Poll for hotly debated units in new commanders.

This is just a poll topic I wanted to make after seeing a lot of hot debates about the new units and their possible replacements and in general what people think would be best.

Things such as the RE Rifle Grenades, Calliope, M1 81mm Mortar for the Brits as well as the M10, the Ost Recon ability and lastly the OKW PF changes are not included because quite frankly speaking I don't think they're gonna be replaced and I wanted to keep this topic a bit more focused and simple but if the interest arises the options will be added or a new thread will be created.

Soviets are also not included because I have not played them or take interest in their new commander at all, from what I gather people are just arguing about the random weapon drop or something there.

Replace Calliope for Sherman 105.

Calíope + Rangers Will overshadow the old Tactical Commander. No more Commander overlap pls.

PS: I know about the thread subject. This is a last chance.

PLS no more bundles.

Bundles should only be left for extremely weak abilities like tank traps.

PLS no more bundles.

Bundles should only be left for extremely weak abilities like tank traps.

I wouldn't consider the bulldozer as a strong ability and the lend-lease one with the M5 halftrack is an error on my part since it should just say replace. Apart from that the M5 Stuart bundle just follows the logic of the USF Mech Company, nothing more.

I really would like them to do something with the urban assault commander, the others are pretty well thought out, they might need some balancing but other than that they are pretty fun.

The dozer upgrade is just not worth much if anything.

I think it would be good if you had an "other" option for each of the polls - some people might have a different idea than either of the two options provided.

As for the point about bundling, I get the sentiment behind it. Some abilities are bundled or not bundled seemingly arbitrarily (ie: why is the dozer bundled with 76mm shermans in mech, but a stand alone ability in the new urban assault company?). But I do personally think that the raw "5 abilities per commander" design is restricting for no real purpose. Bundling allows more control over the commander's design. It allows relatively lackluster abilities that aren't worth a slot alone to be in doctrines (like vipper pointed out with tank traps), but it also allows the power level of a commander to be more finely tuned. If a commander is lacking, but the abilities in it are all interesting and thematically appropriate, then bundling serves as a way to put more power into the commander without getting rid of the other interesting abilities.

Basically, I think commander's having 5 and always 5 slots unnecessarily limits the design space (and I think a lot of people agree). With the dozer ability, I think it's clear the ability hasn't hit its mark, and now that there's a better idea of where sentiments are on that doctrine, we're less scared to put more power into the doctrine and have the commander's abilities do more.

I wouldnt trust at all this poll, since these are really hot topics, i see people biased towards a faction to come and vote just the opposite of people wanting to play such faction.

Also allied polls have 2 options between changes but axis have a do/dont poll. The latter is obviously sabotaged. People hating OST can stop KT from being in OST as an example.

Sry OP, i find your curiosity and will to help as good as it can be, but people voting do not have such good will.

Edit: I find really curious that 14 people voted for E8 on USF to be bundled with dozers but also (The same) 14 people voted for OKM to keep the "normal" Tiger. Its no coincidence. I abstained my vote since i noticed this flaw.
Proof picture:
Show Spoiler

I wouldnt trust at all this poll, since these are really hot topics, i see people biased towards a faction to come and vote just the opposite of people wanting to play such faction.

Also allied polls have 2 options between changes but axis have a do/dont poll. The latter is obviously sabotaged. People hating OST can stop KT from being in OST as an example.

Sry OP, i find your curiosity and will to help as good as it can be, but people voting do not have such good will.

Edit: I find really curious that 14 people voted for E8 on USF to be bundled with dozers but also (The same) 14 people voted for OKM to keep the "normal" Tiger. Its no coincidence. I abstained my vote since i noticed this flaw.
Proof picture:
Show Spoiler

Poll can give you at least an impression in which direction the community wants to go but i agree that you need to be careful with the results.

Can we replace the OKW’s Tiger I with Stug III E? Since OKW has KT in stock, I don’t think it need another heavy tank call-in.

I wouldn't consider the bulldozer as a strong ability and the lend-lease one with the M5 halftrack is an error on my part since it should just say replace. Apart from that the M5 Stuart bundle just follows the logic of the USF Mech Company, nothing more.

The Mech Logic is simply flawed.

First the buffed the WC51 to be worth a single slot then the bundle with the also buffed m3.

First the bundle dozer with the Sherman 76mm then the buff the Sherman and combine the vet 1 ability of the USF tanks with the superior T-34/76 vet bonuses.

The bundle should be used but only to fine tune commander and bring the at same power level. Not to create OP commanders and try to fix balance issues of factions.

