Commander Update Beta 2021 - British Feedback

I'm quoting you, because it is you who wants even more nerfs to a vehicle that is named "command" exclusively to not allow more then 1, we both are aware of it, while you, again insisting on the "command" part of the vehicle don't want to give it anything command vehicle related that all other command vehicles have.

If you want to nerf it like that, then lets give it 0.9 dmg reduction aura as well, because its the only "command" vehicle that doesn't have aura skills.

If you want to treat it like an actual command vehicle, you need to give it actual command abilities.

But again, despite pretending to ignorantly, you are not THAT stupid and as said already, we both know why its named like that, what function it serves and how its balanced, yet you want to nerf it even further, despite it falling out of meta already.

I have no idea why you are fixating with the command aspect of Valentine.

As I already have pointed out "command" vehicles and shared veterancy are unrelated issues.

Actually the majority of vehicles with shared veterancy are either micro light or transports. Valentine is neither and thus has no reason to have shared veterancy (regardless if it is a command vehicle or not).

The Valentine is fine as is. Out of all of the things to complain about you choose the Valentine? Really? It dies in like 2-3 hits and is so rare I haven't seen one since the last nerf they did on it.

The Valentine is fine as is. Out of all of the things to complain about you choose the Valentine? Really? It dies in like 2-3 hits and is so rare I haven't seen one since the last nerf they did on it.

I am not complaining about anything. I am pointing out an inconstancy, Valentine has no reason to have shared veterancy.

As for claim about being easy to kill, Valentine has more HP more armor and smaller target size than T-70.

The Valentine is a different unit within a different faction. Not everything needs to be exactly the same. If it was then we would be playing a Mirror Match with Faction skins painted over the units.

The T-70 is in a different faction, does a much better job of killing infantry, comes out earlier and has more of an impact on the game than a Valentine ever will.

Second the Valentine Vet is not even that good to be complaining about.
Vet 1 : +7 sight range.

Vet 2: +35% turret rotation speed.
+20% maximum speed.
+20% rotation speed.
+20% ac/de-celeration.

Vet 3: +25% additional healthpoints.
-10% received accuracy.

Really makes no sense to complain about a unit having an "inconsistency" for gaining very non impactful vet. By that same logic the Command Tiger can destroy most vehicles and because it is considered a Command Vehicle then the Valentine and the Panzer IV Command Tank should be equally as strong because they have the word Command in it.

Now if you had made the argument that other command vehicles such as the Panzer IV command tank should have shared vet then that would be a fair argument worthy of its own thread and discussion and I would most likely agree with you but calling for nerfs on almost every single allied unit or ability simply for the sake of nerfs on the most nonsense things makes no sense whatsoever.

I am not complaining about anything. I am pointing out an inconstancy, Valentine has no reason to have shared veterancy.

As for claim about being easy to kill, Valentine has more HP more armor and smaller target size than T-70.

they both have 18 target size.

And yet, being a "command" vehicle without any aura is another "inconstancy", both should be and can be solved together. Or, one can simply leave the unit alone, as there arent any complain about it any more, while there are many other things to do.

I am not complaining about anything. I am pointing out an inconstancy, Valentine has no reason to have shared veterancy.

As for claim about being easy to kill, Valentine has more HP more armor and smaller target size than T-70.

Why do you compare the Valentine (Doctrine Unit) with a T-70 (Soviet main unit)? The two have nothing in common. Valentine has been hit so hard with the nerf bat that it is always better to buy a Cromwell instead. Valentine needs a buff, and not further nerfs which you consistently cleverly disguise as "inconsistency". The veteran unlocks are pretty useless anyway.

The Valentine is a different unit within a different faction. Not everything needs to be exactly the same. If it was then we would be playing a Mirror Match with Faction skins painted over the units.

I have never said anything like that so this comment is irrelevant.

The T-70 is in a different faction, does a much better job of killing infantry, comes out earlier and has more of an impact on the game than a Valentine ever will.

Second the Valentine Vet is not even that good to be complaining about.
Vet 1 : +7 sight range.

Vet 2: +35% turret rotation speed.
+20% maximum speed.
+20% rotation speed.
+20% ac/de-celeration.

Vet 3: +25% additional healthpoints.
-10% received accuracy.

