Commandos overnerfed

They just need a cost decrease. They're micro-heavy, but pretty solid otherwise.

New 222, M3 vs WC41, USF M1919 vs LMG34 vs other LMGs, Piat vs PTRS, penals vs rifles, ISG vs 120mm, shocks, paras with thompsons and rangers with thomsons and possibly quite a few others beg to differ.

Also, infiltration commandos(new 4 man squad) should be hands down strongest infantry unit in game without any 1v1 competition.

Yes, I've put there units that don't have premium costs for building/call-in, but these are good examples of balance vs cost being far off, rangers vs paras being one of most obvious examples.

You are comment is rather irrelevant to current subject as you are comparing vehicles with tech cost and call in and doctrinal weapons of infantries with other weapons among other things.

The system may not be perfect and some units are more cost efficient than other but units are balanced around their actual price and not the cost to get them, (in some case timing or other faction aspects are also factor in)but my point still stands....

If used correctly they are one of the units with a highest chances of wiping out enemy squad, and so making easier available will probably create more problems than it will solve.

For a 350 manpower units commandos perform great so I don't think that they where overnerfed.

If one wanted to make their performance more consistent and buff their DPS at some range one should actually nerf other aspect like the grenades and demo charges.

Call-in vs tech is irrelevant. CPs as well as tech is an indicator of units timing, not its direct strength, even if it often correlates.

I've compared units of same function, where more expensive version is simply inferior to cheaper one, where only PTRS vs PIAT is a bit of a stretch because of PTRS potential AI effectiveness.

I fully agree the units are balanced around the price, not call-in price which often includes opportunity cost, especially for "spawn on field" units.

Unless you always perfectly throw gammon bombs, commandos aren't any better or worse then any other elite SMG squad at squad wiping and they are pretty cost effective AT VET0 in relation to other units(in ranger case, we have obviously underperforming/overpriced unit if we compare them to paras who are superior in every way for the lower cost).

Again, for 350mp they are fine, but to get them you are always forced to pay additional cost of at least 150, this is a HUGE price and their surprise factor aka opportunity cost is extremely HIGH for what you get.

Their biggest and likely only shortcoming outside of tremendous opportunity cost is terrible scaling.

At vet0 they perform almost as well as vet3, they aren't any more durable, they aren't as noticeably more lethal as any other squad in game.

People jerk over their vet3 rec acc on retreat. Well, I'd rather have them have more vet accuracy/cooldown reduction or permanent rec acc vet like any other squad in game gets.

At vet3 they die like flies to other vet3 squads, commandos are unit that is FORCED to wipe squads to stay relevant late game, when vetted troops are around.

Ehh, yeah they used to be pretty OP (too bad I never got a chance to use them at that OP state :C ) but i recently used them and while they weren't able to squad wipe often and i had to retreat them quite a bit, I did score some squad wipes, especially when the opponent wasn't paying attention.

But I do think they're a tad too expensive for their current state. Then again, I guess the Brits are 'supposed' to be strict on manpower

540+350

Commandos in vanguard dosent cost 890.
Commandos, glider and aa oficier does.

Want to continue arguing with the facts? Go on.

Still more credible than your angry shitposting.

Am I the angry one here?

Call-in vs tech is irrelevant. CPs as well as tech is an indicator of units timing, not its direct strength, even if it often correlates.
I've compared units of same function, where more expensive version is simply inferior to cheaper one, where only PTRS vs PIAT is a bit of a stretch because of PTRS potential AI effectiveness.
I fully agree the units are balanced around the price, not call-in price which often includes opportunity cost, especially for "spawn on field" units.

If you want to debate any of the units you mentioned, CP , timing or anything else pls do so in another thread, since we agree that units are balanced around their cost I see no point in continuing this and the price commandos sotrmtroopers and falls are balanced around the prices I provided...

