Commander Update Beta 2021 - USF Feedback

Well, there are in the All Units mod tho.

No proper animations then. The gun / rocket rack support clips into the mantlet in that mod which looks pretty bad.

The game should be mostly balanced around 2v2 because of the symmetrical nature of 1v1, there really isn't a reason for COH to be an asymmetrically balanced game. You cant balance around 4v4 because its a general shitshow of a mode. 3v3 is my personal favourite because IMHO it's the best combo since it's usually one v one on one VP. 1v1 is easiest to balance around.

One thing that would immensly help the 3v3+ balance is the map pool. It's no secret that a good player can use JP4 + heavies to lock down an area if you do not have the exact commander to deal with it (or if you're playing against arranged, when your smoke will be followed by an enemy flare/recon and you jusr cant push 1v1 without some sort of offmap.
Hence, redball and other shit maps go bye bye. Maps like Whiteball, Steppes would go a long way to counteract the "park heavy tanks on the front and bombard with stukas and werfers" balance problems of 3v3+.

You have ettlebruck station which is a Lefh heaven. Redball for super heavies. Angrymundy for encampments and heavies. Port of Hamburger the same. Just a lot of maps that favor one particular playstyle and little to no chance of flank, gank, going the long way...

Still. In response to MMX, I doubt the patch notes will change much. I'd like to be proven wrong though, because the current AEF ones are all over the place and doing nothing except nerfing important stuff without really reworking other underused units

Calliope lose armor and health for no price or CP reduction.
Pathfinder barrage get 1 second more and flare coming sooner for no price reduction.
Combined arms got nerfed at 70% and only got a 35 munition decrease.
Rear echelon rifle grenade got wiped out of the game for no price reduction.

But the Ez8 got 5 range increase and obviously get a 10 fuel price increase.

There is usually a way to see when the balance team cares or not about something they touch. They have two way of doing a nerf.

1- small adjustments at each patch version so they make sure to not overnerf something they like, ie: ostruppen changes on the last patch.

2- Nerf hammer, overnerf the stuff and if nobody complain about it too loudly, profit. If it generates some noise just revert some of the nerf so you show your actually caring about it. If there is too much noise then just revert and nerf something else. ie: Ram and IL2 strafe or USF changes this patch.

Why 105mm Dozer Sherman is hidden behind CPs? Is it that scary so it needs its timing to be capped?

If yes why KV-1 and KV-8 are not hid behind CPs while 105mm, which is not really that hot of the vehicle IMO is. Also the price difference with Brummbar does not reflect their performance difference.

So this may be crazy but what about possibly trying to fit the Pershing into Armor Company? It kind of fits well with the other units and abilities in the doctrine. Assault Engineers help to repair the Pershing, Elite Crews help the Perishing get it's important vet faster, and most importantly the M10 now has a worthwhile reason to use as it saves fuel to help get the Pershing out faster compared to the Jackson.
Also has the benefit of getting the Pershing into a second commander while not overlapping pretty much anything between the two.

The Greyhound is close to a T-70 in terms of AI power. Its 4 CP timing is fine in 1v1. It needs that gate otherwise it would become too powerful. It was heavy meta before Mechanized took over. It's too bad that 4 CPs is too late for teamgames, but you can't buff its timing without potentially breaking it in 1v1. So there's not much to be done. Some units are simply only good in one mode.

Wow. Incredible youve compared a greyhound to a t-70, like, lmao what???

The greyhound is bad in 1v1 and in larger modes sanders, Its just bad. You're not going to break anything by giving a CP reduction or cost reduction for a subpar LV.

It would come pretty much at the same timing as Luchs or Stuart. Since it would have to fight directly versus Luchs, which has same AI performance as Greyhound with 50.cal and since it looses to Luchs in its current state I don't see a problem. Where do you see a problem?

There isn't one.

I definitely think there is some frustration within the USF playerbase at the moment about the the last patch and what we see coming this patch. The buffs feel like things no one really asked for while the nerfs hurt. For example, I knew the nerfs to Rifle Nades, Mechanized, and IR Paths was coming, but very few of the buffs really feel exciting or interesting, and many of them are extremely token changes to otherwise dead units. The faction is still doing well enough in 1v1 that I don't expect this course to change though, but the complete disinterest in opening up more docs for team game play is disheartening.

