Feedback for Commander Revamppatch

(Partially off-topic, seeing all the vehicle-heavy playstyles that have grown out of buffing USF Mechanized, I would have liked to see a German Mechanized revamp where they made the Sdkfz. 250 Group something that you would actually want to get. WM playstyle is largely static and focuses heavily on support weapon play, which is why a mobile, vehicle-heavy playstyle would be so refreshing.)

+1
Let's hope the new Wehrmacht commander can give us the vehicle-heavy playstyle you mentioned above.
(That's why I would have preferred a "German Mechanized" revamp over "Defensive doctrine". A reactive faction does not need a commander specialized on defense.)

Offtopic: Wehrmacht has some solid commanders who could be REALLY GOOD with some smaller changes.
Wehrmacht /Soviets already have so many commanders; Instead of getting a new commander i would prefer a revamp of existing ones.
OKW / USF/ Brits = 1 new Commander
Wehrmacht / SU = no new commanders, but 2 more revamps (4 in total)

I know it's unrealistic but a man can dream

Here is a common sense information: Commander revamp patch scope is limited to the commanders who are getting reworked. Thats it. Nobody is going to randomly rework half of the doctrines in this game on a whim, there would be no telling how factions would even perform if something like was done and it would require a long amount of testing to pull something like that off.

It seems that we can not avoid provocation so here is some common sense information for you:
Since many abilities are shared especially in EFA commanders many commander are effected by the changes and not only the ones reworked.

It almost seem that units abilities are added to the revamped commanders, with sole purpose to broaden the scope.

Finally meta commanders do not have to be touched in this patch but they should touches at some point.

It seems that we can not avoid provocation so here is some common sense information for you:
Since many abilities are shared especially in EFA commanders many commander are effected by the changes and not only the ones reworked.

Yes, thats why underperforming abilities or vehicles are being selected. Reworking these will buff other non-meta commanders. You're missing the point again, its not about about nerfing or re-desinging whats working, its about buffing whats not.

That is a problem of Assault engineers and not of Calvary riflemen.

5 men flamer unit available from minute 1, than can also equipe bars should simply not be in the game. If Assault engineer need more punch (when they should be more about utility than DPS) one should start them as 4 men with the option to upgrade to a flamer or 2 Thompson +1 entity locked behind an officer.

Imo all USF infantry call-in should also be move to CP1.

You can't equip double bars with a flamer.

Yes, thats why underperforming abilities or vehicles are being selected. Reworking these will buff other non-meta commanders. You're missing the point again, its not about about nerfing or re-desinging whats working, its about buffing whats not.

This is not the place to debate what point I am missing or not, this is thread about providing feedback. I have provided mine.

If you want to debate revamp from design point of view pls start a new thread or even use the one I have created:

https://www.coh2.org/topic/81270/commander-rework-approach

You can't equip double bars with a flamer.

Never claimed they could, they can actually equipe a flamer and a bar which is simply OP.

This is not the place to debate what point I am missing or not, this is thread about providing feedback. I have provided mine.

If you want to debate revamp from design point of view pls start a new thread or even use the one I have created:

https://www.coh2.org/topic/81270/commander-rework-approach

Are you openly trolling in this thread or what? You're the one who is going offtopic here by bringing up meta commanders outside of the scope. You're the one who is also debating the point of revamp, not me. You're not providing feedback on current revamped commanders you're discussing stuff clearly outside of the scope

I wonder if anyone else is concern about the combination of Heavy/super heavies tanks and auras, it can easily prove to be problematic.

The KV-8 being able to "inspire" PTRS penals can easily creates issues since the buff in their AI might not be big but in their AT DPS it is.

Similarly a Command vehicle Croc support but Piats and heavy sappers can also prove problematic.

Imo these combination need to tested thoroughly before going live.

So worst AT weapon in game will perform slightly better for couple of seconds every minute or so at best.

I think we'll somehow survive that without issues.

Alternatively, you could break your purity vow and playtest soviets and that specific combination you have issues with, because on paper stuff is much more potent then in actual game and since you don't play the game, you aren't aware of that.

