Commander Update Beta 2021 - USF Feedback

I wouldn't rate a tank that is ~20% cheaper in all categories even if you take the balance preview changes into account as (very)similar/akin to tank XYZ. I'd also not call it a late game unit, since you can get it around the 16-17 minute mark. You can make it to that time without being forced to build a medium tank beforehand. And given that its currently only role is to kill mediums, it will only shine while mediums are the strongest unit on the field, which is not the late game either.

I'm not going to argue schematics of sentences, nor what can be considered similar nor what is late-game, especially not for a unit that is at the very end of a doctrinal track. I know the costs, read the costs, played against 2xUSF who tried the EZ8, and I don't intend to argue what is a good cost, especially for something that has had its cost hiked up to 150 fuel. Yet, the EZ8 has no space at all in the game.

What type of play does the EZ8 has got when it arrives 16-17 minutes? Answer is simple, it barely has 2-3 minutes of perhaps a chance of killing a medium. And then it sits there doing nothing at all. No wonder I haven't seen it for ages in any 2on2s, and if there were any, it just pinged against my panthers, or they were gone against my pgrens shreks. It is always better for the USF player to get a Jackson first and foremost in every case. these things pack totally, and they're not even doctorinal. Why does the eZ8 even exist in the game? Nobody really knows, and the changes seem more like changes just for the sake of it. USF will prob stick to their usual commander choice.

Why would you build a tank that is only good to fight mediums when you can, for the same price, build a tank that is good vs medium and heavy tanks.

It is not only the combo M4A3 / Jackson that is good, its the logic of building a sherman to punish infantry while able to defend itself vs medium (with the appropriate support) and then build a Jackson to fight anything armored.

Questions anyone should answer are:

Why would you build a M4A3 then a Ez8?
Why would you build a Ez8 first and then a M4A3 or Jackson?
Why would you build a Jackson and then a Ez8?

And that's exactly what I have been pointing at, why get something doctorinal when there are much better options? Why would my USF opponent in 2on2 even choose EZ8 when there are better commanders with better solutions to everything instead of a very specific nonsense EZ8 with no punch and still high cost that arrives quite late (not going to argue what late game is, it still arrives late) to the game? I hate these hit and giggle away Jacksons that just deals with everything. Just give the EZ8 some better AT and done with it. I'd get to see less paras. done and dusted.

Yes, this is some of the data you should have given, the pen values themselves do not help.

But you also can't neglect other stock units. The P4 has a mid-long range chance of ~70% to penetrate a Sherman and 100% for the Jackson once it gets in range.
EZ8 ranges between 65-75% depending on target and range (about 75% if you get in close to about 15 meters) vs OKW tanks and 65-90% vs Ostheer units at similar ranges. The EZ8 also shoots about 0.7 secs slower. The 5 meter range advantage that is currently planned should therefore allow it to get the second shot off at roughly the same time as the P4.

Of course it has an advantage vs other mediums, that's its whole purpose.
...

And thus the claim Easy8 "doesn't have good AT," is false which is my original point.

I am not sure if/where you disagree with my point.

Questions anyone should answer are:

Why would you build a M4A3 then a Ez8?
Why would you build a Ez8 first and then a M4A3 or Jackson?
Why would you build a Jackson and then a Ez8?

Why would you build a Ostheer PzIV and then PzIV J?

Why would you build a PzIV first and then a PzIV or Panther?

Why would build a Panther first and then PzIV j?

I'm not going to argue schematics of sentences, nor what can be considered similar nor what is late-game, especially not for a unit that is at the very end of a doctrinal track.

So, what type of play does the EZ8 has got when it arrives 16-17 minutes? Barely 2-3 minutes of perhaps a chance of killing a medium? No wonder I haven't seen it for ages in any 2on2s, and if there were any, it just pinged against my panthers.

I questioned your points not to debate semantics and definitions, but because you used them as arguments to support your points. But these support are objectively not true.
It's not a specialized late game unit since it comes at a similar timing as the OKW P4.