Current Opinions: (~10 patch games in)

RANGERS:
I increasingly like this the more I play with it. I'd love to see them get another utility option though. As elites go, they feel incredibly bland. Something like Smoke Grenades or Fire Up would help differentiate them further from Paras and Cav Rifles.

105 SHERMAN:
The other unit change I think is on the right track. The live version struggles too much to differentiate itself from the stock Sherman, and adding some indirect capabilities will help it plow through opposing AT gun walls. The barrage itself seems buggy, and I'd like to see it get further buffs from vet. (extra shells, less scatter, etc) The Cover creation has likewise always been fairly buggy, and could use some attention the way sandbags were last patch.

EASY 8:
If the goal is to make it a Comet, then this is way off the mark. Its biggest problem has always been its weak anti infantry capabilities and low Rate of Fire, and none of the proposed changes really address that. I didn't really have a problem with it at its current price point, and think either just increasing its RoF or swapping its M4A3 vet to the 76 vet would help a lot. The E8s biggest problem has always been the doc, not the unit.

GREYHOUND:
The change itself is basically pointless. Even in 1v1, a 10 minute LV is of extremely limited value. By that point in the game there is usually multiple AT weapons present on the field, so the Greyhounds ability to cause bleed and gain vet is heavily neutered. The last 5 professional level games I've watched where a Greyhound was built, it died within 1 minute of being built each time. Even if you have to go after its lethality or HP, the unit has to come out earlier to have any change of seeing real play.

CALLIOPE:
Like the 50cal before it, I'm with everyone else in wondering why this unit isn't getting a cost and CP reduction if its getting brought in line with other Rocket Arty. The minimum range increases should be done across the board for all arty imo. (or if its possible, keep the minimum range, but set a minimum scatter distance) Arty is used far too often as mini Sturmtigers rather than being used as actual artillery pieces.

PERSHING:
Honestly the easiest thing to do is just give it a self repair ability. It would be in line with USF Crews but bypass cheating out more than one at a time.

CAV RIFLES, MORTAR HALFTRACK, CANISTER SHOT:
I'll take them, but they are of minimal value. Plenty of these across all factions, so I'm not opposed to seeing munitions cost reductions to underused abilities.

IR PATHFINDER BARRAGE, RE RIFLE GRENADE, MECHANIZED DOZER:
All fine. Anyone in here surprised by these is either not playing against them or not paying attention to axis complaints about them. IR Paths gave way too little time to react, and 140 munitions for 2 dead AT guns was extremely powerful. Rifle Grenades required no input but routinely had huge payoffs. Mechanized snuck an insane amount of value into its slots and is lucky to keep the M3.

COMBINED ARMS:
There seems to be a big global push to nerf the army wide buffs. This one seems like it got hit a lot harder though. 15% accuracy for infantry and 15% reload for vehicles for 90 munitions? Things like Assault and Valiant Assault still give fire on the move and sprint, and just moved some of the accuracy into RA, Combined Arms is losing its sight and reload bonuses, while still being fairly expensive.

..and Commanders:

RIFLE COMPANY:
Since this seems to be the biggest elephant in the room, I'll start with it. This doc is actually getting a lot of buffs, (Flamer REs, Fire up, WP Barrage, E8) but none of them really address the core problem: The doc needs to bring something else to the table besides the E8. With such an incomplete stock roster, what units and abilities a doc adds to the faction is going to determine how much play it sees. Improving existing units (which is what Rifle tries to do) works far better in factions like Soviets or Ost, which have far more complete base rosters. A doctrinal slot needs to be opened up somewhere and either an impact unit or powerful ability needs to be put there for the doc to make sense. Burning 3 doc points on Rifles to give them a marginal increase in power is too much.

Of the changes made, I don't think most of them are really done right. REs still bleed hard when they close, (even with -10%RA) and with the increased vet requirements its even harder to make them feel relevant. Fire Up to CP 1 isn't really addressing the problem, a sprint alone isn't worth a doctrinal point, (see Ambush Camo) especially not at CP1 for 15 munitions and a slower max sprint speed. White Phosphorus Barrage doesn't feel like it works as intended. The smoke left behind doesn't seem to block sight the way its meant to.

