WBP: UC Command Vehicle + Question
Posts: 773
UC was used because of the sheer number of negative effects the ability gives to the vehicle, so rather than wasting the power of an AEC+++, just stick it on the cheapest vehicle you can, the UC, this is bad because it's easily spammable and has no real negative side effect to losing the UC, the positives is that it is easy to kill.
Putting the ability on a higher tier vehicle however makes the loss that much more punishable because of the resource loss that is accompanied with its death, but with the movement penalty, you are never going to see it placed on a vehicle higher than an AEC.
Can we not get a best of both worlds on this seen as though no munitions cost is placed on the recon(Why? mark target etc has muni costs) and this is a huge nerf to commanders with this ability (I mean, it comes with one that is designed for emplacement play...) and just add a fuel cost to the ability too?
That way I can still put the command ability on my UC but at a cost of 50(?) fuel, so losing it is still a problem but the Brit tech isn't so forced when using this commander?
Question:
Why do 2/5 factions suffer no negative effects to buildings destroyed other than time, when others are punished greater? Is it not possible to make OST and the SU buildings destructible but not to the point of deletion (same for OKW if their buildings were set-up in base sectors)? Why is this the case?
Posts: 911
Posts: 773
Basically because the command vechicle was OP, put it on a UC stick it behind a hedge, and enjoy the perminant recon overflight. I think there is an argument is the ability is to make an Brit vehicle into a pseudo command p4
Which is where the UC was good for the Axis as its easier to kill, now its going to be mained on the AEC, stuck behind a hedge and enjoying the freecon. Only this time with smoke, more armour/HP and potential tread breaker ability, whilst further making UKF teching linear (For that commander choice).
Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7
Question:
Why do 2/5 factions suffer no negative effects to buildings destroyed other than time, when others are punished greater? Is it not possible to make OST and the SU buildings destructible but not to the point of deletion (same for OKW if their buildings were set-up in base sectors)? Why is this the case?
Or make actually USF and UKF to pay for rebuilding those buildings...
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
Posts: 367
it is not free recon since it cost popcap which mean less manpower and less army.
and okw does got almost free recon and no possibility to shot the plane with the flares on command panther commander
Posts: 367
it is not free recon since it cost popcap which mean less manpower and less army.
and okw does got almost free recon and no possibility to shot the plane with the flares on command panther commander
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Ideally penalties would fit the type vehicle, (light vehicle/ medium tank/ heavy tank).
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17
This will, hopefully, shed light on the issues that cause the command vehicle to under/over-perform as an aura vehicle. Hopefully the community will raise these issues, so that the command vehicle enters scope in a future patch. Then, we will actually be allowed to fix the bonuses/debuffs.
If we leave the UC-command-vehicle no-brainer as is, nobody will ever try to use the CV as an aura unit. Thus, these issues would never get raised.
Posts: 550 | Subs: 1
The other thing I never understood about the ability is that it does not affect allies while the command p4 and panther's aura do. Both on the field is rather funny or quite broken depending on whether you're on the receiving end or not
Personally, I'd get rid of all passive buffing auras since they encourage concentration around the unit (blobbing). That would mean: ukf designated command vehicle, okw sturm officer, okw command panther, ost command p4
Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1
If free reconnaissance is the issue, why not address it by adding a 50 munition cost or something like that?
The other thing I never understood about the ability is that it does not affect allies while the command p4 and panther's aura do. Both on the field is rather funny or quite broken depending on whether you're on the receiving end or not
Personally, I'd get rid of all passive buffing auras since they encourage concentration around the unit (blobbing). That would mean: ukf designated command vehicle, okw sturm officer, okw command panther, ost command p4
I could see recon added back in with a cost.
I think the command PIV for ost works well and does not encourage blobbing because the aura is sufficiently large to encourage its use as a support unit which you don't have to crowd around. Same for the CmP, but that unit is unfairly good in team games.
Compare that to the Sturm officer, where you have to be nearly clutching his hand to get the buff, then you have no reason but to a-move or you won't get the buffs anyway.