I like how that Poll doesnt have a "change nothing" option for the allies commanders. Do you want to imply here that these 2 things MUST be changed?

Rigged imo

I like how that Poll doesnt have a "change nothing" option for the allies commanders. Do you want to imply here that these 2 things MUST be changed?

Rigged imo

Or the option to replace it with something else entirely.

I think it would be good if you had an "other" option for each of the polls - some people might have a different idea than either of the two options provided.

As for the point about bundling, I get the sentiment behind it. Some abilities are bundled or not bundled seemingly arbitrarily (ie: why is the dozer bundled with 76mm shermans in mech, but a stand alone ability in the new urban assault company?). But I do personally think that the raw "5 abilities per commander" design is restricting for no real purpose. Bundling allows more control over the commander's design. It allows relatively lackluster abilities that aren't worth a slot alone to be in doctrines (like vipper pointed out with tank traps), but it also allows the power level of a commander to be more finely tuned. If a commander is lacking, but the abilities in it are all interesting and thematically appropriate, then bundling serves as a way to put more power into the commander without getting rid of the other interesting abilities.

Basically, I think commander's having 5 and always 5 slots unnecessarily limits the design space (and I think a lot of people agree). With the dozer ability, I think it's clear the ability hasn't hit its mark, and now that there's a better idea of where sentiments are on that doctrine, we're less scared to put more power into the doctrine and have the commander's abilities do more.

Originally I planned on including an "other" option as in all of my other polls but people (trolls I am guessing) kept picking it and not stating what "other" thing they wanted.

So I adopted the sentiment that if people would like something out of the given options they'll give their opinion here.

I wouldnt trust at all this poll, since these are really hot topics, i see people biased towards a faction to come and vote just the opposite of people wanting to play such faction.

Also allied polls have 2 options between changes but axis have a do/dont poll. The latter is obviously sabotaged. People hating OST can stop KT from being in OST as an example.

Sry OP, i find your curiosity and will to help as good as it can be, but people voting do not have such good will.

Edit: I find really curious that 14 people voted for E8 on USF to be bundled with dozers but also (The same) 14 people voted for OKM to keep the "normal" Tiger. Its no coincidence. I abstained my vote since i noticed this flaw.
Proof picture:
Show Spoiler

Agreed, I've seen plenty of people for the past few days wanting a KT instead of the Ace for Ost so I'm not buying into these numbers either.

The Mech Logic is simply flawed.

First the buffed the WC51 to be worth a single slot then the bundle with the also buffed m3.

First the bundle dozer with the Sherman 76mm then the buff the Sherman and combine the vet 1 ability of the USF tanks with the superior T-34/76 vet bonuses.

The bundle should be used but only to fine tune commander and bring the at same power level. Not to create OP commanders and try to fix balance issues of factions.

I don't make the rules dude, I just follow them to the best of my ability, even if I don't agree with them, fully.

I like how that Poll doesnt have a "change nothing" option for the allies commanders. Do you want to imply here that these 2 things MUST be changed?

Rigged imo

That's entirely your own opinion, I would edit the poll if I could to add new options but I can't, so you're free to make your own then if you don't like it.

Or the option to replace it with something else entirely.

Same as what I wrote above.

I think it would be good if you had an "other" option for each of the polls - some people might have a different idea than either of the two options provided.

As for the point about bundling, I get the sentiment behind it. Some abilities are bundled or not bundled seemingly arbitrarily (ie: why is the dozer bundled with 76mm shermans in mech, but a stand alone ability in the new urban assault company?). But I do personally think that the raw "5 abilities per commander" design is restricting for no real purpose. Bundling allows more control over the commander's design. It allows relatively lackluster abilities that aren't worth a slot alone to be in doctrines (like vipper pointed out with tank traps), but it also allows the power level of a commander to be more finely tuned. If a commander is lacking, but the abilities in it are all interesting and thematically appropriate, then bundling serves as a way to put more power into the commander without getting rid of the other interesting abilities.

Basically, I think commander's having 5 and always 5 slots unnecessarily limits the design space (and I think a lot of people agree). With the dozer ability, I think it's clear the ability hasn't hit its mark, and now that there's a better idea of where sentiments are on that doctrine, we're less scared to put more power into the doctrine and have the commander's abilities do more.

I think that's fair. Soviet Tank Hunter Tactics is the best example, where almost the entire original commander got bundled into an upgrade package for Conscripts, essentially turning it into a new unit if you upgrade it.