If I had my choice on how to fix the doctrine, it would be to dump the flamethrower. (You can put it in Urban in place of the Rifle Grenade if the faction desperately needs it) From there I would combine Fire up and Flares into one doc point, and use the newly freed doctrinal point to add something useful. I'd propose the following:

American Logistical Train: CP: 2
* Weapon Upgrades cost 10 fewer munitions
* Weapon Rack purchases cost 10 fewer munitions
* Abilities used cost 5 fewer munitions

This would give the doctrine something unique over other docs, and take the ability spam nature of USF (and even moreso Rifle) and embrace it. Rewarding the player for making full use of their abilities and allowing them to use more. (more Sabot rounds from the M1, more grenades, more flares and sprints) It also allows Rifles to feel more powerful (faster double BARs) without actually increasing their overall power.

If thats unacceptable, then an impact unit here is also viable.

ARMOR COMPANY:
Another company that is getting a lot of discussion. 240mm Barrage remains my biggest point of contention. I'd really love to see it swapped out for something more practical. My suggestion:

Tank Commander: CP 8
* Upgradeable on the Sherman and 105 Sherman.
* 30 munitions, disables the 50cal upgrade.
* Unit gains the Mark Target and 155mm Barrages found on the WC51.

As simple as it is, it does a lot of useful things. First, it plays into the docs theme of armor, improving the docs Shermans. Second, it gives the doc more tools to fight AT gun walls, as the doc lacks quality indirect to punish support weapon setups. Third, it gives the docs M10s and Shermans more striking power during dives against heavier targets thanks to Mark Target.

Outside of that, I've really liked the idea of Assault Engineers + Pershing for a long time. If such changes aren't possible, it would be cool to see the Pershing in this doc since it has such natural synergy with the Pershing.

RECON SUPPORT:
I don't understand why Raid Tactics is untouched. The ability is terrible. Either drop it and split the airgroup into 2 parts or make it more viable.

INFANTRY COMPANY:
I think on paper this doc is fine. Everything in it is good, if unexciting. Someone somewhere mentioned swapping the Mortar Halftrack out for Heavy Cavs Rangers and then moving Cav Riflemen into Heavy Cav which left me intrigued. We'd finally have a 1919 + Rangers doc, and it would play well with the new Garands. Since the doc is largely based around team games anyway, adding elite infantry is a plus there. I do like the Mortar Halftrack, but its definitely the most expendable part of the doc.

AIRBORNE:
Why is the P-47 strike still more expensive than the JU-87 Loiter? Why does it have worse tracking as well? I don't understand why this isn't being fixed.

and finally, are we really not going to make use of the final commander portrait? There is a ton of interesting units that are only present in 1 doc, and plenty of interesting ways to combine them.

No proper animations then. The gun / rocket rack support clips into the mantlet in that mod which looks pretty bad.

I've honestly never noticed it.

I just know he somehow made it a 105 at first and then changed it to a regular 75mm gun which makes sense to me.

Might do a test one of these days tho, record it to see how it looks but I doubt it's very noticable.

So this may be crazy but what about possibly trying to fit the Pershing into Armor Company? It kind of fits well with the other units and abilities in the doctrine. Assault Engineers help to repair the Pershing, Elite Crews help the Perishing get it's important vet faster, and most importantly the M10 now has a worthwhile reason to use as it saves fuel to help get the Pershing out faster compared to the Jackson.
Also has the benefit of getting the Pershing into a second commander while not overlapping pretty much anything between the two.

Funny you mention that, I had another suggestion for a new commander when they were doing those about an year ago that included the Pershing mixed in with other Armor/tank type units.

Now it has nothing do with changes specifically for the Armor Company but I just decided to mention it since it's somewhat of a rehash of the old CoH Armor Company:



I really think the Pershing, E8 and Greyhound all deserve to be in other more uh, "practical" let's just say doctrines/commanders.

So this may be crazy but what about possibly trying to fit the Pershing into Armor Company? It kind of fits well with the other units and abilities in the doctrine. Assault Engineers help to repair the Pershing, Elite Crews help the Perishing get it's important vet faster, and most importantly the M10 now has a worthwhile reason to use as it saves fuel to help get the Pershing out faster compared to the Jackson.
Also has the benefit of getting the Pershing into a second commander while not overlapping pretty much anything between the two.

THIS

I've honestly never noticed it.

I just know he somehow made it a 105 at first and then changed it to a regular 75mm gun which makes sense to me.

Might do a test one of these days tho, record it to see how it looks but I doubt it's very noticable.



