Feedback for Commander Revamppatch

i can agree on most on the changes, but the fact, that the mortar HT got removed from the mechanized company is disturbing

...
Having another version of the 75mm sherman that is worse against tanks than the jackson but that can't kill infantry effectively is not that appealing IMO.

Having a main battle tank that is a good as a top TD vs tanks would be simply OP and would also overlap with the EZ8.

What I am suggesting is that 76mm is a bit better vs PzIV for the same price. The 75mm Sherman can kill infantry effectively even without the HE (and so would the 76mm if they where identical) and USF already have lots of AI available from other sources.

(The Jackson it self should not be a cost effective counter to PzIV.)

Honestly they don't need to do anything with the 76 sherman except remove it. USF already have ultra potent characteristics that are overshadowed by a garbage tech system. Why would you go 76 sherman when you can just jackson spam which can beat most armor, BAR spam which beats most infantry. It's inferior to the HE sherman because HE shermans are very cost effective, and when in doubt call in the pershing to get some free wipes. USF overlap with the 76 sherman would've been a lot more straight forward if they didn't add it a few patches ago and just replaced it with the EZ8, which is also just a stronger 76 variant.

Lul this can we finally get usf atg and 50 cal in tier 0 with LT or Cap required and find some stuff to replace those ?

#Makeusftechtreegreatforthefirsttime

Simplest solution to the problem is replacing the 76 with either an E8 or a Pershing in my opinion.

Agreed, make EZ8 worth by increasing a bit cost and buffing armor, keep it's pen.

Make it USF comet.

Quite simply identical stats and cost. The only difference between the vehicles would be that the 75mm Sherman would have access to munition that increased its AI and the 76mm would have access to munition that increased its AT.

Then a player could choose between the 2 tanks on weather he need more AI or AT from his Shermans, and combine them with other units accordingly. For instance as 76mm would work better with a scott or dozer while a 75mm would work better with an M10.

I like this idea as long as the HVAP is toned down a bit and doesn't get to counter Heavy tanks like Tiger 1 or 2 (it pens reliably Tiger 1 atm).

I still think EZ8 should become a Comet equivalent tho, just for variety.

Ok so overwatch have lefh now so can we now finnaly remove lefh from okw defence doctrine. Back in the days that was good decision when brits was cancer but now emplacments are useless so why this okw cancer are still in game ? Defence doctrine should be with something diffrent maybe panerfusiliers? Or add sexton to cancer regiment, u get it? Defence and arty shouldnt be in one commander or u want chesse comander for 4vs4 games.

I got some new suggestions for the USF Mech Company.

Cav Rifles become a dedicated Close Quarter Combat unit similar to Shocks:

5 Thompsons (takes up both weapon slots) or

3/4 Thompsons, 1 weapon slot,

smoke grenade (no AT rifle or satchels tho), Combined Arms (passive) and Sprint (similar to Rifle company but as an active unit ability?)

This would make them a more capable CQC unit while giving the player a choice, a more aggressive and specialized anti-infantry unit that has access to smoke and sprint to quickly close the distance.

Smoke and the Thompsons plus Combined Arms and Sprint would make Cav Rifles a better choice in an Urban environment, especially when supported by vehicles.

With Combined Arms becoming a passive because of most of the remarks here about it being too OP because of the vehicle part, that would open up a free slot in commander.

Now I thought about it and maybe the M1919A6 would be a good choice since it's ammo based and could be used by all of your infantry units, plus it fits the theme of "Mechanized Infantry".

That or Riflemen Field Defenses, altho that would go against the theme of a mobile and aggressive force.

And lastly, the E8 replacing the 76mm Sherman because of again, most of the remarks here being that the 76 is surely a unique vehicle but for now doesn't fit in the current USF composition. Maybe it could be put in the new commander coming in December if a unique way of approaching it is found.

Armor Company

I still think elite crew is full garbage. So here are two separate proposals.

Elite Crew: M20, M15, Stuart and Sherman have now 40hp more (survive one more hit). Cost 40 munition

Elite Crew: Reduce Engine Damage threshold to 50% of the vehicle life: affect M20, M15, Stuart and Sherman. Cost 40 munition

Or maybe make it so that 1 crew member survives on a sliver of health and auto retreats when a vehicle is destroyed? Allowing you to potentially preserve vehicle vet...

I want to mention another very interesting thing.

Upon rewatching Girls und Panzer (don't ask) I noticed that the Saunders team (the US based team in the Anime) had a Firefly, instead of something like let's say an E8 or a Pershing, or an M36B1 Slugger (Jackson gun and turret on Sherman hull and chassis).

