Command P4 vs Command AEC - what the buff!

I can see some virtue in making the Churchill a command tank, but on the other hand this is a huge waste of resources. This tank is quite expensive, and you're basically halving its fighting power. Although you can keep it in the fight for longer, I somehow don't think it is a good move.

In game I have seen Churchill being used I guess because the loss of fighting power is not that great to begin with.

I suspect that the Croc would make a good command vehicles since the debuffs probably effect main weapon only that in the cases of Croc is probably the flamer although I have not checked.

All of these comparisons are lopsided. The 2xFF+AEC combo is so expensive, almost every tank will die quickly. That's how its supposed to be if you pour a ton of resources into pure AT vehicles.

IS with the aura are quite capably of providing the AI and in large mode the AT of the combination is very useful. FF can fire from distance and AEC can stun diving tanks.

You still did not convincingly say why the Command P4 needs buffs in the first place. Your only arguments so far were that
1. It were too expensive for a support unit
2. It does not have the fighting power of dedicated combat vehicles.

The first is not a point at all. The cost depends on how useful a unit is, not an alleged class. The second one is self-explanatory by the fact that you get a ton of utility out of it.
I repeat myself: You get the durability of a normal P4, you get the AI capability of a normal P4, you get slightly decreased cost, and you get a good aura buff for not only you but all your allies as well.

What you don't get is the AT of a normal P4. That's what the utility has to compensate, and especially in larger modes it does.

C.Panzer is not really that good in small modes. That changes I suggest will improve its performance in those mod and not really effect larger mode.

Allow me to reverse your the question:
Is there a reason why the C.PzIV should have higher manpower cost than PzIV?

Is there a reason why the C.PzIV should gain veterancy so much slower than PzIV?

Is there a reason why a AI vehicle should have the same pop as all around medium tank?

Is there a reason why Valentine should have a better gun than C.PzIV?

What you don't get is the AT of a normal P4. That's what the utility has to compensate, and especially in larger modes it does.

Exactly this. Any buffs to it's individual performance and you have to start looking at nerfing the aura. Because it's potency in teams is what makes the unit useful

I already think it should only effect your own units, but that is a significant nerf and it would need to be compensated if they did that. At this point, I don't see them changing it so I think it's fine

In game I have seen Churchill being used I guess because the loss of fighting power is not that great to begin with.

I suspect that the Croc would make a good command vehicles since the debuffs probably effect main weapon only that in the cases of Croc is probably the flamer although I have not checked.


IS with the aura are quite capably of providing the AI and in large mode the AT of the combination is very useful. FF can fire from distance and AEC can stun diving tanks.

If it really only affects the main gun, then indeed it makes more sense to put it onto a Churchill. I assumed it will affect all weapons, but it is not specified anywhere.

It's a good point that the Churchill's fighting power is not that great. It is roughly on the level of a medium tank though, and it's probably not a great deal to put the aura on a Cromwell.
Anyway, with the staying power of the Churchill, maybe it is overall an acceptable deal.

C.Panzer is not really that good in small modes. That changes I suggest will improve its performance in those mod and not really effect larger mode.

Yes, that's what I also agree upon. But your suggestions are far from "not really effecting larger modes". You only suggested buffs, but those buffs also hit the large modes. There is no gun buff that would only affect small modes. There is also no population buff that works this way. The main thing that is scewed are resources and the security of fuel. If you want incentivize building a tank in smaller modes, you need to reduce the fuel price and increase the MP costs. High fuel costs hit harder in small modes because it is easier to take points, while MP is generated equally and due to the abundance of artillery in large modes, they tend to have quicker wipes (at least this is my experience).

Allow me to reverse your the question:
Is there a reason why the C.PzIV should have higher manpower cost than PzIV?

Is there a reason why the C.PzIV should gain veterancy so much slower than PzIV?

Is there a reason why a AI vehicle should have the same pop as all around medium tank?

Is there a reason why Valentine should have a better gun than C.PzIV?

In that order:
1. Overall cost is reduced. The tank is overall cheaper. You're framing it as if it were more expensive. You pay 10 MP more and 20 FU less.

2. To this I already responded in a previous post: Given they have exactly the same vet, they should also vet up similarly.

3+4. Yes. The P4 has a very strong aura. You're comparing functionally different units there, there is no reason why one should be used as a benchmark for the other. You can't straight up compare them, because they do different things.

