Commander Update Beta 2021 - Soviet Feedback

What exactly do you base these chances on? Because it will still have enough pen to reliably pen the rear armor of anything but the heaviest of vehicles (80 pen vs 55-90 rear armor for medium vehicles, 110 for SHTDs and 140-150 for the Tigers), and even if a rocket doesn't pen it still deals a significant amount of deflection damage. As long as most rockets hit, there is no chance to deal a low amount of damage. There will be nothing unreliable about it except for missing rockets, but that didn't change compared to before. Rockets that hit will still deal a reliable amount of damage, just a bit less than before on average. Only its max damage potential is being toned down by 10-20%, which is still like 50-75% of a heavy's health, down from 75-90%.

In tests it still had a max damage potential of around 50-60% or more damage to an Elefant (rear / front) in 9/10 cases. Which part of this picture screams low damage or unreliability to you?

I was actually basing it on YOUR tests, the last time you posted this very image. So thank you for bringing it to the forefront again

6th elefant in top row. Compared to 3rd elefant in top row. That's half a tanks worth of health in an RNG gamble. That's a HUGE amount of variation that could define a match. That is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. In the lower image the damage is CONSISTENT if a too high, in the upper image there is more variation and thus UNRELIABLE.

If the variation from ideal circumstances lead to half health and OHK from death that's a lot of wiggle in a game where the enemy is trying to dodge and even worse if they DON'T. call it in twice where half the rockets miss and deal the same damage as a perfectly lined up, ass armour strafe? Not good...

If you want it to deal less damage one could always simply make the damage less... If one wants to make it less RELIABLE one would drop the pen from mid 300s to 80

I have no issue with lowered damage. I take issue in low RELIABILITY.

Also, obviously more tests are better but I'm going off of your tests and pulling my conclusions from the results you provided and simply, the variation in damage is much greater when you add ~ 1 in 3 chance to do less damage where there previously existed no such thing.
Less damage is a fine path. Less reliability is not. For either side of the strafe.

6th elefant in top row. Compared to 3rd elefant in top row. That's half a tanks worth of health in an RNG gamble.

That result is not a gamble, it is not RNG. It is rear armor vs front armor. The first 5 targets left to right got hit in the rear armor (see impact craters), the last 5 got hit in the front armor. The first 5 targets took more damage. These results are exactly what we intended with this change, to make armor and direction of attack actually mean something so slow but heavily front armored vehicles can't get deleted from every angle. These results are reliable. Damage against front armor is consistently lower than damage against rear armor.

If you want it to deal less damage one could always simply make the damage less...

No. If you'd just decrease damage then it would also affect performance against medium tanks. That's not the intention of this change. Medium tanks can decrease damage the of this ability with their mobility. Heavy vehicles can not. The penetration change has the effect that the damage decrease against mediums is minimal, while the damage decrease against heavies is more significant. It's exactly the same thing that we did with AT Overwatch and that turned out exactly as intended. To a certain degree mediums can escape it, heavies can tank it. This lets the ability stay good against both, but no longer disproportionally powerful against the latter.

but the real question is does current price of Rocket Strafe is justified? It received couple of nerfs, including price increase, but since it gets its DPS decreased even against medium tanks, like P4, would it make more sense to level it up with Stuka strafe in terms of cost?

That result is not a gamble, it is not RNG. It is rear armor vs front armor.

Just to be fair: He has a point. Compare 5th tank to 7th tank in upper row. Both get hit from the front. Thats a huge difference already. Reason: low penetration vs high front armor = RNG
You can compare second to third tank in upper row too. Both from the rear, not such a big difference, but RNG still leads to situation where the Elephant will get destroyed with some other hits or can escape depending on RNG of rocket strafe despite some other hits.

