Soviet Commander Revamp Discussion

13

Comments

  • #62
    9 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 345
    edited August 2018

    I am not a big fan of Radio Intercept. I believe too many commanders have this rather weak ability. It makes sense for the Partisan and NKVD commanders to have it because, their specialties involve intelligence gathering. There is some argument for it being a part of Advanced Warfare but, I don't think it's the best use of that slot. There is really no reason for it being in Armored Assault; it doesn't suit that doctrine at all.

    To my mind, the Soviets would be better served if they had more than one commander with Forward Headquarters. This is an upgrade/ability that fixes an obvious deficiency in the Soviet faction - that the Soviets must retreat units all the way back to base to heal them. The Soviets faction is the only one that suffers this penalty; every other faction can heal units away from base without any need for a doctrinal "fix". Forward Headquarters is the only doctrinal upgrade that allows a player to change this and yet it's limited to only one commander.

    I believe it would be better if Radio Intercept was replaced by Forward Headquarters for both the Advanced Warfare and the Armored Assault commanders. It would open up more options for those playing the Soviet faction than would be lost by the removal of Radio Intercept from the 2 relevant commanders. It wouldn't help on maps with very few buildings but, I think it would be an overall improvement in most cases.

  • #63
    9 months ago

    @PanzerFutz The Field HQ for the soviets could also use a Forward Retreat Point upgrade. Radio Intercept is pretty powerful as it can allow you to immediately determine what Commanders the other player is using. It also helps you determine what they build, where they build it [Like Pak 43s, LefH artillery] and when they built it. Again, far from useless, very strong ability. The reason why Armoured Assault Tactics had radio intercept early on in 2013 was because they were meant to alert the player if they built Pak-40s, Pak 43s or AT weapons and where they built it exactly so they could avoid it. They also alert the player about mines, providing players with information of when and where they are planted [using pings on the map].

    The same concept can be applied to all 4 commanders. It's the closest you can get to real-life legal stream-sniping.

  • #64
    9 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 345

    @MSAF_Unbekannt_15 Maybe I'm not using it correctly but, it never seems to tell me much beyond base building and units built in the base. There's also the fact that it disadvantages deaf players (not that I'm deaf, I'm just not listening a lot of the time). I know there's a written alert but, I don't know if there's any way to pull up a list of past alerts. If you know how to do that, I'd sure appreciate it.

    I read some other post complaining that it doesn't work properly against all factions. I think it was just the audio but, I can't remember which thread it was.

    I'm also mystified why the developers didn't include more counters to Radio Intercept, like Radio Silence. Jamming was something all sides used at various times and radio silence was S.O.P. prior to offensives. Fake signals were also pretty common. The OKW supply trucks could easily be upgraded to incorporate these counters. The Ostheer is a bit more difficult but, maybe HQ buildings could be given an upgrade that allows signals countermeasures. Each faction could have a different way to achieve it. It would introduce another layer to battles.

    I'd still like to see more Forward Headquarters for the Soviets. I just don't know what else it could replace.

  • #65
    9 months ago
    ComradComrad Posts: 118

    Radio Intercept is no good for the 10 and subsequent minutes of the game, only for the first five. It, in principle, can be only at the Partisan's commander because she approaches though to him, I think, it is possible to replace her with the air scout.
    But if you think so, then the recruits can be issued as standard, without a commander, 3 rifle SVT (60 ammo), but the PPSh will remain the commander.
    As well, the lend-lease commander is supposed to be the ability to "Weapons of lend-lease", which includes the Thompson submachine Guns (penal battalion) and M1 Garand (conscripts), as well as Bazooka, but it should be in the truck that needs to be changed to the current M5 assault group (this ability is useless in the later stages of the game, and, frankly, constantly), so this ability should be M3, which will be able to upload a Bazooka, you can, of course, the Vickers machine guns and medkits, but mostly bazookas.
    Only in this case the Lend-lease Tactics can be used at the whole stage of the game, because now it is necessary to build Shermans, and this is bad, it is easier to make a few SU-85, which will be more powerful and continue to shoot. But if there is a "Lend-lease Weapon" for the infantry, then this commander can really help to cope with the German infantry and tanks. The ANC, supply drop, assault team on the M5 is useless (except for the M5, it can be upgraded to M17, but it gives little).

