British - Lend Lease Assault - Feedback

Remember you can always make the forward position for healing. It's only barely more expensive than ost med bunker and gets to reinforce too.

Problem is that the whole idea of the commander is to remain mobile and not have to hunker down somewhere in your own territory in order to heal and reinforce.

You're investing quite a bit in offensive power so needing to stop and halt your momentum is a big no-no as far as the playstyle of the commander is concerned.

Problem is that the whole idea of the commander is to remain mobile and not have to hunker down somewhere in your own territory in order to heal and reinforce.

You're investing quite a bit in offensive power so needing to stop and halt your momentum is a big no-no as far as the playstyle of the commander is concerned.

Yeah I was just pointing out that option.

IMO it'd be interesting if they were given a self heal ability with vet if possible (but only usable on themselves for balance reasons). There's already tons of cqc inf that gets passive heal with vet, although I'm not sure if coding that for the specific upgrade is possible (which is why I suggested it being an ability instead, since I know that can be added).


And I'd still rather see a mortar halftrack than the US mortar. It also fits the theme better and is much more worth a doctrine spot than the US mortar. I'm just worried that the commander might be a bit on the lackluster side seeing as how it already has so many call-in units and one of them being the US mortar really doesn't help.

And I'd still rather see a mortar halftrack than the US mortar. It also fits the theme better and is much more worth a doctrine spot than the US mortar. I'm just worried that the commander might be a bit on the lackluster side seeing as how it already has so many call-in units and one of them being the US mortar really doesn't help.

Yeah the Tac Support Regiment already has the dropped mortar but historically speaking I don't think the Brits actually used the variants of the US Halftrack, or hell even the M1 81mm mortar itself. The 4.2 inch mortar is a pretty interesting unit in itself as RoastinGhost proposed/designed it but then again it doesn't fit the theme of the commander since it's not lend-lease.

I think bundling would be the best option here, you'd have a Light Vehicle bundle with the M5 Stuart and one of the Halftracks and a "heavier" vehicle option where you'd get the M10 and a Sherman of some sort since the Brits did use quite a number of Sherman variants but I don't see much of a reason in an M4A4 for them since it'd basically fill the same role as the Cromwell but having an MG instead of a commander and some different abilities.

Similar to how the USF Mech Company was done but balance is a bit finicky and you don't wanna overload it with units/features/abilities obviously but it's quite the problem of trying to make it work as a commander that gives the Brits a more aggressive playstyle and yet still fits to the theme of a "lend-lease" commander while not feeling underwhelming in certain elements like it's call in units.

I think the problem lies in the fact that the Brits in general lack any sort of vanilla mobility so even the little which the American mortar, M3 and M10 provides for them seems both a lot but when compared to others seems quite not enough.

All in all in hindsight it's a commander designed to fill the holes in the British roster of units, unlike the USF for example which doesn't need indirect fire units that don't cost fuel, or a fast and reliable TD, or have problems fighting enemy when their own infantry isn't in cover. To the USF all of these and whatever their commanders provide are simply alternatives, not something that would entirely change how they would be able to play.

Really when you look at it the only thing that the Brits have over the USF is their tanks like the Churchill that can take a punch compared to anything American, even the Pershing, of which you can only field one.

Important to note that you don't have to convert all your Tommies into assault Tommies, if anything that's unwise as axis doesn't lack long range units that can simply kite you so it's not too much by any means to upgrade a Tommy squad into medic for mobile healing. The halftrack doesn't need to do it when such effecient means already exist.

Yeah the Tac Support Regiment already has the dropped mortar but historically speaking I don't think the Brits actually used the variants of the US Halftrack, or hell even the M1 81mm mortar itself. The 4.2 inch mortar is a pretty interesting unit in itself as RoastinGhost proposed/designed it but then again it doesn't fit the theme of the commander since it's not lend-lease.

I think bundling would be the best option here, you'd have a Light Vehicle bundle with the M5 Stuart and one of the Halftracks and a "heavier" vehicle option where you'd get the M10 and a Sherman of some sort since the Brits did use quite a number of Sherman variants but I don't see much of a reason in an M4A4 for them since it'd basically fill the same role as the Cromwell but having an MG instead of a commander and some different abilities.

