion some time ago to give radio beacons the ability to call in paras once the cp requirements are met, and for me this would probably be the best way to squeeze this into the commander without using one of the precious ability slots. this would also give the beacons a bit more utility while, at the same time, allowing some sort of counterplay against paras being dropped behind the frontlines.

I agree. Your proposals would solve most of the problems already, if you don't want to rework the commander in a greater scope.

Edit: On second glance I really do like the idea of giving a sole Reserve Para call in to the Beacons once you can call in the Airdrop combat group. That way you have to smuggle your Pathfinders to the position first where you want to have your Reserve Para airdrop. This adds additional tactics and foresight to the dropping of units behind enemy lines. It would implement Pathfinders and Beacons as a more central element of Recon Company in addition.