Feedback for Commander Revamppatch
Posts: 712
Posts: 464
Thats a good idea man but E8 already exists but sux too
Why not turn it to a US panther with less survivability but still way cheaper then ?
I don't think ANYONE disagree with the fact that 76mm Sherman should become useful, but i don't really think ANYBODY can claim this is a good solution either, right ?
Posts: 416 | Subs: 1
For some reason, the 76 is the fastest sherman right now?
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Yeah but they gotta do something about the 76mm sherman man. Right now it's just such a horrible idea to go for this unit in teamgames (instead of just Jacksons + BAR spam) as you will get bullied so hard by Panthers, you even need to pray that the 76mm sherman can win a 1v1 vs OKW p4.
Can we get some testing with this ability? I am curious if a HVAP ammo sherman can stand even a small chance vs Panther, JP4 or OKW p4 despite the RoF penalty
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.
Posts: 1392
Maybe this is a boring suggestion, but I think the Sherman 76 should be a regular Sherman with the E8's gun. The E8 should be a little faster, more accurate on the move, and have a bit more armor or health.
For some reason, the 76 is the fastest sherman right now?
That's the only good sauggestion. A unit, only to make the game more divers and colorful.
Posts: 211
It definitely either needs another role or be removed.
The solution provided by the balance team is a solid anti-armor role from a tank as easy to kill as the regular Sherman so problem solved???? At least it can't abuse 2 seconds reload???
As for the Ez8, oh god the commander is so lackluster X_X Buying one Ez8 is more expensive than waiting for the Pershing and they both have relatively the same role.
Posts: 464
Let's keep in mind the Sherman 76 currently is almost as expensive as the EZ8 but nowhere as near effective unless abusing the broken fire rate.+1 agreed
It definitely either needs another role or be removed.
The solution provided by the balance team is a solid anti-armor role from a tank as easy to kill as the regular Sherman so problem solved???? At least it can't abuse 2 seconds reload???
As for the Ez8, oh god the commander is so lackluster X_X Buying one Ez8 is more expensive than waiting for the Pershing and they both have relatively the same role.
Posts: 3053
Let's keep in mind the Sherman 76 currently is almost as expensive as the EZ8 but nowhere as near effective unless abusing the broken fire rate.
It definitely either needs another role or be removed.
The solution provided by the balance team is a solid anti-armor role from a tank as easy to kill as the regular Sherman so problem solved???? At least it can't abuse 2 seconds reload???
As for the Ez8, oh god the commander is so lackluster X_X Buying one Ez8 is more expensive than waiting for the Pershing and they both have relatively the same role.
The entire point of the 76mm is just its firerate lol. For that reason, I actually like it a lot better in its current live state than the E8. Rifle company is also 90% garbage but even without that consideration, I'd still take the 76mm over the E8 any day.
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Simplest solution to the problem is replacing the 76 with either an E8 or a Pershing in my opinion.
Makes more sense then 76mm mental gymnastics.
There is regular sherman, there is jackson, there is ez8 and there is everything in between and above.
that sherman makes infinitely more sense for soviets then for UKF considering their rosters.
Posts: 573
I dont know how current version would work against panthers for example, I dont think 4 shottable tank with 40 range could brawl even with high pen.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
The entire point of the 76mm is just its firerate lol. For that reason, I actually like it a lot better in its current live state than the E8. Rifle company is also 90% garbage but even without that consideration, I'd still take the 76mm over the E8 any day.
I never understood why they didn't put the Ez8 instead of 76. But Rifle company isn't lacklust, just overshadowed by recon company. Cluster bomb >>> WP barrage while having a similar price and a bit longer time to drop. They are two fanstastic area denial but one far above the other.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
It isn't really a panther, it lacks its health.
I can't see why it could be unbalanced, jagd and stug still can deal with it.
I think it should lose 75% moving accuracy as well
What do you mean by making it similar to 75mm sherman ?
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.
Posts: 3053
I never understood why they didn't put the Ez8 instead of 76. But Rifle company isn't lacklust, just overshadowed by recon company. Cluster bomb >>> WP barrage while having a similar price and a bit longer time to drop. They are two fanstastic area denial but one far above the other.
IMO most of rifle company is more or less useless. Flamers are nice, but fire up is extremely situational and not that useful and flares are too expensive to be effectively used (and major recon is only like 15 muni more). The WP is good as well but the whole commander doesn't realy add much except the flamer.
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.
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.
Posts: 19
After playing with them for a bit, I feel they their are pretty strong at their 2CP requirement, basically completely removing the need of normal Bunkers all together if they are properly supported with a PaK40 or mortar. Maybe an adjustment of HP might be needed.
Another thing is maybe these concrete bunkers could put under the Fortifications Commander for the OKW? It feels strangely out of place that the Ostheer gets access to these Concrete Bunkers while the Western German Force is still relying on makeshift emplacements on the more fortified Western Front.
Another big thing I noticed with the StuG E has an issue with its auto-fire, sometimes it just doesn't respond to enemies shooting at it, just an oddity I'd like to inform you of.
