Commander Update Beta 2021 - Soviet Feedback

I am not why ML-20 is considered the base for B-4 comparison.

Both unit are doctrinal and the rest of commander abilities also play a part in decision which commander to choose.

One could compared the "Guard Rifle Combined Arms Tactics" and the "Counterattack Tactics" because the both have KV-1 and artillery piece and currently "Guard Rifle Combined Arms Tactics" seem to on top.

But if one changes the combination there would be less reason to compare the two artillery Pieces.

One could make these guns to similar and comparable or could give different role for each one.

I am not why ML-20 is considered the base for B-4 comparison.

Because they're both Soviet Howitzers. What is it supposed to be compared to? Sturmtiger?

Because they're both Soviet Howitzers. What is it supposed to be compared to? Sturmtiger?

If these weapon do the same thing then one should compare the commanders the smaller the gap between what these gun do the more the choice break down to what other comes with commander.

If one these offer different things then the what they bring to the table.

Imo the b4 should stay a meme cannon. This ai version seems way to good at breaking up a defensive line with team weapons. I can already see the endless complaning. The next patch will nerf it into absolute usselesnes or be a full revert if aplied to the live game.

If these weapon do the same thing then one should compare the commanders if one these offer different things then the what they bring to the table.

Why though? If you wanted to compare the KV-1 and T-34/85, or KV-2 and IS-2 then you'd go ahead and compare these two units, not the commanders they're in, wouldn't you?

Also, both the B-4 and ML-20 may do 'the same thing' aka lobbing explosive shells at the enemy, yet they are very much different from each other in many ways... in what way does looking at the commanders they come in help to analyze these differences?

B4 may come out as quite toxic by wiping squads chilling at the base. The spread is quite tight, the damage is substantial and the range is sufficient to target enemy base even if placed near your base. Not sure about that one

Why though? If you wanted to compare the KV-1 and T-34/85, or KV-2 and IS-2 then you'd go ahead and compare these two units, not the commanders they're in, wouldn't you?

Depends. The problem here is that this mentality leads to power creep. For instance people where arguing that KV-1 need a buff because it a worse option than T-34/85 and the end result want KV-1 ending up being being OP and having to be nerfed.

Also, both the B-4 and ML-20 may do 'the same thing' aka lobbing explosive shells at the enemy, yet they are very much different from each other in many ways... in what way does looking at the commanders they come in help to analyze these differences?

No matter how they deliver their paylaod if the end result is similar a player will choose the commander and not the weapon.

Either these weapons will have similar use and the choice will be between the commander and not the weapon or these weapon will be design to do/offer different things and the choice will be more about play-style/map/personal preference.

Generally speaking B-4 is a hard unit to balance because big explosions have wipe potential which is simply too strong in game of unit preservation.

There many different solution for design of the B4:
Could be desinged cheap/less pop howizter more suitable for 1vs1
could be designed as AT oriented gun
Could be hard cap kills so that it would offer big kills but not wipes
....
Could be Ml20 close with different way of delivering payload but imo not sure this the best route take.

What about turning B4 into a pak43 clone, with a vet 1 ability to do artillery strike. the regular shot does 320 damage and the indirect strike does 640.

B4-
AT:
Reduce damage to say 400-600 damage and apply a crit to tanks on impact, destroy gun in <25% health if >25% health wound a crew member.

AI:
Tighted OHK range widen far AOE (from live)
Infantry caught in the blast get the stun effect applied

Now it is a useful support weapon that requires follow up

If damage is set to 400 then big cats require a lot of overkill damage to kill with only B4s. It also means lasting crits (below 25% health) are not applied to fresh mediums hit by the B4.

Still one shot

very interesting analysis. i agree the new B-4 is now an even more capable anti-infantry tool with somewhat limited AT capabilities. overall i'd say this is a good change, since the 3-shell barrage brings a bit more consistency while the frustrating OHKs of anything up to a medium tank caught in the blast are finally a thing of the past. maybe the AI power of the revamped B-4 is even a bit too high, especially in situations where you can't simply retreat back to safety after the first impact (such as in your base sector). guess we'll have see how this thing turns out once more testing has been done.

that being said, i've tried to replicate some of the numbers in your comparison and found mine to be way off. are you sure yours are correct?



in my calculation the new B-4 has a slightly greater nominal 160 damage radius (2.397) than the ML-20 (2.323), giving a ~5% difference, and the nominal OHK area (for 80 HP) is only 33% greater instead of 3 times.

also, how did you define the damage per area over time? this is certainly an interesting metric, but clearly depends on the parameters used to calculate it. e.g., do you use the full AoE damage dealt or is it capped at 80 (160) HP? and do you count the whole duration of the barrage cycle including ability recharge or do you use a specified timeframe (e.g. the time it takes the B-4 to fire all 3 shells)? this would be worthwhile to know in order to put things into proper perspective.

Ah, I see what I did wrong. Those are areas not radiuses, as radius is not a useful comparison tool. 80 damage radius for new B-4 is 6.07 and 3.33 for ML/20. Turns out I copied the leFH results down to the ML/20, so its more like 3.4x the 80 dmg area. I updated my spreadsheet without updating the post I was building. Also, I think there's some rounding weirdness. I'm using the interpolation formula:

(range_long-range_short)*(dmg@radius-dmg_short)/(dmg_long-dmg_short) + range_short = radius@dmg

DPS includes all 3 shots using an integration of total damage over the AOE. Area is defined using the scatter parameters, I used 160 range for the area which Max Scatter is generally maxed out by that point. I checked 250 range, it didn't change any relative results.

