Commander Update Beta 2021 - USF Feedback

Armor still needs some work, (105, 240mm) but I don't really have a problem with the M10. Its never going to be a powerhouse in team games, where range and frontal penetration are king, but its good in 1v1 and retains some limited utility as a cheap Rocket Arty diver in team games.

It doesn't really need to be a scaling monstrosity that tag teams the first P4 and then spends the rest of the game being a pseudo Jackson. Its competitor at this cost and power level is the Stug. If it feels similarly powerful to that, then its fine. Only real change I would argue it could use is a size adjustment to bring it in line with the new medium tank sizes.

I'd rather spend what little time is left working on the other parts of Armor. (before the E8 crushes all other discussion again)

Armor still needs some work, (105, 240mm) but I don't really have a problem with the M10. Its never going to be a powerhouse in team games, where range and frontal penetration are king, but its good in 1v1 and retains some limited utility as a cheap Rocket Arty diver in team games.

It doesn't really need to be a scaling monstrosity that tag teams the first P4 and then spends the rest of the game being a pseudo Jackson. Its competitor at this cost and power level is the Stug. If it feels similarly powerful to that, then its fine. Only real change I would argue it could use is a size adjustment to bring it in line with the new medium tank sizes.

I'd rather spend what little time is left working on the other parts of Armor. (before the E8 crushes all other discussion again)

Exactly because its competitor is the StuG. The StuG starts with a penetration that is comparable to M10 penetration if it received a 30% pen bonus.
I don't think that the M10 should be much better than it is now, and I realize that the StuG is much less mobile, has a different role and has no turret, but I still think that an 80 fuel TD shouldn't require a munition ability to boost its penetration. Changing it so that, by vet 2, the M10 gets a passive penetration buff to StuG level seems reasonable enough. It's not gonna counter King Tigers

Exactly because its competitor is the StuG. The StuG starts with a penetration that is comparable to M10 penetration if it received a 30% pen bonus.
I don't think that the M10 should be much better than it is now, and I realize that the StuG is much less mobile, has a different role and has no turret, but I still think that an 80 fuel TD shouldn't require a munition ability to boost its penetration. Changing it so that, by vet 2, the M10 gets a passive penetration buff to StuG level seems reasonable enough. It's not gonna counter King Tigers

careful, that might make it usable and we can't have that

The M10 Wolverine/Achilles (both versions) need some more love. I will post this here since I think the USF version is in a slightly worse state than the UKF one due to the heavy MUN need of USF infantry that competes with the HVAP ability.

There is a similar vehicle in the game - Stug-G. Stug-G has similar health, similar armor, more pen (esp at far range +20%), slightly more expensive (-20mp, +10 fuel). No idea about ROF tho. Stats say M10's reload is shorter, but there is a wind up and wind down + moving cooldown duration multiplier, which kind of convolute things a little bit for me. Might be a good idea to remove cooldown duration multiplier (set to 1 from 1.2).

Although units are somewhat similar, but adversity they are facing is not, since axis stock armor has generally more armor.

I think increased penetration, especially the at far range may help unit a lot. Maybe even buff HVAP M93 Shells. The target size is definitely pretty high for such vehicle, although with 'Flanking Speed' enabled it is almost identical to that of Stug-G.

No idea what happened to the unit, but I definitely struggle to find a reason to build one, unless a cheap flanking throwaway unit. Not even worth building to fight P4s imo.

There is a similar vehicle in the game - Stug-G. Stug-G has similar health, similar armor, more pen (esp at far range +20%), slightly more expensive (-20mp, +10 fuel). No idea about ROF tho. Stats say M10's reload is shorter, but there is a wind up and wind down + moving cooldown duration multiplier, which kind of convolute things a little bit for me. Might be a good idea to remove cooldown duration multiplier (set to 1 from 1.2).

Although units are somewhat similar, but adversity they are facing is not, since axis stock armor has generally more armor.

I think increased penetration, especially the at far range may help unit a lot. Maybe even buff HVAP M93 Shells. The target size is definitely pretty high for such vehicle, although with 'Flanking Speed' enabled it is almost identical to that of Stug-G.

No idea what happened to the unit, but I definitely struggle to find a reason to build one, unless a cheap flanking throwaway unit. Not even worth building to fight P4s imo.