  • #66
    9 months ago

    @Comrad

    Thompsons, M9 Bazookas, M1 Garands and Carbines were never issued to the Soviets. This is because the Soviets had no access to .45ACP nor 30.06 cartridges. The Soviets did receive M1 Bazookas from the US in 1942 though, which prompted the design of the Panzerschreck in 1943. Most Lend Lease equipment issued to the Soviets by the US were M4 MBTs, Jeeps, Halftracks, M1 Bazookas, Steel, Food, Petroleum, Radio Equipment and Alcohol.

    So, I will agree that providing the soviets with the Bazooka through a M3 resupply halftrack [Even though it's the M9 version] is still fine.

  • #67
    9 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 345

    The Resupply Half-Track seems like the people's choice when it comes to Lend-Lease commanders. With the British version, it was suggested the LMG would be the M1919 (they used a .303 chambered version) but, given the Soviets never used them, maybe the DP-27 could be carried instead. This would give Soviet infantry under a Lend-Lease commander a great deal of flexibility not seen under any other commander. Given the unpopularity of Supply Drops, the Resupply Half-Track might take its place in the Lend-Lease commander's roster.

    It's a pity that the Hurricane and the Airacobra aren't in the game. The Soviets used thousands of these types and they would fit the Lend-Lease concept perfectly.

  • #68
    9 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 345

    I have to say, I agree with @Comrad. The Guard Assault team needs a tweak. Perhaps if they carried more grenades they'd be worth their place in the line-up. If they had AT and smoke grenades in addition to their frags, they'd certainly make better assault troops. Right now they seem like a lesser version of Guards Infantry.

  • #69
    9 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 345

    I was comparing the OKW Fortifications commander with the Ostheer Defensive commander when I was struck by how much stronger they are than their Soviet counterpart. In addition to the defences and fortification items, they both include the 88 mm Pak 43 and an artillery strike in their respective rosters. The Soviet Defensive commander, by comparison, gets some cheap mines and a 45 mm AT gun. It seems to me that this commander needs a revamp to balance the situation and make him a more desirable proposition. Here's how I would revamp this commander:

    I've replaced the mines with Anti-Tank Gun Ambush Tactics, which is still a defensive item and doesn't really change the balance of this commander. The mines are handy but not really necessary, given the availability of non-doctrinal mines. The AT camouflage is meant to offer the Soviet player something similar to the Ostheer's Hull Down. It's not as good at protecting units that use it but, it increases the chances of achieving first strike, it comes in earlier and it applies to all AT units, not just tanks.

    I've swapped out the M-42 AT gun with the Incendiary Artillery Barrage. The M-42 is handy against light vehicles but, the Soviets don't really need a light AT option. They've already got Penal squads for that. I could have tried to emulate the German commanders by including a heavy AT gun but, the only doctrinal gun the Soviets have is the B-4 Howitzer and it's just not accurate enough to do the same job as the 88.

    What this commander really needs is an artillery strike and the incendiary barrage is the only one available to the Soviets. The combination of this strike with the heavy mortar gives the Defensive commander enough firepower to deal with enemy infantry attacks in a manner similar to his German counterparts. The incendiary barrage isn't as powerful as the German strikes and is useless against armor but, it is available earlier and it's cheaper to use.

    I thought about trying to create a commander who was just as strong as his German counterparts but, it would be a radical departure from his nature. Instead, I've chosen to stay close to the essence of this commander, while still beefing him up just a bit.

  • #70
    9 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 345

    Here's another revamp I'd like to see:

    In this case, advanced warfare means the ability to support units away from the base. The Forward Headquarters and Conscript Repairs allow a player to create a forward mini-base in a manner similar to other factions. The Assault Package and PTAB Bombing Run combination gives the commander some punch against both infantry and tanks.

    [All Command Points, costs and values remain as they are.]

  • #71
    9 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,778
    I'd like to see assault guards a bit more and a rework of lend lease that feels more... Lend lease.

    Make the halftrack a copy of the brit one but drop BARs and Zooks (cons only have 1 slot now so they wouldn't become too strong) besides a call in of a unit you can build with a slight twist is kinda lame...
  • #72
    9 months ago
    Naya_TyanNaya_Tyan Russia Posts: 122

    There is such an offer about the Soviet commander of "Land-Liza"

  • #73
    9 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 345

    @MSAF_Unbekannt_15 I have done my homework on Lend-Lease and this is the most historically accurate version of this commander I can devise:

    All the weapons were used by the Soviets, including the Bren and the PIAT from the Resupply Half-track. The Shermans, half-tracks and trucks used numbered in the thousands. The infantry weapons used numbered in the hundreds.

