British - New Commander Mod Official Discussion

24

Comments

  • #32
    7 months ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 93

    Worries me how good toomys with thompsons are gonna be mid to late game with a lot of yellow cover

  • #33
    7 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    Vehicle Priority on the M10 doesn't seem to work at this time. The icon is there but it still shoots at infantry
  • #34
    7 months ago
    DarjeelingMK7Darjeelin… Posts: 244
    > @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > Vehicle Priority on the M10 doesn't seem to work at this time. The icon is there but it still shoots at infantry

    +1
  • #35
    7 months ago
    DarjeelingMK7Darjeelin… Posts: 244
    Replace M3 with M5 is good but i still prefer smoke raid more than crews repair, alow more aggressive and be able advance further in enemy line.

    Replace M1 mortar with pack howitzer also will be nicer since M1 seem standard. If this happen, Pack howitzer then should be builable from platoon cp rather than call in. With this, pack can be merge with M5 to free out a slot for off map, which this Commander lack. The ability can be called "lend - lease equipment", onsists of M5 and pack howitzer buildable.
  • #36
    7 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    > @Hyguy said:
    > @Aiborne82 said:
    > I've said this once and Im gonna say this again. The Achilles is great but I really do think it needs to be changed to the M4A3 Sherman. It makes more sense for the commander and the British already have an exhausting amount of AT capabilities between Piats, AT Sniper, AEC, 6 Pounder, 17 Pounder, and the Firefly. Give us a durable tank that can dish out a little bit of both without having to rely on the AA tank please. I mean if people disagree that's fine but the Brits already have more AT options than any other faction in the game and now we are just adding on more here
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > I'm not much of a forum warrior but on this one I have to agree that the Brits should get the Sherman over the M10. The M10 is just too fragile and doesn't do enough output for the Brits. The Cromwell preforms better against tanks than the M10. It'd probably be better to give them another generalist Medium tank that can actually bolster the roster a bit

    The point of the m10 is to offer a cheap and mobile alternative to the VERY expensive and slow firefly a sherman will directly be competing with the cromwell and comet instead of opening a new avenue

    And no, the cromwell doesn't outperform the TD at Ding Ts.
  • #37
    7 months ago
    MartevallMartevall Posts: 108
    +1
  • #38
    7 months ago
    REIREIREIREI Posts: 1

    I want a Priest or a Katyusha

  • #39
    7 months ago
    SlayerSlayer Posts: 132
    Play USF or Soviet then.
  • #40
    7 months ago
    YorgoYorgo Posts: 3

    I think that the halftrack is better with the AA, I think that it can be usefull, but still, I think sometings like commandos or stuart can be better. I do think that a sherman can be better than the m10 or put a jackson in there

  • #41
    7 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    > @Yorgo said:
    > I think that the halftrack is better with the AA, I think that it can be usefull, but still, I think sometings like commandos or stuart can be better. I do think that a sherman can be better than the m10 or put a jackson in there

    You are asking for units that are already very similar to units in the roster. The Stuart would o erlap with the AEC, and the sherman would be competing with the cromwell. They function very similar and would detract from unit variety. Doctrinal units should open up new options, not simply be a reskin of existing units in the faction.
  • #42
    7 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @thedarkarmadillo It's funny you should say that because, I was thinking that the halftrack now overlaps not 1 but 2 units in the UK arsenal: the Carrier and the Centaur. I agree that doctrinal units should open up new options, which is why I'm not a fan of the halftrack.

    It is a useful unit but, I'd rather have an off-map strike in its place. This doctrine needs a bit more oomph, in my opinion; right now, it feels a bit weak. I'd suggest a Priest but, I don't think that's going to have much traction with the balance team (even though the British did use them and it conforms to the established practice of giving the UK additional artillery support through its commanders).