An interesting note, the new B-4 is the BEST fixed howitzer at saturating a target area with 80 damage zones in the FoW over time, only beaten by the Priest (by 24%), which has some incredible FoW statistics. It beats out the leFH by 8.8%, and I call the leFH the random wipe cannon. If you want a mustering point totally wiped of infantry, B-4 is here to help.

It looks actually good at its job, but the hate will be unreal. It doesnt wipe stuff at random, it will consistently murder blobs that don't move. Calliope -> B-4 will generate a LOT of rage.

If the balance team wants it to be a good siege gun, its great at that. Not great at AT and especially not great vs the big cats, which was old B-4's real dream. I won a few games on the back of a few lucky B-4 shots putting a Jadgtiger back into repairs and turning a Panther into a luchs health-wise.

If the balance team wants it to be a good Heavy Tank AT gun, it needs to be utterly different. Something like 560 damage 1 shot salvo with very tight scatter and minimal AoE characteristics (old B-4 was almost that). Turns out no one likes Precision Strike. Otherwise, still go back to 1 shot salvo and cut cooldown to like 30 seconds or so to let the gun make more shots on targets with its reduced shock potential. 3 shots is pointless vs a highly mobile target. Someone mentioned a vehicle crit, which might be a way to go.

If the balance team wants a blob punisher that isn't a wipe device, give the B-4 suppression. But we know about artillery having rolling suppression. 24 seconds of long range suppression might be madness and wouldn't effect AT guns or tanks anyways.

Toning down the current B-4 would continue to make it more of a ML/20 knock off. It needs its own identity. She's the most expensive howitzer next to the Priest.

B4 may come out as quite toxic by wiping squads chilling at the base. The spread is quite tight, the damage is substantial and the range is sufficient to target enemy base even if placed near your base. Not sure about that one

That's not too different from the standard B-4, nothing mobile is going to stick around for the second shot. In fact the first shot is much weaker now, so the B-4 has become weaker against tanks and infantry, but potentially stronger against bunkers and buildings.

That's not too different from the standard B-4, nothing mobile is going to stick around for the second shot. In fact the first shot is much weaker now, so the B-4 has become weaker against tanks and infantry, but potentially stronger against bunkers and buildings.

by my math, its actually STRONGER at wiping infantry. 14% more 80 damage area.

That's not too different from the standard B-4, nothing mobile is going to stick around for the second shot. In fact the first shot is much weaker now, so the B-4 has become weaker against tanks and infantry, but potentially stronger against bunkers and buildings.

that is why I explicitly mentioned base shelling, where stationary targets are OK, like healing squads. In 1v1, you place you howitzer near base and easily can reach enemy base. It used to shoot 1 big shot and at that distance it was quite inaccurate, now you have 3 quite painful once with small delay and tight grouping.

If you could not target enemy base with it, this iteration of B4 might have been fine, imo. Although I think it looks quite a dumbed down now, easier to understand and operate, then it used to be.

I feel that removing PPSh from Shock Army is a misstep. Soviet Shock Armies had an overwhelming amount of Submachine Guns, and the Shock Army commander portrayed this well. Without Conscript Assault Package it doesn't really feel at all like a shock army.

While balance and design takes precedent over faction themes, I still think themes are important and should be respected when possible, and I don't feel that Shock Troops + PPSh Conscripts were overwhelming or underwhelming enough to merit removal.

I can't help but feel frustration seeing my T-34 bounce shots off the back of an Elefant at 10 range. Discounting Ram+Offmap, discounting SU-85 (which cannot fight an Elefant), discounting AT Guns (which will be vulnerable to capture since you're wheeling them up to the enemy's front line), I'm at a loss as to what the appropriate course of action is. I've expressed this before and have yet to receive an answer from anybody.

Elefant and Jagdtigers require a big commitment to kill. You should have call-ins and multiple tanks, infantry and AT guns ready.

Technically for the cost of 1 Elefant, you can almost afford 3x T34s. One T34 bouncing a shot is pretty devastating but when you have 3x T34s firing at the rear of the elefant and 1 shot bounces then its not as devastating.

Almost always, for me, its a coordinated push against the elefant when supporting infantry are not nearby that does it. Full send all your tanks and AT guns. Infantry on standby, save a call-in for the pakwall that is most likely nearby and be ready to block the elefant from retreating in any way possible. Also be ready to alt+f4 if the push doesn't work.

I feel that removing PPSh from Shock Army is a misstep. Soviet Shock Armies had an overwhelming amount of Submachine Guns, and the Shock Army commander portrayed this well. Without Conscript Assault Package it doesn't really feel at all like a shock army.

While balance and design takes precedent over faction themes, I still think themes are important and should be respected when possible, and I don't feel that Shock Troops + PPSh Conscripts were overwhelming or underwhelming enough to merit removal.

They idea was that they overlapping no that they "overwhelming or underwhelming".

I agree that Shock Troops + PPSh-41 is not the best idea. These commanding abilities overlap. Guardsmen with PPSh-41 are a great combination.

It's not overlapping, it's the literal point of a Shock Army. Shock Armies were characterized by mass deployment of Submachine Guns and Artillery. It's about losing the theme of the Commander.

What about Nade assault for Cons and Penals for soviet shock Army instead of the god awe full Armor Vehicle Detection. Or maybe even just stun nade volley??

What about Nade assault for Cons and Penals for soviet shock Army instead of the god awe full Armor Vehicle Detection. Or maybe even just stun nade volley??

Why do you think that the commander need a buff?
It already provides:
superior support weapon
elite infatry
premium medium
good off map



The idea is not to create the best commander possible but to close the gaps between commanders creating more meta commanders.