But I agree that the EZ8 will have a hard time finding a proper role with both the normal Sherman and the Jackson on the field which are not part of the rework. At 16-17 minutes it can fight mediums, which is its intended role. At 25+ you will run into Panthers, there is not much reason to build it over a Jackson. The EZ8 is just bad in the late game because the game shifts away from what it counters.
Question is if we just accept that this unit will be for 1v1 and maybe a bit of 2v2 only where mediums have enough room to breath, so dedicated medium counters are viable. Or if we want this unit to be viable in all modes.

Why would you build a tank that is only good to fight mediums when you can, for the same price, build a tank that is good vs medium and heavy tanks.

It is not only the combo M4A3 / Jackson that is good, its the logic of building a sherman to punish infantry while able to defend itself vs medium (with the appropriate support) and then build a Jackson to fight anything armored.

Questions anyone should answer are:

Why would you build a M4A3 then a Ez8?
Why would you build a Ez8 first and then a M4A3 or Jackson?
Why would you build a Jackson and then a Ez8?

Agree with that, the EZ8 will probably not have a real niche. One solution could be to make it just a bigger version of the normal Sherman, similar to how both T34s work now. But for this purpose it needs better AI. It could also be good to give it a stun shot similar to the StuG, which lets it scale better against heavier armor.

I questioned your points not to debate semantics and definitions, but because you used them as arguments to support your points. But these support are objectively not true.
It's not a specialized late game unit since it comes at a similar timing as the OKW P4.

If you want to discuss that, I consider anything that is towards the very end of a doctrinal track of any commander (clarify: not the only last ability) has to find at least some space and usefulness in late-game. If a commanders end-game unit is a very niche unit, make it less than a niche, please. USF player probably think for late game when choosing commanders, even more if all they rely on are Jacksons.

And thus the claim Easy8 "doesn't have good AT," is false which is my original point.

I am not sure if/where you disagree with my point.

I mostly agree with your point, I just said the original data to support that is useless because penetration values alone do not mean anything. The EZ8 has good AT vs mediums but is only mediocre vs higher armor like Panther, JP4 and Brummbar

I mostly agree with your point, I just said the original data to support that is useless because penetration values alone do not mean anything. The EZ8 has good AT vs mediums but is only mediocre vs higher armor like Panther, JP4 and Brummbar

There are honestly much better doctrinal solutions than a Ez8 to fight medium tanks, named Ranger/zook, para/zook, M4A3/dozer blade and the M10.

Rangers and Paras have really good alfa strike, M10 is cheap and M4A3/dozer have shells switch and armor. The only thing the Ez8 is better in fighting is vs a Brumbar.

Biggest problem with E8 is, its a doctrinal solution to a problem that is not a problem because of stop options.

It is an alternative that doesn't bring much at the end.
It is debatable if a pair of E8s would be better then regular sherman and jackson combo.
Range increase will surely make it a bit more distinct, but I'm not sure if it'll be enough, given it probably would be selling point of the doctrine.

It is an alternative that doesn't bring much at the end.
It is debatable if a pair of E8s would be better then regular sherman and jackson combo.

At that point, a regular sherman and Jackson combo would be supported by some other USF commander ability that is not part of the EZ8 commander. and it'll do a better job.

Biggest problem with E8 is, its a doctrinal solution to a problem that is not a problem because of stop options.

It is an alternative that doesn't bring much at the end.
It is debatable if a pair of E8s would be better then regular sherman and jackson combo.
Range increase will surely make it a bit more distinct, but I'm not sure if it'll be enough, given it probably would be selling point of the doctrine.

Depends what you mean by the 'problem' here. In 1v1, the main armour problem you're facing as USF is the P4. That's not because it's impossible to kill but because it's hard to for your tanks to push the flanks and force it away from your marauding infantry. The main value of the easy 8 for me is that you can build it as your second tank instead of a Jackson and force your opponent to invest in a Panther rather than a Brumbar or some other effective AI tank. A regular Sherman and Easy 8 will demolish double P4, especially if you get radio net online.