    This is by no means a definitive version because, I would have included a P-39 Airacobra Loiter if it were available. Alas, no such luck. Given what's available, this is the best I could do. It's both historically accurate and it looks like it might be fun to play. Cheers.

  • #74
    9 months ago
    ComradComrad Posts: 118

    @PanzerFutz написал:
    @MSAF_Unbekannt_15 I have done my homework on Lend-Lease and this is the most historically accurate version of this commander I can devise:

    All the weapons were used by the Soviets, including the Bren and the PIAT from the Resupply Half-track. The Shermans, half-tracks and trucks used numbered in the thousands. The infantry weapons used numbered in the hundreds.

    This is by no means a definitive version because, I would have included a P-39 Airacobra Loiter if it were available. Alas, no such luck. Given what's available, this is the best I could do. It's both historically accurate and it looks like it might be fun to play. Cheers.

    Really. But I think Sherman should be over 10 points and called out as one of the special machines.
    I have many ideas for a new commander and you will see them, but it will be closer at the moment when there will be topics about the "New Soviet commander".

  • #75
    9 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,778
    I don't like the wc51 in lend lease. Soviet already have the m3a1 and don't need something like that. They overlap to the max.
  • #76
    9 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 345
    edited August 2018

    @thedarkarmadillo Yes and no. I deliberately wasn't very specific about the details of this unit because, I wanted to see what people thought about it.

    First, the WC51 comes as a call-in, meaning a player can use it without needing to build the Special Rifle Command. I frequently build the Support Weapon Kampaneya first and the call-in would give me a transport/recon unit before needing to build the SRC. It also requires no fuel so, it can come in early without impinging on a player's fuel stocks.

    Second, the WC51 would come with the same abilities as the US version, meaning it can do some things the M3A1 can't (Mark Target, 155mm Artillery Barrage*, and de-crewing to take territory). When the WC51 first appeared, it was just a transport that could be used for recon. Now, because of the extra abilities, it's a recon car that can also be used for transport. It's a small but crucial difference. Ultimately, it will be up to the developers to decide if they want to include it and what abilities it has but, I'm suggesting it be like the US version specifically because it brings something the M3A1 doesn't have.

    I thought about using the US M5 light tank instead. However, that's not really historically accurate because, the Soviets mostly used the M3 version. They only used a small number of M5's and not as front-line combat units. On top of that, the same issue would arise with having 2 units that do the same job - this time with the T70. The only way to differentiate them would be to include canister rounds for the M5 but, that's not really much of a difference.

    I believe the WC51 presents more of a difference to the M3A1 than the M5 does to the T70 and therefore has greater value.

    The difficulty with the Lend-Lease commander is finding things already in the game that fit the doctrine and were actually used by the Soviets in real life. I could have suggested the Wolverine but, the Soviets only used ~60 of them so, I thought that put it in the same basket as the M5 light tank (unrealistic). That just leaves the British Valentine - it wouldn't come with a Sexton veterancy upgrade but, the map hack might have some use. However, it doesn't arrive until 6 CP and I've read enough posts critical of the Valentine to discount that idea so, I stuck with the WC51.

    If you can find something in the game made by the US or the British, where the Soviets used more than 100 of them, I am all ears.

    [*For all intents and purposes, the 155mm US Arty is no different to the Soviet 152mm Arty. There's no need to change this.]

  • #77
    9 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 345

    As an addendum to my last post, I would like to add that the WC51's Artillery Strike ability would go some way to redressing the lack of variety in Soviet artillery strikes.

    Right now, the Soviet faction has only one off-map artillery strike - the Incendiary Artillery Barrage. Every other faction has at least 4 different artillery strikes (the British have 7 but they don't have any non-doctrinal artillery).

    I am aware that the Soviets get the most artillery pieces of any faction and, that when all their strikes and guns are added up, they only have 1 less than the Wehrmacht (and considerably more than the Western Front factions). But the lack of variety still bugs me.

    Personally, I would like to see a Scorched Earth incendiary overwatch strike and a Katyusha Rocket Barrage added to the game but, I get the impression that's not very likely.

