Commander Update Beta 2021 - British Feedback

So it is ok to replace Grenadiers with Ostruppen or Assault Grenadiers, or replace Volksgrenadiers with Panzerfusiliers but British are not allowed to have a replacement to Infantry Sections? Why the Bias towards British?

Things like Pathfinders, Assault Sections and Assault Grenadiers are trade offs. They need to be used in a very specific way or don't have snares. Yes you can completely replace your mainline infantry with them, but it will be a risk and good players will seek to exploit that risk. Now we've all seen how bad it can be when a unit does all the same things the mainline infantry does but is straight up better at it and replaces them (Osttruppen). People would pick them every game. And with Raid Sections having a good all round profile that would make them easier to play with than the static IS, and with both not having snares anyways, the latter wouldn't be an unlikely scenario.

And with Raid Sections having a good all round profile that would make them easier to play with than the static IS, and with both not having snares anyways, the latter wouldn't be an unlikely scenario.

Because UKF is so hard to play to begin with

It feels like, Raid sections are a brilliant idea of someone very vocal in dev team, since you guys already tried to push this agenda of having them in the game in patch. Now you slapped them into a top pick commander.

Still, alright lets say they are indeed just a different way to play UKF and be less static, but can you elaborate why having them as a replacement, or close to be a replacement justifies the fact that they are allowing you to skip all side tech?

If one can play with all the tools UKF have in the beggining he can replace IS with Raid sections and save hell of a lot MP and Fuel. Why it should be in this way to begin with?

This decision pretty much introduced the commander that potentially can fuck up the way faction resource management works.

Its also funny to see mention of osttroppens in the same post, because as we all know power of osttroppens came from not from their combat perfomance, but from the fact that they allowed faction to do major res.skips, allowing snowballing and fucked up timings.

So in the end we have a commander with:
1) Flames on engis
2) One of the strongest CQC inf
3) Inf which allows you to skip tech
4) Rocket arty

Like come-on, is this UKF player wet dream of something?

Things like Pathfinders, Assault Sections and Assault Grenadiers are trade offs. They need to be used in a very specific way or don't have snares. Yes you can completely replace your mainline infantry with them, but it will be a risk and good players will seek to exploit that risk. Now we've all seen how bad it can be when a unit does all the same things the mainline infantry does but is straight up better at it and replaces them (Osttruppen). People would pick them every game. And with Raid Sections having a good all round profile that would make them easier to play with than the static IS, and with both not having snares anyways, the latter wouldn't be an unlikely scenario.

You are explaining exactly why raid section should have a difference implementation than current. As you said by yourself, there must be trade of, but raid section dont have any clear/significant trade off compare to section, you dont even t lose access to sand bags, trench or caches as you still have a section as starting unit, while it have been pointed out pretty clear that pp have tendency to stall for cp1 and just go for them instead of section.

And if you already granted that pathfinder have clear perk and rish, why cant raid section following the set up. Multiple pp (me include) has suggest turn them into recon section, which specialized in a difference fighting distance from all other ukf infantry (mid range, on the move) and offer unique utilities while also having clear identity and trade off if used as mainline. What make you grip so hard on this unit.

Some of the issues with raid section are:

1) Too many advantage over IS, same DPS with no need for cover and only a slight reduction in Target size when in cover

2) Access to too many perk that IS require tech for, bolster/grenades/weapon upgrade which allow them fast teching to vehicles

3) Vet 1 bonus that makes very little sense

4) Commander they are available. The commander is actually one of the most popular commanders across all mode and does not really needs to become more attractive.

Overlap in the commander with RoE with flamer/Commandos

5) Vicker-K as "assault rifle" seem odd choice and creates issues with other unit that have access to it like M3 and the Heavy sapper.

Popularity across all modes:

Mobile Assault Regiment 8.5
Royal Artillery Regiment 8.25
Royal Engineer Regiment 6.25
Commando Regiment 5.75
Vanguard Operations Regiment 5.75
Special Weapons Regiment 4
Lend Lease Assault Regiment 3.75
Advanced Emplacement Regiment 1.5
Tactical Support Regiment 1.5

Note had bad AER and STR score across all modes.

Popularity across all modes:

Mobile Assault Regiment 8.5
Royal Artillery Regiment 8.25
Royal Engineer Regiment 6.25
Commando Regiment 5.75
Vanguard Operations Regiment 5.75
Special Weapons Regiment 4
Lend Lease Assault Regiment 3.75
Advanced Emplacement Regiment 1.5
Tactical Support Regiment 1.5

Note had bad AER and STR score across all modes.

These numbers are very arbitrary and very misleading. What do your numbers mean? What is your popularity scale? How did you get to these? What is your source? Why did you decide to modify the values?

These numbers are very arbitrary and very misleading. What do your numbers mean? What is your popularity scale? How did you get to these? What is your source? Why did you decide to modify the values?

https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1614556800/4v4/british

https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1614556800/4v4/british

It can't be, because the numbers she presents are different to what it is on the source. Why proclaim that it is her data (adapted without sound method) when actually just posting the raw data from the source would have suffice. It makes certain commanders look better/worse for some reason that only she chose. It's once again, very misleading!

It can't be, because the numbers she presents are different to what it is actually. Why proclaim that it is her data (adapted without sound method) when actually just posting the raw data from the source would have suffice. It makes certain commanders look better/worse for some reason that only she chose. It's once again, very misleading!

