Feedback for Commander Revamppatch

Bundling M42 with stuff isn't going to make the M42 itself any better.

Give it an AoE (like a weaker T-70 gun) or a canister shot ability and the ability to retreat would be quite interesting.

Alternatively, keep the AT role and give it a de-track vehicle ability.

That de-track ability sounds great, though if you mean a total dead-stop, then it could have the same problems as the old Target Weak Point or even the Treadbreak ability of Light AT HT from vCoH.

I'd like to see an ability that cranks up the fire rate up to 11. For example, 30 munitions to have reload time halved for 10 or 15 seconds. If only one in three of your shots penetrate a Panzer IV, then you better fire A LOT of these shots in a short time.

I think the 1.3 Mechanized Company goes way too far with the amount of call-ins available to it.

Armor Company is feeling good- very happy to see how close it is to my suggestion! I'd switch out the Vet Gain bonus from Elite Crews for Faster Embark, though. This makes them more likely to survive, and it seems that every other Vet Gain bonus has been removed from the game.

Not sure if Shocks were the right thing to add to Urban Defense Tactics; they may be too good with Forward Base, and appear in lots of doctrines already.

Similarly, the Churchill Crocodile is already in enough commanders.

A forward base for Defensive Doctrine would be more interesting than Osttruppen.

The Artillery Officer seems redundant in German Infantry Doctrine, since 5-man squads and MP40 troops are both present elsewhere.

The thing is - you cant make M42 case any better anyway. This thing made sense when PTRS upgrade for Penals didnt exist, now it's completely pointless even VS light vehicles since it's always to better to get either ZiS from T2 or PTRS upgrade from T1.
Bundling something like PTRS Conscripts with it will at least allow you to get something out of bad deal which M42 is.

The reason why M42 can any better because everyone focus to make it viable AT gun, but cannot escape the shadow of ZIS-3.
My suggestion of adding "snipe shot" and "break tread" change the role of M42. It's no longer compete with ZIS-3 in effectiveness, but instead, support each other. It's also work well with people go for Penal PTRS and satchel as well.

If the M42 were able to switch shells like a sherman and fire HE rounds with a t70 shell damage profile it would have decent utility throughout the game.

Rate of fire and overall cost would have to be looked at if it had this ability. Just an idea.

I think the 1.3 Mechanized Company goes way too far with the amount of call-ins available to it.

Armor Company is feeling good- very happy to see how close it is to my suggestion! I'd switch out the Vet Gain bonus from Elite Crews for Faster Embark, though. This makes them more likely to survive, and it seems that every other Vet Gain bonus has been removed from the game.

Not sure if Shocks were the right thing to add to Urban Defense Tactics; they may be too good with Forward Base, and appear in lots of doctrines already.

Similarly, the Churchill Crocodile is already in enough commanders.

A forward base for Defensive Doctrine would be more interesting than Osttruppen.

The Artillery Officer seems redundant in German Infantry Doctrine, since 5-man squads and MP40 troops are both present elsewhere.

I've thought about it and even wrote it here, the Forward Supply Ability would be better if it was in the German Infantry doctrine since it will synergies with the call in infantry better, while some sort of advanced bunker ability would synergies better with the Osttruppen's build power.

Specifically about Advanced Bunkers, it's going to be basically forward supply station but split up and given as separate things to bunkers to give them more utility. It would be a somewhat cheaper route but heavily time and micro intensive compared to the fuel costing point and click FSS.

while some sort of advanced bunker ability would synergies better with the Osttruppen's build power.

Specifically about Advanced Bunkers, it's going to be basically forward supply station but split up and given as separate things to bunkers to give them more utility. It would be a somewhat cheaper route but heavily time and micro intensive compared to the fuel costing point and click FSS.

Sound good for me. To clarify - by advanced bunkers do you mean mix a heal upgrade with reinforce upgrade in 1?

But EVEN visiual change for a bunkers is highly welcome.Concrete bunkers are already in game so shouldn't be hard to implement i guess and it would fit more defensive theme of a doctrine.

The call-in cost of the new 5-man Assault Engineers changed from 280 to 300. Was this an intentional change?

If the M42 were able to switch shells like a sherman and fire HE rounds with a t70 shell damage profile it would have decent utility throughout the game.

Rate of fire and overall cost would have to be looked at if it had this ability. Just an idea.

M-42 shells were too tiny for HE to be any effective, however small canister shells were indeed used, making it a "long" range "shotgun" of sorts.

M-42 shells were too tiny for HE to be any effective, however small canister shells were indeed used, making it a "long" range "shotgun" of sorts.

The M-42 was already ineffective in 1943, but was left in production because it was light and it was easier to transport it by the crew on the battlefield than ZiS-2/3 and had antipersonnel capabilities: the weapon was supplied with a fragmentation grenade (53-O-240, 53-О-240А) and a case-shot (53-Shch-240).

