Commander Update Beta 2021 - Soviet Feedback

Do not nerf Rocket straf! It is strong as it should be.

Show me that it can.

Tested it multiple times in cheat mode just to add some data versus medium tanks. Planes always attacking from the rear.

Il-2 rocket strafe was more consistent by dealing about 400 damage by nearly every single pass.
JU-87 At-Strafe dealt between 320 and 720 damage (E8 health).

Frontally this looks totally different with IL-2 rocket strafe not beeing worth it. Again Ju-87 for 110 MU, IL-rocket strafe for 125 MU.

Tested it multiple times in cheat mode just to add some data versus medium tanks. Planes always attacking from the rear.

Il-2 rocket strafe was more consistent by dealing about 400 damage by nearly every single pass.
JU-87 At-Strafe dealt between 320 and 720 damage (E8 health).

Frontally this looks totally different with IL-2 rocket strafe not beeing worth it. Again Ju-87 for 110 MU, IL-rocket strafe for 125 MU.

I also went to experiment with the cheat mod, and the 37mm strafe can definitely kill the ISU-152 or IS-2 from one pass, or leave them with a minimum amount of HP that just complement the PAK-40 strike.

Because T-34 ram. Axis stunning abilities (only Target Weakpoint and variants) are defensively orientated.

There will be clearly enough opportunities in every game where allied tanks are in range of you PAK. Puma, while beeing highly mobile, can stun a nonturreted tank (-> SU-85) at decent range without sacrifing itself (like T34). StuG E, not as mobile as Puma but mobile, has the option to stun a tank too.
You can call in the JU-87 at that opportunities.

You can't charge into a (heavy) tank and call down the Stuka strafe with them, unlike with a T-34 and IL-2 rockets.

Its not that indestructible T34 hordes charge frontally into axis line. There is always the risk to loose your T34 without having achieved anything. You have to wait for opportunities too, but they are different from the axis ones. The outcome is the same: Calling an AT-strafe at a hampered tank. Btw. I thought ram was nerfed for that reason (having a chance to get the tank out of the strafing zone).

Combined with lower cost, it'd be okay for the IL-2 rockets to be less effective.

Did I missed something? IL-2 rocket strafe cost 15 MU more than JU-87 AT-Strafe.
If you go for a ram you are investing an additonal 300 MP and 90 FU.

Did I missed something? IL-2 rocket strafe cost 15 MU more than JU-87 AT-Strafe.

Axis stuns cost 30-45 munitions on top of the strafe.

It is ready reward, it does not explain why in your opinion that chance should be 100% for all axis vehicles.

As I said as a reward. The same way most flanking tanks will penetrate opponent tanks from the rear to 100% since they will be very close too in most cases.

Pls avoid personal comment especially in these thread they non constructive.

I have nothing do with change, this was a balance team suggestion nor I have ever suggest it something like.

My fault. Didn't want to get personal, but I did.

And that is the case for many Soviet commander. Nor all Soviet commander should have a doctrinal tank, else these tank should become stock.

Making the commander a single trick pony by expecting rocket strafe to carry the commander is not a great idea either.

15 out of 22 commanders have a doctrinal tank, some have two. At the seven commanders left there is not a single commander without additional doctrinal AT options. In case of Airborne it is the IL2 rocket strafe. It is not a single trick pony, but a necessary mechanic to make the commander work.

Axis stuns cost 30-45 munitions on top of the strafe.

Ram costs 300mp and 90fu on top of the strafe.

Axis stuns cost 30-45 munitions on top of the strafe.

Does RAM (vehicle cost) or AEC track shot (30 MU) has no cost? Isn't it the same?

JU-87 At-Strafe dealt between 320 and 720 damage (E8 health).

So, As I said can not kill a full 800 hp tank.

So, As I said can not kill a full 800 hp tank.

Yeah, but you said:

Well, CAS single pass can't kill a full Health 800hp tank unlike IL2 which could bring down a 960 HP Panther.

..and that is not true either.

Ju-87 single pass can deal 800 damage in one pass, but the tank has to be longer/bigger as the typical allied medium tank. Something like a ISU or IS-2 can get about 800 damage or even slightly more.

As I said as a reward. The same way most flanking tanks will penetrate opponent tanks from the rear to 100% since they will be very close too in most cases.

Not really Tiger retains 140 rear armor and can bounce shot from most medium tanks, it still rewarding to flank it because the chance is much lower.

Having IL-2 having the same chance of penetrating the rear of 222 and Elefant put Elefant in worse position since it can not move out of position fast enough.

My fault. Didn't want to get personal, but I did.

No problem it happens, we simply need to try and avoid it.

15 out of 22 commanders have a doctrinal tank, some have two. At the seven commanders left there is not a single commander without additional doctrinal AT options. In case of Airborne it is the IL2 rocket strafe. It is not a single trick pony, but a necessary mechanic to make the commander work.