And I recently stumbled upon this article detailing some US based Fireflies that were never put into service: http://www.theshermantank.com/sherman/the-us-firefly-no-really/

Here's a picture of what it looked like, sort of:

It's a 1C "hybrid" Firefly of the 1st Polish Armored Division, as you may notice it's an M4A3 Sherman with a Firefly turret and gun.

Anyhow, with this I mean that maybe the "US" Firefly can be added to Mech Company as an entirely new and unique vehicle for the USF, at the same time the tweaks made to it could also help the UKF Firefly.

The US Firefly would of course have no tulips or commander, maybe a .50 cal if it's possible to add.

What I imagine it would act like is a doctrinal better armored but slower alternative to the Jackson basically.

Just throwing it out there as an idea.

Completely aggree with your statement but not with your solution. We may see M10 being spam as hell for that price like the Su-76 at his shiny time.

On one hand, I think this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but on the other hand I understand that people seem to recoil at this kind of gameplay. The SU-76 is a little different due to the fact it is not in soviet T4, and it has the free artillery barrage. A few SU-76s can wreak havoc on team weapon positions and chokepoints, unlike M10s. (Though M10s can do some decent crushing.) I think they're sufficiently different, but you do make a point. I just believe that the lack of AI on M10s leaves them particularly vulnerable to paks and raketens because they cannot just shoot the crew down, throw a grenade, or launch an artillery barrage.

Imo, a weaker M10 should be available after two tiers unlock and be individually upgradable to match/improve their current stats.
So when the first M10 hit the field it is not an insta hard-counter for every mediums, leaving room for the Axis player. And the upgrade becomes mandatory to keep it relevant but also to prevent spamming them.

If this is how M10s are locked by tech, then yes, they shouldn't be an insta-hard-counter on mediums. If they are not to be tied to Major tier, then their current cost may even still be appropriate.

I'd support reducing the M10's cost to 300MP 80FU, removing the HE shell, and see how it performs from there. 70FU rivals the Puma and I'm pretty sure the M10 is more effective than the Puma; it would be far too cost-effective then (You could get 2 M10s for 1 OKW P4).

This is indeed the biggest caveat: OKW tech design and that they have a P4 in their FlakHQ. (Also the fact that OKW has non-doc KT which means there's always a threat of heavy armor.) This is why I had the suggestion of adjusting the penetration on the M10 to pressure closing the distance for effective use.

But a fuel cost of 80 may be more appropriate given the costs of Pumas and P4s. There's just very little room to adjust fuel cost before the M10 becomes too expensive. Maybe 75 fuel. I'm just not sure even 80 fuel is cheap enough to make an doctrinal major tier M10 a better option than the current Jackson.

I'd love to see this, but the issue is that the USF would be doctrine-reliant on dealing with Axis heavy armor. Doctrines with no answer to Axis heavy armor would fail to be of much use (e.g. Recon Support, which has no late-game units/abilities).

Perhaps, although such improvements to the M10 would mean USF would be able swarm with M10s against heavies, much like they were before the M10 was put in Major and the Jackson buffed to the hilt.

Having a main battle tank that is a good as a top TD vs tanks would be simply OP and would also overlap with the EZ8.

What I am suggesting is that 76mm is a bit better vs PzIV for the same price. The 75mm Sherman can kill infantry effectively even without the HE (and so would the 76mm if they where identical) and USF already have lots of AI available from other sources.

(The Jackson it self should not be a cost effective counter to PzIV.)

Yes, and I'm not saying that the 76mm in its current revamp state is not overpowered lol. I'm saying that your suggested changes would make it not very effective and I personally would find no reason to build it if it's just a shitty compromise between sherman and jackson that can't do either job as well as its counterparts.

You always talk about how the jacksons shouldn't counter the p4, but there isn't a tank that the JPIV (closest axis equivalent I guess) does a bad job countering. Even the stug also does reasonably well against everything but (ironically) jacksons for being very cheap. The SU-85 and firefly also do well against all armor, and the SU-85 can self spot and the firefly has tulips I don't see the problem with dedicated tank destroyers being able to kill tanks, and getting one means sacrificing the AI power of generalists.

I like this idea as long as the HVAP is toned down a bit and doesn't get to counter Heavy tanks like Tiger 1 or 2 (it pens reliably Tiger 1 atm).
...

Imo if 76mm Sherman costed 110 fuel it should not be able to deal with Tigers, the HVAP should simply help it against the armor of PzIV, especially since PzIV cost more.

Yes, and I'm not saying that the 76mm in its current revamp state is not overpowered lol. I'm saying that your suggested changes would make it not very effective and I personally would find no reason to build it if it's just a shitty compromise between sherman and jackson that can't do either job as well as its counterparts.
...