My main issue with the pentration nerf is that the penetration nerf leads to the situation where you want to attack from the rear always. This will lead to a longer approach time in many situations and will make the attack more predictable (you know the direction it is coming from). Especially at the big 3vs3/4vs4 maps. A faster tank like a Panther or PZIV may escape completetly in this higher time window. So this is a bigger nerf to the big game modes than the small ones. Don't like that, because Soviets struggle there while doing absolutely fine in 1vs1. We don't need any futher nerfs to 3v3/4vs4 allied performance, its bad enough already.

Just to be fair: He has a point. Compare 5th tank to 7th tank in upper row. Both get hit from the front. Thats a huge difference already. Reason: low penetration vs high front armor = RNG
You can compare second to third tank in upper row too. Not such a big difference, but RNG still leads to situation where the Elephant will get destroyed with some other hits or can escape depending on RNG of rocket strafe despite some other hits.

My main issue with the pentration nerf is that the penetration nerf leads to the situation where you want to attack from the rear always. This will lead to a longer approach time in many situations and will make the attack more predictable (you know the direction it is coming from). Especially at the big 3vs3/4vs4 maps. A faster tank like a Panther or PZIV may escape completetly in this higher time window. So this is a bigger nerf to the big game modes than the small ones. Don't like that, because Soviets struggle there while doing absolutely fine in 1vs1. We don't need any futher nerfs to 3v3/4vs4 allied performance, its bad enough already.

So then don't use the rockets from the front if you don't want to deal with RNG. Also, it still does a ton of damage considering that it's just ONE!! call in ability. If you have teammates nearby (or evwn your own tank destroyers) you're going to have a much easier time blasting the superheavy to death. Add to that the stun you're assumedly putting on the tank before the rockets even come in (meaning allied TDs get a chance to hit it for free) and it's really not that big of an issue. Killing Axis superheavies should be somewhat of a team effort considering how much resources go into them.

So you can't solo the Elefant any more. It still does a lot of damage. I play nearly exclusively 4v4s Allied and I think this change is warranted.

Just to be fair: He has a point. Compare 5th tank to 7th tank in upper row. Both get hit from the front. Thats a huge difference already. Reason: low penetration vs high front armor = RNG
You can compare second to third tank in upper row too. Both from the rear, not such a big difference, but RNG still leads to situation where the Elephant will get destroyed with some other hits or can escape depending on RNG of rocket strafe despite some other hits.

My main issue with the pentration nerf is that the penetration nerf leads to the situation where you want to attack from the rear always. This will lead to a longer approach time in many situations and will make the attack more predictable (you know the direction it is coming from). Especially at the big 3vs3/4vs4 maps. A faster tank like a Panther or PZIV may escape completetly in this higher time window. So this is a bigger nerf to the big game modes than the small ones. Don't like that, because Soviets struggle there while doing absolutely fine in 1vs1. We don't need any futher nerfs to 3v3/4vs4 allied performance, its bad enough already.

So the ability now works like everything else in the game: reliable against the rear, RNG from the front. And this is bad because?
If you want it to be always reliable then armor does not matter at all, eliminating one of the core mechanivs of vehicle combat.

The approach time and the respective differences between modes/map sizes are a different issue. The parameters should be set to a common ground where every mode can live with it, but at the very core this issue is not fixable.

So then don't use the rockets from the front if you don't want to deal with RNG. Also, it still does a ton of damage considering that it's just ONE!! call in ability. If you have teammates nearby (or evwn your own tank destroyers) you're going to have a much easier time blasting the superheavy to death. Add to that the stun you're assumedly putting on the tank before the rockets even come in (meaning allied TDs get a chance to hit it for free) and it's really not that big of an issue. Killing Axis superheavies should be somewhat of a team effort considering how much resources go into them.

So you can't solo the Elefant any more. It still does a lot of damage. I play nearly exclusively 4v4s Allied and I think this change is warranted.

Of course you should be able to solo any unit of your (direct) opponent if you play all your cards right. If one team has units that need combined team actions by default to take down and the other one hasn't then something is seriously wrong with that game mode. It just should be easier as a team but not mandatory. If you go for doctrinal rocket strafe you will not have a single unit that will need a combined team action of your opponents for example. So you should be able to solo your opponent in exchange in an even fight. There still will be a lot that can go wrong.

but the real question is does current price of Rocket Strafe is justified? It received couple of nerfs, including price increase, but since it gets its DPS decreased even against medium tanks, like P4, would it make more sense to level it up with Stuka strafe in terms of cost?

Anything that threatens the German Ultra Tank Destroyer Meta (Elephant/Jagdtiger) will get nerfed into the ground. First it was Ram and now every air strike getting nerfed leaving people with little to no counter to these tanks and leaving matches up to RNG rather than skill as you sacrifice wave after wave of tanks just trying to counter almost uncounterable tanks that have more rear armor than most front armor of allied tanks. Rather than a rock/paper/scissors style approach that COH 1 while not perfect is better than playing a faction where you are against rock and you have no paper, just spam more scissors in if RNG allows you might beat rock.

So the ability now works like everything else in the game: reliable against the rear, RNG from the front. And this is bad because?
If you want it to be always reliable then armor does not matter at all, eliminating one of the core mechanivs of vehicle combat.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. Armor gets eliminated at a lot of situations or at least gets next to eliminated.
First exception: TDs and SHTDs that work reliable against the front of a lot of targets (especially with vet or abilities like HVAP).
Second exception: ATGs that work reliable against the front of a lot of targets (especially 17pdr/Pak43)
Third exception: Howitzers
Fourth exception: Multiple offmap abilities which deal reliable (consistent) damage from all approaching angles or from the top (penetration = 100%)

The approach time and the respective differences between modes/map sizes are a different issue. The parameters should be set to a common ground where every mode can live with it, but at the very core this issue is not fixable.

So don't get it worse. A damage reduction (although not wanted as Sander93 said) would nerf rocket strafe equally at all game modes for example. I'm not in for allied nerfs that hit 3v3/4vs4 harder than 1vs1/2vs2. Thats the wrong direction.

Anything that threatens the German Ultra Tank Destroyer Meta (Elephant/Jagdtiger) will get nerfed into the ground. First it was Ram and now every air strike getting nerfed leaving people with little to no counter to these tanks and leaving matches up to RNG rather than skill as you sacrifice wave after wave of tanks just trying to counter almost uncounterable tanks that have more rear armor than most front armor of allied tanks. Rather than a rock/paper/scissors style approach that COH 1 while not perfect is better than playing a faction where you are against rock and you have no paper, just spam more scissors in if RNG allows you might beat rock.

IMO heavy TD balance should be separate from commander specific abilities + in team games, if you play UKF, USF, or other SOV commander, you just don't care about some rocket strafe, because you don't have it.

That result is not a gamble, it is not RNG.

Except it IS RNG. That's all it is. If the dice say so there is no change whatsoever in the strike, even against front armour. If they all roll a pen they deal significantly more damage than of they all roll a deflection and the fact that they can now all roll a deflection off the ass of some tanks means the ability is no longer reliable.

Just like if RNG says so the 57mm without HVAP will out dps the pak despite being cheaper. RNG cuts both ways and RNG isnt the way to balance a skill shot ability. If it was a loiter where all you do is click and hope it's different but an aimed, timed shot SHOULD NOT have the potential to be half as effective even dialed in perfectly as your tests were. There shouldn't be variation on an ass long strafe in a stationary target, as it only performs worse Ina an actual match. RNG has no place in this. If you want it toned down by 20% then tone it down 20%. Don't make it so it COULD be toned down 20% or 50% or not at all.

Just because something got nerfed doesn't mean it's still not powerful (Zis Barrage). Go into cheat commands mod, spawn a T-34, a P4, and even just 1 Zis Gun in range of the ram. Spawn the Bam, hit the Ram, and the P4 turns into Jam.