Similar to how the USF Mech Company was done but balance is a bit finicky and you don't wanna overload it with units/features/abilities obviously but it's quite the problem of trying to make it work as a commander that gives the Brits a more aggressive playstyle and yet still fits to the theme of a "lend-lease" commander while not feeling underwhelming in certain elements like it's call in units.

I think the problem lies in the fact that the Brits in general lack any sort of vanilla mobility so even the little which the American mortar, M3 and M10 provides for them seems both a lot but when compared to others seems quite not enough.

All in all in hindsight it's a commander designed to fill the holes in the British roster of units, unlike the USF for example which doesn't need indirect fire units that don't cost fuel, or a fast and reliable TD, or have problems fighting enemy when their own infantry isn't in cover. To the USF all of these and whatever their commanders provide are simply alternatives, not something that would entirely change how they would be able to play.

Really when you look at it the only thing that the Brits have over the USF is their tanks like the Churchill that can take a punch compared to anything American, even the Pershing, of which you can only field one.

Yeah I know that the British didn't really use the mortar halftrack ,but that'd be a way to make the call-in aspect of the commander a bit more appealing without overbloating it like you articulated in the portion I bolded, and would giving the brits a unit that actually has more value in and of itself rather than just simply making up for design flaws by being the bare minimum and existing. Why you should get a vanilla team weapon with no benefits as an entire commander slot is beyond me, and just goes to make the commander less competitive IMO. It's a waste of a slot in a sense since it doesn't actually offer anything that powerful on its own compared to almost any other ability or call-in.

And we all know how historical accuracy kinda goes out the window in this game anyway. It's not totally historically accurate, but it's not super far fetched or immersion breaking or anything like that.

Why you should get a vanilla team weapon with no benefits as an entire commander slot is beyond me, and just goes to make the commander less competitive IMO. It's a waste of a slot in a sense since it doesn't actually offer anything that powerful on its own compared to almost any other ability or call-in.

Soviet have an entire slot consisting of nothing but tank traps so there is definitely more underwhelming abilities. At any rate the idea of commander abilities isn't to necessarily offer better than stock options or even crazy exciting abilities just different ones.givimg the brits the most mobile mortar in the game opens up a host of gameplay options when compared to quite literally an immobile one. They don't want the new commanders to completely out class all the others but instead offer a viable alternative to them.
I think it's absolutely hilarious that people have been begging for a mobile mortar for the brits and then they get one and it's not flashy enough...

Named "Assault",I think mortar halftrack more batter,and why not use "M3 hlaftrack resupply"?

Tommies already make every axis player wake up at night, now they'll get to fight ASSAULT tommies. Really, what can't the brits do anymore? I see the main complaint is not enough offmap to deal with arty.

You've never had to fight a brit who's good with a sniper have you? Just slip past enemy lines, huck a nade, bye bye arty.


I agree, not every doctrine has to have everything in it.

I think it's absolutely hilarious that people have been begging for a mobile mortar for the brits and then they get one and it's not flashy enough...

Where have all the threads been that call for doctrinal mortar? As far as I'm aware people have always called for snare and mortar to be non-doc the same way people called for panzer 4 and MG34 to be non-doc for OKW.

When you see OKW given almost every doctrinal tool non-doc that they lacked (flame nades, snare, MG34, P4). Then they get combined command unlocks with multiple abilities in one (overwatch doc)

then Brits get a snare... But still no non doc flamer/mortar/rocket arty. The one update they do get you're allowed a mortar that takes up a single slot. it's obvious people will see it as a bit annoying. Just because one Soviet doctrine has tank traps that hardly justifies things.

I'm not saying this doctrine is useless or anything but I hope you can understand why people are moaning. But criticism is good, I think the doctrine needs a little adjustment like swapping out the smoke ability and it would see use on urban maps.

Halftrack and M10 should be one ability for sure. Similar to USFs mechanized group. That would open up a slot for flamers/arty. Could call in offmap american ary support for the theme.

