Discuss for the votes

And with some creativity, they might be able to revive some of the old under/unused commanders by changing some overlapping units/abilities. Such as Assault Grenadiers.

Mechanised Assault commander needs a redesign. It used to be the Ostheer equivalent of what Soviet commander used to be. A commander relying on call-in units.

The game has taken another root where teching is mandatory and this commander has to catch up.

Once more the focus should be creating fresh balanced commander and not fixing design issues of other commander. Creating 5 new commander is an ambitious project on its own and adding other goal to it will probably end up is a mediocre result.

And with some creativity, they might be able to revive some of the old under/unused commanders by changing some overlapping units/abilities. Such as Assault Grenadiers.

True, but in return, more overlap might come.

USF rifle company
1 slot for Flare and 1 slot for Fire up

and OKW user want mp40 package blitzkreig skill same slot


hmm, interesting.

Dude look at doctrinal flamethrowers. Usf and ukf have flamethrower taking whole slot while okw gets flamethrower, granades and weapon upgrade in one slot.

Dude look at doctrinal flamethrowers. Usf and ukf have flamethrower taking whole slot while okw gets flamethrower, granades and weapon upgrade in one slot.

yes, but okw players think "that is not enough, need more rework"

what a greedy

why not USF and UKF flamethrower slot gives more skill to player?

rear FlameThrower&rifleman incendiary grenade, rifleman thompson gun is not allowed?

sapper FlameThrower&Tommy incendiary grenade, tommy sten gun is not allowed?


Why does Axis have more utility skills than Allied forces?


anyway, tiger ace with commander buff is does not make sense

Stop being greedy

https://www.coh2.org/topic/12492/the-doctrine-of-the-red-army-paratroops

I suggested the Paratroopers Commander back in 2013 and she was close to what propose now. Relic knows how to listen to your community.

Soviet commanders look so boring and mediocre.

tiger ace with commander buff is does not make sense

Erm, TA will cease to exist. And we will get simple command tiger.

About Assault Grenadiers:
I think we have to discuss first the arrival time of the unit Before getting too specific into the different upgrade options.
I personally would prefer that the unit comes a little bit later (1CP) but is on the same level like Cavalry riflemen[/b.]

Stuff I've tossed around with Mp 40s in general for the artillery officer, Volks, and Assault Grenadiers are:

-Better on the move capabilities than other SMGs
-Bumping up only their mid-range DPS rather than short-range as currently Grease Guns blow them away so you can have somewhere to fight other SMGs to compensate for having the worst near DPS outside builder SMGs and Conscript PPsH.

On Assault Grenadiers themselves, there was one idea of a six man squad after BP 2/3 who might make them stronger like Veteran Squad Leaders from Infantry.

Other upgrades could just be raw stat boosts in the late game rather than weapon upgrades. I doubt their veterancy itself needs a massive rework as they would still get clubbed if you needed to bring new squads onto the field.

I also had the dumb idea of Bundle Grenade Assault .

Also no more StGs, we got enough of those.

Assault grenadiers are here as a replacement for a common strat of going heavy T1 with 3 grens, snipers etc. Bringing diffrent placestyle into the wermaht rouster. To make that core idea works they have to be 0 CP unit (but i guess start with cooldown).

I recently used Assault grens on 1v1 and 2v2 gamemode just to find out what they are mainly lack. It's not damage but survability they need the most. First couple of mins, when enemy presents on the field they are doing really well. It's a strong CQC infantry that well used can win many engagements but becouse of lack of the AT tools threatened by light vehicule rush (scout car, UC, m20). It's a reasonable risk which gives ally players option to beat it.

The biggest change comes mid-late game. When riflemen, Tommies, Penals or even Cons reach vet2-3 when they can fight vs Assualt grens easily. They can pick few models before there is going to be a close combat fight. Many players uses blobs where Assault grens just can't much. After upgrading riflemen and Tommies with Bar/Brens Assualt grens have no chance, they are outplayed with more consistant infantry units that can fight at long/mid range.

Another thing to point out is that calling Assault grens means diffrent build, diffrent strat. Becouse they have weak late game capabilities they eventually have to be replace but better infantry. Pgrens don't do well long range and grens even with lmg42 vet0 can't fight equally with vetted allied infantry. Infiltration grenades ability is quite good, especially after old patch that reduce their price, sprint helps a lot too. There is no need for STG44 upgrade.

To sum up: Assualt grens do fine early game, starts loosing momentum mid game and they are outplayed by main infantry mid/late game. Even though they do good damage they loose models really quickly.

Suggestion:
- As Miragefla said increase mid range DPS - similar direction to shock troop revamp. Allow unit to fight more static in a longer distance,
- add a squad leader model after BF2/BF3 which increase survability and thanks to extra soldier damage as well (maybe additionally a stun/smoke nade ability?)
- "Extra traing" ability which increase survability - no model added, just simple stat buffs - reduce reciving accuracy, etc.
- additional utility

...
Suggestion:
- As Miragefla said increase mid range DPS,
...