The UC-cmdv is similar to the Sturm. Its aura is slightly larger, to my knowledge, but it is so slow it can't keep up with tanks anyway, and if tanks have to backup it blocks their pathing so you are usually better off letting it sit well back. As a result, you either bunch everybody right around it or don't use it at all. Instead up the aura range considerably, reduce drawbacks, and remove the recon. It would also be worth considering the removal of the granting emplacements garrison when it is nearby. All this does is further encourage sitting still. Its aura never gets better, and its current buffs are marginal to ok, the entire reason for it right now is the recon with occasional buff to a firefly.
Posts: 102
The high cost of the candidate hosts will probably force players to use the command vehicle as an aura unit rather than a maphax tool.
This will, hopefully, shed light on the issues that cause the command vehicle to under/over-perform as an aura vehicle. Hopefully the community will raise these issues, so that the command vehicle enters scope in a future patch. Then, we will actually be allowed to fix the bonuses/debuffs.
If we leave the UC-command-vehicle no-brainer as is, nobody will ever try to use the CV as an aura unit. Thus, these issues would never get raised.
I can understand what your trying to do i just dont think your going the right direction. The reason people dont use it as a aura unit is because it is to dam slow and chances are you will lose it in combat. I dont see what removing it from UC acheives. If you want people to use it as a aura unit you got to remove the speed penalty and then you will see how it performs and can adjust it accordingly.
Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1
I can understand what your trying to do i just dont think your going the right direction. The reason people dont use it as a aura unit is because it is to dam slow and chances are you will lose it in combat. I dont see what removing it from UC acheives. If you want people to use it as a aura unit you got to remove the speed penalty and then you will see how it performs and can adjust it accordingly.
I think his point is that currently its a no-brainer to use it as a UC-maphax tool so there is a double incentive to not use it as an Aura vehicle (cheap map hax and the penalties making it generally not worthwhile to make an AEC or Cromwell a command vechile). By removing the UC option you at least remove half of the disincentive to use it as an Aura vehicle so that the penalties can be looked at in the future.
I do agree that the speed nerf is the primary reason I find it hard to use it as an aura vehicle, which is a shame because I've always felt like the aura was one of those secret borderline OP things that nobody uses because of the meta. You can get some pretty great synergy with a command vehicle and Fireflies for example. Personally I'm looking forward to trying CV AVRE again now that there is a hold fire button to make AVRE less frustrating to use.
Posts: 1820 | Subs: 2
Cromwell Command Tank
Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1
I think his point is that currently its a no-brainer to use it as a UC-maphax tool so there is a double incentive to not use it as an Aura vehicle (cheap map hax and the penalties making it generally not worthwhile to make an AEC or Cromwell a command vechile). By removing the UC option you at least remove half of the disincentive to use it as an Aura vehicle so that the penalties can be looked at in the future.
I do agree that the speed nerf is the primary reason I find it hard to use it as an aura vehicle, which is a shame because I've always felt like the aura was one of those secret borderline OP things that nobody uses because of the meta. You can get some pretty great synergy with a command vehicle and Fireflies for example. Personally I'm looking forward to trying CV AVRE again now that there is a hold fire button to make AVRE less frustrating to use.
You want a unit that moves at the speed of a snail to move slower?
How do you even manage to get a shot off before your opponent drifts lazily to the left to avoid you?
Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1
You want a unit that moves at the speed of a snail to move slower?
How do you even manage to get a shot off before your opponent drifts lazily to the left to avoid you?
To clarify I'd like to see the speed penalty reduced or removed maybe in exchange for toning down the aura buff if needed. I think the point of the command vehicle isn't to be firing itself but to be supporting other units - but as is the current speed debuff means it can't keep up with other vehicles which more or less removes it from any offensive role so you're stuck with a very defensive vehicle that can't defend itself all that well, which isn't really what you want in most cases.
Livestreams
64 | |||||
26 | |||||
6 | |||||
1 | |||||
106 | |||||
78 | |||||
31 | |||||
19 | |||||
13 | |||||
4 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.940410.696+6
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
9 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Helzer96
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM