Profile of JibberJabberJobber

PLEASE REMOVE THE CAMO
L
E
A
S
E

R
E
M
O
V
E

T
H
E

C
A
M
O

By default, I treat everything that is not in the -patch notes- as an unintended bug.
Unless the patch notes specify its intended, its supposed to be 3 SVTs and nothing for penals.

"SVTs crate drops are now obtainable by Cons and Engineers. Penal and guard interaction will be addressed in a future update"

https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/245822/new-commander-preview-changelog

No explicit reference to 3 or 4 SVT's or to what penals get. Ingame testing is the only way to go by.

I'm really surprised at how one sided this patch is.

We have two axis commanders that are incredibly strong, and will make 3v3 and 4v4 matches even more toxic, thanks to the addition of a new kind of shrek blob and heavy tanks.

Meanwhile At best we have one half decent UKF commander (swap the M5 for a Stuart or M8 already, no one is going to bother with the M5), a weak commander for the US (swap dozer blade for easy8 or 76mm) and a Soviet commander that has no decent late game AT options, which means it will never be a viable choice for any serious players.

On top of that vanilla axis units are getting buffed, but no allied ones, which makes the patch smack of axis bias.
Especially with all the constructive feedback for the allied commanders being ignored.

I'm really dissapointed, especially if this is being made by the same team that made the previous patch, which was so much better than this.

I don't agree, really. I feel like the patch team is well on its way with balancing the commanders.

How I see it:

USF, UKF and OST commanders will be fine after some tweaking.


OKW commander is bound to cause problems with sprinting pfusi shreck blobs. Also not sure about OKW Tiger being completely untied from CP's.


SOV commander currently has the following infantry options:
- Penals with 6x ppsh
- Conscripts with 4x svt
- Engineers with 4x svt
- Airborne Guards with 6x ppsh
- Airborne Guards with 3x dp

Which seems a bit messy, but atleast makes it flexible. I do wonder what the effectiveness of SVT engineer spam will be, considering the SVT's double their dps at all ranges to grenadier level.

I would personally suggest turning the Rally Point into a pathfinder beacon clone that engineers can construct. This would open up a commander slot for either mark target, fuel drop, recon or similar, giving the commander some more utility. Another option would be to make the SVT's grabbable from the Rally Point and replacing the weapon crate with something else instead.


Focusing on Ostheer stock units seems fair to me. This faction has it the hardest in the current meta if you look at recent tourney history and top player streams.

If you compare Ostheer with factions aside from UKF, you will see Ostheer's healing options are already quite luxurious.

At best, I would make the med kits an instant ability (the healing rate is already quite slow) and give a cost reduction to 10 muni at vet 3 (a point at which med kits have lower value).

CP 0 Assault Grenadiers
Unit seem to Up, with same cost as Assault engineer it has allot less utility and can not get an early flamer while generally it is facing unit that are good close range

Compared to CP 1 Cav riflemen it has less utility and can upgrade to less firepower since they can get 2 Thompson +1 bar.

The upgrade comes really late and even then the units is UP for cost. Total cost is 306+60 mu yet the performance is far from that.

Suggestion:
Possible change could include some of the following:
Replacing sprint with "diversion" (Ostheer officer) then units could be more useful in working together with grenadiers defending them from enemy units the close in.

...

I think assgrens are fine as they are right now. At vet 3 with the model upgrade they become the most durable squad in the game aside from shocktroopers, with 0,57%~ RA and 6 models (patch adds a total of -7%~ RA). Combine this with their low pop requirement of 5(+1) and 26mp reinforcement cost, which makes them efficient infantry, even though they have a lackluster damage profile.

To me, diversion wouldn't be worth it. What you get for 25 munitions:
1. 25% moving accuracy -> Not noticable on a weapon that has negligble dps at range >10.
2. 25% less RA -> Might allow you to lose one less model on the approach.

Sprint achieves the same goal (getting in hug range without sustaining too much damage) for only 10 munitions, while providing more utility. Unless they lowered the cost of diversion to 15-20 munitions and changed moving accuracy into accuracy, I'd prefer sprint.

CP 0 Panzer IV H
...

Suggestion:
Imo one should modeling Panzer IV H after Sherman 76 with 2 firing mode HE and AP. The unit would be more useful.

The rear armor of the unit need to be increased.
Combat blitz should be replaced by blitzkrieg.

Panzer IV H doesn't need firing modes, it already has lower scatter over the Ostheer Panzer IV.
Agreed with other suggestions.

CP 2 (passive)Breakthrough Equipment
...

Suggestion:
I would suggest the following:
merge the upgrade to minesweepers upgrade for repair speed and destroy cover
and to flamer for satchel so that they become available for no extra munition cost

Increase the Cd on destroy cover for all units maybe add 5 mu cost.

Wholeheartedly agreed with these suggestions. Pgren smoke could then be removed, cause the commander slot would be strong enough IMO.

General:
The commander seem to be badly designed:
Repair available from pioneers, supply station and self-repair for Tiger. It is simply too much overlap.

Commander provides "superior" infatry, superior medium and Super heavy making the commander weaker in 1vs1 more powerful in 4vs4. From design point of view commander should get improve units is some area and not so many.

Suggestion:
One could test some of the following changes
Replace the Panzer IV H with the Panzer IV D modeled after T-34/76. That would allow players to afford both Panzer IV D and Tiger in 1vs1.

Replace the Tiger with Stuka/JP/hezter/luch or some other ability and redesign the Panzer IV H after Sherman 76. That would allow the Panzer to counter units like the KV-1, Churchill...that currently require building stug or Panther.

Replace assault grenadier with mortar HT that is currently inferior to the USF one, leaving the commander "weaker" in infatry but focuses on armor.

Another option would be to use the 6 men pioneer squad from the campaign.

I feel the main problem of this doctrine is the lack of synergy between the Panzer 4 H slot and the Tiger Ace slot, I see little reason why I would need both, even more so because the Panzer 4 H allows me to skip T3 for T4. I would personally remove the Tiger, replace it with either panzer tactician, hull down, CAS AT strafe or something similar and call it a day. But considering this was the chosen theme for this commander, I don't think it would happen.

I don't feel the commander would have balance issues tho. The high cost of the Panzer 4 H and Tiger Ace balances things out. It's more of an options commanders, like USF mechanized.