Again I am not complaining. I have point the inconsistency that Valentine has shared veterancy while the majority of unit do not.

Vet bonus are again irrelevant to shared veterancy but if in your opinion Valentine's vet bonuses are not "good" I have to point out that the stat as vet are as follows:

Target size: 16.2
Sight: 42
Speed: 8.4
Accel: 2.6
Rotate: 45.6
Armor: 120/80
Health: 600

which means that Valentine has one of the smallest target size in game, one of the higest top speed in game, one of the highest rotation in game (if not the highest) while more HP/armor than any other light tank.

Can even take "war speed" on top of that 12.15 Target size, 9.66 top speed, 3.38 accel.

Really makes no sense to complain about a unit having an "inconsistency" for gaining very non impactful vet. By that same logic the Command Tiger can destroy most vehicles and because it is considered a Command Vehicle then the Valentine and the Panzer IV Command Tank should be equally as strong because they have the word Command in it.

I have no idea why you bringing the Command Tiger in this debate but I have to point out to you that the CT does NOT have shared veterancy.

Now if you had made the argument that other command vehicles such as the Panzer IV command tank should have shared vet then that would be a fair argument worthy of its own thread and discussion and I would most likely agree with you but calling for nerfs on almost every single allied unit or ability simply for the sake of nerfs on the most nonsense things makes no sense whatsoever.

Micro light and transports get shared veterancy and Valentine is neither so it there no reason to have shared veterancy.

I do not call nerfs on "almost every single allied unit" and I suggest you stop reading Katitof's posts there are not good for your brain.

they both have 18 target size.

And Valentine gets target size 16.2 with vet, second smallest if I remember correctly after kubel

And yet, being a "command" vehicle without any aura is another "inconstancy", both should be and can be solved together.

No because there in not relationship between the command vehicles and shared veterancy.

There even no real relationship between auras and "command" units.

If in your opinion Valentine needs an aura feel free to recommend one.

Or, one can simply leave the unit alone, as there arent any complain about it any more, while there are many other things to do.

I would rather fix all thing that wrong like shared veterancy, this patch focus on command units abilities and it should Valentine.

No because there in not relationship between the command vehicles and shared veterancy.

There even no real relationship between auras and "command" units.

If in your opinion Valentine needs an aura feel free to recommend one.

I would rather fix all thing that wrong like shared veterancy, this patch focus on command units abilities and it should Valentine.

in the fist sentence you suggest "Remove shared veterancy since it not available to other Command vehicles". But If there is not a relationship between command vehicle and share vet then why it is used as a reasons to suggest remove share vet from one.

So, in your mind, if the valentine have something that other command vehicle dont have, it should lose it, but at the same time, when the valentine dont have what other command vehicle have, you dont care ?

Event with that speaking, im not that again the removing of share vet from the valentine, if it can have some better/more suitable perk of a command vehicle, but the reason you use and the way you express the proposal just feel off and making pp dislike. You can just call it a neft.

in the fist sentence you suggest "Remove shared veterancy since it not available to other Command vehicles". But If there is not a relationship between command vehicle and share vet then why it is used as a reasons to suggest remove share vet from one.

Valentine is command vehicle and command generally vehicles do not have shared veterancy.

Valentine is not micro light or transport that generally have shared veterancy, so there is no reason to have shared veterancy.

So, in your mind, if the valentine have something that other command vehicle dont have, it should lose it, but at the same time, when the valentine dont have what other command vehicle have, you dont care ?

I am not sure why you want to debate what is in my mind in feedback thread.

Valentine has "command" abilities like smoke barrage and victor artillery that other commander vehicles do not have so I am not sure what your point is.

Event with that speaking, im not that again the removing of share vet from the valentine, if it can have some better/more suitable perk of a command vehicle, but the reason you use and the way you express the proposal just feel off and making pp dislike. You can just call it a neft.

You have every right to like or not like my arguments. If you a not against removing removing shared veterancy I have little to add.

If in you opinion the unit needs a redesign, feel free to provide one and I will let you know of my opinion on it.

I have actually made suggestions on how to better make use of Valentine.