I thought about a comparison to the StuG, but did not because they are functionally quite different. The M10 is intended to flank other tanks therefore (theoretically) the pen should not matter as much.
The StuG fires quicker. It is a way, way better TD than the M10, even if the M10 gets rear armor shots only. The CD multiplier does not matter for the M10 as well, since CD is not applied for tanks. It also vets way better.
The main difference for me is that I can buy a StuG in the late game and it will still do the work it is supposed to do since the pen and ROF are sufficient to do the damage. Building an M10 in the late game is a complete waste of resources. And the niche it can fill in the early-mid game is super super small.

No idea about ROF tho. Stats say M10's reload is shorter, but there is a wind up and wind down + moving cooldown duration multiplier, which kind of convolute things a little bit for me. Might be a good idea to remove cooldown duration multiplier (set to 1 from 1.2)

As far as I know moving cooldown for cannons is a void stat. These weapons do not use cooldown. Cooldown is basically single shot reload for bolt action rifles (reload is loading a new clip) or time between bursts for automatic rifles (reload is reloading a new belt or magazine).

If you're using Serealia to check cannon reloads, you can select the weapon and then hover over the dot in the graph. This will show you the actual reload with all extra factors like the wind up and down incorporated.

In this case, the StuG has a 5.25s/3.4s (vet 1/vet 3) reload and the M10 has a 5.85s/5s reload.


The reload the M10 gets from vet 3 seems to be an incredibly small (effective) bonus compared to similar units, so at least I'll see if we can change that to something spicier.

M10, I can agree with the reload veterancy being odd, but I will disagree with most factors on the unit. Yes, in team games and lane maps it'll always have issues, but I believe the unit is good enough for its cost.

It already puts a halt to the Panzer IV, Ostwind and can still pressure the OKW's Panzer IV which is almost 60+ more fuel. The StuG G does have better protection against things that are flung against it, but it's also slower, lacks a turret and cannot respond to situations on the battlefield as quickly - it can only attack people head on.

Its in the place like the SU-76. They are okay by themselves, but their cheap cost makes them more in a unit that operates in pairs to trios and other cheaper vehicles are used to help fill the gap such as Scotts for AI work. And it also means, for these units if you see a opening, you dive in and either get out or trade 1 M10 for on of their more expensive tanks.

And this is from a guy who has on Stream, used the M10 Train - and armor company - alot. It is definitely, however, not a unit that works like most other conventional units.

I still think Relic made a mistake by not adding in the Hellcat again.

Smaller faster TD with a .50 cal upgrade.

I also think it had a co-ax and hull machine gun but not entirely sure.

Could have served as a cheap mainline tank alternative to the Sherman or something, just like in the first game.

I still think Relic made a mistake by not adding in the Hellcat again.

Smaller faster TD with a .50 cal upgrade.

I also think it had a co-ax and hull machine gun but not entirely sure.

Could have served as a cheap mainline tank alternative to the Sherman or something, just like in the first game.

Perhaps. But agreed with Mira here. M10 is a bit weird and in teamgames quite useless. But for 1v1s it can work. Extended to 2v2? Sure. 3v3+ it's pointless to build it since speed and agility is not what wins here, but durability and firepower. If anything, some slight reworks are only needed for M10. Nothing major

As far as I know moving cooldown for cannons is a void stat. These weapons do not use cooldown. Cooldown is basically single shot reload for bolt action rifles (reload is loading a new clip) or time between bursts for automatic rifles (reload is reloading a new belt or magazine).

If you're using Serealia to check cannon reloads, you can select the weapon and then hover over the dot in the graph. This will show you the actual reload with all extra factors like the wind up and down incorporated.

In this case, the StuG has a 5.25s/3.4s (vet 1/vet 3) reload and the M10 has a 5.85s/5s reload.


The reload the M10 gets from vet 3 seems to be an incredibly small (effective) bonus compared to similar units, so at least I'll see if we can change that to something spicier.

CD does indeed not apply to tank guns since those instantly enter the reload.
On a side note: The serealia reload time adds up all the "ROF stats" and then adds an additional 0.125 seconds for some reason. It slightly underestimates the ROF since it should add 0.25-0.5 seconds, depending on the stats used.

M10, I can agree with the reload veterancy being odd, but I will disagree with most factors on the unit. Yes, in team games and lane maps it'll always have issues, but I believe the unit is good enough for its cost.

It already puts a halt to the Panzer IV, Ostwind and can still pressure the OKW's Panzer IV which is almost 60+ more fuel. The StuG G does have better protection against things that are flung against it, but it's also slower, lacks a turret and cannot respond to situations on the battlefield as quickly - it can only attack people head on.