I dont know about you, but I don't really find combining a 75mm Sherman with the scott or Dozer very effective since the Sherman already has good AI. On the other hand a I would find a Sherman with better AT to work better in those combos. Even a 76mm and 75mm would work better together since one of them could switch munition to better deal with the threat that they would face.

(I will not go into Heavy/medium TDs in this thread)

Perhaps, although such improvements to the M10 would mean USF would be able swarm with M10s against heavies, much like they were before the M10 was put in Major and the Jackson buffed to the hilt.

Believe it or not but the Actual M10 is good enough to keep medium from pushing. I have been using it for a while, People complain about Scott backed by Jackson. But Scott backed by M10 also works great for 50 fuel less (and you get your second scott faster.) You can also get 1xM10 and 1xJackson and use them effectively.

Imo in the doctrine, the M10 isn't in a bad spot, it was the Bulldozer, Elite crew and AE that hurt a lot. Bulldozer seems to be good now but Elite crew is still bad.

I want to reurge that the new stormtroopers with instant ppsh-like mp40's are very strong when deployed from an ambient building. From the few matches that I tried against players, they could really turn around a fight, with allies needing atleast 2 squads to deal with them. You can't really fight them at range because of their cloak.

If this remains unchanged, they will be by far the most effective infiltration squad. From the comparisons that I made in cheatmode (8 fights against a conscript squad at point blank range):

- Stormtroopers squads lost 1/4 of their health on average.
- Partisans lost 2/3 of their health on average.
- 3-man commando infiltration squads lost 1/2 of their health on average.
- All JLI squads died with conscripts losing 2/3 of their health on average, (which is interesting, considering grens win around 50% of the time against conscripts).

I'd advise that they either need to upgrade their mp40's for ~30 munitions or deploy with 3 models out of 4, to bring them in line with other infiltration squads, (I prefer the second option).

Snip

The slugger model is not present, but the M10 in game has the Sherman hull (IIRC, i don't use the doctrine since when it fell from meta).

One could eventually keep the actual pen and increase armor to 230-40, some sort of 50 range turretted jagdpanzer 4 to tame mediums, and the best part is that it won't overshadow mediums since m10 won't be optimal counter for heavy tanks.

The slugger model is not present, but the M10 in game has the Sherman hull (IIRC, i don't use the doctrine since when it fell from meta).

One could eventually keep the actual pen and increase armor to 230-40, some sort of 50 range turretted jagdpanzer 4 to tame mediums, and the best part is that it won't overshadow mediums since m10 won't be optimal counter for heavy tanks.

There were never M10s with Sherman Hulls, only M36 Jacksons, however all of them shared the Sherman's chassis so you might be confusing hulls with chassis.

Edit: Speaking of the M10, I think an M10 "Achilles" in British service would be nice for the Tac Support Regiment instead of the Churchill Crocodile:

Bundle it with a Sherman M4A4 with a .50 cal and it would be a nice "lend-lease" change and provide an alternative to the Cromwell and Firefly.

Edit2: Would be nice if we could replace guns and other models tho to create entirely new units, like an M10 17 pounder Achilles for example, just need to be able to fit on the Firefly gun on there and it would be perfect.

I honestly wish they would just make the M10 cheaper, maybe give it better stats, at most a .50 caliber mount. Nothing too fancy, the unit works, it just needs buffs if it's going to be tied behind tech.

We've been talking on the M10. Some ideas are:

-Cheaper in fuel (Might not happen with self-sight)
-Self-sighting (50 sight)
-Flanking speed to vet 0

We are also likely removing HE shot.

Elite Crews we also think might just be an auto passive so you get those faster repair speeds, increased vet gain, and the tommy guns off the bat.

I had an idea for the M10 in another thread, but I never did post it here in the feedback one.

Maybe they could take away the HVAP shells, but give it the same penetration values as the Easy Eight, move 'Flanking Speed' to Vet 1, and add a penetration bonus of 30% at Vet 3.

Current M10 weapon pen (140/160/180)
Current EZ8 weapon pen (155/165/200)


Then it could more consistently engage mediums from the get go without needing to spend muni, but without the HVAP would require greater numbers to take on heavies (which is/should be the Jackson's role), though if you've got one to vet 3 it'll be worth keeping alive as well with the increased penetration (202/215/260)

That cloak ability from CoH mentioned above would also be very useful in helping the M10 stay relevant for ambushes too.

Since the Thompsons got moved to an upgrade do the Cav Rifles start with 5 grease guns? Or 3 Grease guns and 2 Grands/Carbines?