Commander Update Beta 2021 - General Feedback

Imo there are some "trademark" abilities that should be only available to specific commanders:

Lend lease assault guards is such a unit that should only be available to that commander. If one want assault guards in another commander one could create a separate version that uses Soviet weapons.

Please leave Assault Guards as is. They add a great addition to Anti Infantry and without that anti infantry is gonna have to overlap more with other doctrines as it goes back to shocks. I would much prefer the Soviet commanders mostly remain as is because they have gotten a lot of very solid changes to make their commanders more unique.

Please leave Assault Guards as is. They add a great addition to Anti Infantry and without that anti infantry is gonna have to overlap more with other doctrines as it goes back to shocks. I would much prefer the Soviet commanders mostly remain as is because they have gotten a lot of very solid changes to make their commanders more unique.

Shocks are better anti-infantry than Assault Guards. They don't have to purchase their upgrade, have good DPS, and come with Armor. Shock Troops are not just an assault squad, they're the assault squad that you sick on your enemy's assault squad. They are the anti-infantry infantry of the Soviet faction. Removing them from Anti-Infantry Tactic was puzzling decision to me, and their replacement duel-purpose Assault Guards is thematically questionable.

Speaking of themes, I still believe removing PPSh Conscripts from Shock Army is an unfortunate decision and should be reversed. There might be some overlap between PPSh Conscripts and Shock Troops, but it is Shock Army, saturation of submachine guns is literally the selling point.

Shocks are better anti-infantry than Assault Guards. They don't have to purchase their upgrade, have good DPS, and come with Armor. Shock Troops are not just an assault squad, they're the assault squad that you sick on your enemy's assault squad. They are the anti-infantry infantry of the Soviet faction. Removing them from Anti-Infantry Tactic was puzzling decision to me, and their replacement duel-purpose Assault Guards is thematically questionable.

Speaking of themes, I still believe removing PPSh Conscripts from Shock Army is an unfortunate decision and should be reversed. There might be some overlap between PPSh Conscripts and Shock Troops, but it is Shock Army, saturation of submachine guns is literally the selling point.

Personally I really like pretty much all the changes to the Soviets from a gameplay perspective. Even if the themes are maybe a bit weird I think almost every commander in the Soviet line up has been improved. Assault Guards aren't as strong as Shock Troops when it comes to anti infantry but they add a ton to the commander because they also can be good AT. Anti Infantry is already filled with so many options to kill infantry that getting something a little different has been a great change imo.

Personally I really like pretty much all the changes to the Soviets from a gameplay perspective. Even if the themes are maybe a bit weird I think almost every commander in the Soviet line up has been improved. Assault Guards aren't as strong as Shock Troops when it comes to anti infantry but they add a ton to the commander because they also can be good AT. Anti Infantry is already filled with so many options to kill infantry that getting something a little different has been a great change imo.

The theme of Soviets has always been a bit off balance, the lack of a general infantry unit, expensive penal troops as a premium mainline, the least submachine guns of any faction (while Ostheer has the most). I'm big on faction themes and they miss the mark in quite a few ways, which is why the Shock Army change bothers me so. It literally can not a Shock Army without the submachine guns, it'd be like if Airborne Company didn't come with Paratroopers.

It literally can not a Shock Army without the submachine guns

It has PPSH Shock Troops. I don't think there's anything to suggest a Shock Army had more SMGs than other armies. The main point of a Shock Army was to be fully equipped by itself for attacking enemy armies and breakthrough, by reinforcing them with more armored and artillery assets than other armies. The new line-up represents that.

From a gameplay perspective having SMG mainlines in the same commander that already has an SMG elite is simply redundant. AVD is there now as a useful tool, but mostly to balance out the strong combo of premium medium + elite infantry + strong offmap.

AVD is there now as a useful tool, but mostly to balance out the strong combo of premium medium + elite infantry + strong offmap.

Completely reasonable. The commander is strong with a weak ability like AVD, one further strong ability instead of AVD would make it pretty op. Once it comes out the commander will have a fixed place at my soviet commander loadout for now. It really deserves to get played. I never played it before (not a single time), you made it viable.

Not fully sure where to "report this", because it is actually an older issue:

One year ago, medium tanks got their target size reduced by 2. I did not find any note on the Ostwind though.
Was it just not noted in the patch notes or is this oversight/intention?

