Feedback for Commander Revamppatch

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?

5 Grease guns. They are the ones used by Assault Engineers.

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.

The unit is a Flanker and should be used similarly to Puma to engage enemy vehicles from the side or the rear. I has enough penetration to do that.

Actually the unit was very cost efficient until 2 changes too place:
1) it required tech
2) M-36 was buffed and now it has to compete with the M-36.

So my suggestions would be to simply make it a call-in and build-able from major for a discount.
Since the unit is specialized it should not create many issues as a call-in as long as it in an commander that does not have AI call-in vehicles available to him so that he can completely skip major with not drawbacks.

In other word simply mode the unit to mechanized, it suit the commander thematically and enhance the commanders specialization of using lighter vehicles for a strong early mid game.

The unit is a Flanker and should be used similarly to Puma to engage enemy vehicles from the side or the rear. I has enough penetration to do that.

Actually the unit was very cost efficient until 2 changes too place:
1) it required tech
2) M-36 was buffed and now it has to compete with the M-36.

So my suggestions would be to simply make it a call-in and build-able from major for a discount.
Since the unit is specialized it should not create many issues as a call-in as long as it in an commander that does not have AI call-in vehicles available to him so that he can completely skip major with not drawbacks.

In other word simply mode the unit to mechanized, it suit the commander thematically and enhance the commanders specialization of using lighter vehicles for a strong early mid game.

And what are you going to replace the M10 in Armor Company then? I can quote you saying several times here that the commander shouldn't have both an AI and AT call in units.

The E8 would easily overshadow the 105 Sherman in my opinion.

And the 76 Sherman is currently broken, but I'd rather that than an arguably extremely overlapping vehicle which is the M10 right now.

The only other choice I see is the M8 but then as some people say that they only go Recon Company for that vehicle so that's a no-go as well.

On a separate note, I wonder what would happen if the Pak 43 and Hetzer were bundled together for the Ostheer, something called "Anti-Tank measures", since the Hetzer would obviously be used more in the defensive role than offensive such. It wouldn't help the Pak 43 directly, only a 17 pounder emplacement upgrade could do that I suppose, but it would make a bit more sense than providing AI and AT as you said and again, a broken and overlapping structure which is the bunker. Some advanced abilities could just be added to regular Bunkers from Defensive/Entrenching Tools.

I like the idea for an entrenched PaK 43 as part of the specialized Defensive commander, so it can survive the occasional artillery barrage or off-map unlike its unprotected sibling. However I think this emplacement version should then lose the ability to shoot through sightblockers and garrissons for balance reasons. Players would have to choose between survivability and firepower.

I like the idea for an entrenched PaK 43 as part of the specialized Defensive commander, so it can survive the occasional artillery barrage or off-map unlike its unprotected sibling. However I think this emplacement version should then lose the ability to shoot through sightblockers and garrissons for balance reasons. Players would have to choose between survivability and firepower.

Yeah, you won't be able to upgrade to an emplacement anyhow if near a structure since it will clip through it and generally really look weird.

So in an urban environment you'd normally place the Pak 43 behind a shot blocker.

In an open field you'd be better off upgrading it with an emplacement to add to it's survivability.

It also be a nice touch if the OKW could get it as well.

And what are you going to replace the M10 in Armor Company then? I can quote you saying several times here that the commander shouldn't have both an AI and AT call in units.
...

There many solution for armor company. For instance since Dozer is now so powerful (OP in my opinion especially thru reserved armor) one could make Dozer also require Major instead of being a call-in. Then M-10 could stay at armor.

Or one could move the 76mm Sherman to armor. 76mm Sherman would then need to be redesigned, for instance one could model it after Ez8 but trade some of the AT of the Ez8 (penetration) for AI or clone the 75mm and replace HE round ability with AP rounds ability.

One could even completely remove the idea of call-in and simply add an ability that would allow Sherman to upgrade for increased HP. (for instance sandbag...)

Thematically the commander should have something that promotes the use of armor and/or that makes its armor better than stock.

There many solution for armor company. For instance since Dozer is now so powerful (OP in my opinion especially thru reserved armor) one could make Dozer also require Major instead of being a call-in. Then M-10 could stay at armor.

Or one could move the 76mm Sherman to armor. 76mm Sherman would then need to be redesigned, for instance one could model it after Ez8 but trade some of the AT of the Ez8 (penetration) for AI or clone the 75mm and replace HE round ability with AP rounds ability.

One could even completely remove the idea of call-in and simply add an ability that would allow Sherman to upgrade for increased HP. (for instance sandbag...)

Thematically the commander should have something that promotes the use of armor and/or that makes its armor better than stock.

The only way I see that working is by Combined Arms becoming a passive for Cav Rifles to free up a slot, then Reserve Armor and Armor Company's call ins being swapped, but then again Armor Company has 1 slot left open again, I would suggest the M8 but people probably won't like that again.

And your problem of both commanders having both AI and AT persists.

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.

Ever considered/discussed for a different approach, like increasing armor ?

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.