They are the same arguments you used from the beginning in this thread, and your main argument is still that the Command P4 is not as strong as a combat vehicle (name the P4) despite having roughly the same cost. Again: You're comparing functionally very different units, with different roles on the battlefield. Why?

...
In that order:
1. Overall cost is reduced. The tank is overall cheaper. You're framing it as if it were more expensive. You pay 10 MP more and 20 FU less.

Not really you pay more manpower and less fuel for AI vehicle. Not an all around tank. Actually the only reason C.Pz 4 more expensive manpower wise is that when PzIV got a cost discount someone forgot about the C.Pz IV.

In small one has to ask is better to invest on ostwind or a more expensive C.PzIV or all around tank like the PzIV or the 20 fuel cheaper AI mainly C.PzIV,?
The answer is usually not C.PzIV.

One can consider C.PzIV as hit third (maybe second vehicle)

2. To this I already responded in a previous post: Given they have exactly the same vet, they should also vet up similarly.

1) first of all the should not have the same vet bonuses
2) Since one mainly AI and the other all around PzIV vet faster.

There is no reason to justify having higher XP value than the PzIV and the value should be closer to Ostwind even though its AI is lower.

3+4. Yes. The P4 has a very strong aura. You're comparing functionally different units there, there is no reason why one should be used as a benchmark for the other. You can't straight up compare them, because they do different things.

C.PZ4 has one of the worse mainguns in AT than any other medium tank even light tank like valentine. Even KV-8's 45mm gun has at least good penetration near.

The gun is simply bad with bad accuracy/bad penetration and bad damage and there nothing to justify that.

They are the same arguments you used from the beginning in this thread, and your main argument is still that the Command P4 is not as strong as a combat vehicle (name the P4) despite having roughly the same cost. Again: You're comparing functionally very different units, with different roles on the battlefield. Why?

Compare the PzIV with any unit with similar cost its gun is simply BAD in the AT role.

Not really you pay more manpower and less fuel for AI vehicle. Not an all around tank. Actually the only reason C.Pz 4 more expensive manpower wise is that when PzIV got a cost discount someone forgot about the C.Pz IV.

In small one has to ask is better to invest on ostwind or a more expensive C.PzIV or all around tank like the PzIV or the 20 fuel cheaper AI mainly C.PzIV,?
The answer is usually not C.PzIV.

One can consider C.PzIV as hit third (maybe second vehicle)

Why is it so hard for you to admit that you are simply factually wrong and the Command P4 is overall cheaper than the normal P4?
Unless you're in a super late game 4v4 scenario and floating 400+ fuel, anyone would exchange 10 MP for 20 FU without even thinking twice about it if he had the chance.

Again, we're not talking combat performance here, since this would be a biased comparison. Just plain and simple costs.

The reason why the Command P4 costs 10 MP does not matter. Both units have seen changes since then. The question is: Is the cost unjustified? I don't think so.
Also there is nothing wrong with the Command P4 being bought as the second or third unit. That's only logical when you - by the design of it being a COMMAND vehicle with an aura - get the most benefit from it.

1) first of all the should not have the same vet bonuses
2) Since one mainly AI and the other all around PzIV vet faster.

There is no reason to justify having higher XP value than the PzIV and the value should be closer to Ostwind even though its AI is lower.

I fully agree on this and never said anything contrary.
But given the fact that they at the moment have the same vet bonusses, they should also vet up similarly. Which means lower XP threshold for the Command P4 or shared vet.

C.PZ4 has one of the worse mainguns in AT than any other medium tank even light tank like valentine. Even KV-8's 45mm gun has at least good penetration near.

The gun is simply bad with bad accuracy/bad penetration and bad damage and there nothing to justify that.

It is a gun against infantry.
Also the accuracy is not bad, it is the standard accuracy profile that every medium and many light vehicles use. It has bad penetration, which does not matter against infantry. It has bad damage, but also a high cadence to offset this, compensating for lower damage against infantry.
Again, the lack of AT is by design. If you give it AT, you need to jack up the price.

Compare the PzIV with any unit with similar cost its gun is simply BAD in the AT role.

Yes, but why would you do that?
I also don't buy a Scott and complain that I would have gotten better AT with a Stuart. Why do you keep focusing on the combat strength of a utility and support vehicle that's major plus is a very strong aura?
It's not supposed to be good at fighting, but it grants better performance to everything around it.

Why is it so hard for you to admit that you are simply factually wrong and the Command P4 is overall cheaper than the normal P4?