I don't think it's great to rush an Easy 8, since if your opponent just stalls for Panther you end up paying a premium for a tank with worse AI than the regular Sherman that comes out later. But if you build a regular Sherman first, your opponent is likely to build their P4, which isn't so strong as to completely nullify your Sherman and leaves them exposed to your Easy 8 timing push.

What about E8 with 960 hp instead of 720???

What about E8 with 960 hp instead of 720???

I think durability is the only reasonable approach with the Easy 8. I would actually standardize the performance across all 76mm tank guns fro the Shermans and have the Easy 8 to be just an extra durable 76mm Sherman to better shield the Jackson.

A word about the new E8 tank commander and why it is the wrong way to go:

I just tested 2 E8s with upgraded tank commander versus 3 vet3 grenadier squads in the open (halfway blobbed) in cheat mod, at the same time there was a M4A3 with upgraded 50.cal shooting with HE shells at another halfway blobbed formation of 3 vet3 grenadier squads. Because of vet3 targets the performance of base MGs and 50.cal get somehow limited of course. I repeated the experiment half a dozen times.

Result was always very close. E8s or M4A3 winning by a few seconds at max. So you need about two E8s with tank commander to get the AI performance off one M4A3 with 50.cal in a typical late game situation in multiplayer games.

Maybe tank commander would be worth something if it wouldn't be mutually exclusive with 50.cal.

What about E8 with 960 hp instead of 720???

That is an interesting approach. A smaller version of Panther with less armor and penetration but same health. Could work if its price hits the right spot, since it would be something unique in AEF roster.

That is an interesting approach. A smaller version of Panther with less armor and penetration but same health. Could work if its price hits the right spot, since it would be something unique in AEF roster.

And most importantly, it would the USF a non heavy meatshield, so it would work well with the USF (or AEF) units instead of replacing them with premium medium spam

That is an interesting approach. A smaller version of Panther with less armor and penetration but same health. Could work if its price hits the right spot, since it would be something unique in AEF roster.

Pretty sure wehraboos would go crazy on the prospect of USF having a late game meat shield. Would be an interesting choice though. I wouldn't buff it all the way to 960. IMHO, a better choice would be, on top of the current beta changes being tested, buff the survivability and nerf price. Armour, hp, price and you have a true doctrinal brawler. Not panther, but with smoke canisters, radio net and other goodies, it would be a good tank, one that could replace the Jackson/sherman combo.

Pretty sure wehraboos would go crazy on the prospect of USF having a late game meat shield. Would be an interesting choice though. I wouldn't buff it all the way to 960. IMHO, a better choice would be, on top of the current beta changes being tested, buff the survivability and nerf price. Armour, hp, price and you have a true doctrinal brawler. Not panther, but with smoke canisters, radio net and other goodies, it would be a good tank, one that could replace the Jackson/sherman combo.

I am a wehraboo and I suggested this.

The sight of the squad stays the same its only the individual sight of the entity thatg ot reduced so that a 50.cal drop crewed with pathfinders has no selfspot anymore. I do think that is the goal of this change.

Bad change really.

Pretty sure wehraboos would go crazy on the prospect of USF having a late game meat shield. Would be an interesting choice though. I wouldn't buff it all the way to 960. IMHO, a better choice would be, on top of the current beta changes being tested, buff the survivability and nerf price. Armour, hp, price and you have a true doctrinal brawler. Not panther, but with smoke canisters, radio net and other goodies, it would be a good tank, one that could replace the Jackson/sherman combo.

Meds, now

The difference is he's talking about a situation where you play aggressively. Like he said, an AT gun crewed by pathfinders gets extra vision with no downsides. You can attack move an AT gun like that and hit tanks with little to no downside. Tanks with spotting scopes lose their vision bonus while moving, so they actually can't do that.

Yeah and you also pay PF reinforcement costs on the team weapon too.