Feedback for Commander Revamppatch

Jump back to quoted post4 Nov 2018, 19:50 PMWiderstreit

Yes... but then there is the problem with the rotation... I don't know how to fix that.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 04:43 AMmiragefla

We are finalizing things at this point for internal testing so likely no 1.9. No major changes, though there is a discussion of possibly placing the Valentine to tech since it arrives so late to the field. Likely after Bofors/AEC tech and then figuring out if it's balanced appropriately.

Jump back to quoted post15 Sep 2018, 10:33 AMOlekman

I agree. Brens, PIATs and British roundel on top look a bit silly.

How about reusing MG emplacement entity, except with MG and gunner removed and with a radio station in the back? I've reused USF MG emplacement in my Engineer Combat Company mod in similar way and I'd say it doesn't look that bad. This is how it would look for the Soviets:



EDIT: Alternative version with USSR flag added.

Jump back to quoted post15 Sep 2018, 18:07 PMTiger Baron

This is already a much better design for a unique building in my opinion, even tho I haven't even seen the retextured British FHQ for the Soviets.

Another alternative is probably the building SneakEye is using in his All Units mod for the USF as a forward base.

Seen here:

(Top middle)

Jump back to quoted post16 Sep 2018, 09:04 AMOsinyagov

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.

Jump back to quoted post16 Sep 2018, 10:45 AMOlekman

So I tried to replicate SneakEye's thing with ZiS truck instead of WC-51. It's pretty barebones, lacking things like medical crates and whatnots. Either way, the truck is just a bit too tall and clips with the camo net.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 04:43 AMmiragefla

We are finalizing things at this point for internal testing so likely no 1.9. No major changes, though there is a discussion of possibly placing the Valentine to tech since it arrives so late to the field. Likely after Bofors/AEC tech and then figuring out if it's balanced appropriately.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 04:43 AMmiragefla

We are finalizing things at this point for internal testing so likely no 1.9. No major changes, though there is a discussion of possibly placing the Valentine to tech since it arrives so late to the field. Likely after Bofors/AEC tech and then figuring out if it's balanced appropriately.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 09:08 AMTiger Baron

The issues of the Sturmtiger's projectile detonating prematurely, the Pak 43 remaining pretty useless if not behind shotblockers, the Recovery Sappers unit being a bit overlapping and underwhelming as well as it's icon and description being wrong, the Soviet FHQ model remaining to be finalized Osin mentioned and as Vipper said the veterancy of the units still remain.

Not to mention Overwatch still being all over the place with the Jaegers and Lefh.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 09:16 AMmiragefla

I will rephrase, when I mean finalized, it's the completion of the main changes outside minor edits and bug fixes.

Sturmtiger projectile, I do not believe can be made to crush obstacles in the way. If it needs adjustment, it would be a slightly higher arc with increased projectile speed.

Pak 43s can at least be demolished when their initial shock value is done. They are not going to be 17pdr clones.

Icons and descriptions are part of clean-up. New icons are not included in the mod itself to keep it small and easy to build.

Soviet FHQ I am waiting for someone to get back to me. If not, the current tent will gain some additions to be bulkier.

Veterancy can be looked into.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 09:16 AMmiragefla

I will rephrase, when I mean finalized, it's the completion of the main changes outside minor edits and bug fixes.

Sturmtiger projectile, I do not believe can be made to crush obstacles in the way. If it needs adjustment, it would be a slightly higher arc with increased projectile speed.

Pak 43s can at least be demolished when their initial shock value is done. They are not going to be 17pdr clones.

Icons and descriptions are part of clean-up. New icons are not included in the mod itself to keep it small and easy to build.

Soviet FHQ I am waiting for someone to get back to me. If not, the current tent will gain some additions to be bulkier.

Veterancy can be looked into.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 04:43 AMmiragefla

We are finalizing things at this point for internal testing so likely no 1.9. No major changes, though

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 09:16 AMmiragefla

Sturmtiger projectile, I do not believe can be made to crush obstacles in the way. If it needs adjustment, it would be a slightly higher arc with increased projectile speed.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 09:16 AMmiragefla

Veterancy can be looked into.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 04:43 AMmiragefla

We are finalizing things at this point for internal testing so likely no 1.9. No major changes, though there is a discussion of possibly placing the Valentine to tech since it arrives so late to the field. Likely after Bofors/AEC tech and then figuring out if it's balanced appropriately.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 09:16 AMmiragefla

...
Pak 43s can at least be demolished when their initial shock value is done. They are not going to be 17pdr clones.
...

