Commander Update Beta 2021 - USF Feedback

IMHO the M10 has clearly fallen victim to the call-in meta changes. Before you could justify quickly getting one or two as kind of the USF's Panic-Puma equivalent, but now that it has to directly compete with the Jackson I mostly see little reason to get one. The timing advantage it has over the Jackson is rather small and for what it does it still feels a bit too expensive (MP-wise that is, FU price is fine).
Not entirely sure what I'd do with it, though. Vet scaling could probably a bit better (e.g. the reload bonus fix plus a good chunk of bonus pen as suggested earlier) to encourage keeping it alive. Otherwise I feel it is just not viable to use it as an expendable flanking unit.

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 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.

I agree. All the more important to find niches and strengthen those in the design of the doctrinal units.
The 76mm was a response to you saying there is little room for doctrinal units. I agree that it is slightly OP and not the best comparison. But it is a tank with AT emphasis designed to shut down mediums like the M10, so there might be room for medium AT specialists next to the Jackson.

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)

The M10 is part of the commander. It is not a good unit overall, so it has to take some blame. I fully agree with your last points, which again means that we need to find a better design for the M10, otherwise it will always be overshadowed by non-doc units and 1/5 of these commanders will be fairly redundant or even useless in team games.

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.

That was my impression as well, but I am not a very versed 1v1 player. I just can say that the M10 does not work well in 2v2 and 3v3. I can imagine it working in 1v1 from my limited experience.
I can just emphasize that I believe it has neither a good niche nor decent timing. It does not generate a power spike itself nor is it THAT cheap or effective that it allows you to push a stronger unit early. Units in the last tech building must have enough power out of the gate to be somewhat effective, but the M10 in that regard falls flat on its face and doesn't do too much before vet1 at which point it becomes a big muni sink.

It is basically the last tier version of the old MobiDef Panic Puma, but without the bite that the Puma offered because of worse timing.


EDIT:
For the more stat focused guys: It combines some of the worst TD stats in the game. Low accuracy, VERY high scatter (50% larger area than the Jackson). Medium range advantage but without the armor to bounce a shot if you don't micro perfectly. Low to medium penetration. Due to the price it must go with some of these, but it should probably not get the short end of the stick in almost all categories.
It is super mobile and relatively cheap, but that is about it. And the turret. Almost forgot that one.

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.

The real problem of the M10 is that it can't decide what it wants to be.

1) I want to be a flanking tank...
- great base speed and accleration
- 0,75 moving acc (like all AEF tanks)
- Flanking Speed ability at Vet0
- medicore pentration for beeing AT purely (wants to shoot at rear)

2)...or maybe just not?
- low-medicore health
- paper armor from all sides
- too high target size
- not even smoke pods or smoke lauchers for an escape
- too slow turret rotation (especially if using Flanking Speed)
- 50 range (flanking means you should be closely behind them...)
- HVAP at Vet1 (you don't need high penetration if you are at their rear)

It just doesn't fit, half of it stats are made for frontline combat, the other half for flanking. You won't shoot at a tank you flanked successfully at 50 range for example, you should be a lot closer. If you have a look at the StuG you'll see a tank which is completely made for fighting head on at the frontline, way better designed for its combat role while beeing comparable cheap.

If M10 wants to be a real flanker instead of an emergency replacement for M36 it needs more survivability (target size / received acc / smoke), less range, faster turret rotation and higher RoF. That way it could work as a flanking tank. Somehow more sight or an ability like the Hunter ability (-> detection) of the Cromwell would help too.

That was my impression as well, but I am not a very versed 1v1 player. I just can say that the M10 does not work well in 2v2 and 3v3. I can imagine it working in 1v1 from my limited experience.
I can just emphasize that I believe it has neither a good niche nor decent timing. It does not generate a power spike itself nor is it THAT cheap or effective that it allows you to push a stronger unit early. Units in the last tech building must have enough power out of the gate to be somewhat effective, but the M10 in that regard falls flat on its face and doesn't do too much before vet1 at which point it becomes a big muni sink.

It is basically the last tier version of the old MobiDef Panic Puma, but without the bite that the Puma offered because of worse timing.

The problem is that it is not even viable against p4 and on top of that gets completely shot down by panther, which has the same range as M10, but substantially more durable. If it was at least viable vs p4, it would have been decent investment. Stug is viable against every battle tank, but comet, kv1 and churchill. Even in those scenarios you can stack Stugs, get them vetted and deny the crap out of heavier targets.

If 380 mp 90 fuel unit can create trouble for more expensive then it medium armor (e.g. t34-85), I don't see a reason why m10 should be so bad against p4. And on top of that I don't see lack of tools from OST and OKW to deal with M10s.

