Profile of GI John 412

Well when 90% of the commanders that get reworked become batshit OP, might as well make another op one.

Commanders are only OP when you compare them to each other and how they interact within each faction.

Let’s just say that all commanders are very, very strong and give the player a huge advantage by using them. Well if they are ALL OP then it’s not really a problem because then the only UP option is to not pick a commander at all.

I agree with your sentiment. Newer commanders do offer a lot more than the older ones, which has caused “power creep” over time.

Put simply, there is a problem: not all commanders are equal.

Solution 1: nerf strong commanders down to to the weakest commander’s level.

Solution 2: buff weak commanders up to the stronger commanders level.

Option 3: do neither, and accept that some commanders are better than others.

Awesome option 4: have AE host a tournament where commander vetos are allowed so that OP commanders get kicked out and less OP commanders get thrown into the fray at a high stakes, high skill tournament where top level players can show off strategies for using non meta commanders. Then collect data on commander veto and commander choice ratios to determine which commanders need a review. If it gets vetoed, it’s OP. If it never gets picked even when other stuff gets vetoed, then it’s UP.

Don't see a second stock combat infantry unit as a way to make USF op. Other factions have multiple infantry units without beeing op too. This would be a chance to end this Rifleman centrism. If I stick to my Assault Engineers example, you could define their rolls and make them different and dependent on each other. The Rifleman AT-grenade could move to the Ass engis for example. Or maybe Rifleman could only upgrade bars while Ass Engis could only upgrade bazookas and so on. There are endless possibilities for a more diverse approach. If you play vs soviets for example you can't be sure if he goes heavy con strat or builds T1 or T2 fast to bring out maxims or penals. Playing vs USF there will be... let me guess... erhhmm... yes, there will be Rifleman... and... yes... more Rifleman... yawn.

That’s kinda the point and theme of USF. Special units are Doctrinal only because the US Army was made up of “Citizen Soldiers” who were all very much trained the same way to be versatile and effective fighting generalists. The specialization that complicated the German military was not present except in very specific units such as Ranger Battalions and Airborne Divisions, which are represented in game by being doctrinal units.

Adding in special non doctrinal infantry units to USF defeats its theme of regular Joes going out to do battle with the Axis forces that have been specializing for years. These same GIs just need to be equipped for the fight and they are the equal of any SS or Wehrmacht soldier who had been enslaving Europe for years under the mantle of National Socialism.

Riflemen are symbolic of the American in WWII, the average GI Joe who would leave his home, clad in olive green uniform and shouldering his M1 Rifle, to liberate the oppressed people of Europe as just one of many citizen soldiers.

This is exactly why I think that Ostruppen should have a different LMG upgrade. I have suggested multiple times that Osttruppen should use BREN guns, BARs and DP-28s to represent ZB vz. 26, 27, 30 and 33 Czechoslovakian captured guns (the design that would become the BREN Gun), Polish Browning wz.1928 (BAR copies) and Russian captured DP-28s.

The Germans captured lots of these guns and issued them to rear area troops such as Ostruppen.

By using a different weapon there would be less confusion by players as to why Ostruppen LMGs are vastly weaker than Grenadier MG42s.

Replace the LMG42 upgrade with “Captured LMG”. More historical accuracy and more importantly it is easier to understand why Ostruppen LMGs have different performance.

Literally all this commander needs is a price decrease (since I doubt the debuff is going away) for Fire Up and Flares (should be equivalent to PanzerFusilier Flares at 35 munitions). Just like that it becomes useable.

If we combined flares and fire up into one package since theyre both cp2 anyway, rifleman field defenses is the ONLY thing I would add, since it perfectly fits the theme of the commander and gives it something meaningful early game.

While I would still like to see some sort of Veteran Sergeant for USF, I think combining Flares and Fire Up together and adding Riflemen Field Defenses would be a good solution too.

Why I like the idea of a Sergeant upgrade has many facets, and I cannot deny that one of those reasons is simply nostalgia for vCoH Riflemen. Lol

The other reason is to be able to boost Riflemen size to correct “half-squad” size.

What I mean by this is that squads in CoH games are purposefully about half the size of real squads. This is done for several reasons, but historically they were pretty good about consistency where each factions in game “half-squads” were exactly half of the size of the real unit. US Rifle squads were 12 men with 11 M1 Garlands and 1 BAR. So in vCoH they because a 6 man squad. The upgrade of BARs is highly inconsistent, but works gameplay wise. German squads were 10 men with 1 MP40, 7 or 8 Kar98ks and 1 MG42, so they made the German “half squad” as 5 men. Same for the British 10/2 for a 5 man “half-squad”. This worked brilliantly in vCoH where 2 Riflemen squads was the correct 12 men all with rifles, and 1 Volksgrenadier squad plus an upgraded Grenadier squad ended up with 9 men all with rifles plus an MG42.

So the proposed 6 Riflemen squad I proposed with 1 M1 Carbine and 5 M1 Garands can only upgrade to have 1 BAR. Now we have a perfect half squad that is totally balance-able, given the correct application, and also the correct “half squad” size.

Nah, Support Paratroopers can already lay mines, but I wouldn’t mind if regular Paratroopers could do it too. It would add another reason to get Paratroopers later on and less of a reason to spam Pathfinders.