Funny you mention that, I had another suggestion for a new commander when they were doing those about an year ago that included the Pershing mixed in with other Armor/tank type units.

Now it has nothing do with changes specifically for the Armor Company but I just decided to mention it since it's somewhat of a rehash of the old CoH Armor Company:



I really think the Pershing, E8 and Greyhound all deserve to be in other more uh, "practical" let's just say doctrines/commanders.

That commander is going to make the other commanders dead. Not going to solve our dead commander problem

That commander is going to make the other commanders dead. Not going to solve our dead commander problem

Of course.

It's not the point of it lol.

Like I said it was meant to get the Pershing, E8 and Greyhound in a more "practical" commander/doctrine.

It would be funny if they brought back Allied War Machine from vCOH where you could replace the lost tanks with muni.

The Pershing is a joke for a "heavy" tank.

Issues with the Pershing:

1. Skill shot sucks - windup seems longer than Tulips and even Tulips stun and act as a snare allowing more AT shots on the opposing tank.

2. Barely wins against a panther on a one v one.

3. Lackluster performance against infantry.

4. Commander it comes with lacks no off-map artillery ability to harass or punish ENY heavy infantry and AT gunplay.

5. No get out of jail abilities/smoke or blitzkrieg (must be nice to have that vet one ability)

6. Can not act as a mobile pillbox


Honestly, a big problem with USF is it lacks endgame units that allow it to have a competitive advantage over the axis fraction.

Combined Arms play with T1 and T2 is punished hard by STOCK axis rocket artillery

Stock riflemen are destroyed by long-range shooting axis infantry before they can get close to get good damage (BARS) Grens, Obers, and even PGs augmented with G34s.

Stock Anti-Tank capabilities are moot.
1. AT Gun that requires MUNI to consistently PEN
2. Bazooka bounce
3. M36 offers reliable AT but is easily countered by 2x ATGs with screening axis infantry, also can be chased down and killed by PV4 and panthers quite easily if caught out of place.
4. Lack of decent mine-laying capability (If you want something decent has to go T1 for M20 and invest in it but mines can be negated by a single sweeper. Also limits on the number of BARs equipped on units)

Stock Artillery unit capabilities are now moot.

1. All stock units outclassed by Axis rocket artillery
2. Pack Howi Nerfed - more micro intensive.
3. Scott Nerfed - more micro intensive.
4. USF Mortar useful at times but again outclassed in the end game.
5. USF Major - great for cheap arty call-in but requires LOS and the major to be in proximity to guide onto the target.

Stock Armor
1. Is PENNED by every axis AT platform from stock units.
2. Must use a combined arms approach in deal with heavy tanks and at times including medium tanks.

Honestly, USF Commanders should be designed to assist the USF player in the late game. The commander selections provides the player with a slight competitive advantage in the end game. At least the commander should augment some of the shortcomings of the USF fraction previously listed.

Just my opinion and again yes I am USF biased.

Wow. Incredible youve compared a greyhound to a t-70, like, lmao what???

The greyhound is bad in 1v1 and in larger modes sanders, Its just bad. You're not going to break anything by giving a CP reduction or cost reduction for a subpar LV.

It actually kind of is, except it has ubiquitous innate sight range from a get go. T70 seems like has better AOE tho. It is honestly not that bad. Probably not t70 level good, but not bad either. And the doctrine it is in - top notch.

It would be funny if they brought back Allied War Machine from vCOH where you could replace the lost tanks with muni.

The Pershing is a joke for a "heavy" tank.

Issues with the Pershing:

1. Skill shot sucks - windup seems longer than Tulips and even Tulips stun and act as a snare allowing more AT shots on the opposing tank.

2. Barely wins against a panther on a one v one.

3. Lackluster performance against infantry.

4. Commander it comes with lacks no off-map artillery ability to harass or punish ENY heavy infantry and AT gunplay.

5. No get out of jail abilities/smoke or blitzkrieg (must be nice to have that vet one ability)

6. Can not act as a mobile pillbox


Honestly, a big problem with USF is it lacks endgame units that allow it to have a competitive advantage over the axis fraction.

Combined Arms play with T1 and T2 is punished hard by STOCK axis rocket artillery

Stock riflemen are destroyed by long-range shooting axis infantry before they can get close to get good damage (BARS) Grens, Obers, and even PGs augmented with G34s.

