New allies commanders

New topic

New Reply

Posts: 4

What you think about new allies commanders? I ask mainly about UKF but i would read all your opinions about them.

Posts: 528 | Subs: 1

UKF one seems good. Soviet and USF suck.

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

Soviet completely sucks - he has pleasant abilities like: SVT-40 drop. But in the late game he doesn’t have any useful ability. He sucks from heavy tanks, from artillery. That is, from the current and pre patch meta. He has a theoretical anti-tank strafe that sucks, no heavy tank for a late game.

Posts: 359

People are sleeping on the USF commander, especially when it comes to the Sherman dozer upgrade. I've been able to forgo Jackson's in my games by getting two shermans now. The increased beefiness and the WP shell are honestly a little crazy rn, but maybe its because I'm playing at a low skill level. Rangers with zooks absolutely shred lower level players that may not be aware that they can hold three and do more damage. Rifle grenades from REs are great to shoot into garrisons from behind sight blockers.

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2

As Sander said in the patch topic, the UKF Commander is solid and plugs a lot of the holes in their roster. It's also versatile and allows for a more aggressive alternative playstyle to the British which was the point in my suggestion and I'm guessing other people's ideas when we wrote them.

As far as the USF Commander goes, it's personally my own opinion that it's full of gimmicks, only thing that I like about it are the Rangers probably, Bulldozer Shermans should have been Jumbos as there was 99% nothing wrong with the community suggestion.

Soviet one I haven't tried or probably will since I don't play Soviets so I won't comment on it but I think it's rather unfair and uneven for them to have a FRP while the Ost, not.

Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3

The soviet and UKF ones are useless in teamgames but they seem viable in 1v1. The USF one seems to be the exact opposite... viable in teamgames but bad in 1v1

Posts: 919

19 Jun 2019, 15:50 PMaerafield

The soviet and UKF ones are useless in teamgames but they seem viable in 1v1. The USF one seems to be the exact opposite... viable in teamgames but bad in 1v1

+1 I see it pretty similar

USF: Cheaper Rangers + Smoke/Sprint for aggressive gameplay AND buffed + cheaper Calliope as a good lategame deal for teamgames. On the other side Calliope isn't really worth it in 1vs1, so yeah its a decent teamgame commander.

UKF: Quite mobile and aggressive and useful for 1vs1. The M10 is far more useful in UKF roster than USF roster and comes out quickly. In teamgames it lacks any kind of lategame power, so its a decent 1vs1 commander.

Soviet: I like the elite infantry in this commander and the soviet MG that is actually useful. In addition the onmap reinforcment/healing/retreat is a strong option, but that pretty much was it. AT Strafe is cheap but far too much RNG. No good lategame power. Its midgame power relies only on infantry and that can be countered. If you want onmap healing/reinforcement you are better off by taking the Urban commander on most maps, because that one has strong early (push with converted HQ including small AT-Gun and Shock Troops) and strong lategame options (KW-2).