Commander Update Beta 2021 - USF Feedback

Dozer Blade makes some more survivality. but pay pretty lot resource and frankly no change against panther.
slightly increases its brawl ability but lost its mobility too.

Reserve armor is not OP at all, and it must be preserved.

Panther is supposed to be effective against such targets + you need KV-1/Comet level armor to have a noticeable impact in this regard.
It is quite alright price/performance wise. You get ridiculous AI capabilities of M4A3 that needs 1 more penetrating AT shot to die. And 215/105 armor compared to 160/80 of vanilla m4a3 substantially increases its chance to bounce a P4 shell. All this with a price comparable to t34-85. Yes, it becomes slower a bit, but still it is a good tank.
The upgrade by itself was not nerfed, although I wish it was added it to another doctrine, e.g. Armored Company. So in essence only Mechanized got nerfed

Patch note
Show Spoiler

The ability that has Urban doctrine is called M4A3 Assault Package

Popularity across all modes:

Urban Assault Company 8.25
Airborne Company 8
Infantry Company 6.75
Heavy Cavalry Company 5.75
Tactical Support Company 5.25
Recon Support Company 3.5
Mechanized Company 3
Armor Company 2.75
Rifle Company 1.75

Popularity across all modes:

Urban Assault Company 8.25
Airborne Company 8
Infantry Company 6.75
Heavy Cavalry Company 5.75
Tactical Support Company 5.25
Recon Support Company 3.5
Mechanized Company 3
Armor Company 2.75
Rifle Company 1.75

What do these values mean?

What do these values mean?

How popular a commander is in load outs across the 4 modes divided by 4.

Ubran for instance score near 9 (highest possible score for USF) which means it a top pick from 1vs1 to 4vs4 on the other Rifle company scores near 1 (lowest possible score) meaning it low pick regardless of mode.

How popular a commander is in load outs across the 4 modes divided by 4.

Ubran for instance score near 9 (highest possible score for USF) which means it a top pick from 1vs1 to 4vs4 on the other Rifle company scores near 1 (lowest possible score) meaning it low pick regardless of mode.

Yes, but what is "how popular"?
I can't pick a commander 8 times, nor can I have it in my loadout 8 times, nor can this happen in any team game. What exactly does a value of "8" mean?
Judging by your answer the amount of available commander plays a role. But how are different modes weighted? Equally, by games or by players? And where do you take the data from (I assume the new coh2stats.com site)?

I think it would make more sense to show the X-fold change of commanders picked/in loadout over random pick. This would also equalize all values over all factions.

Popularity across all modes:

Urban Assault Company 8.25
Airborne Company 8
Infantry Company 6.75
Heavy Cavalry Company 5.75
Tactical Support Company 5.25
Recon Support Company 3.5
Mechanized Company 3
Armor Company 2.75
Rifle Company 1.75

Source on these? What is your popularity rating? Your numbers look very made up, modified, misleading, and different from what it is actually.

Yes, but what is "how popular"?
I can't pick a commander 8 times, nor can I have it in my loadout 8 times, nor can this happen in any team game. What exactly does a value of "8" mean?
Judging by your answer the amount of available commander plays a role. But how are different modes weighted? Equally, by games or by players? And where do you take the data from (I assume the new coh2stats.com site)?

I think it would make more sense to show the X-fold change of commanders picked/in loadout over random pick. This would also equalize all values over all factions.

quite simply using the data from "https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1614556800/1v1/soviet"; each commander get a score according to how often it appears on the load out in each mode.

Since there 9 USF commander in 1vs1 Airborne company would have a score of 9 while armor company a score 1.

Now one can add the score from each mode and then divide by 4 and see how popular a commander is across all modes.

Armor Company - The M10 needs at least a buff to 50 range and something like target weak point. It makes no sense that it is more expensive than the Stug but shorter ranged. The HVAP rounds should be either a lot cheaper or a timed ability. It bounces too much without HVAP. One of the iterations of the balance team tried adding a barrage during one of the versions of a balance patch but removed it before the final patch. I don't think they would add that back. Historically, the M10 fired more HE than AP and was often used as mobile arty.

The M10 could use some love. However one thing I would like to see is an adjustment to the weapon profile for all tanks. For example the M10 :

Far Range : 140
Medium Range : 160
Near Range : 180

So being at Near Range is basically melee range yet you only get an additional 40 Penetration in the case of the M10. The Near Range Penetration for all Generalist tanks should be increased. Tanks like the T-34 would benefit and actually be useful in a tank battle since it could protect your SU-85s from Tank Dives by actually being able to do damage instead of bouncing every hit.