Stock Anti-Tank capabilities are moot.
1. AT Gun that requires MUNI to consistently PEN
2. Bazooka bounce
3. M36 offers reliable AT but is easily countered by 2x ATGs with screening axis infantry, also can be chased down and killed by PV4 and panthers quite easily if caught out of place.
4. Lack of decent mine-laying capability (If you want something decent has to go T1 for M20 and invest in it but mines can be negated by a single sweeper. Also limits on the number of BARs equipped on units)

Stock Artillery unit capabilities are now moot.

1. All stock units outclassed by Axis rocket artillery
2. Pack Howi Nerfed - more micro intensive.
3. Scott Nerfed - more micro intensive.
4. USF Mortar useful at times but again outclassed in the end game.
5. USF Major - great for cheap arty call-in but requires LOS and the major to be in proximity to guide onto the target.

Stock Armor
1. Is PENNED by every axis AT platform from stock units.
2. Must use a combined arms approach in deal with heavy tanks and at times including medium tanks.

Honestly, USF Commanders should be designed to assist the USF player in the late game. The commander selections provides the player with a slight competitive advantage in the end game. At least the commander should augment some of the shortcomings of the USF fraction previously listed.

Just my opinion and again yes I am USF biased.

While I agree with you on the part of late game units in my opinion they just lack something that can take a punch.

But with that comes 2 problems:

1. is that the historical WW2 Allies always lacked tanks that could "competitively" as you said, take on the bigger German cats, hence the late design of the 76mm gun, the Jumbo, the whole tank destroyer doctrine that included the M10, M18 Hellcat and lastly of course, the M36 Jackson, of which there was the M36B1 version which used the Sherman hull as well and last of all, the Pershing which entered the war very late in 1945, had many mechanical issues and that's why it was deemed as unreliable compared to the Sherman as well as at the most being a match only really for the Panther. And I know it's a game but they still have to base it off of something.

I won't go into why the US lacked such a tank or why the Pershing was so late for the party and even rushed but let's just say it had to do with US tank doctrine of the Sherman being designed more as an infantry support tank, politics and the weight limit of harbor cranes being around 40 tons, not to mention the sheer logistical nightmare of getting several types of vehicles, ammunition, fuel, food and on and so forth about 10,000 miles from your homeland over to Europe.

2. is that that's how the USF was designed as well, no Jumbo, all "good" tanks like the 76, E8 and Pershing are all each locked in their own somewhat mediocre commander, maybe except for Mechanized Company, and we, including the community team, lack the tools necessary to carry out the needed changes to remedy this, not to mention that it's also a bit too late now with the faction being in it's what, 6th year or something of being like this in the game?

Core changes are just probably not gonna happen like you're asking for sadly.

If the second Rear Echelon squad is redundant (which it typically is), why not just let the flamethrower and minesweeper be compatible with each other? We're already seeing that on Sturms.

I also retract my previous statements. The RE rifle grenade doesn't need to be nerfed this hard, maybe just a range decrease to fit around the flamethrower's range.

Spoof finally coming around PogChamp

It actually kind of is, except it has ubiquitous innate sight range from a get go. T70 seems like has better AOE tho. It is honestly not that bad. Probably not t70 level good, but not bad either. And the doctrine it is in - top notch.

Probably not as good as the t70? Probably?

For everyone who is upset at the Calliope armor nerf, this is why the armor needs to be nerfed:



20:15. If 1st shot penned maybe I could've kamikaze chased it down, but Calliope went nope.

Calliope needs armor nerf. Really upsetting when PIV-J cannot penetrate.

However HP nerf is unwarranted. Its 110 fuel, why should it die so quick? What 110 Fuel unit dies in 2 shots, tell me?

Probably not as good as the t70? Probably?

Probably because they are closer then you think, in fact so close stat wise that it's not so easy to decide how much. My gut feeling and experience tells me that t70 is better, but if you look at stats it is clearly not 'bad' as of M8 and 'great' as of t70 type difference.

No proper animations then. The gun / rocket rack support clips into the mantlet in that mod which looks pretty bad.

Also about this and the Jumbo thing you were talking about:



And pardon the potato graphics but I've set everything to low so I don't lag or crash during slugfests.

Anyway, this is my point about nitpicky things being nitpicky because the only way you will notice them is by zooming all the way down and then rotating the camera, which I don't believe most sensible people do, especially in a middle of a battle.