DBP Commander Revamp brainstorming

If you are going to keep the off-map bombing run, then adding in more arty on top of that might make the commander more of a 'counter forward base' commander, at least more so than it already is.

We might have to replace the offmap strike. It's not that unique, anyway, and the main essence of the bombing run is already accomplished by the stun mines; it is less powerful than the IL-2 bombing strike, and the fact that we want a PTRS-spam-into-offmap meltdown.

A static artillery piece would accomplish more at luring the enemy into said ambushing positions than spamming the offmap trying to catch tanks offguard.

We might have to replace the offmap strike. It's not that unique, anyway, and the main essence of the bombing run is already accomplished by the stun mines; it is less powerful than the IL-2 bombing strike, and the fact that we want a PTRS-spam-into-offmap meltdown.

A static artillery piece would accomplish more at luring the enemy into said ambushing positions than spamming the offmap trying to catch tanks offguard.

Do not touch the IL-2 PTAB, this is the best and reliable ability that this commander has

Do not touch the IL-2 PTAB, this is the best and reliable ability that this commander has

For the time being, yes. When howitzers cost 600MP and take 120-160MU to completely annihilate, howitzers don't count for much. However, Revamped™ howitzers can indeed carry the Soviet commanders that have them.

However, given that the Guards Rifle Combined Arms is getting a revamp, and this will also affect other commanders, why would you EVER pick Tank Hunters over Soviet Combined Arms Army, or Mechanized Support Tactics?

No; we can't afford to make PTRS Conscripts OP just to make the commander viable. And, if PTRS Conscripts are not OP, the commander won't be picked a month after its revamp, period. We already had something similar to that, and that is called live-version-Penals-to-carry-T1.

We can't afford to add a low-entry commander to the game. That's because it will become completely annoying to play against the commander after the first month (see Advanced Emplacement Regiment). Instead, we want a commander that's deep enough for players to grow into, and devise different strategies to use them.

Commanders really should be sorted into three categories, with players being able to choose one from each category.

That may be the most feasible way to handle the discrepancies between EFA and later factions commander set.

It may provide a stronger framework for attempting to balance commanders without just redesigning the least used commanders as mimics of the most used commanders.

Commanders really should be sorted into three categories, with players being able to choose one from each category.

That may be the most feasible way to handle the discrepancies between EFA and later factions commander set.

It may provide a stronger framework for attempting to balance commanders without just redesigning the least used commanders as mimics of the most used commanders.

While you're correct, it doesn't help that the community has already voted on the commanders that they voted for. Thus, in this thread we're trying to coax for ideas to make the best out of the current situation.

In particular, I'm extremely perplexed as to why people would vote for Jaeger Infantry Doctrine, when there are so many other competitive and/or semi-viable OST commanders that already fulfill the same niche (with Tigers, elite infantry, stun nades, encirclement barrage, riegel mines etc added on top).

Personally, I'd have voted for one of the Mechanized commanders, to add a Panzer-Elite option on top of OST, which it currently lacks.

Also, Austrelitz is spot-on about expectations vs reality for OST infantry doctrines:

Only thing wehrmacht players desire from an infantry doctrine is either - a solid counter to mortar pit that can kill it quickly even if the counter is costly .Or lategame durability increase for mainline infantry with an upgrade.

You already have Doctrines that fulfill that option: Storm doctrine, or some mortarHT doctrine, or a Command P4 doctrine. I don't see myself ever picking an infantry-only doctrine for my limited 3-commander loadout, when I know that attacking mortar pits with infantry will be like trying to smash a wall using my fists.

Give the single sturmovik at loiter

For the time being, yes. When howitzers cost 600MP and take 120-160MU to completely annihilate, howitzers don't count for much. However, Revamped™ howitzers can indeed carry the Soviet commanders that have them.

However, given that the Guards Rifle Combined Arms is getting a revamp, and this will also affect other commanders, why would you EVER pick Tank Hunters over Soviet Combined Arms Army, or Mechanized Support Tactics?

No; we can't afford to make PTRS Conscripts OP just to make the commander viable. And, if PTRS Conscripts are not OP, the commander won't be picked a month after its revamp, period. We already had something similar to that, and that is called live-version-Penals-to-carry-T1.

We can't afford to add a low-entry commander to the game. That's because it will become completely annoying to play against the commander after the first month (see Advanced Emplacement Regiment). Instead, we want a commander that's deep enough for players to grow into, and devise different strategies to use them.

Well, so give conscripts Bazooks or captured Shreck (we already have too many PTRSs, then conscripts will be slightly better, they will not be OP because they die quickly), I do not know why this commander was on the list of the most unpopular commanders, I'm his I use constantly. And he's pretty good, it would be better to change the Commander of the City Combat (with anti-tank hedgehogs, DShK, 120 mm, 45 mm)

No; we can't afford to make PTRS Conscripts OP just to make the commander viable.

Never Forget.

Give the single sturmovik at loiter

which is borken, check the bug section

We might have to replace the offmap strike. It's not that unique, anyway, and the main essence of the bombing run is already accomplished by the stun mines; it is less powerful than the IL-2 bombing strike, and the fact that we want a PTRS-spam-into-offmap meltdown.

A static artillery piece would accomplish more at luring the enemy into said ambushing positions than spamming the offmap trying to catch tanks offguard.

Please dont remove that bombing strike, i love that thing...

which is borken, check the bug section

Loiter not strafe; )

Loiter not strafe; )

ah! it the "single' term that made me thing about the single strafe and not the loiter

ah! it the "single' term that made me thing about the single strafe and not the loiter

The idea was to make a single plane loiter (copapasta of ost scas single stuka).

Cost would be half of scas, cool down and ability duration would be as well.

This way you will have a powerful tool that can finish off the tank or help you to win a combat but lacks the power of ost ability counterpart so it has to be used in conjunction with other abilities and vehicles, not being a one click wonder like cas

Seems like a nice addition to the commander for me as it encourages clever play and fits into tank hunter thematic

The idea was to make a single plane loiter (copapasta of ost scas single stuka).

Cost would be half of scas, cool down and ability duration would be as well.

This way you will have a powerful tool that can finish off the tank or help you to win a combat but lacks the power of ost ability counterpart so it has to be used in conjunction with other abilities and vehicles, not being a one click wonder like cas

Seems like a nice addition to the commander for me as it encourages clever play and fits into tank hunter thematic

yeah i like it.

or let fix the strafe and but it a bit better in at. so atleast it take some "skills" to finish planes, and not only click and win button.

but then we need to adjust other ability of other armies to make it more skill depend and not only click.

Imo all loiter planes should be changed to single pass strafes that are cheaper and faster. Loiters seem to swing between two extremes: useless or OP. Either option is broken.

Recon loiters as well, but those I think aren't so offensive. Thas where you might really want that AA.

*edit
Jaeger light infantry does seem like an odd choice. I wonder if something as simple as stormtroopers might fit into that commander...

Also I wonder if that 250 lmg gren callin could be changed so that it contains stormtroopers with an lmg42... argh @ limit of commander selection instead of abilities

(WEHRMACHT) Osttruppen Doctrine
How about replace slow and randomly railway artillery with democharge for pioneers? This is a useful ability and german fanboys will stop crying that they don't have democharge.

OKW Feuersturm

Buff Hetzers front armor to around Jpz levels, nerf rear armor. This would be still The thing comes too late and is lackluster in performance.

Remove Sturmtiger from Elite Armor, add it to Feusturm instead of the useless/redundant flame rocket barrage and add Panther Commander instead to Elite armor.

This would give OKW to specialized doctrines (one geared towards urban fighint, the rest to really boost the tanks) instead of two weird ones.

OKW Feuersturm

Buff Hetzers front armor to around Jpz levels, nerf rear armor. This would be still The thing comes too late and is lackluster in performance.

Remove Sturmtiger from Elite Armor, add it to Feusturm instead of the useless/redundant flame rocket barrage and add Panther Commander instead to Elite armor.

This would give OKW to specialized doctrines (one geared towards urban fighint, the rest to really boost the tanks) instead of two weird ones.

I'm totally with this, the whole idea of a commander using always flame, with flamethrowe, flame tank, flame barrage...is beyond any level if stupidity..
And finally elite armor will have elite armor.
I would also split flamethrower from flame tank.


But I don't think they will change elite armlr.

Its a somewhat fun commander with flamethrower to the extreme, which, at least in theory, should be useful in urban enviroment.

In practice however, the commander simply does not work.

Only the Sturmpio flamethrowers are of some use, Salvage is... well its there, the unique call in, the Hetzer is one of the most useless units of the game, as comes too late, vulnerable to any kind of armor, has all the problems of casemate tank and the unit is just meh in general.

The rest of the abilities are just weird or useless. Recoup lossess seems to be out of place for this commander, how would it synergise with.. flame weapons and flame tanks? And why waste munition on the off map Stuka flame attack, when u have the same thing for 100 fuel and without warning from the Mechanized truck for example?

It could be redeemed as a heavily urban combat focused commander, but then it needs to the tools to do that.

Its a somewhat fun commander with flamethrower to the extreme, which, at least in theory, should be useful in urban enviroment.

In practice however, the commander simply does not work.

Only the Sturmpio flamethrowers are of some use, Salvage is... well its there, the unique call in, the Hetzer is one of the most useless units of the game, as comes too late, vulnerable to any kind of armor, has all the problems of casemate tank and the unit is just meh in general.

The rest of the abilities are just weird or useless. Recoup lossess seems to be out of place for this commander, how would it synergise with.. flame weapons and flame tanks? And why waste munition on the off map Stuka flame attack, when u have the same thing for 100 fuel and without warning from the Mechanized truck for example?

It could be redeemed as a heavily urban combat focused commander, but then it needs to the tools to do that.

Stuka barrage is ok, it is completely different from normal stuka (which in my opinion should use a normal barrage like that).

Realistically..if you are going to use flamethrower, you are NOT gonna waste fuel of flame tank.
You want to capitalize on it and get 2 sturm that will most likely live and scale whole game, be more versatile and cost efficient.

I would definetly split those, but 2 doctrines can be changed...for some weird reason...