I don't see how weak weapons getting slightly stronger for a couple of seconds will break anything in late game, where the vetted KV-8 is.

So worst AT weapon in game will perform slightly better for couple of seconds every minute or so at best.

I think we'll somehow survive that without issues.

Alternatively, you could break your purity vow and playtest soviets and that specific combination you have issues with, because on paper stuff is much more potent then in actual game and since you don't play the game, you aren't aware of that.

I don't see how weak weapons getting slightly stronger for a couple of seconds will break anything in late game, where the vetted KV-8 is.

I suggest you calculated the difference in DPS of PTRS vs vehicles you might be surprised.

Also feel free to test the unit yourself and provide feedback and replay.

Unfortunately I am out of the country and can not play test.

I suggest you stop calculating your DPS against zero armor targets.

I've said it in the past already, that PTRS is the best AT weapon in game by a long shot - EXCLUSIVELY ON PAPER and if we completely ignore its penetration and the fact it needs to shoot actually armored tanks.

I wonder if anyone else is concern about the combination of Heavy/super heavies tanks and auras, it can easily prove to be problematic.

The KV-8 being able to "inspire" PTRS penals can easily creates issues since the buff in their AI might not be big but in their AT DPS it is.

Similarly a Command vehicle Croc support but Piats and heavy sappers can also prove problematic.

Imo these combination need to tested thoroughly before going live.

I totally agree with you in a concept of a commnader design. There shouldn't be ANY commander that can have: a. call-in heavy tank,
b. off map artillery or air strafe,
c. call-in infantry or infantry upgrade
d. buildable artillery like ML20

And that concept is broken by many commanders (mostly soviets and ostheer) like: ISU commander, guard combine arms, lighting war etc.

But as Kirik said - This revamp has diffrent approach and idea to balance commander system so as much as i agree with you - that's how it's gonna go sadly.

Plus i agree with A_Soldier.
Revamped soviet commanders looks a lot of more atractive than other factions especially osheer and okw. They add more fresh and new abilities and units in good combo working in all stages of a game.

I have looked at suggested variants for soviet FHQ and here my though about it.

Outward appearance

Current FHQ provide:
- healing
- reinforcing
- attack and defence bonuses for infantry and infantry weapons (Mortars, AT-guns, Artillery)

Also, it should not be extremely big to avoid problems with construction on city or small spaces maps. Of course, to small construction can't have enough durability and can be spammable in huge numbers, it's not right too.

As result, FHQ outlook should reference to this characteristics.

Candidates (british FHQ for comparison):


Candidate 1


Pros:
- High durability seems obvious for it due materails (looks like it is from wood and metal with huge wall of sandbags).
- Have space for field hospital. So, reinforce is beyond any doubt.

Cons:
- It is extremely big, player can face the problem with consctruction on smallspace map or on city maps. Also, it will be the biggest soviet construction ever
- Not enough details inside in comparison with USF, OKW and UKF field consrtuctions. Nothing provide about healing and aura buffs

Candidate 2 (my favorite)


Pros:
- Good size of building. Player won't face the problem with construction.
- Good interior. Include medkits, shells and camonet above. Really looks like FHQ, which provide support and reinforce.

Cons:
- Player can be confused by WC-51. At the moment only USF has this jeep in the game. But historicaly USSR get more than 20 000 of these jeeps.
- In the mod, it is mobile jeep with abillity to set up. Will be funny to see how combat engineers construct jeep for everlasting campsite. Can be solved by adding this jeep to soviet HQ as doctrine unit with price of FHQ and free abillity to set up.

Candidate 3

Pros:
- It's extremely small.
- Has place for mobile command post.

Cons:
- Once again - extremely small. Can be spammable for multiple buffs.
- Low durability. It is just small tent and some sandbags. Even british FHQ looks more durable.
- Bad interior. Nothing mention about healing, reinforce and aura buffs.

I have looked at suggested variants for soviet FHQ and here my though about it.

[...]

Well, that little Radio Outpost is much smaller than I thought initially. I guess that reusing MG emplacement with few decorators is out of the question?

- attack and defence bonuses for infantry and infantry weapons (Mortars, AT-guns, Artillery)

Does it? Last time I tested Field Camp (or is it Field Base?), it only provided healing and reinforcement, while the aura bonus was exclusive for the FHQ.

Since some people seem to have trouble understanding the ramification of the changes in this patch it seem that I will have to explain more.

Regardless of the performance of PTRS as AT, the weapon gets more DPS, than most other weapons, from cooldown buffs due to its mechanics. Thus the idea to providing a tough AI tank with an aura best suited for hand held AT weapons is simply in the wrong direction.

Candidate 1 is my favorit, large, difficult to place. This is perfetc for the Job. The sice is disadvantage if you don't use a map-building.

Candidate 2 is clearly a US construction

Candidate 3 is clearly a German construktion.

...
But as Kirik said - This revamp has diffrent approach and idea to balance commander system so as much as i agree with you - that's how it's gonna go sadly.
...

I know and my suggestion is for future patchs, but that does not change the fact that KV-2 or any other call-in vehicle has little place in the urban defense commander.

Combining the wrong abilities in commander should be stopped in this patch, even if not reverted for non revamped commanders. A powerful off map is enough to keep the commander relevant in late game and keep booby trap usage checked.

I have looked at suggested variants for soviet FHQ and here my though about it.

Outward appearance

Current FHQ provide:
- healing
- reinforcing
- attack and defence bonuses for infantry and infantry weapons (Mortars, AT-guns, Artillery)

Also, it should not be extremely big to avoid problems with construction on city or small spaces maps. Of course, to small construction can't have enough durability and can be spammable in huge numbers, it's not right too.

As result, FHQ outlook should reference to this characteristics.

Candidates (british FHQ for comparison):


Candidate 1


Pros:
- High durability seems obvious for it due materails (looks like it is from wood and metal with huge wall of sandbags).
- Have space for field hospital. So, reinforce is beyond any doubt.

Cons:
- It is extremely big, player can face the problem with consctruction on smallspace map or on city maps. Also, it will be the biggest soviet construction ever
- Not enough details inside in comparison with USF, OKW and UKF field consrtuctions. Nothing provide about healing and aura buffs

Candidate 2 (my favorite)


Pros:
- Good size of building. Player won't face the problem with construction.
- Good interior. Include medkits, shells and camonet above. Really looks like FHQ, which provide support and reinforce.

Cons:
- Player can be confused by WC-51. At the moment only USF has this jeep in the game. But historicaly USSR get more than 20 000 of these jeeps.
- In the mod, it is mobile jeep with abillity to set up. Will be funny to see how combat engineers construct jeep for everlasting campsite. Can be solved by adding this jeep to soviet HQ as doctrine unit with price of FHQ and free abillity to set up.

Candidate 3

Pros:
- It's extremely small.
- Has place for mobile command post.

Cons:
- Once again - extremely small. Can be spammable for multiple buffs.
- Low durability. It is just small tent and some sandbags. Even british FHQ looks more durable.
- Bad interior. Nothing mention about healing, reinforce and aura buffs.

There are also the wooden house and recon tower that are used as the Soviet and OKW FHQs, however I think that Olekman's suggestion fits the best, the only real problem with it of course is like you mentioned that it's rather small and could be probably easily spammed.

I should check out what else we could use from the ingame files.

And why exactly it has no place in Urban doctrine? It make sense thematically and armor callins are basically must-have for a viable soviet commander pick, soviet late game tanks are a joke in comparison to Axis.

Your advices are basically boil down to how make even more unviable commanders which noone would pick

Candidate 2

Cons:
- Player can be confused by WC-51. At the moment only USF has this jeep in the game. But historicaly USSR get more than 20 000 of these jeeps.

Maybe using the ZIS-truck would solve the confusion and gives it a nice Soviet touch at the same time.