Raid Section feedback:

- Seems to be not worth being a separate unit, as it appears to have an identity crisis at the moment
- So balance team wants a Brit Riflemen, but with Camo? Like what does that help?
- Commandos already fill the ambush niche very nicely, so adding ANOTHER AMBUSH unit feels bad.
- CQC? Assault Sections, Commandos and Airlanding Officer already fill that role
- That only leaves with light infantry type unit which is not available yet.

For Raid Sections, I would like to throw the idea to have them be JLI/Pathfinder niche.

Call in at CP1. They have Scoped Enfields (same stats as M1 Garands) and 1 crit weapon. Lock out all other upgrades. Vet 3, they gain an extra man or the new Vickers LMG. They do not have cover bonus, increased decap/cap speed, STATIONARY CLOAK, and ability to snipe a model for a price.

Helps them counter sniper starts without commiting another sniper. But worse performance in 1v1 duels while able to support IS.

Raid Section feedback:

- Seems to be not worth being a separate unit, as it appears to have an identity crisis at the moment
- So balance team wants a Brit Riflemen, but with Camo? Like what does that help?
- Commandos already fill the ambush niche very nicely, so adding ANOTHER AMBUSH unit feels bad.
- CQC? Assault Sections, Commandos and Airlanding Officer already fill that role
- That only leaves with light infantry type unit which is not available yet.

For Raid Sections, I would like to throw the idea to have them be JLI/Pathfinder niche.

Call in at CP1. They have Scoped Enfields (same stats as M1 Garands) and 1 crit weapon. Lock out all other upgrades. Vet 3, they gain an extra man or the new Vickers LMG. They do not have cover bonus, increased decap/cap speed, STATIONARY CLOAK, and ability to snipe a model for a price.

Helps them counter sniper starts without commiting another sniper. But worse performance in 1v1 duels while able to support IS.

I would have to agree here. The idea of the Raid Section is good but the execution at its current state is hot garbage. First it needs to be 0 CP. Second give it Scoped Enfields (which used to be available to Infantry Sections) and make the equal to the Pathfinder or JLI and you have a good unit here.

Raid Section feedback:

- Seems to be not worth being a separate unit, as it appears to have an identity crisis at the moment
- So balance team wants a Brit Riflemen, but with Camo? Like what does that help?
- Commandos already fill the ambush niche very nicely, so adding ANOTHER AMBUSH unit feels bad.
- CQC? Assault Sections, Commandos and Airlanding Officer already fill that role
- That only leaves with light infantry type unit which is not available yet.

For Raid Sections, I would like to throw the idea to have them be JLI/Pathfinder niche.

Call in at CP1. They have Scoped Enfields (same stats as M1 Garands) and 1 crit weapon. Lock out all other upgrades. Vet 3, they gain an extra man or the new Vickers LMG. They do not have cover bonus, increased decap/cap speed, STATIONARY CLOAK, and ability to snipe a model for a price.

Helps them counter sniper starts without commiting another sniper. But worse performance in 1v1 duels while able to support IS.

kind of like the rework idea as well since they would fill a role that's currently not covered by any unit the brits can field. though i guess recon section would be a more fitting name then.
what i'm a bit worried of is that giving a potent anti-sniper tool to a faction that can field a sniper on their own may create some problems down the road...

UKF doesn't really need a light infantry squad when they have a sniper and Infantry Sections that already excel at long range. The Raid Section is supposed to give them an option to play more mobile than IS, but not as aggressive as Assault Sections. The reason it comes at 1 CP is because we don't want people to just completely replace IS with this. I agree the camo doesn't make much sense though.

UKF doesn't really need a light infantry squad when they have a sniper and Infantry Sections that already excel at long range. The Raid Section is supposed to give them an option to play more mobile than IS, but not as aggressive as Assault Sections. The reason it comes at 1 CP is because we don't want people to just completely replace IS with this. I agree the camo doesn't make much sense though.

The intention of allowing more mobile than section without suffering from out of cover debuff is good. But as said the identity can be more clear. The point of sniper and sections being good long range make ukf not need a light infantry squad is not so solid, as a light infantry squad can also be specialized in mid range combat, fighting on the move and especially reconnaissances.