Where have all the threads been that call for doctrinal mortar? As far as I'm aware people have always called for snare and mortar to be non-doc the same way people called for panzer 4 and MG34 to be non-doc for OKW.

When you see OKW given almost every doctrinal tool non-doc that they lacked (flame nades, snare, MG34, P4). Then they get combined command unlocks with multiple abilities in one (overwatch doc)

then Brits get a snare... But still no non doc flamer/mortar/rocket arty. The one update they do get you're allowed a mortar that takes up a single slot. it's obvious people will see it as a bit annoying. Just because one Soviet doctrine has tank traps that hardly justifies things.

I'm not saying this doctrine is useless or anything but I hope you can understand why people are moaning. But criticism is good, I think the doctrine needs a little adjustment like swapping out the smoke ability and it would see use on urban maps.

Because not having a medium tank or Supression platform is a hell of a lot different than having a mortar and not liking it.
Brits are designed to be more static, this commander allows unparalleled mobility for the faction. At most I could see swapping it for the pak howi or dropping the CP requirements (imo if the mortar stays this is necessary) but it shouldn't be a mortar halftrack as that offers far too much extra to the doctrine and puts it in a tier above the others by making the brits too mobile.

Because not having a medium tank or Supression platform is a hell of a lot different than having a mortar and not liking it.
Brits are designed to be more static, this commander allows unparalleled mobility for the faction. At most I could see swapping it for the pak howi or dropping the CP requirements (imo if the mortar stays this is necessary) but it shouldn't be a mortar halftrack as that offers far too much extra to the doctrine and puts it in a tier above the others by making the brits too mobile.

How exactly is lacking a mortar any different than lacking an MG? This is a key teamweapon every faction has.

You could argue the "defensive Brits" design went out the window when trenches were nerfed, Tommies got moving accuracy buff and their in cover RA got stripped. (Or do you prefer static play and emplacements?)

I doubt the doctrine will be used personally, tactical support gives better options and a few muni dump abilities that aren't smoke.

How exactly is lacking a mortar any different than lacking an MG? This is a key teamweapon every faction has.

You could argue the "defensive Brits" design went out the window when trenches were nerfed, Tommies got moving accuracy buff and their in cover RA got stripped. (Or do you prefer static play and emplacements?)

I doubt the doctrine will be used personally, tactical support gives better options and a few muni dump abilities that aren't smoke.

brits dont lack a mortar, they lack a mobile mortar. there is a difference. one could argue that the kuble filled that role, and it sort of did.. but it was far too strong in the early moments and fell off very rapidly until being completely unusable once any AT hit the field.
the brit mortar is static, but if placed conservatively can provide fire support on the enemy front via barrages and autofire when on the defensive.

the brits are still more defensive than any other faction. less so that previously, but still more static and defensive by a large margin. nerfing the trenches if anything made them more defensive and less offensive as you couldnt throw up a strong point in enemy territory. the issue is people still want the brits to play like other factions where they are disadvantaged instead of playing to their strengths which is drawing a line in the sand and probing outside of it instead of trying to keep the enemy off balance with constant unpredictable pressure like the usf.

the only overlap with tac support is the mortar. you still have a slow lumbering expensive FF at your only TD option and sappers as your cqb infantry, you aggression which this new commander grants. tac support grants new ways to hold the line, not new ways to break one. there is a niche for this commander that isnt available elsewhere, closest would probably the the land mattress commander but despite the overlap they both offer vastly different approaches to urban combat and taking ground.

...
I'm not saying this doctrine is useless or anything but I hope you can understand why people are moaning. But criticism is good...

Constructive criticism is, moaning nonseses is not.

I think flame throwers on engineers fits well if we cant get flame thrower tank in this commander.

I think flame throwers on engineers fits well if we cant get flame thrower tank in this commander.

The commander gives you flame grenades. A flamethrower would be a little redundant.

The commander gives you flame grenades. A flamethrower would be a little redundant.

I thought it was phosphorous grenades?

I thought it was phosphorous grenades?

Which inflict DoT. Same mechanic.

Which inflict DoT. Same mechanic.

Yes but they dont drop models until you do damage from guns or tanks. I still think flame throwers is a good idea.