Feedback for Commander Revamppatch

Regarding Infantry Doctrine - adding the 250 HT is definitely a step in the right direction and feels like a much more usable commander. Testing it I would say that the suppression in Dug In mode feels kind of weak- but I guess steps must be taken to avoid Jesus-Kubel 2.0. Making the Veteran leader G43 transferable between models would help a lot (if it isn't already). It might be nice if you were able to purchase a 2nd G43 after BP3 to add extra scaling - not sure if that would be OP or not.

Feedback for version 1.5

Giving the 76mm Sherman another round to help against heavy armour is very welcome.

The 250 half-track is ok but certainly needs some buffs.
As mentioned by someone else, perhaps when it goes into Dig In mode it could get a much larger bonus to suppression and damage, to make it more useful for defending an area/covering units, and to make it more of a threat in general.
At the moment it doesn't really seem worth bothering with for the cost/benefit.

The Mechanised Assault Doctrine call-in no longer exists. You can only build the unit from the HQ, without getting the troops. Despite the patch mod notes saying it still comes with inf.


The concrete bunkers for Defence Doctrine are great. Really well done to whoever thought of adding those! That commander is looking really decent now and is a lot of fun to use in matches.

Stormtroopers seem to be in a really good place at the moment, due to being able to booby trap points and do a lot of roaming damage.
If this version of them ends up in the game I can see Elite Troops Doctrine becoming more attractive to use.

The 221/223 for Elite Armor is certainly a big improvement and very welcome.

And as always the NVKD commander really needs a KV1 for the late game.

Unless it has 200+ you only have protection from the Panzer IV and Puma, units the M10 already clubs and doesn't need to club harder.

We're still discussing stuff for the M10 which is a difficult unit to get right. Even if the M36 Jackson got nerfed -not here in Commander Revamp- it's still the situation of 'AEF needs a very good AT vehicles stock' so Jacksons will always be that long-term/end game option. And moving M10 to the core, it's still the issue of USF only having 2.5/3 tiers of tech. It earlier comes too early from two officers or slightly too late/better options are around.

We've discussed some issues from ideas/changes though in the background:

-Self-Sight means M10s can easily hunt and snipe most things out of range.
-Cheaper cost means you're getting almost two of these for every armoured vehicle the enemy gets that isn't a StuG G or Ostwind.
-We had an idea about cloak, but given how cloaking works with phase tech, likely a no-go.

How about Tank Ambush like the Soviets Tank Hunter Tactics and the COH1 M18? Grant additional damage/pen at first shot from clocked condition.

The tooltip for the 250’s dig in states that it acts as a reinforce point too, but this doesn’t seem to be the case. I tested both in connected territory and out of territory. Loving the new stormtroopers, they feel almost just like commandos without the ambush bonus (but with the very useful tactical assault). The fact that they can booby trap begs the question of why demos have still not been reworked to be somehow usable again besides hiding them behind buildings and hoping the enemy doesn’t notice them.

How about Tank Ambush like the Soviets Tank Hunter Tactics and the COH1 M18? Grant additional damage/pen at first shot from clocked condition.

I really like this idea. And before anyone screams OP, JPIV has the exact same thing with vet and is much better than the M10 in most ways already.

Soviet ambush is 200% useless though, sov tank destroyers are all turretless and not only it makes tank immobile it also slows down rotation by 80%.
I literally never once saw anyone use tank camo due to limitations of said ambush far outweighting benefits
The only way camo can work in this game if it acts like Jagdpanzer camo

am I the only one who thinks a 5 man grenadier squad is an awful change? Not just for asymmetric design and making wehrmacht even more homogenized than they already are but add to the obnoxious gren blobbing thats far too effective for how low effort it is.

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

The problem exist only if a commander can have vehicles that provide both AI and AT with no tech.

Armor used to be a problem because one could call in both M10 and Dozer with no major, T-34/85 or Sherman 76mm (lend lease) where an issue because they main battle tanks with no tech, partially mobile defense was an issue because of the Puma/C.PzIV combination.