Posts: 2742
I hope that there's no confusion about the functional role of the M10 Tank Destroyer with its unfortunate legacy as a call-in unit and the stale metagames that have persisted as a plague.
If you really want to get wild increase the M10's NEAR penetration from 180 to 200 or even 220(!), but reduce mid range from 160 to 150 and far range from 140 to 120. Alternatively and/or additionally the M10 gun's mid range could be adjusted to calculate at 20 range instead of 25, thus tightening optimal penetration towards closer ranges.
Placing the unit in Major was a nerf indeed, but once unlocked it should certainly be a cost effective unit against Axis armor. If it's going to be locked in USF's final tier, it must be cost effective enough to push their opponent towards their final tier. Matching fuel cost with a StuG simply doesn't cut it for a Major tier M10.
What's interesting is that this would actually allow the unit to have better synergy with both Shermans (better penetration) AND Jacksons (more cost effective for screening).
In my opinion the best course of action should be to simply ensure every USF commander has access to a tank that can operate effectively in the lategame. Returning the M10 to an effective role would also allow the M10 to be a more suitable option for, say, Mechanized or Rifle company. It'd certainly be more appropriate that the 76mm Sherman's current implementation.
Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1
You know, it might be a good idea to forget this silly HE round stuff with the M10 and simply reduce M10 fuel cost to 70 so it can once again be a cost effective option for USF. The HE rounds feel rather gimmicky and seem about as appropriate for the unit as the airburst shells were on the Elefant.
I hope that there's no confusion about the functional role of the M10 Tank Destroyer with its unfortunate legacy as a call-in unit and the stale metagames that have persisted as a plague.
If you really want to get wild increase the M10's NEAR penetration from 180 to 200 or even 220(!), but reduce mid range from 160 to 150 and far range from 140 to 120. Alternatively and/or additionally the M10 gun's mid range could be adjusted to calculate at 20 range instead of 25, thus tightening optimal penetration towards closer ranges.
Placing the unit in Major was a nerf indeed, but once unlocked it should certainly be a cost effective unit against Axis armor. If it's going to be locked in USF's final tier, it must be cost effective enough to push their opponent towards their final tier. Matching fuel cost with a StuG simply doesn't cut it for a Major tier M10.
What's interesting is that this would actually allow the unit to have better synergy with both Shermans (better penetration) AND Jacksons (more cost effective for screening).
In my opinion the best course of action should be to simply ensure every USF commander has access to a tank that can operate effectively in the lategame. Returning the M10 to an effective role would also allow the M10 to be a more suitable option for, say, Mechanized or Rifle company. It'd certainly be more appropriate that the 76mm Sherman's current implementation.
You make too much sense, it's honestly scary, I'd totally take those buffs over HE shells that are cute but didn't seem to do much when I tried them. Would rather they just made it a vehicle "stun" but those will never comeback to the game.
Posts: 951
You know, it might be a good idea to forget this silly HE round stuff with the M10 and simply reduce M10 fuel cost to 70 so it can once again be a cost effective option for USF. The HE rounds feel rather gimmicky and seem about as appropriate for the unit as the airburst shells were on the Elefant.
I hope that there's no confusion about the functional role of the M10 Tank Destroyer with its unfortunate legacy as a call-in unit and the stale metagames that have persisted as a plague.
If you really want to get wild increase the M10's NEAR penetration from 180 to 200 or even 220(!), but reduce mid range from 160 to 150 and far range from 140 to 120. Alternatively and/or additionally the M10 gun's mid range could be adjusted to calculate at 20 range instead of 25, thus tightening optimal penetration towards closer ranges.
Placing the unit in Major was a nerf indeed, but once unlocked it should certainly be a cost-effective unit against Axis armor. If it's going to be locked in USF's final tier, it must be cost-effective enough to push their opponent towards their final tier. Matching fuel cost with a StuG simply doesn't cut it for a Major tier M10.
What's interesting is that this would actually allow the unit to have better synergy with both Shermans (better penetration) AND Jacksons (more cost-effective for screening).
In my opinion, the best course of action should be to simply ensure every USF commander has access to a tank that can operate effectively in the lategame. Returning the M10 to an effective role would also allow the M10 to be a more suitable option for, say, Mechanized or Rifle company. It'd certainly be more appropriate than the 76mm Sherman's current implementation.
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).
Deep down though I really think the Jackson and the M10 should also be swapped in this case and that every commander is ensured to have either an EZ8, a Pershing, a Jackson, or SP Artillery (Priest, Calliope.) be accessible.
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).
Also, if possible, can we sneak an a small buff to the Calliopie?
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
You know, it might be a good idea to forget this silly HE round stuff with the M10 and simply reduce M10 fuel cost to 70 so it can once again be a cost effective option for USF. The HE rounds feel rather gimmicky and seem about as appropriate for the unit as the airburst shells were on the Elefant.
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.
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.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
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
Livestreams
1 | |||||
935 | |||||
11 | |||||
11 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.939410.696+5
- 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
10 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, qq801
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM