USF Commander changes (with commentary).

#1
3 years ago
WunderKatzeWunderKat… Posts: 731
edited May 2016 in Commander Feedback

Among USF commanders there are a lot of things that should be tweaked. A lot of these issues render certain abilities useless or just fail to synchronize with other abilities in the commanders kit.

Below I'll list a few things I think should be tweaked.

Tactical Support:
Overall decent kit however, it's proven overall a lot less useful since the CalliOPe nerf which kind of shows that this commander had a rather weak kit besides the Calliope.

It has a lot of abilities that are munition expensive and overall to weak for their cost, especially considering how much USF uses munitions.

-Reduce cost of P47 strafe to 90MU and allow it to pin.

I don't understand why this ability is set at 125MU. It's worse than the other strafes and yet it's more expensive. Overall it's a frustrating ability that has a long call-in time and has little impact on the game and competes for munitions with other abilities.

-Give P47 recon loiter a full 360 degrees of vision.

This ability is overall useful, I use for keeping track of an enemy on larger maps; however, it's limited vision arc makes it practically useless for spotting for long range weapons which I feel is really unfortunate considering that it is not a cheap ability.

Rifle Company:
Rifle company is a very incoherent commander ever since the changes it got after OCF. I feel like the commander is bogged down by a load of nearly useless utility abilities that don't justify picking the commander.

My main complaints with Rifle company is with the 'Fire Up' ability. It comes in too late and has a huge penalty for it's use making it a decent ability with a huge penalty (10 seconds of reduced movement speed) that can be very punishing as the reduced movement speed persists into retreat.

I would complain about the Flamethrower being useless as early on if a player takes it it eliminates their ability to use grenades due to the MU investment; however, I feel with the addition of the M2 60mm motor players will be able to make the investment without ruining their early game.

-Change 'Fire Up' into an active ability like 'Valiant Assault' that slightly raises movement speed and increases Riflemen DPS

I feel like this ability would be a lot more fitting than 'Fire Up.' This ability like this would mesh better with the rest of the commander's kit allowing the player to make rapid pushes with riflemen supported by E8s and White Phosphors.

Recon Company:
This commander is unusable. The kit doesn't synchronize at all with itself.

The last ability is a disaster that never seems to work out. I really don't think it should be apart of the commander as it really doesn't fit at all with the theme of the commander.

Reduce forward observers CP requirement to 0
Beyond the initial engagement this ability really doesn't impact gameplay. I always have felt the CP requirement to be tragic.

-Replace I&R pathfinder with sniper
I really think this change alone would give Recon Commander a lot more play. Sniper play can be devastating against USF in some situations especially team games where the M20 can become impractical due to geographical features of the map or just unit density.

-Give M8 Camouflage similar to Jagdpanzer and give it the I&R barrage.
This unit fails to differentiate itself from the other USF light vehicles. I feel like the I&R barrage and the Camouflage would allow some interesting plays with the M8, the barrage in particular would offer a reason to take it over normal USF vehicles.

-Widen the arc of canister shot but reduce it's damage to sub 80 (less then the health of an infantry model) and make it more responsive.
I agree that this ability should not be able to wipe full health squads but it needs to have a higher yield and honestly sometimes it can take up to 10 seconds to get the canister round off it needs to be fixed.

-Change Paradrop combat group to a P47 loiter (like Airborne's) that targets infantry and pins/suppresses them
Recon commander is supposed to be a nimble commander capable of responding quickly to new threats. I think this ability would fit in nicely with the commader's theme and also allows reward players that use their recon advantage to foresee enemy advances by allowing players to halt said advances.

Mechanized Company:
I'll withhold most of my suggestions about this commander because I feel that I have no decisive changes that would make a huge difference.

I have always felt that Mechanized Company's core mechanic (Withdraw and Refit) is rather weak. It offers a very risky proposition for what I feel is very little reward (75% refund for vehicles that exit the map alive). Even when used well Withdraw and Refit really isn't worth choosing Mechanized over.

These are some quality of life changes that, while I don't imagine they will 'fix' the commander, I think they would be greatly appreciated.

-Remove/greatly lower fuel cost on WC51
With the addition of Panzerfausts to volks I feel like the WC51 will see a lot less use, therefore I don't see why it should be so punishing for players to use.

-Increase armor on M3 call in and reduce fuel cost to 20
The M3 is why too vulnerable to infantry fire for really no good reason. Also the call-in ability has a huge MP cost of 520, I really don't see why it should also tax fuel so much as well.

Forgive me for making such a long post. Usually I try and keep my posts short.

Anyways, what do you think of my suggestions?

What changes would you want?

Comments

  • #2
    3 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993

    I have said this everyday
    every night,
    every afternoon and it's so true

    • Rename WC51 w/ .50 Cal to WC51 w/ .30 Cal
    • Add 20 Munitions upgrade to a .50 Cal, increasing overall damage and offensive power to the vehicle
    • Increase HP from 180 to 200
    • Have it's vehicle crew come pre-equipped with a BAR and more durability, renamed as "Assault Vehicle Crew"
  • #3
    3 years ago
    PanzerFaustPanzerFau… NoPosts: 284

    I like all the changes, except Im not so sure about the Sniper.

  • #4
    3 years ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 681

    @PanzerFaust360 said:
    I like all the changes, except Im not so sure about the Sniper.

    recon and airborne should get looked at. i never use those 2 because there is not much incentive to do so and that usf has pretty much have lackluster late game units whereas axis does

  • #5
    3 years ago
    captainjordycaptainjo… Posts: 498
    edited June 2016

    My recon idea

    0 CP Forward Observers - Riflemen gain +15 sight range while at least 50% of the squad is in cover/garrisoned

    1 CP Sniper - Has scoped M1903, can call in the same artillery strikes as I+R pathfinders. 360 MP

    2 CP Greyhound

    4 CP Recon LOITER

    12 CP P47 Strafing Support (same as Vanguard Operations's)

  • #6
    3 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    If you want US to have snipers, I'd just make it so Riflemen can upgrade to have a member use a scoped m1903 which also gives camouflage when in cover. Not very realistic (or actually it is given the "DMR" nature of US WW2 snipers), but it does give it a unique approach to camo and sniping. It also means you don't get the awkward one-man squad spawn from off-map for high manpower. The only caveat is that the upgrade takes up at least one slot, so you've less base firepower as a result.
    The last thing we need is to give a 360 1-man squad call-in ability (itself hardly something you'd use throughout a match, especially in 4v4) to the most manpower bleeding faction in the game.

    By virtue of being in the Recon commander, I&R Pathfinders are in an odd place. They are themselves intersting and good unit, but you take them or the paradrop ability out and the other will be rendered useless; the abilities are clearly meant to be there to complement eachother.

    With that said, I'd see the Recon commander like so:

    -I&R Pathfinders (unchanged)
    -Forward Observers (replaced with Riflemen Marksman Package; one guy gets sniper rifle, squad either gets Forward -Observer bonus OR can camouflage when in cover; unlocks sniping ability)
    -Greyhound (unchanged)
    -Paradrop Ability (either drops AT Gun, HMG, OR drops medical supplies OR resources); the ability also spawns a plane that scouts ahead, and can be shot down by flak

  • #7
    3 years ago
    WunderKatzeWunderKat… Posts: 731
    @comrade_daelin Changes like that literally fix zero of the design flaws. ZERO of them.

    The I&R Pathfinders are NOT a good unit.

    They just happen to give access to a good arty ability. THAT IS LITERALLY THE ONLY REASON THEY ARE USED. A sniper/the greyhound could do the same thing without the requirement of wasting 210MP, the pop and the upkeep of a squad (and possible reinforces) that literally will kill a sum total of zero models. You could argue 'their arty will kill plenty of models' well I say it fucking better because it's its own 140MU investment.

    Their synergy with paratroopers is irrelevant considering that my suggestions include changing the gawd awful Paradrop Combat Group ability. Besides Pathfinders has zero synergy with the abilities you suggest as well.

    The Greyhound is useless and needs changes.

    It's not a case of 'useless because its on a bad commander' it's a case of fucking useless because all the other vanilla US light vehicles outclass it. It does less damage than the M20 yet costs more fuel (and still requires a 70MU armor upgrade?). It has less damage than the Stuart meaning it's trash against vehicles. Right now if you call it in it will get chased across the map by a 222. And remember it's a LOT more expensive than a 222.

    The Marksman Package is the best of the things you offer. A counter-snipe package would be a direct counter to the German sniper. Which IMO is a very very lazy way to fix it because it has no counter play for the Germans. it would just be a 'thou shalt not use snipers.'