I have not claimed that C.PzIV is more expensive than PzIV.
Show Spoiler

Unless you're in a super late game 4v4 scenario and floating 400+ fuel, anyone would exchange 10 MP for 20 FU without even thinking twice about it if he had the chance.

Not really.

Why are comparing a AI tank with main battle tank? if you want to compare it with something you need to compare it ostwind which is also an AI tank and cost 60 manpower less and same fuel.

Again, we're not talking combat performance here, since this would be a biased comparison. Just plain and simple costs.

The reason why the Command P4 costs 10 MP does not matter. Both units have seen changes since then. The question is: Is the cost unjustified? I don't think so.
Also there is nothing wrong with the Command P4 being bought as the second or third unit. That's only logical when you - by the design of it being a COMMAND vehicle with an aura - get the most benefit from it.

Cost does matter especially in small modes since it make the unit less attractive than stock options.

I fully agree on this and never said anything contrary.
But given the fact that they at the moment have the same vet bonusses, they should also vet up similarly. Which means lower XP threshold for the Command P4 or shared vet.

The should vet with similar speed which they do not. PzIV vets faster, way faster. The unit is comparable to ostwind and it should have an XP value that adjusted to how it compares with ostwind.

It is a gun against infantry.
Also the accuracy is not bad, it is the standard accuracy profile that every medium and many light vehicles use. It has bad penetration, which does not matter against infantry. It has bad damage, but also a high cadence to offset this, compensating for lower damage against infantry.
Again, the lack of AT is by design. If you give it AT, you need to jack up the price.

Its accuracy is bad because it can not hit light tanks especially on the move. Combined with low penetration it makes the AT performance one of the worse in game for cost. Its AT capabilities even against a light tank like Stuart is inferior to that of an ostwind.

On average it needs around a minute of chasing around a Stuart to kill (range 35/moving)

Currently it has one of the worse guns in game and other units with similar guns had their weapon improved (like the valentine and KV-8). There is no real justification of a gun this bad.

Should it be able to fight medium tank and win? obviously no but is should brought inline with other vehicles.

Yes, but why would you do that?
I also don't buy a Scott and complain that I would have gotten better AT with a Stuart. Why do you keep focusing on the combat strength of a utility and support vehicle that's major plus is a very strong aura?
It's not supposed to be good at fighting, but it grants better performance to everything around it.

I am not focusing on anything, I am simply pointing out the issue with performance of the unit, if in your opinion the aura is too strong I suggest you make the suggestion to nerf and provide your arguments. I have already explained my point of view on auras.

If the unit is not cost efficient in fighting role there is little reason to use it in 1vs1. In addition if the unit can not fight it can not gain veterancy. It end up being something left in the rear with little reason for player to actually move it the front line.

Imo units should allow player that use them better get more out of them and that should including gaining veterancy with bonuses that help it support role (currently only applies to mark target).

tldr buff the P4 despite it having an useful role in larger team modes as good support that enhances heavy tanks



might as well, wehrmacht is clearly weak

Why is it so hard for you to admit that you are simply factually wrong

He loses games to Royal Engineer squads, I wouldn't take anything he says seriously.

Also there is nothing wrong with the Command P4 being bought as the second or third unit. That's only logical when you - by the design of it being a COMMAND vehicle with an aura - get the most benefit from it.

I sometimes get it as my first unit because the aura on Panzer Grenadiers with Combined Arms (Panzer Gren Passive which adds -10% received accuracy and 20% movement speed ) is really good. Combined with the 10% damage reduction on the Command P4 it is almost good enough to be a new meta. The smoke ability on the P4 helps Panzer Grens deal with MGs/AT guns easily as your Panzer Grenadiers can make quick work of it.

Yes, but why would you do that?
I also don't buy a Scott and complain that I would have gotten better AT with a Stuart. Why do you keep focusing on the combat strength of a utility and support vehicle that's major plus is a very strong aura?
It's not supposed to be good at fighting, but it grants better performance to everything around it.

I agree with what you are saying with this but at the same time Relic/Balance Team tends to half ass things. They use like 0.01% of their brain's mental capacity when designing things (especially maps, Relic couldn't even be bothered to make maps so they let the community/Balance team do it). Command P4 should not have copy/pasted vet and vet requirements. That type of attitude is seen all throughout the game. For example USF have their own sound assets for planes but they copy and paste abilities and most abilities use the German Audio files. So Airborne Commander on USF paradrop, Brit Paradrop (the one with At Gun/Med Crates -forget the name at the moment) and Soviet paradrop abilities are all using German sound files due to copy and pasting being prevalent all over the place. Hell half the Vet 1 abilities in the game are copy and pasted across multiple units (Pioneer First aid and Grenadier First aid for example). Such laziness is exactly why Relic deserves to fail and go bankrupt. None of the love shown in COH1 is shown in COH2.