Good!
The M10 could use something else more useful than the HE shot, excellent ideas, I hope you can decide what it's best to make it stand out from the all mighty Jackson.

Elite Crews would be super good then, specially for light vehicles, where you could just dismount and gun down weapon teams you flanked with your Stuart.

I’d much rather see it cheaper with vet0 flanking speed than having a gimmicky HE shot.

Passive elite crews would also be great. Possibly the only way to make the ability not a meme.

Have you considered making M10 like prenerf Su-76/pre-rework Jackson? 480HP and high reload speed/DPS compared to current 640HP M36 with lower DPS. Basically if current Jackson is like Su-85, M10 could be something like Su-76 before it was gutted.

OKW
ELITE ARMOUR

Stumtiger
-AOE distance to 1/3.75/8 from 0.25/1.5/8.
-Suppression recovery time from 3 to 8; this increases the delay before infantry near a detonating Sturmtiger rocket can begin suppression recovery.
-Sturmtiger ambient building damage adjusted; should automatically destroy most ambient structures in one hit.

Friendly suggestion reminder:

Consider removing medium cover collision for the Sturmtiger rocket.


It's already clumbersome to use because of the casemate design, slow aiming time and manual reload. It's so annoying to go through the entire 'back to action' loop, carefully take aim, and have your rocket detonate prematurely because there is a small bush, wooden fence or some crates in the way (and unpredictable RNG/scatter makes you unable to avoid hitting it).

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.

Hey I totally agree with you on that. This is why my main push is just reducing the cost more than adjusting its performance. It really is a good tank, and IMO should either be a stock unit or at least in more doctrines.

As a major tier unit, it is a great option for responding to heavy T3 Ostheer play or an OKW player with heavy mech truck builds and/or P4 spam. However, anything the M10 can do the Jackson can do better EXCEPT be built in numbers/be expendable. I think as it stands, a 90 fuel tank isn't expendable for a USF player that's unlocked major.

I agree that Armor company has issues greater than Elite Crews and Bulldozer Sherman. I think the notion that they're looking at making Elite Crews a passive is worthwhile though.

Hey I totally agree with you on that. This is why my main push is just reducing the cost more than adjusting its performance. It really is a good tank, and IMO should either be a stock unit or at least in more doctrines.

As a major tier unit, it is a great option for responding to heavy T3 Ostheer play or an OKW player with heavy mech truck builds and/or P4 spam. However, anything the M10 can do the Jackson can do better EXCEPT be built in numbers/be expendable. I think as it stands, a 90 fuel tank isn't expendable for a USF player that's unlocked major.

I agree that Armor company has issues greater than Elite Crews and Bulldozer Sherman. I think the notion that they're looking at making Elite Crews a passive is worthwhile though.

I'm pretty sure nobody who want to change the current M10 actually tested it extensively as I did. The argument Whatever the M10 can do the M36 can do better is stupid, M26 cost 50 fuel more hopefully it performs better. But 50 fuel is a thing sometime you can't afford and the M10 does the job just perfectly vs Pz4. Two M10 cost 100 fuel less than two Jacksons, I mean you can have 3 M10 for 2 Jacksons fuel wise...
M10 price allows you to play Light vehicles and not being left behind fuel wise for the Medium rush.

Bulldozer is fixed, good. Now Elite crew need to be looked and AE are still useless.

Elite crew as a passive could be great.
AE, honestly make it CP1 or CP2 but a true performing unit. Or 300mp and as good as Assault Grenadiers that are waaay better atm.

I'm pretty sure nobody who want to change the current M10 actually tested it extensively as I did. The argument Whatever the M10 can do the M36 can do better is stupid, M26 cost 50 fuel more hopefully it performs better. But 50 fuel is a thing sometime you can't afford and the M10 does the job just perfectly vs Pz4. Two M10 cost 100 fuel less than two Jacksons, I mean you can have 3 M10 for 2 Jacksons fuel wise...

Man did you even read what I wrote?

EXCEPT be built in numbers/be expendable.

You're explaining to me the exact reason M36 Jacksons cannot be built in numbers or be considered expendable.

Jacksons should be high pen low ROF.
M10s should be low(er) pen high ROF.

This would make the Jackson the choice against Panthers, heavies and TDs while the M10 would be better suited against mediums. Gives them distinct roles.

Man did you even read what I wrote?



You're explaining to me the exact reason M36 Jacksons cannot be built in numbers or be considered expendable.

Oh sorry, didn't say it but yes 100% agreeing with you

Jacksons should be high pen low ROF.
M10s should be low(er) pen high ROF.

This would make the Jackson the choice against Panthers, heavies and TDs while the M10 would be better suited against mediums. Gives them distinct roles.

Ever since Panthers got their "buffs", they would just roll over Jacksons with lower rater of fire, given now they have more health but less armor.

Oh sorry, didn't say it but yes 100% agreeing with you

Ah then forgive my response.

I think self-sight is a no-no, but I'm down for reduced fuel on M10 OR keep current fuel and available from HQ with 2 tech buildings active.