    Your argument about a 360MP one man squad being a bad purchase for USF is absurd. First of all USF is full of large MP investments (M20, AA track, Pak Howie, Ranger call in, etc) so it's not like it's against their faction design. Secondly Sniper play has always been a very potent tool in hands of a decent player and the best thing (and I mean it) that Recon commander could offer to USF. And third of all a lategame 4v4 sniper would be incredibly useful against the random MG42s that get left across the field and the elite infantry spams.

    The winner of Operation Charlie Fox who is also the best USF player in the world asked for a US sniper after the tournament. It's not just me.

    The Paradrop Ability you suggest is absolute shit. Look at Airborne Commander. Is he very popular at the moment? NO. Airdropping abilities are slow, expensive and inevitably useless. The prospect of giving USF a resource drop ability is also absurd considering that resource drop abilities tend to open up resource feeding strats and ruin team games.

    Finally the history argument is irrelevant (you can check Relics policy on that if you want); however, the US did have independent snipers like the Germans and Russians.
  • #8
    3 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    Pretty much the only reason to ever use I&Rs is:
    1- You need a small squad to go cap stuff
    2- Landing beacons for paradrops
    3- Artillery call-in
    4- I believe there USED to be autosnipe for Pathfinders but seeing as they're on the suckiest side of unit proficiency, I can't tell if they still use them or used them at all
    5- Even less likely, manning abandoned vehicles in 1% chance you come across an abandoned tank

    Given that if the smallest non-sniper unit in the game could just have auto-snipe like Jaegers (and that they have gun models with scopes and at least one variant is known to auto-snipe), a US sniper unit would pretty much be an inferior version of this. There is no point designing a new unit when Pathfinders can fill that role, and do so better. As for "thou shalt not snipe", the solution is not giving snipe ability.
    If a certain unit is not good, then it should be changed. Not replaced, and certainly not with a brand new unit that is designed to just function better. That's a waste of time and resources.
    As for snipers being potent tools, that only makes USF overpowered. If the winner if OCF was USF player, and USF being the best faction for 1v1 play, then that only means one thing, giving them sniper unit is not a good idea. It's no surprise Relic hasn't followed through with the winner's request. At least the Pershing is late-game, limited to one, and isn't a very durable vehicle.

    USF having other large MP investments only reinforces my point, which is that USF should not have more units that are like this.

  • #9
    3 years ago
    WunderKatzeWunderKat… Posts: 731

    @comrade_daelin Oh gawd. I fucking remember you. We had this discussion about a year ago on one of my old posts.

    First of all the autosnipe is for Airborne Pathfinders and it only occurs against units at 50% with an 80% to happen. It also only has normal range.

    I can tell you don't play USF much.

    Airborne pathfinders can't counter snipe. They are instantly 1000 times less useful because of that. They don't have the same range (thus they can't fight team weapons), they are rather useless against full health units and they have to be exposed to enemy fire to fight.

    Snipers and airborne Pathfinders are ENTIRELY different types of units. ENTIRELY.

    The main argument for USF sniper is that USF doesn't have a suitable form of counterplay for the OST sniper. The only specific counter they have for it is the M20 which is actually more expensive than a sniper and requires LT tech. Right now the sniper can just hide behind MGs and Grens and there is absolutely nothing USF can do about it.

    I don't know why you bother comparing a Pershing to a sniper. I really don't see the point of that. If you want a better comparison look at Rangers. They're strong units high cost at low CP with no limit.

    I'm not even going to argue this with you anymore. The reason they haven't changed it is because they are waiting to change commanders until they are satisfied with the core game. Which makes a lot of sense. The only changes they have released are because the MG34 got add to the OKW stock and the Goliath got a small change to open up new counters to SIM city.

    @comrade_daelin said:
    USF having other large MP investments only reinforces my point, which is that USF should not have more units that are like this.

    It doesn't reinforce your point at all. Not even a bit. They keep fucking releasing commanders with high MP cost USF units. If what your saying aligned at all with the reality of game balance then they wouldn't be doing that.

    The last thing USF needs is more useless units that consequently may have low costs.

    I'm not going to argue this one with you further because it's a mute point that anyone could spend hours arguing.

    Some of us can handle high cost units and would appreciate a commander that actually diversifies USF playstyle.