If ones makes specialized units like M10, Ostwind, hezters, KV-8,...call in unit I am guessing that they should not prove too problematic as long as they are not combined with other call-ins that can cover the handicap or can not be used as transition to super heavies.

The problem exist only if a commander can have vehicles that provide both AI and AT with no tech.

M10 spam doesn't need the Bulldozer. It usually didn't even call in the Bulldozer.

M10 spam doesn't need the Bulldozer. It usually didn't even call in the Bulldozer.

M-10 being a viable strategy or not has to with unit balance (and in the particular case with M-10 being one of the best crusher, when it spammed).

Allowing players not to tech and still have access to both AI and AT vehicles/tanks has to do with commander design. It simply should not be an option.

The problem exist only if a commander can have vehicles that provide both AI and AT with no tech.

Armor used to be a problem because one could call in both M10 and Dozer with no major, T-34/85 or Sherman 76mm (lend lease) where an issue because they main battle tanks with no tech, partially mobile defense was an issue because of the Puma/C.PzIV combination.

If ones makes specialized units like M10, Ostwind, hezters, KV-8,...call in unit I am guessing that they should not prove too problematic as long as they are not combined with other call-ins that can cover the handicap or can not be used as transition to super heavies.

So even if combined in one ability the fact that they would both be in the Battalion building unlocked by the Major would not make it a problem in theory, right?

So even if combined in one ability the fact that they would both be in the Battalion building unlocked by the Major would not make it a problem in theory, right?

Giving access to 2 vehicles in one ability would make that ability better than most similar since most doctrinal vehicles abilities provide access to only one.

So it would rather depend on the strength of the rest of the abilities in the commander if the total power of the abilities is balances it should not be a problem.

Giving access to 2 vehicles in one ability would make that ability better than most similar since most doctrinal vehicles abilities provide access to only one.

So it would rather depend on the strength of the rest of the abilities in the commander if the total power of the abilities is balances it should not be a problem.

Like I said, one ability already gives access to the WC51 and M3 HT, plus Reserve Armor isn't really 2 vehicles but still, it's a 2 in 1 ability.

With that in mind considering that Elite Crews is still... an underwhelming ability for Armor Company, Ass Engies are fine right now I suppose and then there's the 240mm Artillery ability.

I think a trade between Mech and Armor Companies of their Tank call ins wouldn't be so noticable, but right now I'd honestly always go for Mech Company since it just provides a lot more than Armor Company, unless Elite Crews are really fixed as a passive and something more is added to overall buff the commander, like a Pershing or an M8 Greyhound, of course this is just entirely my personal opinion and I can be completely wrong about it.

M-10 being a viable strategy or not has to with unit balance (and in the particular case with M-10 being one of the best crusher, when it spammed).

Allowing players not to tech and still have access to both AI and AT vehicles/tanks has to do with commander design. It simply should not be an option.

So why do you keep suggesting making the M10 a call in then?

So why do you keep suggesting making the M10 a call in then?

As I have explained imo specialized vehicles that do not provide both AI and AT should not be a major issue.

The problem starts when one can play play without paying the cost of teching and still not be in a disadvantage.

A balanced M-10 available as call-in and from major with discount imo would not be problem. It would cause issue if it was available in a commander with a call-in AI tank like dozer.

M-10 is rather difficult to balance because the M-36 is very effective vs PzIVs, making M-10 a call-in could make it more attractive without buffing it since it already a very cost efficient unit.

Like I said, one ability already gives access to the WC51 and M3 HT, plus Reserve Armor isn't really 2 vehicles but still, it's a 2 in 1 ability.

With that in mind considering that Elite Crews is still... an underwhelming ability for Armor Company, Ass Engies are fine right now I suppose and then there's the 240mm Artillery ability.