  • #43
    7 months ago
    DarjeelingMK7Darjeelin… Posts: 244
    The carrier cant reinforce while the centaur is too expensive if you only need an AA platform, so M5 HT fit in.
  • #44
    7 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    @PanzerFutz as said above the halftrack functions first and foremost as mobile reinforcement which is a role UKF lack entirely. It functions as AA secondary and allows UKF a cheap alternative to the centaur which is one of the more expensive AA options and currently UKFs only one that works. Meanwhile the sherman and cromwell vary slightly but not enough to warrant being available together. Look at all other doctrinal mediums:
    Ost has a stubby p4 and soon an up armored p4.
    Usf has an AT sherman with HVAP and low AI as well as an uparmoured up penned sherman that can brawl.
    Soviet has the 85, which is bigger and better in every way and the m4c sherman that offers more AT and a more reliable tank than the t34
    UKF has not only the cromwell but also the comet so either Tha easy 8 or 76mm would step on the toes of the already under represented comet (likley they wouldn't need hammer tech to unlock) and the m4 would compete with the cromwell. The Stuart would fight with the AEC which is designed to also be tech specific so being able to get a light tank and a bofors is against the faction design. One could maybe argue for the m8 since UKF lacks mobile indirect fire but the m10 and halftrack already fit in well with filling holes. I'd sooner see the mortar swapped with a pak howi than lose either the cheap AT and mobile reinforcement / amazing AA option.
  • #45
    7 months ago
    Aiborne82Aiborne82 Posts: 17
    edited April 3

    See Im going to highly disagree on this one. You are comparing the Sherman and the Cromwell as if they are the same thing. Even the Stuart would be more useful than the M10. The M10 is basically a downgraded Firefly. Its way too fragile and up against the rest of the quite large British anti-tank options it just doesn't feel useful. Its an irrelevant system when I can just choose a Cromwell or a 17 pounder that will do just as much if not more damage against enemy tanks. Sure the M10 has a slightly better gun but the Cromwell is going to get many more shots off since it doesn't get obliterated in 3 shots. The Sherman adds a viable anti-infantry option that the British just don't have in their roster when it comes to tanks. Outside of maybe the Churchill the Sherman gives the British a tank that can actually take care of the blobs that some German Infantry compositions ridiculously preform at while still holding its own against armor. This makes it so that the British can reliably invest some kind of fuel into a tank that can take on a bit of both Infantry and Armor without having to buy the Cromwell which is laughable against any kind of large German Infantry group or the Centaur which is completely nullified as soon as the first German tank roles out. The M10 is just as guilty if not more so of not adding anything to the British roster without diversifying their armor capabilities.

  • #46
    7 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    The m10 provides an AT option that's half the price of the firefly. The FF is better absolutely but it's one of the most expensive TDs in the game and also one of the slowest. The m10 in a completely different approach to AT than the firefly which is why it's a valid option. It's arguably more valid in the UKF lineup than the USF lineup as in the UFS lineup its the same as the Jackson is also very mobile.
    Slightly better AI a good doctrinal unit does not make. All things considered the sherman is too similar to existing options to be an interesting doctrinal option. The m10 at least opens up new play options and a cheaper alternative to the clumsy firefly.
  • #47
    7 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346
    edited April 4

    From my perspective, the halftrack is a weak, "balancing" unit, included to stop the slot from being filled by something more powerful. Yes, it can be used as a mobile reinforcement vehicle but, that purpose could have been filled by the Resupply Halftrack. Plus, the UK always has the non-doctrinal Forward Assembly to reinforce (and heal) away from base, if a player wants to use it. And, yes, it is a cheaper (and weaker) alternative to the Centaur so, if an AA platform is all you seek, it is a more cost-effective solution. The appeal of the halftrack is that it is a cheap "jack-of-all-trades" unit. However, this doctrine still feels weak to me and the halftrack seems like the best item to remove, in order to make way for something more powerful. But, that's exactly what won't happen so, I guess we're stuck with it.