  • #10
    3 years ago
    captainjordycaptainjo… Posts: 498

    @comrade_daelin said:
    If you want US to have snipers, I'd just make it so Riflemen can upgrade to have a member use a scoped m1903 which also gives camouflage when in cover. Not very realistic (or actually it is given the "DMR" nature of US WW2 snipers), but it does give it a unique approach to camo and sniping. It also means you don't get the awkward one-man squad spawn from off-map for high manpower. The only caveat is that the upgrade takes up at least one slot, so you've less base firepower as a result.

    Snipers are really nice in every situation. plus the I&R are useless

    The last thing we need is to give a 360 1-man squad call-in ability (itself hardly something you'd use throughout a match, especially in 4v4) to the most manpower bleeding faction in the game.

    By virtue of being in the Recon commander, I&R Pathfinders are in an odd place. They are themselves intersting and good unit, but you take them or the paradrop ability out and the other will be rendered useless; the abilities are clearly meant to be there to complement eachother.

    -Paradrop Ability (either drops AT Gun, HMG, OR drops medical supplies OR resources); the ability also spawns a plane that scouts ahead, and can be shot down by flak

    Paradrop combat group is beyond useless. Drops an AT gun so 90% u end up giving the enemy an AT gun and the Paratroopers get random gear so if u want to fight infantry 50% of the time itll give you bazookas. The ability is also 900 manpower for infantry that cost a s*** ton to reinforce and are naturally squishy.

    "Pretty much the only reason to ever use I&Rs is:
    1- You need a small squad to go cap stuff

    *useless*
    

    2- Landing beacons for paradrops

     *useless*
    

    3- Artillery call-in

     The one thing that's good
    

    4- I believe there USED to be autosnipe for Pathfinders but seeing as they're on the suckiest side of unit proficiency, I can't tell if they still use them or used them at all
    5- Even less likely, manning abandoned vehicles in 1% chance you come across an abandoned tank"

    would rather use Rear Ecs anyday

    You just admitted that I&R's are useless after saying they are really useful.

  • #11
    3 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948
    edited June 2016

    @WunderKatze said: Oh gawd. I fucking remember you. We had this discussion about a year ago on one of my old posts.

    Ah so you're just spamming the forums with the same subject?

    Do I play a lot of USF matches? No. Do any of them that I win involve needing or lacking a counterplay to snipers? No. Call it luck or balance issues, but as USF my answer to snipers isn't trying to field my own sniper. The existence of multiple infantry squads was. So far, everyone that's won a USF match involving fighting snipers has done the exact same.
    And I know what you're thinking too: you'll argue for a unit call in, then later argue for it to be stock. Skip; the middleman and just say you want M20 to be sniper instead.

    @WunderKatze said:
    First of all the autosnipe is for Airborne Pathfinders and it only occurs against units at 50% with an 80% to happen. It also only has normal range.
    Thanks for the info; perhaps I&Rs should have autosnipe as well? They already compensate with 3 men instead of 4. The arty call-in is nice, but cost a lot and you need to risk it to walk into range. The unit design itself is sound, if a bit weird.

    @WunderKatze said:
    Airborne pathfinders can't counter snipe. They are instantly 1000 times less useful because of that. They don't have the same range (thus they can't fight team weapons), they are rather useless against full health units and they have to be exposed to enemy fire to fight.

    Maybe because part of countering snipers isn't to try to use an unsuitable unit like a sniper? Just like how you don't engage a Riflemen blob with a single sniper, you don't engage any units with just Pathfinders.

    @WunderKatze said:
    Snipers and airborne Pathfinders are ENTIRELY different types of units. ENTIRELY.
    I know, I was not implying they were. What I was implying is that they fill a similar role. You do not need a 360 MP -one-man squad with instakill before you're considered to have countersnipe strategy.

    I've always counter-sniped with USF units easily, maybe that's why the issue isn't as large as you make it so.

    @WunderKatze said:
    The main argument for USF sniper is that USF doesn't have a suitable form of counterplay for the OST sniper. The only specific counter they have for it is the M20 which is actually more expensive than a sniper and requires LT tech. Right now the sniper can just hide behind MGs and Grens and there is absolutely nothing USF can do about it.
    Given that nearly every USF match I've won involved one or more snipers on the opposing side, I'd have to disagree. And it wasn't like I was just sitting there letting them rack up kills. Snipers are only useful when you make sure the rest of your units are doing their job protecting it. Adding a 360 MP 1-guy squad to the loadout isn't going to change USF meta.

    The point about Pershing was that many people argued for it, because they wanted a heavy tank to counter enemy heavy tanks. The relation should be obvious, because they are pretty much the same thing: X unit would solve Y problem. FOr those people, heavy tanks needed a heavy tank for suitable counter. Unsurprisingly, many people disagreed simply because they've managed to win without them.
    Pershing is an example of how it doesn't solve the problem, as you just end up using it like a Sherman. But unlike Pershing, which features more armour than USF tanks, a sniper would be even more fragile than Pathfinder squads, because it's one guy. The Marksman idea was to prevent fragile miniature squads while utilizing existing stock units. I know all this because I was on both sides of the argument; when Pershing commander came around, I used it and was still disappointed. Why? Maybe because I was using it wrong. It rocks as long as you're bullying a unit that's busying trying to shoot up a Sherman or your Riflemen, it blows once that Tiger starts closing in after a chase. I have little reason to doubt the same thing will happen to a US sniper unit.

    @WunderKatze said:
    I'm not even going to argue this with you anymore.

    I never considered this an argument. Maybe you need to just read and think instead? This isn't a competition or even a debate. It's a discussion.

    @WunderKatze said:
    Some of us can handle high cost units and would appreciate a commander that actually diversifies USF playstyle.

    And some of us can handle opponents' snipers without needing our own sniper units. I might even go to the extreme and suggest this might be L2P issue?

    TLDR: I agree these units suck, I don't agree they should be replaced. If units stink they need to be fixed, not introduce a new unit. Don't just deal with symptoms.

  • #12
    3 years ago
    WunderKatzeWunderKat… Posts: 731

    @comrade_daelin said:
    Ah so you're just spamming the forums with the same subject?

    This is commander balance section of the forum a YEAR later and it's not about the sniper it's about USF commander's having poor design. So bluntly, no I'm not.

    @comrade_daelin said:
    Maybe because part of countering snipers isn't to try to use an unsuitable unit like a sniper? Just like how you don't engage a Riflemen blob with a single sniper, you don't engage any units with just Pathfinders.

    Snipers are the only units well suited to countering snipers. They are the only ones who can shoot back at the range. Counter sniping isn't the real reason I'm asking for a sniper. I believe it's a unit that fits the theme of the commander, can do nearly anything that I&Rs can do (if given the arty ability) and also has increased functionality to a 3man squad with M1 carbines.

    Why not replace I&Rs with a better functioning unit?

    @comrade_daelin said:
    Pershing is an example of how it doesn't solve the problem, as you just end up using it like a Sherman. But unlike Pershing, which features more armour than USF tanks, a sniper would be even more fragile than Pathfinder squads, because it's one guy. The Marksman idea was to prevent fragile miniature squads while utilizing existing stock units. I know all this because I was on both sides of the argument; when Pershing commander came around, I used it and was still disappointed. Why? Maybe because I was using it wrong. It rocks as long as you're bullying a unit that's busying trying to shoot up a Sherman or your Riflemen, it blows once that Tiger starts closing in after a chase. I have little reason to doubt the same thing will happen to a US sniper unit.

    It might happen if the US sniper gets used wrong. But that's a good thing. It means it actually requires skill. Just like the Pershing does.

    The Pershing is an interesting and dynamic units. I believe a sniper on Recon commander would be a similar addition to the game.

    @comrade_daelin said:
    I never considered this an argument. Maybe you need to just read and think instead? This isn't a competition or even a debate. It's a discussion.

    This conversation for all intensive purposes is/was an argument. Their are two clearly defined sides and we are each speaking from them and offering rebuttals to each others points.

    @comrade_daelin said:
    And some of us can handle opponents' snipers without needing our own sniper units.

    Hence the fact that I'm requesting a sniper for Recon Commander. A commander. Not the vanilla tech tree.

    The sniper becomes impossible to deal with in some (some is the key word) situations. The usual spread out riflemen advance on works on a sniper only if the map allows for it. If there are choke points and other geographical features it can be impossible to deal with a sniper. Same with the M20, sometimes choke points and geographical features make it impossible to get behind the enemy without hitting a mine/faust.

    However a sniper can always counter a sniper because it shoots at the same range. It would be nice if their was a commander that offered a solution in these situations.

    @comrade_daelin said:
    If units stink they need to be fixed, not introduce a new unit. Don't just deal with symptoms.

    You're not the only one that will seemly miss the I&Rs. But honestly I think the way to deal with the problem in their case is to replace them.

    I'm all for a buffed Greyhound though.

    I realized that I said I wouldn't argue any further but I just couldn't help myself.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.