If there is a need for added AT in the commander one could just tweak another ability instead of expecting this ability to counter all enemy vehicles.

LI-2 rocket being more cost efficient than IL-2, PTAB AT Bombing Run feel wrong to begin with since the commander already comes with superior AI and does not really need to be better than AT oriented commander in AT.

Not really Tiger retains 140 rear armor and can bounce shot from most medium tanks, it still rewarding to flank it because the chance is much lower.

The design team wants to bring it down to 80, that is way less than every flanking tank will have if flanking in close distance. Absolutely wrecking this ability versus the big targets while even staying at 125 MU for the ability...

Having IL-2 having the same chance of penetrating the rear of 222 and Elefant put Elefant in worse position since it can not move out of position fast enough.

Tell me why ISU-152 vs JU-87 AT-strafe is threatend differently then. With 10 range less than elephant (HE) it is even more prone to stun abilities (PAK can get into that range). It is awfully slow too while JU-87 deals about the same damage to it as IL-2 rocket strafe to Elephant. Ju-87 penetrates ISU-152 frontally by the way.

No problem it happens, we simply need to try and avoid it.

I'm able to apologize if I'm wrong. A lot of people around here just ignore it if they made a mistake. Just distract with other arguments and don't talk about it anymore.

If there is a need for added AT in the commander one could just tweak another ability instead of expecting this ability to counter all enemy vehicles.

Every AT ability is basically made to counter all enemy vehicles/tanks. That is the basic meaning of AT. But of course some abilities are better versus some targets and worse versus others. Don't try to use IL-2 rocket strafe at a mobile PUMA for example. You won't hit it.

LI-2 rocket being more cost efficient than IL-2, PTAB AT Bombing Run feel wrong to begin with since the commander already comes with superior AI and does not really need to be better than AT oriented commander in AT.

1) Il-2 has a lot of purposes, deleting howitzers or dealing heavy damage to OKW trucks for example. You just can't compare them.
2) Tank hunter Tactics is a mess. Conscript PTRS, why when you can have Penals with three of them? PTAB is just too bad, situational at best. This commander doesn't even has heavy AT mines but calls himself beeing a dedicated AT commander. There is more than one commander with better AT options.

The design team wants to bring it down to 80, that is way less than every flanking tank will have if flanking in close distance. Absolutely wrecking this ability versus the big targets while even staying at 125 MU for the ability...


Tell me why ISU-152 vs JU-87 AT-strafe is threatend differently then. With 10 range less than elephant (HE) it is even more prone to stun abilities (PAK can get into that range). It is awfully slow too while JU-87 deals about the same damage to it as IL-2 rocket strafe to Elephant. Ju-87 penetrates ISU-152 frontally by the way.

I have not claimed that the ability is fine in the patch, I have not tested enough to have an opinion.

My only point was that your expectation to always penetrate was not justified.

As for your the comparison with MBTs, flanking with MBT is more dificult than calling planes from a certain direction and the rockets are superior because they have deflection damage

I'm able to apologize if I'm wrong. A lot of people around here just ignore it if they made a mistake. Just distract with other arguments and don't talk about it anymore.

An admirable quality, it indicates that you are not a "forum warrior" like the ones that lurk around here and are only interest in wining "fights".

Every AT ability is basically made to counter all enemy vehicles/tanks. That is the basic meaning of AT. But of course some abilities are better versus some targets and worse versus others. Don't try to use IL-2 rocket strafe at a mobile PUMA for example. You won't hit it.

My point is that expecting from IL-2 to serve as the prime sources of AT imo is expecting too much from a commander that already give players superior AI.

1) Il-2 has a lot of purposes, deleting howitzers or dealing heavy damage to OKW trucks for example. You just can't compare them.
2) Tank hunter Tactics is a mess. Conscript PTRS, why when you can have Penals with three of them? PTAB is just too bad, situational at best. This commander doesn't even has heavy AT mines but calls himself beeing a dedicated AT commander. There is more than one commander with better AT options.

The AT bombing does not delete LeFH and the you are correct ability is bad in its role and does need redesign.

Main point here is that the AT commander should have the most cost effective AT off map. AB commander already provides superior AI and does need one of the most cost efficient AT abilities.

Something like a ISU or IS-2 can get about 800 damage or even slightly more.

But that still means it can't kill a Full health 800hp tank though.

I tested the B4 in a comp-stomp. The changes effectively remove it from the game. The long time between shells means that only the first shot will do anything, since even new players can react faster than 15 seconds. The overall rate of fire seems a lot worse. The decrease in alpha damage make it even more pointless.

The AOE was significantly nerfed on this. That will make it much more RNG dependent. If there was anything that this needed, it was to be less RNG dependent. Overall this is a terrible change in the wrong direction.