Anyway assuming that COH 3 fails (high chance since everything about it so far is bad especially the mobile friendly UI that no one asked for) and they decide to work on COH 2 again, they need to deliver on the Vet rework they promised they would do many years ago. Units like the Command P4 should have its own veterancy instead of the copy and pasted vet from the P4 which would hopefully give the unit some love. At the moment a Vet 0 and Vet 3 Command P4 is almost the same thing except with an ultra fast turret rotation. Kind of defeats the purpose of unit preservation.

I have not claimed that C.PzIV is more expensive than PzIV.

Comparing only part of the costs (MP and population) where the Command P4 fares "worse" followed by a comparison of the combat effectiveness of the P4 and Command P4 is misleading to all readers that do not know all the costs by heart. Especially since the combat effectiveness and MP cost are not obviously related.
It is more truthful to at least compare the full costs, that's why I pointed it out.

Not really.

Why are comparing a AI tank with main battle tank? if you want to compare it with something you need to compare it ostwind which is also an AI tank and cost 60 manpower less and same fuel.

Please don't reverse this. You were the first comparing it to the normal P4.
Anyway: Ostheer has no unit like the P4. The closest unit in CoH2 design-wise is probably the Command Panther, but that's a TD. Any comparison has caveats, it is just important to point them out. The Command P4 shares a lot of characteristics to the normal P4 besides its name: Armor, HP, mobility, AI capability. Even veterancy bonuses and upgrades. Not the AT power though. And that's exactly what I did by saying that you basically trade the AT capability for slightly lower costs and the aura.

If you want to compare it to the Ostwind, go ahead. but the comparison only makes sense if you can put their different characteristics into context. You have a lot more subtle differences though with the Ostwind, so the comparison will likely lead to more speculation and assumptions.

So taken everything together, the comparison to the P4 makes the most sense in my eyes.

Cost does matter especially in small modes since it make the unit less attractive than stock options.

I am not sure how this relates to what I you are quoting.

The should vet with similar speed which they do not. PzIV vets faster, way faster. The unit is comparable to ostwind and it should have an XP value that adjusted to how it compares with ostwind.

I don't see how the unit "comparable" to the Ostwind in the sense of that they'd fill the same niche. They don't. They work differently. They are both AI vehicles for sure, but so are Brummbar and Panzerwerfer. They would not be my go-tos for a comparison though. For the reasons explained above, I'd say the most straight forward comparison is to the normal P4, since they share a lot of features.

As I said before, I agree to the point about adjusting XP values. At the very least, the normal P4 and Command P4 should vet at similar speeds given they have the same vet. In the best case, the Command P4 should get its own vet system.

Its accuracy is bad because it can not hit light tanks especially on the move. Combined with low penetration it makes the AT performance one of the worse in game for cost. Its AT capabilities even against a light tank like Stuart is inferior to that of an ostwind.

On average it needs around a minute of chasing around a Stuart to kill (range 35/moving)

Currently it has one of the worse guns in game and other units with similar guns had their weapon improved (like the valentine and KV-8). There is no real justification of a gun this bad.

Should it be able to fight medium tank and win? obviously no but is should brought inline with other vehicles.

I agree to the part that it has a bad gun. What I pointed out what, that this is not due to accuracy.
The same accuracy profile is used across a ton of units in CoH2. Mediums are a major threat to LVs despite using the same accuracy profile. It even has better scatter values, so technically it should hit more than a normal medium. The accuracy is so to say "normal", what drags it down mostly is the low damage and penetration.

But as I said: The Command P4 is a decent unit in team games. If you buff its combat performance, you're also buffing it in the modes it is already good in. So either you increase the price to compensate, or you need to apply another nerf - in the best case one that hits team games harder than small modes, which would probably be the aura.

I am not focusing on anything, I am simply pointing out the issue with performance of the unit, if in your opinion the aura is too strong I suggest you make the suggestion to nerf and provide your arguments. I have already explained my point of view on auras.