  • #78
    9 months ago
    Most of the things that was suggested here are cool, but I think they are a little too "off-rules" for most of them. I still think that my suggestion about the NKVD commander works well, and I must thank @PanzerFutz for his activity and work. Now, I can't wait to see what relic will do :tongue:
  • #79
    9 months ago
    KingDarBojaKingDarBo… ColombiaPosts: 9
    edited August 2018

    I like your rework of the Defensive Tactics commander @PanzerFutz, however, I would keep the M-42 and get rid of the mortar team because you could spam cheap AT guns and use the camo in order to make "surprise" attacks to any unnoticed tank or vehicle on the battlefield. That would balance the M-42 fact of being weaker than the ZiS.

    Also, as you stated:
    "What this commander really needs is an artillery strike and the incendiary barrage is the only one available to the Soviets. The combination of this strike with the heavy mortar gives the Defensive commander enough firepower to deal with enemy infantry attacks in a manner similar to his German counterparts."

    Seems to be too much infantry focused commander for what I feel like should be more average to deal with all ingame infantry, vehicles, tanks.

    @ForsakenHunt That was a good suggestion for the "Soviet Air Forces Commander" :smiley: Although there isn't any early extra bonus besides the recon flight and the munitions drop (which is very likely to be taken down by enemy AA).

    Air Force Tactics Commander By Forsaken

  • #80
    9 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 345
    edited August 2018

    @KingDarBoja Thanks for the reply.

    Personally, I find the M-42 to be an unsatisfactory weapon.

    First, it's only capable of taking on light vehicles, unless you have a lot of them, but its Population Points are set too high for effective spamming. Which would you rather have: 2 M-42's or 1 SU-85? M-42's are fine if you're only dealing with half-tracks and scout cars but, they won't help much once medium tanks arrive.

    Second, for some strange reason, this small gun is not garrisonable. If the M-42 was garrisonable, it would be a very different proposition. As it is, the M-42 has very little anti-infantry capability and is easily defeated by infantry weapons so, it won't last long on the battlefield. Even if it's protected by a machine-gun, a mortar can still make short work of it.

    Finally, I would make the argument that the heavy machine-gun and the heavy mortar can both be used against light armor, especially if used in conjunction with a Penal squad armed with PTRS's. However, unlike the M-42, they can also be used against infantry.

    As I stated in the post, if the Soviets had a good doctrinal AT gun (like the 85mm 52-K AA gun or the 100mm BS-3) I would have included it. However, if I were to leave in the M-42, I would remove the Dushka instead of the heavy mortar. The heavy machine-gun is nice but, the heavy mortar is more versatile.

  • #81
    9 months ago

    @PanzerFutz I agree... But It would mean the total disappearance of the M42 (like the lens mount... sorry I'm obsessed) since this commander is the only one who have it (there's probably a grammar crime here).
    the 52K is a anti air gun as the AA suggests... so maybe ; but most likely maybe not.
    And as for the BS-3, Oh I would absolutely love that !
    But the best solution for now IMO is to give the commander the same light mines as the [anti-tank tactics] commander, or exchange them with the [AT gun tactics] doctrine.
    And I know this is not the topic but I would also like some buffs of the M42 (like the... no), like the ability to garrison it, a wider angle of fire (like the british AT gun pretty much) and maybe the same fire rate as the T70.

  • #82
    9 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 345

    @ЯedTurian The M-42 would still be in Urban Defense Tactics so, it wouldn't be completely gone. It fits that doctrine perfectly (well, it would if it were garrisonable).

    The 52-K had a variety of AT rounds available for it so, it was definitely used in the AT role. However, it was an AA gun and was primarily used as such. The BS-3 is the closest Soviet gun to the PaK 43 and would be ideal for this commander. Unfortunately, neither gun is already in the game so, there's no chance we'll see them.

    I'm surprised the M-42's rate of fire isn't higher than the T-70. The T-70's gun had to be loaded by the tank commander, while the M-42 would've had at least one dedicated loader, possibly two (it had a crew of six). It had a 60° arc of fire (I'm not sure if the game version matches the real life version or not) while the British 6 pdr had a 90° arc of fire so, it shouldn't be the same in that regard.

    My preference for changing it would be to make it garrisonable but, at 1.6 m wide, most doors would have to be widened (with a sledgehammer) to accommodate it. Barring that, I'd drop the pop. points to 6 to make it possible to have a few more on the field. I'm not sure how other people feel about that but, it seems to me to be the only way to make this gun worth having.

  • #83
    9 months ago
    ComradComrad Posts: 118

    @PanzerFutz написал:
    @ЯedTurian The M-42 would still be in Urban Defense Tactics so, it wouldn't be completely gone. It fits that doctrine perfectly (well, it would if it were garrisonable).