Normally when people engage in tank battles, it is ideal to engage at maximum range because you can just pull out and repair. This is why the Tank Destroyer Meta is the way it is now.

Wether it be an M10, Sherman, Panzer 4, there is no real benefit for being at Near Range which should be changed for all tanks. This would allow tanks like the M10 to have a sort of CQC speciality (think shock troops at close range) to differentiate it from being just a crappier Jackson.

quite simply using the data from "https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1614556800/1v1/soviet"; each commander get a score according to how often it appears on the load out in each mode.

Since there 9 USF commander in 1vs1 Airborne company would have a score of 9 while armor company a score 1.

Now one can add the score from each mode and then divide by 4 and see how popular a commander is across all modes.

not sure if it's a good idea to conflate 1v1 and teamgame data like this, at least without correcting for the fact that you have 3x the amount of data for 2v2 and higher. this will skew the results quite a bit as commander pickrates vary a lot between solo and team modes, but not so much between 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4.

the somewhat arbitrary numbers chosen to scale your popularity ratings are also a bit confusing. maybe you should consider normalizing these to a percentage or x out of 10 to make it easier to interpret. just some food for thought

not sure if it's a good idea to conflate 1v1 and teamgame data like this, at least without correcting for the fact that you have 3x the amount of data for 2v2 and higher. this will skew the results quite a bit as commander pickrates vary a lot between solo and team modes, but not so much between 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4.

the somewhat arbitrary numbers chosen to scale your popularity ratings are also a bit confusing. maybe you should consider normalizing these to a percentage or x out of 10 to make it easier to interpret. just some food for thought

I am pretty sure that one can process this stat better but I use the term "popularity" quite loosely because of lack of better word.

The stat come from commander in the load out and not what has been actually picked so they are not very safe to determined which commander is used the most.

On the other hand imo they can be used to make some estimations.

For instance:
the fact the rifle company score so low across all modes is an indication that it needs more changes that just the Easy8.
the fact that Urban score much better than Tactical indicated that the commander has too many advantage across all mode.

I am pretty sure that one can process this stat better but I use the term "popularity" quite loosely because of lack of better word.

The word that you are looking for is already on the page with the original data. It is "No. equipped when match started".

I suggest you play the old CoH then, like me.

I love having my Pershing and Calliope combo there.

I miss the universal 76 upgrades, the crocodile, and the mine flail. COH2 USF feels like an incomplete faction.

Really baffled by the removal of the bulldozer sherman from reserve armor. It's a nice little damage sponge that maintains the mediocre AT capabilities of the regular sherman. Don't think it's OP at all especially with the cost requirements.

Snip

I think your analyses of UA vs Tactical support is off. UA is a complete doc with viable tools that support eachother throughout, especially in urban environments. UA works in every map size Tactical Support doesnt have that quality of commander design. Its just an inferiorly designed doctrine. We see Calliopes are highly rated by TS in 4th most popular 4v4 even with poor design. Tactical Support needs a clarification of what it does, which is a weird jumble right now.

UA is actually one of the best situated USF doctrines currently, as its always highly picked but only most picked in 3v3. Its a generally good choice that feeps good (we can't see win rates by commander). Other doctrines should have its clarity and support.

Airborne doc has the highest low-team-size pick rates, and loses the top spots due to a lack of artillery and off-maps (which is why infantry rules big team, its ALL arty and consistent off-maps). Airborne has great thematic design and the tech skip is actually relevant, with one of the potentially (depending on the patch) best alpha strike AT loiters.

Mechanized has dropped out of 1v1 king after the super light vehicle nerf, and will get more clarity next patch with only 1 premium medium choice. It might need a swap out for a proper late game call in to enable team play.

Armor is almost there but all of its abilities were just not quite functional. Dozer dies to the schreck blobs its supposed to counter, 240mm howi is just insanely inconsistent and expensive. The patch really helps here, even if it should just have reduced scatter. 225 muns is friggen expensive for long lead time lottery results. The wolverine and elite vehicle crews dont really do much in team games, as we've beat to death. EVC repairs are redundant with Assault Engineets. Maybe allow EVC as an off map call-in elite CQC unit, or find something else for them to do. Wolverine is a dirt cheap anti armor stalling tool that becomes completely obsolete when heavy armor roles due to its craptastic pen. Its the Armor company not the TD company, swap the wolverine for a premium medium or the Pershing.

Rifle company crutches on the E8, but the E8 comes out when Panthers do without AT supremacy and good AI. It has minimal shock period and lacks the AI to really shock. The patch might give it better AT, but it loses more AI shock period. I predict we wont see much change as Sherman + M36 gets armor sooner and more consitently fights panthers. Replacing Fire Up! with Cover to Cover would make an expensive AoE sprint at least provide smoke. And WP just doesnt threaten late game armor or howitzers or punish slow movement fast enough. Swapping WP for ToT would dramatically improve Rifle usability. Though giving ToT to more doctrines would increase usability.