Once more as in post #72, increase of mid DPS is a step in the wrong direction imo, since there will weapon overlap between SMG/assault rifles/carbine(semi auto). It would be a far better design if each of these weapon had a clear advantage of the other in specific range.

Once more as in post #72, increase of mid DPS is a step in the wrong direction imo, since there will weapon overlap between SMG/assault rifles/carbine(semi auto). It would be a far better design if each of these weapon had a clear advantage of the other in specific range.

Tbh, I'm sure people have heard you on that point. If they still insist on such a change anyway, it's probably because they simply don't agree with you. Repeating a subjective point that someone appears to not agree with probably won't do much besides add to the post count.

Also slightly increasing mid range DPS from basically non-existant =/= assault rifle profile.

Assault rifles still have the advantage of having decent mid and long range DPS. Even though the PGrens STG44 has way more close range DPS as well.

It would be nice if the MP40 did a bit more damage in the 10-15 range as it currently does next to nothing. And the 0-10 range DPS is not high enough to make up for that.

And/or a significant BP2/3 upgrade that allows them to scale with Allied infantry somehow.

...

It's just currently you have to: charge on the enemy or hide in the bushes to come to you in really close range. It can work in first min of the match but in lategame there isn't much room for that

Also slightly increasing mid range DPS from basically non-existant =/= assault rifle profile.

Assault rifles still have the advantage of having decent mid and long range DPS. Even though the PGrens STG44 has way more close range DPS as well.

It would be nice if the MP40 did a bit more damage in the 10-15 range as it currently does next to nothing. And the 0-10 range DPS is not high enough to make up for that.

And/or a significant BP2/3 upgrade that allows them to scale with Allied infantry.

Actually they could do this to almost everything, Riflemans needs more mid range damage than close range damage, Bars, PPSHs, MP40s and so on.

Thinking this over - Command Tiger in 2 v 2 + plus games might be a nightmare lol but I love the idea!

Also slightly increasing mid range DPS from basically non-existant =/= assault rifle profile.
...

DPS Range 20
Thompson 6.2
PG MP 44 7

And again the problem with assault grenadier is not that they do not do enough damage it that they die before they can do damage. The artillery officer is much better unit.

The approach of increasing DPS to make a unit more attractive has been proven to be problematic.

Tbh, I'm sure people have heard you on that point. If they still insist on such a change anyway, it's probably because they simply don't agree with you. Repeating a subjective point that someone appears to not agree with probably won't do much besides add to the post count.

People have every right to disagree with my opinion.
On the other hand people also did not hear the feedback for the latest revamp when I pointed out that:
Sector assault was problematic (nerfed 2 times already)
Valentine was problematic (now limited to 1)
JLI was problematic (nerfed 1)
or
That ST should get bonus damage vs building
Or
That ATG air drop should be replaced by pack howitzer

USF rifle company
1 slot for Flare and 1 slot for Fire up

and OKW user want mp40 package blitzkreig skill same slot


hmm, interesting.

As part of the (possible/probable?) inclusion of Fire Up! in the new commander I think it would be a good idea to bundle Flare and Fire Up! as part of the fix and then give Rifle Company another slot like M1919s or something. Rifle flares are rarely if ever used and if Special Support commander is chosen (which I hope it is) then the flares would have delicious synergy of spotting for the Calliope at a munitions cost. Additionally this would make the existing RE Flamer commander more viable - so if the new commander doesn't have Flamers then it isn't as sad.

...as part of the fix and then give Rifle Company another slot like M1919s or something...

No more lmg pls. And having M1919 and Ez8s in the same commander is actually a bad idea.

No more lmg pls. And having M1919 and Ez8s in the same commander is actually a bad idea.

Why? Thematically the doctrine is supposed to be focused around Riflemen so giving them an upgrade makes perfect sense. The M1919 by itself is hardly dominate - I've hardly seen them in 1v1 meta and as far as I know Infantry Company is primary used in team games for the Priest. We all know Tactical Support Company is dusty on the shelf. I don't see how having a brawler premium medium for AT is much different than M1919 riflemen backed up Jacksons for AT.

Why? Thematically the doctrine is supposed to be focused around Riflemen so giving them an upgrade makes perfect sense...

Then thematically the Ez8 does not feet the commander.

Commander should not provide both superior infatry and tanks.

Then thematically the Ez8 does not feet the commander.

Commander should not provide both superior infatry and tanks.

We're kind of passed that point seeing as how Guard Motor, Shock Rifle, Armor Company, Mechanized, Special Ops, and most importantly Heavy Calvary already exist. I'd argue that 1 LMG Rifle isn't "superior" to 2X Bars so much as it is a different damage profile or play style. Adding LMG + EZ 8 is just another choice compared to Ranger + Pershing, Calv Rifle + 76MM or Ass Engineers + Bulldozer/M10 - it's not exactly novel or blatantly better than existing USF commanders.