EDIT:
For the more stat focused guys: It combines some of the worst TD stats in the game. Low accuracy, VERY high scatter (50% larger area than the Jackson). Medium range advantage but without the armor to bounce a shot if you don't micro perfectly. Low to medium penetration. Due to the price it must go with some of these, but it should probably not get the short end of the stick in almost all categories.
It is super mobile and relatively cheap, but that is about it. And the turret. Almost forgot that one.

ouch, that's indeed painful. agree that a buff in any of these departments would be very welcome.

The problem is that it is not even viable against p4 and on top of that gets completely shot down by panther, which has the same range as M10, but substantially more durable. If it was at least viable vs p4, it would have been decent investment. Stug is viable against every battle tank, but comet, kv1 and churchill. Even in those scenarios you can stack Stugs, get them vetted and deny the crap out of heavier targets.

If 380 mp 90 fuel unit can create trouble for more expensive then it medium armor (e.g. t34-85), I don't see a reason why m10 should be so bad against p4. And on top of that I don't see lack of tools from OST and OKW to deal with M10s.

I agree. However I would say that it performs decently against the Ostheer P4 even frontally. Given its price it is better than the Jackson.
There are just to many preconditions to use it. 1v1, Ostheer, T3 spam and a mostly open map (which to be fair most if not all 1v1 maps are)

I agree. However I would say that it performs decently against the Ostheer P4 even frontally. Given its price it is better than the Jackson.
There are just to many preconditions to use it. 1v1, Ostheer, T3 spam and a mostly open map (which to be fair most if not all 1v1 maps are)

and very limited timeframe as well. While it is cheaper then m36, the later is so much more cost effective and viable till enemy has no armor on the field and has no means of building it, m10 on the other had is "viable" 'til panther hits the field. Imo if m10 was decent in 1v1, it would be decent in 2v2 as well. You still get lots of medium armor in 2v2, although the flanking opportunities are limited quite a bit though.

My wish would be to get a light TD somewhat similar to the StuG/Panther duo that works in at least 2v2 as well. But I'll just end my rant here about the M10.

I hope balance team considers doing something about the unit, in my opinion more is needed than just "fixing" the underwhelming ROF vet, but the final decisions are obviously not up to me. I provided all my arguments against the current M10 and leave it at that for other discussions.

My wish would be to get a light TD somewhat similar to the StuG/Panther duo that works in at least 2v2 as well. But I'll just end my rant here about the M10.

I hope balance team considers doing something about the unit, in my opinion more is needed than just "fixing" the underwhelming ROF vet, but the final decisions are obviously not up to me. I provided all my arguments against the current M10 and leave it at that for other discussions.

. USF light/medium AT vet is fucked. The 57mm gets less rof from all 3 levels of vet than others do at vet 2 alone. Even the soviet baby AT gun gets more ROF. I really wish some vet was standard, or at least consistent.

. USF light/medium AT vet is fucked. The 57mm gets less rof from all 3 levels of vet than others do at vet 2 alone. Even the soviet baby AT gun gets more ROF. I really wish some vet was standard, or at least consistent.

Surely that's because it's ROF is already the fastest though right? I don't know what the actual ROF is after vet, but the 57mm definitely is the fastest firing by default

. USF light/medium AT vet is fucked. The 57mm gets less rof from all 3 levels of vet than others do at vet 2 alone. Even the soviet baby AT gun gets more ROF. I really wish some vet was standard, or at least consistent.

With the exception of maybe Super Bazooka USF has a problem with its AT in general not only at its AT Vet. USF AT either sucks or only performs well if you invest lots of ammunition. The only exception is the Jackson, which overperforms quite a bit to make up for the lack of the other ones. I know it is out of scope but USF AT units need a general buff doctrinal and nocdoctrinal at the cost of a Jackson nerf.

Surely that's because it's ROF is already the fastest though right? I don't know what the actual ROF is after vet, but the 57mm definitely is the fastest firing by default

It depends on which ATG you compare it to. Compared to the ZiS? It fires way faster. Rak? Mixed bag: Faster at vet0, slower to equal at vet2 onwards. PaK/6 pounder? Faster (less than 10%) at vet0, slightly slower at vet2 onwards.

The ROF of this thing is a mixed bag. But given that ATGs get wiped regularly in the late game and that the 57mm needs vet3 to somewhat equal the ROF out in most cases, the vet levels in between become quite important too. Overall I wouldn't say that the ROF is a real selling point of this unit.

The ROF of this thing is a mixed bag. But given that ATGs get wiped regularly in the late game and that the 57mm needs vet3 to somewhat equal the ROF out in most cases, the vet levels in between become quite important too.

What? This is exactly why having the fastest RoF at vet 0 is important. 57mm suffers the least from losing vet. As long as you have muni, you have the best vet 0 AT gun

Overall I wouldn't say that the ROF is a real selling point of this unit.

It's selling point is the same thing as every AT gun. It fights tanks without costing you fuel. It's RoF combined with wider cone is really strong imo, and is part of the reason you have to pay muni for it to be able to fight heavier armor

What? This is exactly why having the fastest RoF at vet 0 is important. 57mm suffers the least from losing vet. As long as you have muni, you have the best vet 0 AT gun

As long as you keep pumping in resources into a unit, it should obviously be better. The 57mm loses the MP price advantage after buying HVAP rounds once (trading 50 MP for 30 mun), everything past that is additional investment, so the unit should also perform decently.

I agree that the vet0 ROF is good and important for it, but the only reason why it suffers the least from losing vet is because it scales the worst of all.

It's selling point is the same thing as every AT gun. It fights tanks without costing you fuel.

I don't know why you point this out, this has nothing to do with differences between the ATGs.

It's RoF combined with wider cone are really strong imo, and is part of the reason you have to pay muni for it to be able to fight heavier armor

The cone is a strong point of it, the ROF in my eyes is not. You first have an ROF advantage compared to other ATGs, then a disadvantage at vet2 which afterwards transforms into about equal/slight disadvantage until the wipe. I personally also had the feeling that the 57mm has a harder time vetting up in the late game, but maybe that's just me.

Personally, I think USF should rather have a more "normal" ATG. Bazookas can already take the LV duty. An anti light specialized tank gun is to some extend redundant.

But then again this is core faction design, we'll not get changes to that this patch...

I hope balance team considers doing something about the unit, in my opinion more is needed than just "fixing" the underwhelming ROF vet, but the final decisions are obviously not up to me. I provided all my arguments against the current M10 and leave it at that for other discussions.

I'm thinking about switching around Flanking Speed and HVAP. So HVAP would become the standard ability like on the 57mm. Because flanking generally sucks in CoH2. Then it can have better frontal engagements against mostly the OKW P4J, but not really anything bigger, and it would be behind an additional pay wall to keep its 80 fuel cost in check.

HVAP will help but it's not a straight up improvement (which could be dangerous with a vehicle this cheap). As it stands it needs to reload the HVAP shell, so unless you time it perfectly after a regular shot it will cost you some DPM, and can then fire only 3 of them at vet 0-2, before needing like a 10 second reload to revert to normal shells. The latter is because it will load the fourth HVAP shell for about 4 seconds before the ability runs out and then it will have to reload a regular shell on top.

I agree that the vet0 ROF is good and important for it, but the only reason why it suffers the least from losing vet is because it scales the worst of all.

Yeah it scales worst because if it didn't it would be crazy overpowered imo

I don't know why you point this out, this has nothing to do with differences between the ATGs.

I said that because you brought up "selling points". Selling point is also irrelevant to the differences between ATGs, since you don't get to choose between buying a 57mm and a pak40. You buy the AT gun your faction has. Which is why they basically all have the same selling point

The cone is a strong point of it, the ROF in my eyes is not. You first have an ROF advantage compared to other ATGs, then a disadvantage at vet2 which afterwards transforms into about equal/slight disadvantage until the wipe.

The cone and RoF go hand in hand. Having a larger cone gives you more time to hit a tank trying to flee. Which is why the pak needs the vet bonus more than the 57 does

Personally, I think USF should rather have a more "normal" ATG. Bazookas can already take the LV duty. An anti light specialized tank gun is to some extend redundant.

I don't think specialized against lights. It also excels against medium armor. It's by far the best counter to Ost t3 that you can have by the time one of those vehicles arrives

OKW p4 messes with this sure, but it arrives much later and worst case scenario you pop sabot rounds

Imo the only USF AT problem is lack of another real AT vehicle besides Jackson. I think it's the reason the Jackson is so universally good, which is a balance problem in and of itself

Why doesn't armor co. have combined arms or a tank commander upgrade similar to okw? I feel like it'd synergize better than elite vehicle crews that does nothing.

I'm thinking about switching around Flanking Speed and HVAP. So HVAP would become the standard ability like on the 57mm. Because flanking generally sucks in CoH2. Then it can have better frontal engagements against mostly the OKW P4J, but not really anything bigger, and it would be behind an additional pay wall to keep its 80 fuel cost in check.