    The 52-K had a variety of AT rounds available for it so, it was definitely used in the AT role. However, it was an AA gun and was primarily used as such. The BS-3 is the closest Soviet gun to the PaK 43 and would be ideal for this commander. Unfortunately, neither gun is already in the game so, there's no chance we'll see them.

    I'm surprised the M-42's rate of fire isn't higher than the T-70. The T-70's gun had to be loaded by the tank commander, while the M-42 would've had at least one dedicated loader, possibly two (it had a crew of six). It had a 60° arc of fire (I'm not sure if the game version matches the real life version or not) while the British 6 pdr had a 90° arc of fire so, it shouldn't be the same in that regard.

    My preference for changing it would be to make it garrisonable but, at 1.6 m wide, most doors would have to be widened (with a sledgehammer) to accommodate it. Barring that, I'd drop the pop. points to 6 to make it possible to have a few more on the field. I'm not sure how other people feel about that but, it seems to me to be the only way to make this gun worth having.

    I have long worked over this question, but this part of wanted to to leave for a new commander. Still, I think that the Soviet defensive commander needs this gun. She is the only one in the Soviet faction that could most effectively destroy the German tanks.

  • #84
    9 months ago
    KingDarBojaKingDarBo… ColombiaPosts: 9

    @PanzerFutz Da Comrade!

    Being honest, I only have used the M-42 at campaign scenarios since I don't own the "Defensive Tactics" neither "Urban Defense Tactics" commanders.

    At campaign scenarios, I noticed it could take down some medium tanks (after a while using 2 of them) but as you stated, the pop points are too high for effective spamming (unless changed). However, I find them very useful to counter any early vehicle or tank rush from the enemy and can easily be deployed without having to build the Support Weapon Kampaneya.

    I never noticed their weakness at multiplayer games (as stated above) but making them garrisonable is a great idea for such a light AT gun as the OKW one. But I am still against this:
    Finally, I would make the argument that the heavy machine-gun and the heavy mortar can both be used against light armor, especially if used in conjunction with a Penal squad armed with PTRS's. However, unlike the M-42, they can also be used against infantry.

    Because you keep them too infantry focused and the mortar isn't great against vehicles that can just run into your enemy lines (like the German Ostwind). Sure, you can guard them with Penal Squad equipped with PTRS (which cost ammo) but if not, you are pretty much done.

    However, if I were to leave in the M-42, I would remove the Dushka instead of the heavy mortar. Well the Dushka has a nice anti-armor against vehicles if used correctly (loved it on the "Lend Lease Tactics") and has better perfomance against infantry (better supression) at the cost of less firing angle.

    Note: Everything I stated is based on my experience, not checking any stats unit guide.

    @ЯedTurian @Comrad Not sure if that is already ingame but remember, not new units. :(

  • #85
    9 months ago
    ComradComrad Posts: 118

    @KingDarBoja написал:
    @PanzerFutz Da Comrade!

    Being honest, I only have used the M-42 at campaign scenarios since I don't own the "Defensive Tactics" neither "Urban Defense Tactics" commanders.

    At campaign scenarios, I noticed it could take down some medium tanks (after a while using 2 of them) but as you stated, the pop points are too high for effective spamming (unless changed). However, I find them very useful to counter any early vehicle or tank rush from the enemy and can easily be deployed without having to build the Support Weapon Kampaneya.

    I never noticed their weakness at multiplayer games (as stated above) but making them garrisonable is a great idea for such a light AT gun as the OKW one. But I am still against this:
    Finally, I would make the argument that the heavy machine-gun and the heavy mortar can both be used against light armor, especially if used in conjunction with a Penal squad armed with PTRS's. However, unlike the M-42, they can also be used against infantry.

    Because you keep them too infantry focused and the mortar isn't great against vehicles that can just run into your enemy lines (like the German Ostwind). Sure, you can guard them with Penal Squad equipped with PTRS (which cost ammo) but if not, you are pretty much done.

    However, if I were to leave in the M-42, I would remove the Dushka instead of the heavy mortar. Well the Dushka has a nice anti-armor against vehicles if used correctly (loved it on the "Lend Lease Tactics") and has better perfomance against infantry (better supression) at the cost of less firing angle.

    Note: Everything I stated is based on my experience, not checking any stats unit guide.