Lend-Lease has lost a lot of appeal between the Sherman nerf and the dshk being in better doctrines (Airborne and Defensive). I think changes should focus more on the theme of Lend-Lease to make it more unique and give it a niche within the SOV commander roster

>Replace Dshk call-in with Lend-Lease Mechanized Group, including WC-51 in Tier 0, similar to USF Mechanized Doctrine call-in, and buildable Valentine tank in Tier 3, with an off map 120mm mortar barrage instead of Sexton barrage
>Replace Conscript repair kits with Lend-Lease Weapon crate drop. If picked by Penals or Conscripts, it grants one Bren Gun and locks further upgrade, if picked by Assault Guards, it grants them one Rangers BAR and can be dropped and picked twice for a total of 2 BARs

Not fully sure where to "report this", because it is actually an older issue:

One year ago, medium tanks got their target size reduced by 2. I did not find any note on the Ostwind though.
Was it just not noted in the patch notes or is this oversight/intention?

Only generalist mediums had their target size reduced.
None of the specialised vehicles (on a medium tank chassis) did.

Only generalist mediums had their target size reduced.
None of the specialised vehicles (on a medium tank chassis) did.

Alright thanks for clearing that up!

Was there a reason behind that? Mediums got buffed to increase the survivability. The Ostwind though also needs to be on the front line, it is too expensive to keep for AA only purposes.
It does not dive usually, but still. Especially since the related Centaur has only 18 target size and fulfills the same role.

Alright thanks for clearing that up!

Was there a reason behind that? Mediums got buffed to increase the survivability. The Ostwind though also needs to be on the front line, it is too expensive to keep for AA only purposes.
It does not dive usually, but still. Especially since the related Centaur has only 18 target size and fulfills the same role.

Centaur has both superior target size 18 vs 22 but also superior armor 160/80 vs 110/55

Centaur has both superior target size 18 vs 22 but also superior armor 160/80 vs 110/55

In the game the armor isn't that much o a difference as some may think. Bazooka/PIAT penetrates Ostwind at all ranges, Shrek penetrates Centaur at all ranges. All nondoc ATGs penetrate both tanks at all ranges. All T3+T4 TDs penetrate both at all ranges. The difference gets visible in the matchup PZIV vs Centaur or T34/M4A3/Cromwell vs Ostwind. While T34 vs Ostwind bounces around 1/3 of its shots at long range and PZIV bounces pretty much the same vs Centaur, Cromwell and M4A3 penetrate Ostwind with a higher chance. Thats the real visible difference in the game. On the other side Centaur is more likely to attract a further shot from an ATG or a pursuing tank than Ostwind. Since the speed is 5.6 and 1.8 accleration (Centaur) vs 6.3 and 2.1 accleration (Ostwind).
So armor is only relevant in this one ingame situation. If PZIV would penetrate Centaur at all ranges it would only be relevant vs light tanks at all.

In the game the armor isn't that much o a difference as some may think. Bazooka/PIAT penetrates Ostwind at all ranges, Shrek penetrates Centaur at all ranges. All nondoc ATGs penetrate both tanks at all ranges. All T3+T4 TDs penetrate both at all ranges. The difference gets visible in the matchup PZIV vs Centaur or T34/M4A3/Cromwell vs Ostwind. While T34 vs Ostwind bounces around 1/3 of its shots at long range and PZIV bounces pretty much the same vs Centaur, Cromwell and M4A3 penetrate Ostwind with a higher chance. Thats the real visible difference in the game. On the other side Centaur is more likely to attract a further shot from an ATG or a pursuing tank than Ostwind. Since the speed is 5.6 and 1.8 accleration (Centaur) vs 6.3 and 2.1 accleration (Ostwind).
So armor is only relevant in this one ingame situation. If PZIV would penetrate Centaur at all ranges it would only be relevant vs light tanks at all.

Not really. Ostwind take damage even from light vehicles like T-70/Stuart.

Centaur is actually harder to hit than Cromwell while having the same armor and Owstind is easier to hit than PzIV while having much less armor.

I don't think that switching S-mines to Sturmpioneers was a good idea.
OKW is the only faction that will rarely have 2 engineers before medium tanks, and usually only stick to one.
The popcap and mp cost of normal engineers doesn't account for them being combat units, so you can sent a pioneer around the map and place s-mines in some retreat path, but sturmpioneers are always busy repairing and fighting infantry.
Fortification was always meta and the issue of spamming s-mines never came up, mostly because imo OKW is extremely dependant on early STG timing and such.
It feels like an unnecessary nerf

Not really. Ostwind take damage even from light vehicles like T-70/Stuart.

Yes, that are light tanks for 70 fuel, that is a lot for a light tank. Take Puma for example, costs 70 fuel can damage a Centaur too. On the other side Ostwind can damage Stuart / T-70 pretty well by itself since it has a lot more penetration than Centaur. I don't mind that light tanks for 70 fuel have a chance to damage Ostwind/Centaur for 100 fuel.