Take it rights from the current version, all you need to do is rename them "reconnaissance section", replace Molotov with a flare fire ability, and they are good from there. Sprint is optional, can be either keept, remove or put to vet1. They can then be also put in ro.arty to replace the problematic early warning, hitting two bird with a stone.

Scope Enfield if still available can use a mid range-good on the move profile (pfulisi g43). Or in worse case that the scope animation is gone,
They can be made to have only 1 slot weapons but can fire bren on the move (just Tommy bren with the moving fire enabled, not the elite version).

The reason it comes at 1 CP is because we don't want people to just completely replace IS with this.

Yeah, still you have access to MG\Engi unit\Universal + starting section to use pyro\meds. This is more then enouth to play untill 1 CP and then jump into Raid sections train, skipping raks\bolster\nades strate into fast T3 for Vekers unlock.

It might not be as powerfull in 1v1, but in 2v2+ it will be complete cancer.

If anything they should come as a 4 men squad and benifit from bolster just like regular IS or at least Vekers to be locked behind either hammer or anvil.

Commander itself is already powerfull and a top-pick. Raid sections arent suppose to be its main and strongest feature.

UKF doesn't really need a light infantry squad when they have a sniper and Infantry Sections that already excel at long range. The Raid Section is supposed to give them an option to play more mobile than IS, but not as aggressive as Assault Sections. The reason it comes at 1 CP is because we don't want people to just completely replace IS with this. I agree the camo doesn't make much sense though.

So the current iteration wants UKF to go for a 2 RE, 1 UC/Vickers start and HOPE that they dont get pushed off the field before CP1 hits. Then try to retake it with Raid Sections that still have one of the worst moving accuracy weapons without cover bonus. Unless you give them better moving accuracy, which makes them worse Riflemen with a BAR that comes at medium tank timing. So we're just playing USF?

For my idea, the problem UKF still faces Sniper starts from OST which utterly decimates them without committing to their own sniper. By the time UKF rushes their sniper, they already sustained bleed and map control, plus the fact that they still need to kill OST sniper, and babysit their own sniper till the end of the match if they're still alive, which is hard. My version gives Raid Sections far better close range DPS then long, along with normal health crit and added ability to snipe on demand for counter-snipe. Heck I can even make them available at CP0 then lock their crit gun upgrade until weapon racks, then make them cost muni for each squad upgrade. They won't replace sections because they will trade horribly to other line infantry, especially since bolster doesnt affect them.

Yeah, still you have access to MG\Engi unit\Universal + starting section to use pyro\meds. This is more then enouth to play untill 1 CP and then jump into Raid sections train, skipping raks\bolster\nades strate into fast T3 for Vekers unlock.

It might not be as powerfull in 1v1, but in 2v2+ it will be complete cancer.

If anything they should come as a 4 men squad and benifit from bolster just like regular IS or at least Vekers to be locked behind either hammer or anvil.

Commander itself is already powerfull and a top-pick. Raid sections arent suppose to be its main and strongest feature.

My teamgame friend has already discovered the Bo. Stall for cp1 with UC, sapper and Vicker is easily doable, then it allow you to skip all three side tech at the HQ, saving upto 60fu. If the player managed to maintain a decent map control early on, things turning to a snowball very fast.

UKF doesn't really need a light infantry squad when they have a sniper and Infantry Sections that already excel at long range. The Raid Section is supposed to give them an option to play more mobile than IS, but not as aggressive as Assault Sections. The reason it comes at 1 CP is because we don't want people to just completely replace IS with this. I agree the camo doesn't make much sense though.

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?

As it stands, at 1 CP there is no point in waiting for inferior Infantry Sections that will scale worse into the late game. It needs to be 0 CP to offer an alternative start in order to be a strategic option. By that same logic all other 0 CP infantry in the game should be moved to 1 CP.

Lets take Soviets for example. As Soviets, I have a choice between Conscripts or Penals as my main infantry. Both builds are viable and offer different pros and Cons. Players should have the choice between Infantry Sections, Raid Sections or Assault Sections. A USF player could easily replace Rifleman and go all Pathfinders as a replacement. Now granted Pathfinders only is not exactly ideal but the choice is there where as for Raid sections it is not. Current Implementation is bad and right as well be removed and replaced with something else if it is going to stay in its current trash tier state even though the idea is solid.