I don't know if the damage to direct fire was also nerfed to 300. If so, it also effectively removes that ability.

rocket strife is overpowered. Enemy kept spamming it on me, and it kills several of my tanks even though I was driving them towards the outside,. so i dont mind any upcoming nerfs

I have not claimed that the ability is fine in the patch, I have not tested enough to have an opinion.
My only point was that your expectation to always penetrate was not justified.

I'm not sure if my expectation should be justified. But I'm sure that IL-2 rocket strafe and JU-87 AT strafe should be handled equally. Both sides have access to snares/stuns, both can call down a similar AT strafe.

As for your the comparison with MBTs, flanking with MBT is more dificult than calling planes from a certain direction and the rockets are superior because they have deflection damage.

Yeah, a succesful flank is even harder, but it is just not clicking plane abilities. You need snares/stuns to be successfull unless your oponent doesn't pay attention.

My point is that expecting from IL-2 to serve as the prime sources of AT imo is expecting too much from a commander that already give players superior AI.

Since tanks without snare/stun can move aside it is just a supplementary AT ability. I would say ZIS, SU-85 and PRTS Penals are still your prime AT source at Airborne commander. In my soviet postgame statistics there is always the ZIS on top of them all when it comes to AT damage.

The AT bombing does not delete LeFH and the you are correct ability is bad in its role and does need redesign.

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes. You compared IL-2 rocket strafe to IL-2 and PTAB. I thought you are talking about IL-2 Precision Bombing, that clearly kills howitzers (tested it a couple of times some minutes ago) and brings down health of OKW Trucks pretty low. Il-2 Precison bombing isn't compareable with Il-2 rocket strafe. That was my point. But maybe you talked about something else?

Main point here is that the AT commander should have the most cost effective AT off map. AB commander already provides superior AI and does need one of the most cost efficient AT abilities.

I absolutely would back that up. PTAB is worse in cost efficience. But this is not necessarily the problem of the rocket strafe beeing too good/cheap since the comparable JU-87 AT strafe has pretty the same effect at 15 MU less. Anti-Tank Overwatch for 200 MU at two other commanders is also pretty strong and I would say cost efficient. PTAB just sucks. It costs 180 MU, so it is only 20 Mu less than AT-Overwatch or JU87-Loiter, and barely brings a PZIV in the middle of the ability down to half its health. Even regarding its bigger AOE it is still embarrassing. The only think PTAB is good at is destroying large concrete buildings in one go. Maybe we should rename it in "Building Hunter Tactics". That would fit the new B4 design in that commander too.

Tell me, where is the selling point of Tank hunter tactis right now?

1. PTRS cons that get outstripped by nondoc PTRS Penals?
2. Heavy AT mines (oh no, they only get that light one instead of the heavy one)?
3. AT-Artillery? The Vet1 direct shot of B4 for 70 MU can't even destroy a non moving HT. I tried three times with a direct hit. The HT survived always.
4. AT Bombing run for 180 MU that can only kill light vehicles and maybe a light tank with some luck?
5. It seems it has to be the last ability that grants stealth to ZIS and TDs.. or am I wrong?

It isn't the AT bombing run in comparison to the AT rocket strafe alone. This commander is pretty dead in the water right now.

I tested the B4 in a comp-stomp. The changes effectively remove it from the game. The long time between shells means that only the first shot will do anything, since even new players can react faster than 15 seconds. The overall rate of fire seems a lot worse. The decrease in alpha damage make it even more pointless.

The AOE was significantly nerfed on this. That will make it much more RNG dependent. If there was anything that this needed, it was to be less RNG dependent. Overall this is a terrible change in the wrong direction.

I don't know if the damage to direct fire was also nerfed to 300. If so, it also effectively removes that ability.

Tested it in cheatmode multiple times:

Real close hit next to the back of a Tiger not even scratched its paint. The AOE must have been nerfed heavily. The visuals of the explosion are telling a whole different story however.

Vet 1 direct shot for 70 Mu failed in destroying a non moving HT for three times. HT survived with some health left always. Combine that with the slow turning/targeting of the ability and just scrap it. Not even close to PAK-43 or 17pdr.

The main I have made is that you should not expect all rockets to penetrate even from the rear.
I have little to add to that at this point.

That's the point. This cheap ability shouldn't be able to almost oneshot (super)heavies. With the reduced pen, its effectiveness against heavy vehicles will be halved and more in line with its cost. It'll still pen the rear armor of mediums at roughly 90-100% chance. It still has significant deflection damage anyway.

Well there isn't much use for an anti-tank strafe that struggles to hurt a tank. I noticed IL-2 Attack loiter is only in Armored Assault now. What about placing the IL-2 Attack loiter into Airborne?; which is thematically appropriate for a now rare ability.