    As for the Sherman/Wolverine issue, I see this debate from a slightly different perspective. For me, the problem with the M10 isn't with its lack of armor or anti-infantry rounds. In my opinion, the issue is that it has the same problem that every British tank has: the lack of a top-gunner. I don't know whose bright idea it was to nobble every British tank in this way but, since the removal of the "crush" ability, British tanks suck against infantry. The only exception is the Churchill. The reason a Sherman would be better for this commander isn't just the HE rounds, it's that it would finally give the British a tank with a top-gunner. Tanks with top-gunners can engage multiple targets at once; the only tank in the British arsenal which can do this currently is the Crocodile.

    If you want to talk about "balance", then you need to start by addressing the fact that every German tank comes with a top-gunner (not including TD's, armored cars or command tanks). They can always engage multiple targets and have a distinct advantage over the factions which don't have top-gunners. Giving the Brits a single commander with a tank which can engage more than one target at a time will redress this issue to some degree, without unbalancing the whole game.

  • #48
    7 months ago
    ssanti93ssanti93 Posts: 4
    edited April 4

    Since British dont have many indirect fire options and this mortars are lock behind a commnader, we should give those lend lease mortars a little of british flavor.
    Give them two different and exclusive between them upgrades:
    -Artillery support: just like the coordinated fire upgrade from infantery section, the mortar launch a single shell to mark base artillery strike (same range as normal mortar barrage, have a share cooldown with mortar barrage, smoke barrage and other coordinated fire abilities).
    -Frontline overwatch: give the mortar access to counter barrage.

    I dont remember the vet level of this unit but i will change vet 3 with:
    -Vet 3: Increase range of artillery support upgrade and frontline overwatch mortar have access to flares just like the soviet mortar.

    Also, i dont know if they fix it in update 3.0 but universal carriers upgrated with vickers dont get the suppresion ability.

  • #49
    7 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    BUG - Current mod has disabled all emplacements. Yikes!

    @ssanti93 I really like your idea of adding Coordinated Fire to the Mortar Team but, given that it's a single round, it shouldn't share the cooldown with the other barrages. It would be nice to have it add to the coordinated barrage before it goes into cooldown.

  • #50
    7 months ago
    YorgoYorgo Posts: 3

    What if we get a valentine tank instead of a halftrak ?

  • #51
    7 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346
    edited April 6

    I don't want to see one weak item replaced by another. I want this commander to be balanced when compared to the other new commanders. Look at the highest CP items for each faction:

    Wmt: Tiger Ace (15 CP)
    OKW: Tiger (13 CP)
    Svt: Rocket Strafe (10 CP)
    USF: Calliope (10 CP)
    UKF: Vehicle Crew Repairs (6 CP)

    One of these things is not like the others. The Germans get heavy tanks, the US and the Soviets get rockets, and the British get... Vehicle Crew Repairs. Really? This is "balanced"?

    I'm not dismissing Crew Repairs; it's a very handy ability. But it shouldn't be the highest CP item in any doctrine. The UK faction deserves something of similar strength to the items given to the other factions, preferably some sort of artillery (given that the UK has no organic artillery in its arsenal).

    I can just imagine the stink it would cause if the Wehrmacht's strongest ability was Relief Infantry or if the Soviet's was Propaganda Artillery (both 6 CP). I guess the Brits are just supposed to keep a stiff upper lip and take it on the chin.

    As it is, "balance" is not what I see when I look at this commander.

  • #52
    7 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    Highest thing in the commander isn't all there is to a commander. UKF one comes with 3 units they unlike anything they have in their stock lineup and an upgrade for their mainline infantry. Looking at the latest thing available doesn't paint the full picture. Admittedly the UKF one isn't as flashy as the likes of the Soviet one but it arguably brings the most to the faction than any other commander does.
  • #53
    7 months ago
    DarjeelingMK7Darjeelin… Posts: 244
    Bug: The mod locked out all emplacement.
  • #54
    7 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @thedarkarmadillo You're right. The item with the highest CP value doesn't indicate the quality of the commander; even the Concentration Barrage at 4 CP would be welcome in this doctrine.