If the unit is not cost efficient in fighting role there is little reason to use it in 1vs1. In addition if the unit can not fight it can not gain veterancy. It end up being something left in the rear with little reason for player to actually move it the front line.

Imo units should allow player that use them better get more out of them and that should including gaining veterancy with bonuses that help it support role (currently only applies to mark target).

In all comparisons, you've solely been discussing the combat performance. Apart from a suggested rework, you've not even mentioned the aura at all, and therefore neglected the biggest selling point of the unit. That's definitely focusing on combat.
As I already said, the buffs you suggested will also buff the unit in larger modes where it is already good at. They are not balanced, they might lead to a better balanced units in small modes, but potentially give rise to problems in larger modes.

The Command P4 is perfectly capable of fighting infantry. What it needs is a reduction in XP thresholds to reflect the missing damage on vehicles.

Finally, please don't insinuate things I did not say. I never described the Command P4 as OP, so please don't pretend I did.

Comparing only part of the costs (MP and population) where the Command P4 fares "worse" followed by a comparison of the combat effectiveness of the P4 and Command P4 is misleading to all readers that do not know all the costs by heart. Especially since the combat effectiveness and MP cost are not obviously related.
It is more truthful to at least compare the full costs, that's why I pointed it out.

I havenot compared C.PzIV and PzIV. I have simply pointed out that C.PzIV is more expensive. Once again this is what I wrote:
"Cost more manpower than a normal PzIV."

Please don't reverse this. You were the first comparing it to the normal P4.

Again simply no I made no such comparison.

Anyway: Ostheer has no unit like the P4. The closest unit in CoH2 design-wise is probably the Command Panther, but that's a TD. Any comparison has caveats, it is just important to point them out. The Command P4 shares a lot of characteristics to the normal P4 besides its name: Armor, HP, mobility, AI capability. Even veterancy bonuses and upgrades. Not the AT power though. And that's exactly what I did by saying that you basically trade the AT capability for slightly lower costs and the aura.

If you want to compare it to the Ostwind, go ahead. but the comparison only makes sense if you can put their different characteristics into context. You have a lot more subtle differences though with the Ostwind, so the comparison will likely lead to more speculation and assumptions.

So taken everything together, the comparison to the P4 makes the most sense in my eyes.

You are entitled to your opinion but compact wise C.Pz is much closer to ostwsind which is a AI tank than to PzIV which is mainline tank.

I am not sure how this relates to what I you are quoting.


I don't see how the unit "comparable" to the Ostwind in the sense of that they'd fill the same niche. They don't. They work differently. They are both AI vehicles for sure, but so are Brummbar and Panzerwerfer. They would not be my go-tos for a comparison though. For the reasons explained above, I'd say the most straight forward comparison is to the normal P4, since they share a lot of features.

As I said before, I agree to the point about adjusting XP values. At the very least, the normal P4 and Command P4 should vet at similar speeds given they have the same vet. In the best case, the Command P4 should get its own vet system.

Glad that you agree about XP value and vet bonuse.

I agree to the part that it has a bad gun. What I pointed out what, that this is not due to accuracy.
The same accuracy profile is used across a ton of units in CoH2. Mediums are a major threat to LVs despite using the same accuracy profile. It even has better scatter values, so technically it should hit more than a normal medium. The accuracy is so to say "normal", what drags it down mostly is the low damage and penetration.

Glad to see that you agree it has a bad gun.

I have not claimed that the accuracy is the only problem as I have posted it the combination of factors:
"The gun is simply bad with bad accuracy/bad penetration and bad damage and there nothing to justify that."

But as I said: The Command P4 is a decent unit in team games. If you buff its combat performance, you're also buffing it in the modes it is already good in. So either you increase the price to compensate, or you need to apply another nerf - in the best case one that hits team games harder than small modes, which would probably be the aura.

Imo you are simply over estimating the impact of improving the gun especially for a unit limited to 1. Once more you are entitled to your opinion.

In all comparisons, you've solely been discussing the combat performance. Apart from a suggested rework, you've not even mentioned the aura at all, and therefore neglected the biggest selling point of the unit. That's definitely focusing on combat.
As I already said, the buffs you suggested will also buff the unit in larger modes where it is already good at. They are not balanced, they might lead to a better balanced units in small modes, but potentially give rise to problems in larger modes.

The Command P4 is perfectly capable of fighting infantry. What it needs is a reduction in XP thresholds to reflect the missing damage on vehicles.

Glad to see that you have changed your mind about XP value.