    @ЯedTurian @Comrad Not sure if that is already ingame but remember, not new units. :(

    Everything can be done if they want. But I think the Dushka is a bad machine gun. It makes no sense to wait for 2 points and only in order to cause a machine gun that will "slightly" cause damage to the technique. It's easier to make 2-3 Maxim gun, + to support three detachments of recruits with improved grenades RPGs. M-42 is not a bad gun, but absolutely useless in the later stages of the game due to its low armor penetration. Her rate her nothing gives vs Panther and king tiger.

  • #86
    9 months ago
    Well well well
    Since [anti tank tactics] provide camo and higher damaged+higher pen, it would most likely couter the cons of the m42,except its incredibly slow rate of fire.
    @PanzerFutz thanks, I didn't knew about these angles values !
  • #87
    9 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 345
    edited August 2018

    @KingDarBoja If an Ostwind has charged your line, your M-42's will be destroyed before the Ostwind is, unless they are supported by other light AT units (like Dushkas or Penals).

    As I said in my post about the WC51 truck, I usually build the Support Weapons Kampaneya first. I like to get Maxims (and ZiS-3's) onto the battlefield as quickly as possible. I don't really need the heavy machine-gun or the anti-personnel mines. I do find the heavy mortar useful, mostly because it can outrange and overpower any other mortar. It's a good counter to any attempt to disrupt my defenses using infantry weapons.

    When I use my Defensive Tactics commander, it's because I want to use Tank Traps on a map which is suited to them. I sometimes use the M-42 because it's cheaper and I can cover more of the battlefield. However, I know that I need at least 2 to stop any light armor attacks before they do much damage so, in practice, it's more expensive than having a single ZiS-3.

    My sources say that the M-42 could fire 20 rounds per minute (1 every 3 seconds) while most WW2 AT guns could fire around 15 shots per minute (1 every 4 seconds). This should make it one of the fastest firing AT guns in the game. If that's not the case, then the game has it wrong and they need to fix it. It definitely should fire faster than a T-70.

    I do see the point that, with the addition of an Incendiary Barrage, the doctrine is more anti-infantry. The AT Gun Ambush Tactics was meant to provide the balance but, it would also improve the effectiveness of the M-42 if it were still available. As I said, I'd be willing to see the M-42 replace the Dushka but, ultimately it's not up to me.

    We'll just have to wait and see what the developers decide to do.

    @Comrad We won't be seeing the BS-3 but, even if we did, it would come in at 8 Command Points, like the 88 mm Pak-43. 5 CP is way too low.

  • #88
    9 months ago

    @PanzerFutz People are forgetting why M-42 AT guns are in Urban Defense Tactics. That Forward Headquarters essentially increases AT-gun damage by 50%, effectively turning M-42s into ZiS-3s with faster fire-rate but lower penetration. Try putting a ZiS-3 near the Forward HQ and watch it fire with the punch of a Pak 43.

  • #89
    9 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 345

    @MSAF_Unbekannt_15 This discussion is about the Defensive Tactics commander and his M-42. It doesn't have the Forward HQ buff.

    I proposed a revamp of this commander up-thread (post #69) to bring him more into line with the German Defensive commander and the OKW Fortifications commander, both of which are way more powerful than their Soviet counterpart.

    The question is: which units would be kept and which would be swapped to make this commander a bit more viable?

    Initially, I dropped the M-42 but, I'm coming around to the view that, with the introduction of AT Gun Ambush Tactics into the doctrine, the M-42 might be worth keeping instead of the Dushka.

    Your technical insight would certainly be welcome in this discussion.

  • #90
    8 months ago

    @KingDarBoja Thanks for making that air forces thing, it looks cool. And i know things can get shot down, but that adds to the balance and challenge of the game. You can always hunt down that nasty aa gun lol. Thanks again.

  • #91
    8 months ago

    @PanzerFutz said:
    Here's another revamp I'd like to see:

    In this case, advanced warfare means the ability to support units away from the base. The Forward Headquarters and Conscript Repairs allow a player to create a forward mini-base in a manner similar to other factions. The Assault Package and PTAB Bombing Run combination gives the commander some punch against both infantry and tanks.

    [All Command Points, costs and values remain as they are.]

    I like it, and that Il-2 Strafe Strike was always useless in the original Advanced Warfare Doctrine. It needs some buff to actually suppress or even do damage to something instead of being a waste of 90 munitions with a 60sec cooldown.

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.