M42 was THE standard Soviet ATG, like the PaK 40. The Zis 3 was divisional light arty (basically same role as the leFH) - which also had its capacity as ATG, but it was not its primary intended goal.

M42 was THE standard Soviet ATG, like the PaK 40. The Zis 3 was divisional light arty (basically same role as the leFH) - which also had its capacity as ATG, but it was not its primary intended goal.

Well, if you want to go full historical, its still up to debate what ZiS-3 role was.
Only fact that matters is, it performed well as both, light arty and AT gun.

M42 was THE standard Soviet ATG, like the PaK 40. The Zis 3 was divisional light arty (basically same role as the leFH) - which also had its capacity as ATG, but it was not its primary intended goal.

Not really, since 1943 ZiS-2 has been standard. But ZiS-2 lacked in the required numbers and the shortcomings were compensated with the help of M-42, ZiS-3 and Lend-Lease M1 / 6-pounds (400 pieces in total). Until 1943, the capabilities of the M-42 and ZiS-3 sufficed against any tank.

Yeah..lets make the M-42 better than a puppchen( Which cost alot more ) which comes in a faction which has no problems with AI or armor.

If the price is adjusted accourdingly nothing speaks against the idea of making it better then the Raketenwerfer, the current problem is that the m42 is usually ineffective and inefficient - while the raketen can easily used in pairs and wipes out medium tanks in two volleys (it might be used in other scenarions aswell but this is just the most simple and effective way to use them).

M42 was THE standard Soviet ATG, like the PaK 40. The Zis 3 was divisional light arty (basically same role as the leFH) - which also had its capacity as ATG, but it was not its primary intended goal.

You have no idea what the hell you are even talking about. Zis-3 was multipurpose gun, it was used for every role including AT and was de-facto standard AT gun for Soviet troops, M-42 had only one role due to small gun caliber, thats why it was designated as AT gun and by midwar it was already phased out by ZiS-2.

If the price is adjusted accourdingly nothing speaks against the idea of making it better then the Raketenwerfer, the current problem is that the m42 is usually ineffective and inefficient - while the raketen can easily used in pairs and wipes out medium tanks in two volleys (it might be used in other scenarions aswell but this is just the most simple and effective way to use them).

problem on puppchen: they are so inaccurate, low profile (hitting the ground) and wipe out mostly by the first hit from any allie tanks.
regarding sov team weopoans: get a puppchen with a 6man crew make this gun unblievable good. it doesnt wipe out so fast and can deal really good dmg....

From a design point of view:
Imo the focus should be to better design the commander themselves and not trying to balance the faction. The aim should be to create viable commander that offer alternatives but not commander that OP to compete with the meta commander that OP themselves and they should be actually redesign to have less a power combination of abilities.

The changes should also follow the there theme of the commander.

When making the changes one could also see them as interim step requiring changes to other commander also.
For instance: interdiction "casualties intonation" make perfect sense for a unit like storm-troopers who actually where military intelligence even if it present to "light infantry training" where it does not belong. It can be removed from there in the next patch if it an issue with scope.

USF.

Armour company.
The theme of the commander implies heavy use of armor and an attempt should made to be followed.

Assault Engineers:
The idea of turning this unit into a "elite fighting" unit does not go along with "Armor" theme of commander. In addition the presence of "elite" infantry before minute 1 reduces from the tactical aspect of the game, since allot depends of the performance of that unit in the first engagements.

Finally 5 men squad being able to equip both flamers and assault rifles have already been proven problematic and should be avoided.

Suggestions:
Reduce cost/move to CP1 make the unit more about utility than raw firepower. Allow flamer for 4 men squad or 2 Thompson+1 entity locked behind officer.

Elite Vehicle Crews:
The Thompson change although an improvement it only leads to cheesy tactics especially in combination with M10 allowing to drive on atgs and disembark.

Suggestions:
Either scrap the ability or make it about veterancy as the name implies and that would also open the way for the reintroduction of "troop training".

Player could pay manpower and fuel making his vehicle more expensive while getting more out of the veterancy of his vehicle. For instance the can either be able to reach vet 4 or they could gain a small stat buff (10%) to the normal vet bonuses.

M10 Tank Destroyer:
Actually this unit does not fit the commander and other armor like the 78mm Sherman, easy8 or Persing seem allot more suitable. In addition the unit should not be competing with M36.

Suggestions:
Make the unit a call-in at an increased price but make it also build-able via major at the current price (this change should probably apply to other unit to increase usability across mode and economy inflation). Move unit to mechanized.

Sherman 105mm Dozer:
Modeling the unit after the brumbar is a mistake imo. The unit is available with no tech or with a cheap upgrade of 80 mu making far more cost efficient. Faction are completely differently designed and Brumbar is there to compensate for the weaker Ostheer infantry.