HVAP will help but it's not a straight up improvement (which could be dangerous with a vehicle this cheap). As it stands it needs to reload the HVAP shell, so unless you time it perfectly after a regular shot it will cost you some DPM, and can then fire only 3 of them at vet 0-2, before needing like a 10 second reload to revert to normal shells. The latter is because it will load the fourth HVAP shell for about 4 seconds before the ability runs out and then it will have to reload a regular shell on top.

I'm not sure if it is the right thing to give up on the flanking mechanic because it just don't works out at the moment. That would be sad, because it removes a potential tactic from the game. Shouldn't we think how we can make flanking more viable and rewarding?

With HVAP at Vet0 and Flanking Speed at Vet1 the M10 will become the small inferior brother of M36 even more since it would emphasize it for frontal fights. One of its basic problems in that combat role would be, that it would always loose vs T3 Stug G because of higher target size, less RoF, less accuracy and lower penetration (without activating HVAP). In frontal use it is just an inferior StuG G while beeing doctrinal on top.

What is the problem about flanking? If you flank you risk to eat a mine, an infantry snare or running in supporting AT weapons (handheld/ATG). Pretty much everytime I tried to use multiple M10s in a multiplayer game for a strong flanking move I made good damage vs Tanks/vehicles only to run into some infantry with shreks and snares to get finished up quickly. The main problem is, that one hit with any AT weapon is enough to follow up a snare instantly. A snared M10 is dead of course, there is no way to escape somehow.

Maybe Flanking speed should just give some more received acc, additional turret rotation speed and a timed snare immunity. I do think something like that could be the difference between a desastrous flank and a somehow successful one. This are just some thoughts,
Alternatively you could think about lowering its target size in general or raising the amount of damage that is needed for a successful snare. Just some more thoughts.
You could trade some penetration or range for better RoF too, if flanking would work out, such changes would really emphasize the flanking aspect.

Anything that doesn't lead to another standard TD for frontal fights is a good thing.

I'm not sure if it is the right thing to give up on the flanking mechanic because it just don't works out at the moment. That would be sad, because it removes a potential tactic from the game. Shouldn't we think how we can make flanking more viable and rewarding?

With HVAP at Vet0 and Flanking Speed at Vet1 the M10 will become the small inferior brother of M36 even more since it would emphasize it for frontal fights. One of its basic problems in that combat role would be, that it would always loose vs T3 Stug G because of higher target size, less RoF, less accuracy and lower penetration (without activating HVAP). In frontal use it is just an inferior StuG G while beeing doctrinal on top.

What is the problem about flanking? If you flank you risk to eat a mine, an infantry snare or running in supporting AT weapons (handheld/ATG). Pretty much everytime I tried to use multiple M10s in a multiplayer game for a strong flanking move I made good damage vs Tanks/vehicles only to run into some infantry with shreks and snares to get finished up quickly. The main problem is, that one hit with any AT weapon is enough to follow up a snare instantly. A snared M10 is dead of course, there is no way to escape somehow.

Maybe Flanking speed should just give some more received acc, additional turret rotation speed and a timed snare immunity. I do think something like that could be the difference between a desastrous flank and a somehow successful one. This are just some thoughts,
Alternatively you could think about lowering its target size in general or raising the amount of damage that is needed for a successful snare. Just some more thoughts.
You could trade some penetration or range for better RoF too, if flanking would work out, such changes would really emphasize the flanking aspect.

Anything that doesn't lead to another standard TD for frontal fights is a good thing.

Agreed. Seems like any time there is an issue with an USF unit being inferior or useless or downright stupidly designed, the balance team just slaps an ability (timed, swappable or costly) and calls it a day.
Why on God's green earth would anyone make M10 a frontal fighting unit.

I would do:
Target size 22 -> 20
Sight to 40
Fuel to 90
Penetration to 200-180-160 or 190-180-170
Range 50 -> 45
Ability that enhances the agility of the tank (rotation, speed...) for true flanks
HP to 640
MP cost += 30 (for the HP buff for 2 snares needed)

Something in those lines. I'm not well versed in pure numbers for this game so I do not really know the depth of impacts of each number changed, but I think that something along these lines would make the M10 actually a doctrinal choice. You can get a cheaper TD that doesn't have the range but does have great agility to get in and out of fights quickly. Also, do not underestimate the ability to drive away far before the snare hits, which it could do with it's agility.

Surely that's because it's ROF is already the fastest though right? I don't know what the actual ROF is after vet, but the 57mm definitely is the fastest firing by default

AYE, but then it should get more pen with vet instead, then they are more or less equal towards vet 3. or at the very least some cost reductions to its abilities to bridge that gap.