Its in the place like the SU-76. They are okay by themselves, but their cheap cost makes them more in a unit that operates in pairs to trios and other cheaper vehicles are used to help fill the gap such as Scotts for AI work. And it also means, for these units if you see a opening, you dive in and either get out or trade 1 M10 for on of their more expensive tanks.

And this is from a guy who has on Stream, used the M10 Train - and armor company - alot. It is definitely, however, not a unit that works like most other conventional units.

Maybe I am not using it correctly, but I barely get the M10 to work. At least not in 2v2/3v3. Against the OKW P4, not even 2 out of 3 shots penetrate frontally (given that it even manages to hit). For the price that's how it should be. But it also means that only units it can really counter are the OST P4 and Ostwind which makes the niche really tiny.

Look at the stats: The UKF lend lease commander is mostly in the loadouts in 1v1 (I assume due to Assault Sections) with heavy decrease in larger modes. Also the Top200 stats show less load out picks than the whole dataset (https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1617235200/1v1/british?statsSource=top200). And USF's armor company scores even worse. The M10 does not have to shine through raw power, but I'd like to see some changes to make it more attractive when newly built in the late game. Especially in team games. USF and UKF don't have that many commanders, and the M10 not working in team games makes two commanders less attractive. That's why I think it is really worth looking at, especially for team games: Because we can make two underused commanders more attractive.

snip

The problem is people keep comparing it to the late game tank destroyers and wind up disappointed.

Its stats need to be compared against the medium tanks its intended to fight. It has better range, penetration, and RoF than any of the stock mediums while being faster than all but the Cromwell and 30+ fuel cheaper than all but the T-34. While it has nowhere near the range and firepower of the big allied TDs, it has enough for the job at hand at an excellent price point. Its raw speed also makes it an excellent diver who can get into the rear of Panthers where the armor doesn't matter as much, (especially vetted) and once it has HVAP its frontal penetration capabilities are solid enough to be a decent poker as well if needed.

Yeah, its lousy in larger team games, I don't think thats fixable without turning it into another Jackson. Flankers don't work well there and range and pen are king. USF and Brits are extremely doctrine dependent in the bigger team games as well, (and show no signs of changing) and even if you tuned the M10 for it I doubt Armor would beat out Infantry Company or the Calliope Docs.

If you want to see Armor in big team games, it would need to focus more on making the indirect on the 105 more potent and making their Sherman and especially Jackson feel more deadly than the stock versions. 240mm being turned into something people actually want to use wouldn't hurt either.

On the topic of Armor Company and by extension other USF doctrines. Armor Company really doesn't do anything that strong to warrant wanting to pick it. Ass Engies are fun but not particularly overwhelmingly powerful and get their duty stepped on by the trifecta of Riflemen Molotovs in Urban Assault for garrison clearing, Cav Rifles in Mech in the short range DPS game, and Riflemen Field Defenses/M20 for Mines. The M10 feels more like an "Oh no I'm losing" press the cheap TD button rather than something I'm actively striving for like the 76mm (rip in balance patch) and the Bulldozer seems more of a luxury than anything while being invalidated by the CalliOP for actually killing things. Elite Vehicle Crews is also pretty low impact most of the time, I never feel like the repair speed is actually saving that much time to be able to take advantage of it, and the artillery barrage is what it is.

When you look at other USF doctrines, Mechanized is brimming with good things. Cav Rifles, 76mm, Jeep is still okay. Urban Assault has Rifle mollies, Calliop, Sherman Dozer Blades, Airbourne has tech skipping team weapon drops, Pathfinders and Paratroopers which are both great infantry. Recon Support has IR Pathfinders, Butterfly Bombs, the super cheap Pack Howie Paratrooper drop.

When you compare the value and the desire to pick these doctrines compared to Armor Company you're kind of comparing a feeling of wanting to use all of these things because they're useful and powerful. Compared to having a Rifleman sidegrade and a bunch of underwhelming/irrelevant things. The doctrine feels like it needs something genuinely powerful to go along with Ass Engies.

On the topic of Armor Company and by extension other USF doctrines. Armor Company really doesn't do anything that strong to warrant wanting to pick it. Ass Engies are fun but not particularly overwhelmingly powerful and get their duty stepped on by the trifecta of Riflemen Molotovs in Urban Assault for garrison clearing, Cav Rifles in Mech in the short range DPS game, and Riflemen Field Defenses/M20 for Mines. The M10 feels more like an "Oh no I'm losing" press the cheap TD button rather than something I'm actively striving for like the 76mm (rip in balance patch) and the Bulldozer seems more of a luxury than anything while being invalidated by the CalliOP for actually killing things. Elite Vehicle Crews is also pretty low impact most of the time, I never feel like the repair speed is actually saving that much time to be able to take advantage of it, and the artillery barrage is what it is.