Finally, please don't insinuate things I did not say. I never described the Command P4 as OP, so please don't pretend I did.

That goes both ways.

Glad that you agree about XP value and vet bonuse.

Glad to see that you have changed your mind about XP value.

Uhhh what? He said he agreed about CP4 xp value on the first page of the thread....

I doubt you're trying to be a troll here but that's how most of that post comes across. You still aren't really responding to the point about CP4s aura

I doubt you're trying to be a troll here

He is always trying to be a troll.

If it really only affects the main gun, then indeed it makes more sense to put it onto a Churchill. I assumed it will affect all weapons, but it is not specified anywhere.

Command Vehicle Penalties :
Penalties to commanding vehicle: +100% reload, +100% cool-down, -50% accuracy

This are all applied to Hardpoint 1 which is the main gun. Some vehicles have multiple weapons under Hardpoint 1 but they are reserved for abilities. If these abilities fall under Hardpoint 1 then it will affect those abilities as well

(command vehicle always doubles the ability reload cooldown time on avre which was stealth added in by balance team)

Churchill Avre's Hardpoint 1 is the hull machine guns on the tank, so its a huge nerf on the avre.

He is always trying to be a troll.

I guess that it easier for your to try defame others that to come up with arguments that hold water.

Command Vehicle Penalties :
Penalties to commanding vehicle: +100% reload, +100% cool-down, -50% accuracy

This are all applied to Hardpoint 1 which is the main gun. Some vehicles have multiple weapons under Hardpoint 1 but they are reserved for abilities. If these abilities fall under Hardpoint 1 then it will affect those abilities as well

(command vehicle always doubles the ability reload cooldown time on avre which was stealth added in by balance team)

Churchill Avre's Hardpoint 1 is the hull machine guns on the tank, so its a huge nerf on the avre.

Your conspiracy theory once more hold no water since there was nothing stealth about AVRE.


"Command Vehicle
We have adjusted the Command Vehicle to be more in-line with other aura-based command vehicles. Given that the player must sacrifice a vehicle’s combat potential, we have lowered the direct penalties on the vehicle itself while providing a potent aura to other vehicles to compensate.

- Speed and Received accuracy penalty removed; retains -50% accuracy and +100% reload penalty
- AVRE Petard ability affected by Command Vehicle penalty
- Aura no longer affects emplacements
- Recon Plane cost to 50 munitions
- Recon Plane loiter period from 90 to 45"

In addition the change was completely justified since AVRE's ability is the main weapon and without any penalties to it there would no downside to upgrade.

Now as far as I know (without testing) the penalties do not apply to AEC's "Target Tread", FF "Tulip Rocket Strike" or Centaur's "20mm Strafing Fire".

Calling the hull mg debuff a "huge nerf" is probably an overstatement since its damage is not that great to begin with.

Now as far as I know (without testing) the penalties do not apply to AEC's "Target Tread", FF "Tulip Rocket Strike" or Centaur's "20mm Strafing Fire".

Calling the hull mg debuff a "huge nerf" is probably an overstatement since its damage is not that great to begin with.

the AEC ability is well affected because your firing speed and accuracy is neutered, so you will have a 50/50 on even the first shot, the 2nd one is highly unlikely

the tulips arent affected but only a retard would put it on a firefly

the centaur has been regarded as a good vehicle because you can use the ability but frankly its not worth getting a centaur, much less to put command aura on it

the AEC ability is well affected because your firing speed and accuracy is neutered, so you will have a 50/50 on even the first shot, the 2nd one is highly unlikely

Have you actually test it or are just guessing? If so can provide the replay?

the tulips arent affected but only a retard would put it on a firefly

the centaur has been regarded as a good vehicle because you can use the ability but frankly its not worth getting a centaur, much less to put command aura on it

If you think getting a Centaur is not worth it you are gravely mistaken.

Anyway what you quoted was not about which vehicle it should be used with but weather the debuff effect vehicles abilities or not.

Now the main attraction of the Avre is the Petard Mortar (Just like the SturmTigers main thing is its nuke) but when its on cooldown it can still harass unsupported units and support your infantry. (Like the grenade on Sturmtiger).

unrelated but the machine gun has not really been good on the AVRE because the turret is locked in place and so actually utilizing the coaxial MG is difficult. Most axis infantry have snares and there is an ATG lingering around, so driving up to be close and personal is very rarely an option. AVRE's should fire and retreat to repair and reload while under the influence of a command aura.