More clarity of vision, less redundant choices, and more impactful abilities make good commanders well designed. Tactical Support just... doesnt have that.

I think your analyses of UA vs Tactical support is off. UA is a complete doc with viable tools that support eachother throughout, especially in urban environments. UA works in every map size Tactical Support doesnt have that quality of commander design. Its just an inferiorly designed doctrine. We see Calliopes are highly rated by TS in 4th most popular 4v4 even with poor design. Tactical Support needs a clarification of what it does, which is a weird jumble right now.
....

I have a different opinion:
Tactical support is a well designed commander that follows the Infantry commander design. Both have LMG, both have a light vehicle (MHT/M5), both have an off map, while infatry get mines and Tactical get recon.

On the other hand Urban defense gets much more, no tech grenades, superior mediums and less micro (can keep AP round and fire WP against soft targets), superior infatry in Rangers, one of the best smoke in game with cover to cover, plus the Calliope. The commander is simply overloaded and above other commanders and those show in picks.

In numbers UA score consistently above TS in all modes being first or second pick.

I miss the universal 76 upgrades, the crocodile, and the mine flail. COH2 USF feels like an incomplete faction.

Really baffled by the removal of the bulldozer sherman from reserve armor. It's a nice little damage sponge that maintains the mediocre AT capabilities of the regular sherman. Don't think it's OP at all especially with the cost requirements.

Yep.

Altho I would have preferred the 105 Sherman instead of the Croc, the Priest instead of the M2A1 105mm howitzer from Infantry Company, a 76mm Jumbo instead of the Pershing (more armor) and maybe the proper turret model for the 76mm upgrade for the Shermans.

Oh and also the M1919A4 with the .50 cal animations from this game which were actually in the old CoH as well they just didn't use them for some reason instead of the M1917 Browning Machine Gun.

I have a different opinion:
Tactical support is a well designed commander that follows the Infantry commander design. Both have LMG, both have a light vehicle (MHT/M5), both have an off map, while infatry get mines and Tactical get recon.

On the other hand Urban defense gets much more, no tech grenades, superior mediums and less micro (can keep AP round and fire WP against soft targets), superior infatry in Rangers, one of the best smoke in game with cover to cover, plus the Calliope. The commander is simply overloaded and above other commanders and those show in picks.

In numbers UA score consistently above TS in all modes being first or second pick.

I believe TS is just underloaded. And you know off maps are very much not created equal. TS is a weak team game doctrine with what was a garbage off-map (thank you patch notes!). Infantry has the only guaranteed howitzer killing off-map, rifleman field defenses, and the only real howitzer for USF. TS wants to be Infantry, but misses the rest of the long-range rifle support and two low impact off-maps. USF gets great recon planes non-doc, the doc option isn't worth it. And the Calliope and the P47 strafe are both blob control tools, resulting in serious redundancy. The doc needs an AT source or consistent fortification control. It needs something more.

UA is a bit overloaded. The WP tank rounds are fun but absolutely overkill. A tank shouldn't counter its counter, which WP absolutely does. The Dozer blade is in a good place otherwise, and with Mechanized losing its blade UA will be (I believe) the only Dozer Blade doctrine.

I believe TS is just underloaded. And you know off maps are very much not created equal. TS is a weak team game doctrine with what was a garbage off-map (thank you patch notes!). Infantry has the only guaranteed howitzer killing off-map, rifleman field defenses, and the only real howitzer for USF. TS wants to be Infantry, but misses the rest of the long-range rifle support and two low impact off-maps. USF gets great recon planes non-doc, the doc option isn't worth it. And the Calliope and the P47 strafe are both blob control tools, resulting in serious redundancy. The doc needs an AT source or consistent fortification control. It needs something more.

UA is a bit overloaded. The WP tank rounds are fun but absolutely overkill. A tank shouldn't counter its counter, which WP absolutely does. The Dozer blade is in a good place otherwise, and with Mechanized losing its blade UA will be (I believe) the only Dozer Blade doctrine.

Then we agree.

Then we agree.

Yep. UA may need some deloading but many USF commanders need some sweet love.

I think just preserve mechanized company's dozer blade and just nerf its cost 50/20 to 50/25 or allow dozer upgrade when both mechanized command post is done(Platoon, and company). Frankly. Not touching about reserve armor and dozer blade is the best. But even enduring some nerfs. Dozer blade of mechanized company must be preserved.