Centaur is actually harder to hit than Cromwell while having the same armor and Owstind is easier to hit than PzIV while having much less armor.

The target size is the real deal and I never questioned that. I said that the higher armor has little effect since there is only one typical matchup were it helps at all. It is the matchup PZIV shooting at a Centaur. All AT weaponary I talked about penetrates Centaur to 100% at long ranges. So the armor is worth nothing here. Overall the armor adds little survivability, more speed would be better. But of course the target size helps in any combat situation.

Yes, that are light tanks for 70 fuel, that is a lot for a light tank. Take Puma for example, costs 70 fuel can damage a Centaur too. On the other side Ostwind can damage Stuart / T-70 pretty well by itself since it has a lot more penetration than Centaur. I don't mind that light tanks for 70 fuel have a chance to damage Ostwind/Centaur for 100 fuel.

Only there a major difference T-70/Stuart are light tanks Puma/AEC are recon/AT vehicles.
(Want to check how Luch does vs centaur?)

Calculate the change of the Puma hitting and penetrating a Centaur and do the same for AEC (or even T-70/Stuart) vs Ostwind.

No matter how you want to look at it Centaur is much tougher than Ostwind.

The target size is the real deal and I never questioned that. I said that the higher armor has little effect since there is only one typical matchup were it helps at all. It is the matchup PZIV shooting at a Centaur. All AT weaponary I talked about penetrates Centaur to 100% at long ranges. So the armor is worth nothing here. Overall the armor adds little survivability, more speed would be better. But of course the target size helps in any combat situation.

Armor does help Centaur it that simple vs a number of weapons.

Was there a reason behind that?

Generalist mediums needed a bit more incentive to be used. The specialized vehicles have unique raw killing power or other special stats, they didn't need it.

Only there a major difference T-70/Stuart are light tanks Puma/AEC are recon/AT vehicles.
(Want to check how Luch does vs centaur?)

Calculate the change of the Puma hitting and penetrating a Centaur and do the same for AEC (or even T-70/Stuart) vs Ostwind.

No matter how you want to look at it Centaur is much tougher than Ostwind.


Armor does help Centaur it that simple vs a number of weapons.

Centaur is not "much tougher" than an ostwind. I think both vehicles are perfect from a health/armor standpoint right now. There were times were the ostwind was made of glass, we dont live in that timeframe anymore.

Calculate the change of the Puma hitting and penetrating a Centaur and do the same for AEC (or even T-70/Stuart) vs Ostwind.(Want to check how Luch does vs centaur?)

I did it for you for armor. Won't do it for accuracy vs target size because my argument was that its durability comes mainly from target size. So your argument about hitting is invalid, because I never claimed that. I would approve my own statement by taking target size into account. I only claimed that armour adds little to its survivability because there are only some situations were it armor matters at all. Speed/accleration and armor of Ostwind would be plainly better in combination with Centaur target size.

vs Centaur:
Puma between 100%pen (close) and 50% (far) at 50 range / 120dmg

vs Ostwind:
AEC between 100%pen (close) and 73%(far) at 40 range / 120dmg
Stuart between 68%pen (close) and 50% (far) at 40 range / 80dmg
T-70 between 45% (close) and 36% (far) at 40 range / 40dmg

I don't see a problem, all cosr between 70 and 75 fuel (including side tech). AEC performs better with the exception of range. Puma still performs better than Stuart which is an AT source too if you look at its main gun AOE stats and its abilities. T-70 shoots a second faster than the other three but its performance is still way worse, because its main role is AI. It doesn't make sense to compare with Luchs, which is even cheaper and comes out earlier than these four. T-70 is really bad vs Ostwind already and will get destroyed by Ostwind pretty quickly. This is no problem of course since T-70 has lower cost and timing.

Armor does help Centaur it that simple vs a number of weapons.

Armor does help Centaur it that simple vs a number of weapons which are rarely used vs Centaur or are meant to be AI with the exception of PZIV and maybe Puma at mid to long range.

-> corrected it for you. You don't have to give thanks to me :-)

...
vs Centaur:
Puma between 100%pen (close) and 50% (far) at 50 range / 120dmg

vs Ostwind:
AEC between 100%pen (close) and 73%(far) at 40 range / 120dmg


(Luch vs Centaur:
Luch 12.5% 12.5%)

vs Ostwind:
Stuart between 68%pen (close) and 50% (far) at 40 range / 80dmg
T-70 between 45% (close) and 36% (far) at 40 range / 40dmg

In sort Centaur is 23% probable to be penetrate by recon AT
and
Around x1/2-x1/3 less chance to be penetrate by light Tank.

It will also be penetrate easier by medium tanks

In other words, the armor advantage Centaur has, does matter for a variety of weapons.