Suggestions:
One could redesign the unit as:
Infantry support tank similar to Churchill with emphasis on durability and not firepower
Assault gun proving indirect fire support either similar to KV-2 or to priest with sort range small number of shells (3?) and low cool-down.
or one could remove the unit from the commander.

240mm Artillery:
Although the changes are good for the design of the ability (the now make Gustav look even worse)
heavy artillery does not fight the commander so much thematically and lighter version of artillery maybe should be available.

Suggestions:
Replace the ability with a "105mm barrage" modeled after ostheer "Light Artillery Barrage". That would increase the synergy with armor since one could use the ability earlier during armor rushes without risking destroying his own armor. The ability could be moved to another commander.

MECHANIZED COMPANY
The theme of commander implies a heavy use of lighter vehicles and imo the commander should be focused in use of such vehicles.

WC-51:
(in game description does not mention the m21)
The unit's mark target and barrage abilities seem debutante since "refit and refuel" allow the unit to removed in later stages of the game.

Suggestions:
Replace assault engineers as crew to m3 with a normal crew, they overlap with cavalry riflemen and the m3 is way to cheap. Remove med-kits from m3 as unnecessary and exploitable.

Refit and refuel:
The ability suits the commander allot but it is confusing to use since the player does not know what it get back for removing a unit from the map. In addition it is open to exploits.

Suggestions:
Move the ability to the vehicles themselves and redesign the ability so that it allows light vehicles to be swamped with one other light vehicles for the cost difference (+ a taxation?) and maybe some XP. This will greatly improve the use versatility of the commander.

For instance if one can replace WC-51 with an m20 one could go captain and still have access to the unit or if one builds an m20 and he can replace it with a greyhound once can go Lt and still have access to pseudo light tank.

Swaps could either be specif or pop up could be available (allowing more options).

Cavalry Riflemen:
Although a infantry call-in seem a bit off for mechanized commander that already has more access to unit that any other commander it could still become viable with some changes.
Unit is way to strong for "mechanized commander" while it offers to mcuh AI and AT being able to equip a bazooka or a bar.

Suggestions:
Reduce CP 1, USF elite infantry suffer from the fact that a) come too late when player have already produced enough riflemen (and in addition officers will come) b) B are to expensive (and thus strong) in order to compete with the already strong riflemen.
Imo lowering their CP to 1 and reducing the cost/strength to riflemen will make easier to built while the can become more attractive by increasing their scaling and utility.

Reduce cost to 280 have start with 5 grease guns and have the Thompson as an upgrade taking up all slot (locked behind 1 officer). Lock satchel (and smoke?) behind grenades remove engine damage from satchel (maybe tone down damage abit) or replace with stun/daze. Allow access to paratroopers bazooka.
Vet 1 ability "light vehicle training" a passive or active aura providing a small buff to light vehicles like +5 sight -1 target size.

Combined Arms
The ability is nice but seems a bit expensive.

Suggestions:
Reduce cost to 70 and tone down affects.

Reserve armor
The ability is problematic with the current implementation. Thematically superior armor does not fit a mechanized commander. Access to 2 more doctrinal units while the commander already has access to 4 doctrinal unit bring the total to 6 is excessive. Dozer available for 80 munition is too cheap.

76mm Sherman vet bonuses are to high especially combined radio net.

Suggestions:
Replace with M10 as call-in/build-able unit.

76mm Sherman performance price and vet bonuses should not be connected with Soviet version of the unit. The faction and tech cost are different and the unit should be balanced separately. In addition one has to take into account that USF Sherman is already superior since it has radio net, smoke and disembark.

Unit could also be changed to a clone of the normal Sherman with access to AP rounds to differentiate the 2 units.

Yeah..lets make the M-42 better than a puppchen( Which cost alot more ) which comes in a faction which has no problems with AI or armor.

Ironically, you are the very first one to say that.

You have issues with puppchen, go make a thread about puppchen.

This one is about commander revamp and M-42 is part of that.

Sound good for me. To clarify - by advanced bunkers do you mean mix a heal upgrade with reinforce upgrade in 1?

But EVEN visiual change for a bunkers is highly welcome.Concrete bunkers are already in game so shouldn't be hard to implement i guess and it would fit more defensive theme of a doctrine.

Hmm, never thought about concrete bunkers for Ost, they always fit in OKW more in my opinion but yeah sure, so that and bring back the 3 bunker upgrades from CoH and a 4th one would be the command one with forward retreat, or combine it and the medic one for 120/120 ammo or something.

i think mechanise is in a good spot CP2 cavalry riflemen finally access to smoke and they have to close in their AT satchel is good no need to nerf anything just leave it like this imo