When you look at other USF doctrines, Mechanized is brimming with good things. Cav Rifles, 76mm, Jeep is still okay. Urban Assault has Rifle mollies, Calliop, Sherman Dozer Blades, Airbourne has tech skipping team weapon drops, Pathfinders and Paratroopers which are both great infantry. Recon Support has IR Pathfinders, Butterfly Bombs, the super cheap Pack Howie Paratrooper drop.

When you compare the value and the desire to pick these doctrines compared to Armor Company you're kind of comparing a feeling of wanting to use all of these things because they're useful and powerful. Compared to having a Rifleman sidegrade and a bunch of underwhelming/irrelevant things. The doctrine feels like it needs something genuinely powerful to go along with Ass Engies.

Something genuinely powerful like a Pershing or an E8?

Show Spoiler

I did not compare it to top tier TDs though and I still think it is pretty bad.
It might work okay in 1v1, but if a unit is only okay in one single mode there is probably reason for a redesign. At least that's what this patch should be aiming for: Make more commanders appealing in general, including more modes. The M10 is not the single way to fix those two commanders, but since it doesn't work well against anything else than an Ostheer T3 spam in 1v1, some changes should be done.
With HVAP it performs well for its price, which is one reason why I can see it to be gated behind vet1. On the other hand it makes building a late M10 uninteresting because it does not properly perform.
It's only late game purpose is to use it as a throw-away tank, which is something the game is usually moving away from.

M10, I can agree with the reload veterancy being odd, but I will disagree with most factors on the unit. Yes, in team games and lane maps it'll always have issues, but I believe the unit is good enough for its cost.

It already puts a halt to the Panzer IV, Ostwind and can still pressure the OKW's Panzer IV which is almost 60+ more fuel. The StuG G does have better protection against things that are flung against it, but it's also slower, lacks a turret and cannot respond to situations on the battlefield as quickly - it can only attack people head on.

Its in the place like the SU-76. They are okay by themselves, but their cheap cost makes them more in a unit that operates in pairs to trios and other cheaper vehicles are used to help fill the gap such as Scotts for AI work. And it also means, for these units if you see a opening, you dive in and either get out or trade 1 M10 for on of their more expensive tanks.

And this is from a guy who has on Stream, used the M10 Train - and armor company - alot. It is definitely, however, not a unit that works like most other conventional units.

The unit may be good for it cost but if it doesn't fulfill any intersting hole, that remain a useless unit.
At the moment the hole the M10 is fulfilling is more or less the same as the Ez8, for a cheaper price and lower effect but that desn't make it more relevant than the Ez8.
- It as trouble dealing with Ostheer Pz4 Vet2
- It as trouble dealing with OKW Pz4 meaning it pretty useless vs OKW unless Light tank spam strat.
- It requires to dive and flank to be effective and this alone is broken since it still a 640 health tank that get snared after 1 shot, and it doesn't have smoke to cover its retreat and it has a big size so even with speed it is still a big target to anything firing at it.

Outside of 1vs1, there are little usage for this unit. Sometime I use it but honeslty I use it just for the sake of using it. Knowing you need to build 2 or 3 of them to make them effective is clearly a marker of being useless otherwise. And if it is fine for you, I severly doubt there are any logic behind the balance team decision, you nerfed the pakhowi and Scott into irrelevance if spamed to praise it for this unit.

I did not compare it to top tier TDs though and I still think it is pretty bad.
It might work okay in 1v1, but if a unit is only okay in one single mode there is probably reason for a redesign. At least that's what this patch should be aiming for: Make more commanders appealing in general, including more modes. The M10 is not the single way to fix those two commanders, but since it doesn't work well against anything else than an Ostheer T3 spam in 1v1, some changes should be done.
With HVAP it performs well for its price, which is one reason why I can see it to be gated behind vet1. On the other hand it makes building a late M10 uninteresting because it does not properly perform.
It's only late game purpose is to use it as a throw-away tank, which is something the game is usually moving away from.

And the problem here is not the M10 but how cost effective the HE Sherman/M36 combo is leaving little room for other unit to fill.

And the problem here is not the M10 but how cost effective the HE Sherman/M36 combo is leaving little room for other unit to fill.

I don't think it has much to do with the HE Sherman. The M10 competes with the Jackson for AT duty as a cheap and more spammable alternative. At least in that way, it is slightly similar to the StuG/Panther matchup. The 76mm Sherman found a spot as well despite that combo and despite the Jackson, so there should be room for the M10 as an even cheaper alternative. But in the current design it does not work outside of the mentioned 1v1 vs Ostheer T3.
The UKF M10 even has a way better niche since the Firefly occupies a heavier TD role than the Jackson, leaving even more space for a light TD. Yet, the commander is among the least picked despite bringing Assault Sections, a mortar and self repairs. This commander fills a lot of holes in the UKF lineup, still it is only average in the loadout picks even in 1v1. This should really tell us that something is wrong with it, and the M10 is part of it.

I don't think it has much to do with the HE Sherman. The M10 competes with the Jackson for AT duty as a cheap and more spammable alternative. At least in that way, it is slightly similar to the StuG/Panther matchup.

Yes the m10 does not have to do with HE Sherman, I am simply pointing out that stock Sherman/M36 cover most roles very effectively leaving little room for doctrinal USF vehicles.

The 76mm Sherman found a spot as well despite that combo and despite the Jackson, so there should be room for the M10 as an even cheaper alternative. But in the current design it does not work outside of the mentioned 1v1 vs Ostheer T3.

The 76mm is in live simply OP and is a tank not a TD. M10 is a TD and M36 is so good vs all vehicles from kubel to Tigers that leave little place for M10.

The UKF M10 even has a way better niche since the Firefly occupies a heavier TD role than the Jackson, leaving even more space for a light TD. Yet, the commander is among the least picked despite bringing Assault Sections, a mortar and self repairs. This commander fills a lot of holes in the UKF lineup, still it is only average in the loadout picks even in 1v1. This should really tell us that something is wrong with it, and the M10 is part of it.

I don't think that the M10 should take the blame for that. There are simply better commander for 1vs1 and the commander does not have arty or even of map so bring very little in 3vs3/4v4.

The changes to Cromwell also have limited the need for a "flanker" TD.


Generally speaking the M10 is a victim of combination of change like:
call-in tech
Rush to last tier
1 TD vs everything (m36)

In team games the m10s value is being able to get a TD if the enemy cached up or held your fuel for a bit and you sre on the back foot. It's a stop gap for team games, not a primary AT source. For USF of all factions this is OK, since that vet won't go to waste when you do replace it.
As an AT unit it's pretty solid, as a USF AT unit it looks bad... Slap that puppy in any other faction and it's lovely. The issue is that the cost difference between it and the Jackson arnt truly huge (not like the m10 and the firefly for example) and the format is the same (compare to the casemate of soviet or Ostheer)
It kinda falls into the same trap as the su76 where it's AT isn't that great for the cost difference of the top end TD despite the unit itself being solid. Generally if you want AT you are going to wait it out for the clearly superior unit that tackles the threat in the same manner and is more forgiving.

I did not compare it to top tier TDs though and I still think it is pretty bad.
It might work okay in 1v1, but if a unit is only okay in one single mode there is probably reason for a redesign. At least that's what this patch should be aiming for: Make more commanders appealing in general, including more modes. The M10 is not the single way to fix those two commanders, but since it doesn't work well against anything else than an Ostheer T3 spam in 1v1, some changes should be done.
With HVAP it performs well for its price, which is one reason why I can see it to be gated behind vet1. On the other hand it makes building a late M10 uninteresting because it does not properly perform.
It's only late game purpose is to use it as a throw-away tank, which is something the game is usually moving away from.

I don't even think it is worth to build in 1v1, unless you are able to build a sherman followed by an m10 and caught p4 out of position. Diving is very problematic in coh 2, because of snares, mines etc, so it is often a gamble with such moves. Because all of this I don't like the unit and avoid building it. Also 60% chance to pen a P4J at far range is pretty bad imo, it is passable with muni sink tho, but only after vet 1. Maybe if HVAP were available with vet0 it would be more viable.

About unit that is effective at numbers - I can't think of a situation when a single jackson is worse then 2 m10. I guess you could sacrifice it to kill a panther or a heavy tank, since a stakes are quite high, but otherwise Jackson is almost always a better investment. It is slightly slower, but the firepower and reliability it provides just overshadows m10. Even with UKF Land Lease I struggled to find a place for it.