However, removing that five-ability limit requires a lot of discipline from the team designing the commanders. If you've got limited slots, you're forced to evaluate what should be in the commander and cut the chaff. Without it, you have to discipline yourself against feature creep.

The original DBP commander revamp team refused to cut anything. They'd add new things to the commanders, but either bundled old abilites together or stuck them in strange places. That mentality resulted in the WC51, which for some bizarre reason still has two command tank abilities bolted to it.

The new commander revamp team had an amazing start, cutting stuff left right and centre to make way for new material. It was great, and they were making tight, polished commanders.

Then in the last iteration of the preview patch, they abandoned that and shoved almost everything they'd cut back in. Some abilities like Artillery Cover were bolted in strange places. Goliaths and Warning Flares, two abilites strong enough to carry the pre-revamp Overwatch commander by themselves, got bundled to make way for the buffed up Sector Assault.

Mechanized, Tactical Support and Overwatch aren't in scope, so there's nothing that can be done to trim those back now.

But please don't let feature creep get to the new commanders.

I wouldnt trust at all this poll, since these are really hot topics, i see people biased towards a faction to come and vote just the opposite of people wanting to play such faction.

Also allied polls have 2 options between changes but axis have a do/dont poll. The latter is obviously sabotaged. People hating OST can stop KT from being in OST as an example.

Sry OP, i find your curiosity and will to help as good as it can be, but people voting do not have such good will.

Edit: I find really curious that 14 people voted for E8 on USF to be bundled with dozers but also (The same) 14 people voted for OKM to keep the "normal" Tiger. Its no coincidence. I abstained my vote since i noticed this flaw.
Proof picture:
Show Spoiler

I main WFA and i voted for standard Tiger E.

I honestly hate all this "ace" and "commander" crap. Want to get some doctrinal cheaper heavy tank.


Though i can 100% tell that the people who asked Wehr TO NOT get King Tiger are doing that just to not see King Tiger buffed (inevitable if included in the patch).

I also voted for easy 8 because i want another doctrime with it.

I main WFA and i voted for standard Tiger E.

I honestly hate all this "ace" and "commander" crap. Want to get some doctrinal cheaper heavy tank.


Though i can 100% tell that the people who asked Wehr TO NOT get King Tiger are doing that just to not see King Tiger buffed (inevitable if included in the patch).

I also voted for easy 8 because i want another doctrime with it.

I honestly would have voted for OST to not have KT too, but my post was beyond my wish to do the poll, i figured out people really wanting to sabotage a faction are able by just voting. Its not about opinion, its more like a civil war and its very sad to see that.

For okm is pretty clear tiger ace is a buff in comparison the tiger and only you gave your opinion so far, based but on your personal taste instead of any bias.

I honestly would have voted for OST to not have KT too, but my post was beyond my wish to do the poll, i figured out people really wanting to sabotage a faction are able by just voting. Its not about opinion, its more like a civil war and its very sad to see that.

For okm is pretty clear tiger ace is a buff in comparison the tiger and only you gave your opinion so far, based but on your personal taste instead of any bias.

Well, after the "you think usf has been buffed too much" poll where severals said "no, is underpowered", i don't think anybody takes direct "balance" polls too seriously

I don't like the curremt Tiger Ace either. Spearhead is completely redundant, never had any issue with Tiger turret, and sight range nerf was huge while they could have at least kept some sight advantage instead.

I don't like the curremt Tiger Ace either. Spearhead is completely redundant, never had any issue with Tiger turret, and sight range nerf was huge while they could have at least kept some sight advantage instead.

Spearhead also makes its mounted machine guns suppress.

Same with the KT.

Weak point of USF was and should always be the Armor department. But if you look at the current 8 commanders 4 of them give you better tank options:

• Armor: Bulldozer, M10
  
• Cavalry: Pershing
  
• Mechanized: 76mm Sherman
  
• Rifle: E8
  
  Now a lot of players want a better tank in the new USF commander, demanding an E8 or the 76mm Sherman. That would mean that you would get in over 50% of the US commanders better tanks than Wehrmacht can get with T3. This sounds bad imo, USF can not have the best light vehicles, superiour infantry, the best TD in the game and premium mediums in the most used commanders at the same time.
  
  
  

For me personally with the amount of OKW-esque abilities the Tiger Ace gets it's better off just being replaced by the KT altogether.

I'd also trade the ability for it to self repair if the Ost got their Forward Supply station to also give them a forward retreat point similar to the Soviet Airborne.