It's a rough sum, just to see the popularity ratios, of all gamemodes (from 1v1 to 4v4).

It's not even a ratio. And summing up game modes does not make sense at all. The data from the page make more sense than any data she modified. Summing up is irrelevant, as it will only show biased stats.

It's a rough sum, just to see the popularity ratios, of all gamemodes (from 1v1 to 4v4).

Which makes it irrelevant and pointless by default, because commanders popularity vary greatly between the modes.

If anything, these numbers are just another smoke screen, just like his evaluation of how strong unit is based on post game efficiency % stat.

It's not even a ratio. And summing up game modes does not make sense at all.

Sigh, precise or not, you get the gist: Advanced Emplacement and Tactical Support aren't very popular, not even 1v1, nor in 4v4.

No, it's not.

There is a better overview of the data from the page that you linked and not from some weird confusing calculations without any reason to (it's not even a ratio or popularity value, or even a T test or Cross check) that Vipper did.

edit: Digging into the values, it's clear that it's commanders equipped, and not commanders played... so Vipper doesn't even show popularity!

No, it's not.

There is a better overview of the data from the page that you linked and not from some weird confusing calculations (it's not even a ratio or popularity value) that Vipper did.

Can you forget about the calculations already and just look at the 1v1 to 4v4 pages on the link I posted?!?

If you look carefully you will see the two mentioned commanders on the bottom of the list in each category, with low number of games played when compared to the others.

Jeez...

Can you forget about the calculations already and just look at the 1v1 to 4v4 pages on the link I posted?!?

If you look carefully you will see the two mentioned commanders on the bottom of the list in each category.

Jeez...

Yeah, if you look carefully, the numerical values data and explanation that Vipper did are different than that it is RAW presented on the page. Where does it show "popularity" for instance? What does "popularity" mean? It's not even a ratio. Vipper took someone else's data, without providing a source (plagiarism), modified the data for some reason, then presented it as if it is her data. The source page does everything better than she did above. I don't disagree with the data, I disagree with what Vipper did there. There is absolutely no reason to divide or sum up the values. The raw data shows it all much better.

Yeah, if you look carefully, the numerical values data and explanation that Vipper did are different than that it is RAW presented on the page. Where does it show "popularity" for instance? What does "popularity" mean? It's not even a ratio. She took someone else's data, without providing a source (plagiarism), modified the data, then presented it as if it is her data. The source page does everything better than she did above.

I told you to forget about Vipper's data already, just look at the fact of the two commander being unpopular, whats so hard to understand about it?!?

Sigh, nevermind...

Sigh, precise or not, you get the gist: Advanced Emplacement and Tactical Support aren't very popular, not even 1v1, nor in 4v4.

Looking at the webpage where the commanders are listed: It's listed per mode and there is an integer that represents how many times it was in the load slot. This is the only number you should look at. Any sort of manipulation with those numbers, without a clear function f: R->R or w/e that explains how they got the number and what it represents is just lame and lazy and misleading.
You can be reasonable and say that the commanders that are in the load slots the most are probably the most picked, since you can't pick a commender which is not in the slot. But until the actual number of commanders PICKED is given, one can only assume. Brits generally suffer from retarded commanders but that's another topic.

ffs guys, get back to topic.

Yeah, if you look carefully, the numerical values data and explanation that Vipper did are different than that it is RAW presented on the page. Where does it show "popularity" for instance? What does "popularity" mean? It's not even a ratio. Vipper took someone else's data, without providing a source (plagiarism), modified the data for some reason, then presented it as if it is her data. The source page does everything better than she did above. I don't disagree with the data, I disagree with what Vipper did there. There is absolutely no reason to divide or sum up the values. The raw data shows it all much better.

You should really hold back your horses a bit.
These are loadout rates of top players and you know it. If they are in the loadout, they are a competitive choice. Describing this as "popularity" is not far fetched at all.

Apparently Vipper's scores represent the average ranking. Not the greatest but an okay metric and easy to read. Summing up game modes makes as much sense as not summing them up, it just depends on what you want to show. And while Vipper failed some important information, he at least stated that it is across all modes. The raw data does not show that at all.

ffs guys, get back to topic.


You should really hold back your horses a bit.
These are loadout rates of top players and you know it. If they are in the loadout, they are a competitive choice. Describing this as "popularity" is not far fetched at all.

Apparently Vipper's scores represent the average ranking. Not the greatest but an okay metric and easy to read. Summing up game modes makes as much sense as not summing them up, it just depends on what you want to show. And while Vipper failed some important information, he at least stated that it is across all modes. The raw data does not show that at all.

ffs guys, get back to topic.


You should really hold back your horses a bit.
These are loadout rates of top players and you know it. If they are in the loadout, they are a competitive choice. Describing this as "popularity" is not far fetched at all.

Apparently Vipper's scores represent the average ranking. Not the greatest but an okay metric and easy to read. Summing up game modes makes as much sense as not summing them up, it just depends on what you want to show. And while Vipper failed some important information, he at least stated that it is across all modes. The raw data does not show that at all.

Therefore, the data should merely have been summed up and presented in the same very same metric. You yourself have pointed that out in a different thread.

Also, Vipper presents it differently, she even uses the word "popularity rating". What you say makes sense, but it completely differs to what Vipper says.