Your attempt to make 2v1 combined arms sound op is a fail.
The 34 is sacrificed in that trade.

Your attempt to make 2v1 combined arms sound op is a fail.
The 34 is sacrificed in that trade.

Well of course. That's implied in the act of using the ram in the first place that your tank isn't getting out. Infact in most situations you're going to be taking your nearly dead tank and using the ram as it's final sendoff to take down your opponent's tank that's in the process of fighting you.

Point is you're trading positively in both Manpower and Fuel to trade your weaker and cheaper T-34 for a more expensive and stronger P4 to effectively reset the initial armor skirmish to give you timing advantage again, or to use the last gasp of your effectively dead tank to take down your opponents armor with you. Or to tackle something heavier you wouldn't be able to effectively deal with otherwise (Panther, Tiger, King Tiger, etc) which is an even larger resource advantage (but admittedly harder to successfully manage.)

Not only that, but this isn't some ridiculous fabricated scenario where the cosmos need to fall into line for the situation to happen. All that needs to occur is the P4 stepping into ramming range of the T-34 and something to either damage it once, or be in position to damage it once post-ram which is a perfectly reasonable expectation. So just the fact that this can happen means that the T-34 has a circle of death that defensively zones tanks and prevents armor pushes meaning the T-34 can happily roam around shooting infantry at it's leisure and if it's ever in a bind vs another tank or something big and threatening overextends you can press the "reset" button and come out positive.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. Armor gets eliminated at a lot of situations or at least gets next to eliminated.
First exception: TDs and SHTDs that work reliable against the front of a lot of targets (especially with vet or abilities like HVAP).
Second exception: ATGs that work reliable against the front of a lot of targets (especially 17pdr/Pak43)
Third exception: Howitzers
Fourth exception: Multiple offmap abilities which deal reliable (consistent) damage from all approaching angles or from the top (penetration = 100%)

Everything might have been a slight hyperbole, but the general point still stands: Attacks from the rear are meant to be more effective so that armor matters. Armor still matters in most of the setups, especially in those involving heavily armored tanks and in next to all involving the Elefant which was taken here as an example for debate.
From a design and intuition stand point, it is good that the attack direction matters because it intuitively makes sense that shots at the front armor do not penetrate as often.

So don't get it worse. A damage reduction (although not wanted as Sander93 said) would nerf rocket strafe equally at all game modes for example. I'm not in for allied nerfs that hit 3v3/4vs4 harder than 1vs1/2vs2. Thats the wrong direction.

I am not sure if I am missing something here, but unless you have been pushed back heavily or pushed the enemy, units generally stand in the middle of the map. So it should not matter that much if you attack from the front or the back, or what am I not getting here? Why is this more special for 3v3/4v4 than for small modes? Large modes generally have more delay on plane based attacks, I just don't get why the direction is that important if units are fighting in the middle of the map anyway. If you could elaborate on that, that would be good.

Everything might have been a slight hyperbole, but the general point still stands: Attacks from the rear are meant to be more effective so that armor matters. Armor still matters in most of the setups, especially in those involving heavily armored tanks and in next to all involving the Elefant which was taken here as an example for debate.
From a design and intuition stand point, it is good that the attack direction matters because it intuitively makes sense that shots at the front armor do not penetrate as often.


I am not sure if I am missing something here, but unless you have been pushed back heavily or pushed the enemy, units generally stand in the middle of the map. So it should not matter that much if you attack from the front or the back, or what am I not getting here? Why is this more special for 3v3/4v4 than for small modes? Large modes generally have more delay on plane based attacks, I just don't get why the direction is that important if units are fighting in the middle of the map anyway. If you could elaborate on that, that would be good.

So shall we apply this logic to all rocket/cannon strafe? There are some Stuka strafe that deal equal damage to front and rear and that require 0 skill.

So shall we apply this logic to all rocket/cannon strafe? There are some Stuka strafe that deal equal damage to front and rear and that require 0 skill.

Yes.