Unless you always perfectly throw gammon bombs, commandos aren't any better or worse then any other elite SMG squad at squad wiping and they are pretty cost effective AT VET0 in relation to other units(in ranger case, we have obviously underperforming/overpriced unit if we compare them to paras who are superior in every way for the lower cost).

Gemon is one of strongest grenade in the game and is especially powerful against garrison, add to that the demo chargers and the camo and I would say commandos are better at wiping sqaud than any "other elite SMG squad".

(SMG Paras cost is 340 manpower +90 MU Ranger are 325 +90 and Ranger can hold an additional weapon...rather irrelevant to commandos)

Their biggest and likely only shortcoming outside of tremendous opportunity cost is terrible scaling.
At vet0 they perform almost as well as vet3, they aren't any more durable, they aren't as noticeably more lethal as any other squad in game.
...commandos are unit that is FORCED to wipe squads to stay relevant late game, when vetted troops are around.

Vet bonus of commandos:
Unlocks light smoke grenade
+25% accuracy, +25% to grenade range
Squad drops a big smoke grenade on retreat,and heals out of combat

+25% accuracy and grenade range are actually very good bonuses...their vet bonuses might not seem to be good as other infantry but their starting stat are better then most infantries...

Commandos are not "FORCED" to wipe squads they do not need to be more durably because they are already one of the toughest infantry when in cover they relay on camo to close the distance if they have to...

+25% accuracy and grenade range are actually very good bonuses...

No, those are pretty small bonuses for direct-combat effectiveness. It's literally less than EF engineer units' (35% accuracy and -15% cooldown) and noticeably less than any basic infantry unit's (who will usually have that grenade range, and more accuracy, received accuracy, cooldown, etc...), let alone elite infantry's.

Not that Commandos are as bad as that comparison would imply (Being immune to bullets because you're invisible before getting close > 29% received accuracy, and of course tossing hand nukes at infantry while you're moving around invisible is pretty incomparable in the game...), it's just obvious those bonuses are small by comparison.

No, those are pretty small bonuses for direct-combat effectiveness. It's literally less than EF engineer units' (35% accuracy and -15% cooldown) and noticeably less than any basic infantry unit's (who will usually have that grenade range, and more accuracy, received accuracy, cooldown, etc...), let alone elite infantry's.
....

Check your numbers the bonuses you mention are incorrect, further more EF Engineers do not have access to double LMG that can fire on the move and benefit the most from accuracy bonus...

25% accuracy is also better than 25% cooldown that most carbin/sgms infs get us an offensive bonus...

Check your numbers the bonuses you mention are incorrect, further more EF Engineers do not have access to double LMG that can fire on the move and benefit the most from accuracy bonus...

25% accuracy is also better than 25% cooldown that rifles get...

25% accuracy is better than the 20% cooldown Rifles get.

But it's not better than the 20% cooldown, 30% accuracy, -23% and 20% received accuracy that Rifles get.

25% accuracy is better than the 20% cooldown Rifles get.

But it's not better than the 20% cooldown, 30% accuracy, -23% and 20% received accuracy that Rifles get.

Yes vet 2 bonuses of commandos is not better than the combined vet 2 and vet 3 bonuses of riflemen...

On the other hand a vet 2 commando has the smaller size than a vet 2 riflemen can camo and has better bonuses when in cover.

You described the +25% accuracy bonus as "pretty small", it is not is quite allot (especially for dual LMGs)...

As I said before they start better than most infantries and the scale less, it makes sense...

Yes vet 2 bonuses of commandos is not better than the combined vet 2 and vet 3 bonuses of riflemen...

...

You described the +25% accuracy bonus as small, it is not its quite allot...

Why would we be comparing just the vet 2? Vet 3 is entirely realistic for both units, and we're discussing their scaling in general, not "scaling until everyone hits vet 3".

But it is small. Most infantry get 40% at a minimum from vet, all other examples of infantry with just 25% accuracy from vet also get cooldown (not to mention received accuracy bonuses), and there are just two infantry units that get less accuracy than that from vet (Rear Echelons, who also get a third man from vet 3, and M2HB HMG, whose vet frankly sucks a little bit too anyway).

Why would we be comparing just the vet 2? Vet 3 is entirely realistic for both units, and we're discussing their scaling in general, not "scaling until everyone hits vet 3".
...

I have no idea what you are discussing...
A claimed was made that commandos "At vet0 they perform almost as well as vet3,..." to which I responded that 25% more accuracy, +25 more range in grenades are both good bonuses for vet2 and thus that claim does not hold water...

In addition the vet 1 ability allows them to get cover and stealth bonus anywhere on the map while the vet 3 bonus allow them to stay on the field longer and makes able to survive (in most cases) if they hit the retreat point allowing extremely aggressive play...

Each units performance is balanced around its Cost, not what ones payes to get it. Thus:

that's a pretty convenient excuse to ignore the extra 150 mp price tag.

fallschirmjaeger and stormtrooper pay for their instant house spawn. The glider insertion is nice for getting onto the field fast, but it lack any sort of stealth and surprise.

the vanguard commandos is fine. the problem is with the commandos regiment.

that's a pretty convenient excuse to ignore the extra 150 mp price tag.

fallschirmjaeger and stormtrooper pay for their instant house spawn. The glider insertion is nice for getting onto the field fast, but it lack any sort of stealth and surprise.

the vanguard commandos is fine. the problem is with the commandos regiment.

If the glider is overpriced that is a separate issue from the cost efficiency of the Commando themselves...

If the cost of the glider should be taken into account the same logic should apply to other cases and all infantries that come with transporter vehicles are over priced...

I have suggested that infantries that come with transporter vehicles or spawned should also be available to be built from HQ for no premium...

It has been argued in this thread that commandos is the most expensive units that it is under-performing for its cost.

Neither is correct Commandos cost is 350 and are balanced around that price they cost only 10 manpower more than PGs for instance and they are far superior in AI then them ober are more expensive and without a weapon upgrade are far less weaker...

Such an expensive, midgame unit should score some kills before being forced to fall back.


They can't because they are fragile and their rate of fire is bugged. Their camo sucks as well.

"Then again, I guess the Brits are 'supposed' to be strict on manpower "

They seem to be pretty darn strict on munitions too with a great many expensive abilities in comparison to other factions. Not to mention that basic upgrades also cost fuel.

Frankly floating anything as UKF = loss.

Such an expensive, midgame unit should score some kills before being forced to fall back.
They can't because they are fragile and their rate of fire is bugged. Their camo sucks as well.

Commandos have a smaller size than most units, have better cover modifiers than most units, comes with camo and 5 members. They are hardly fragile, they are more resilient than more expensive units like obers that usually enter the field later...

Their camo is at least as good as other infantries that come with free camo and the vet 1 ability allows them to cloak even where there is not natural cover...

If the glider is overpriced that is a separate issue from the cost efficiency of the Commando themselves...

If the cost of the glider should be taken into account the same logic should apply to other cases and all infantries that come with transporter vehicles are over priced...

I have suggested that infantries that come with transporter vehicles or spawned should also be available to be built from HQ for no premium...

It has been argued in this thread that commandos is the most expensive units that it is under-performing for its cost.

Neither is correct Commandos cost is 350 and are balanced around that price they cost only 10 manpower more than PGs for instance and they are far superior in AI then them ober are more expensive and without a weapon upgrade are far less weaker...

let's just agree to lower the call in cost (glider cost)

I got 30 kills in like 10 minutes during a 2v2 with commandos last night, yes, from the "Up" commando regiment glider that I also used as a reinforce point

Still stronk as ever. Gammon is ridiculously good and the camo is nice.

Now They aren't auto win trololol Scottish IRA Captain Price, YUri, soap and friends like they were at release, but still very strong and definitely don't need buffs. We're so close to non-shit balance, let's not mess with stuff that's not in a bad spot