I think a trade between Mech and Armor Companies of their Tank call ins wouldn't be so noticable, but right now I'd honestly always go for Mech Company since it just provides a lot more than Armor Company, unless Elite Crews are really fixed as a passive and something more is added to overall buff the commander, like a Pershing or an M8 Greyhound, of course this is just entirely my personal opinion and I can be completely wrong about it.

adding pershing with off map barrage, call-in infantry, and m10 or sherman buildozer isn't the good idea. By making it you would simply overshine first pershing commander,

As I have explained imo specialized vehicles that do not provide both AI and AT should not be a major issue.

The problem starts when one can play play without paying the cost of teching and still not be in a disadvantage.

A balanced M-10 available as call-in and from major with discount imo would not be problem. It would cause issue if it was available in a commander with a call-in AI tank like dozer.

M-10 is rather difficult to balance because the M-36 is very effective vs PzIVs, making M-10 a call-in could make it more attractive without buffing it since it already a very cost efficient unit.

It's all becouse USF lack of another late game tech structure

...
It's all becouse USF lack of another late game tech structure

I am not sure that it ALL because of the lack of late tech. That would probably be the case if both M-10 and M-36 where stock units.

A similar issue exist with units like the Hezter, KV-8, Ostwind... Once these units started requiring tech they had to compete with main line tanks that had both AI and AT roles and become unattractive.

adding pershing with off map barrage, call-in infantry, and m10 or sherman buildozer isn't the good idea. By making it you would simply overshine first pershing commander,



It's all becouse USF lack of another late game tech structure

If we're going by that logic then a lot of these reworked commanders are going to overshadow other commanders.

People say that Defensive is going to overshadow Osttruppen... because of the Osttruppen.

German Infantry will probably overshadow German Mechanized doctrine because of the Stormtroopers, 250 HT and 5th man upgrade.

NKVD tactics might as well overshadow Soviet Industry because of the KV2, and commissar.

Urban Defense will certainly overshadow Defensive Tactics.

Mechanized and Armor will probably overshadow a lot of the other Companies like Recon and Rifle for example.

Tac Support Regiment will probably also overshadow Special Weapons now because of the Sapper HEAT grenades and IS mines, making the Tank Hunter Section pretty much obsolete besides for their Boys AT rifles and vehicle detection.

As for the OKW... I don't think Overwatch and Armor is gonna overshadow any other commander, if anything really I still think Luftwaffe and Fortifications will still be my top picks, and Armor will still probably be situational compared to Breakthrough because of the Panzerfusiliers and JT, which might not be worth it right now but it's better than the waste that's the Sturmtiger.

I could also give a lot more example which aren't even reworked but I will probably need an hour or more to write it so I'll just stop here.

But I don't see a problem with artificially "locking" a unit to be implemented somewhere else just because it's a unique vehicle for somebody, such as the KV2 and KV1 in the Soviets' case which were given to other commanders for the sake of improving them.

So again, just because the M8 and Pershing are in a certain commander I think is not enough reason to never include them in any other commanders, it just simply doesn't make sense, at least to me.

NKVD tactics might as well overshadow Soviet Industry because of the KV2, and commissar.

It might in 1v1, however 2v2 and up, industry will do fine because of repair stations alone.
I don't need to mention the importance of automatic repairs that cost no pop cap and do not require actual engineer unit.

NKVD will have a better early game, SI will boast much better late game sustain.

It might in 1v1, however 2v2 and up, industry will do fine because of repair stations alone.
I don't need to mention the importance of automatic repairs that cost no pop cap and do not require actual engineer unit.

NKVD will have a better early game, SI will boast much better late game sustain.

You get my point tho, even if not completely a commander can and probably will overshadow another commander in a given situation, but I still don't think that's enough reason to keep units in single commanders just for it sake of uniqueness.

1s always dictated strict meta with general purpose commanders, you can't help that.

2s and up provide more flexibility as what you'll potentially lack within a commander you'd get otherwise, you'll get through an allies presence.

I also do agree with units being in more doctrines to have a better choice then be forced to single one.

Compare Tiger doctrines to IS-2 doctrines for a prime example.