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 11:20 AMullumulu

its funny that brits gets a nondoc 17pdr which can:

- brace
- selfaiming 360
- flares
- and even the shot through shootblocker abilty (for a time...but thats whats u need when tank rushes (no all the time))

while axis get it pak43 only through docs, no brace, no flares, no self aiming...only stun and shot through shotblocker...once it shot one time...a good player will delete it easily.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 11:23 AMKatitof

Doctrinal, optional gimmick vs a stock unit that needs to be reliable, is expensive and costs a hefty amount of fuel and pop cap.

Yeah, you go boy, compare them apples to oranges.

Don't like it, just go for ele/jt.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 11:20 AMullumulu

while axis get it pak43 only through docs, no brace, no flares, no self aiming...only stun and shot through shotblocker...once it shot one time...a good player will delete it easily.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 11:27 AMBratkartoffel

Bullshit. In that logic, all doc-units are gimmicks! Russians for example rely heavy on them.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 11:39 AMKatitof

In case you were in coma for last 2 and a half years, soviets were reworked and rebalanced specifically to not rely on them anymore.

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 11:47 AMBratkartoffel

In case you were no alli fanboy, you believe to win games against decent players without PPSH, Guards or Shock, right?

Jump back to quoted post5 Nov 2018, 04:43 AMmiragefla

We are finalizing things at this point for internal testing so likely no 1.9. No major changes, though there is a discussion of possibly placing the Valentine to tech since it arrives so late to the field. Likely after Bofors/AEC tech and then figuring out if it's balanced appropriately.

Is it within the scope of your patching remit to edit the tooltips? I think the tradeoffs of the Penal upgrades need to be clear: the Flamer PPSH upgrade severely weakens their long range performance and the PTRS weakens their anti-infantry capability. Currently they're presented as upgrades rather than sidegrades so it's not immediately apparent that there are steep costs in other capabilities to players that haven't read the patch notes.

To illustrate here's how I'd personally do the tooltips for the Penal Battalion. I've included the short description from the build panel and the yellow italics unit information. If you like them feel free to use them and I'll happily do the same for the rest of the text content of this patch if it'd be helpful.

Penal Battalion
Anti-infantry squad equipped with satchel charge explosives. Can be upgraded with flamethrowers and submachine guns for close combat and clearing garrisons or with PTRS anti-tank rifles for light anti-vehicle duty.
Effective at all ranges against infantry.

Assault Package
Adds a ROKS-3 flamethrower and three PPSh-41 submachine guns for better close-range combat ability. Flamethrowers are deadly area-effect weapons but add a risk of explosive death to the Penal Battalion.
Improves effectiveness at close-range and against infantry in cover. Reduces capability at long-range.

Anti-Armor Package
Converts the Penal Battalion to an anti-vehicle squad, adding two PTRS anti-tank rifles and specialised anti-tank satchel charges. Anti-Armor Penal Battalions are a threat to enemy vehicles but have reduced capability against infantry.
Improves effectiveness against vehicles and structures at the cost of reduced anti-infantry capability. Replaces Satchel Charge ability with Anti-Tank Satchel Charge ability.

PTRS Anti-Tank Rifle
Adds a third PTRS anti-tank rifle to the Penal Battalion, further increasing its anti-vehicle capability.
Improves anti-vehicle capability. Requires Anti-Armor Package.
(In the interests of immediate clarity when it comes to upgrade paths I'd also consider putting the third PTRS ability in the third upgrade slot rather than taking the second after the 2x PTRS package is purchased. This makes the full upgrade path of the unit clear upon building it.)

Satchel Charge
Bundled explosives thrown at close range that deal heavy damage to anything else caught in their blast radius.
Effective against structures and slow or unmoving targets. Five second fuse.

Anti-Tank Satchel Charge
Specialised bundled explosives that stick to enemy vehicles. Anti-Tank satchel charges deal heavy damage to all targets in the blast radius and can cripple the mobility of vehicles.
Effective against vehicles. Inflicts Damaged Engine critical if vehicle is reduced below half hit points.