    You're also right about the number of unique units that come with this commander but, most of them fill very specific holes in the British arsenal. The UK doesn't have assault troops with sub-machineguns, mobile mortars or a good armored unit to fill the gap between the Cromwell and the Firefly. It is great that the UK is finally getting a commander which addresses these deficiencies. But, do you know what else the UK doesn't have? A non-doctrinal artillery unit.

    Every other faction has non-doctrinal artillery which can out-range and inflict more damage than the UK's mortars. I suspect that, in a real match, all those unique units will get chewed up by rocket attacks and there will be nothing with which to counter them (unless you can get a sniper close enough to unleash a Coordinated Barrage). This commander needs some form of artillery to redress this imbalance. Even something as simple as adding the Coordinated Barrage ability to the mortar would help.

    One of the other 2 items in the roster needs to go to make way for some artillery. If novelty is important, then the halftrack should stay. However, while the halftrack is a new item, it does overlap other items already in the UK arsenal so, it isn't really necessary. If overall utility is important, then Crew Repairs should stay because, in the late stages of a game, being able to repair vehicles without using Engineers is a major bonus.

    Personally, I'd rather see the halftrack go but, I'm not completely invested in that opinion. If Crew Repairs is replaced by some form of artillery, I'd still be satisfied.

  • #55
    7 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    If they replaced Crew Repairs with the Priest, that would be a historically accurate Lend-Lease item. Just sayin'.

  • #56
    7 months ago
    MartevallMartevall Posts: 108
    > @PanzerFutz said:
    > If they replaced Crew Repairs with the Priest, that would be a historically accurate Lend-Lease item. Just sayin'.

    IT will be strange a little cause brits have at this moment sexton
  • #57
    7 months ago
    MartevallMartevall Posts: 108
    I know this is lend-lease regiment but i'm my opinion smoke raid was the best option causing to be the most agressive early to mid game british commander
  • #58
    7 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822

    @PanzerFutz said:
    @thedarkarmadillo You're right. The item with the highest CP value doesn't indicate the quality of the commander; even the Concentration Barrage at 4 CP would be welcome in this doctrine.

    You're also right about the number of unique units that come with this commander but, most of them fill very specific holes in the British arsenal. The UK doesn't have assault troops with sub-machineguns, mobile mortars or a good armored unit to fill the gap between the Cromwell and the Firefly. It is great that the UK is finally getting a commander which addresses these deficiencies. But, do you know what else the UK doesn't have? A non-doctrinal artillery unit.

    Every other faction has non-doctrinal artillery which can out-range and inflict more damage than the UK's mortars. I suspect that, in a real match, all those unique units will get chewed up by rocket attacks and there will be nothing with which to counter them (unless you can get a sniper close enough to unleash a Coordinated Barrage). This commander needs some form of artillery to redress this imbalance. Even something as simple as adding the Coordinated Barrage ability to the mortar would help.

    One of the other 2 items in the roster needs to go to make way for some artillery. If novelty is important, then the halftrack should stay. However, while the halftrack is a new item, it does overlap other items already in the UK arsenal so, it isn't really necessary. If overall utility is important, then Crew Repairs should stay because, in the late stages of a game, being able to repair vehicles without using Engineers is a major bonus.

    Personally, I'd rather see the halftrack go but, I'm not completely invested in that opinion. If Crew Repairs is replaced by some form of artillery, I'd still be satisfied.

    many doctrines lack artillery, and those that have it generally have the commander built around it. if you get a priest or sexton in this commander why would anyone ever pick the dedicated arty commander?
    for longer ranged arty the ukf technically have the arty flares on the sniper and tommies.

  • #59
    7 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    You make some good points so, I'll address them one at a time.

    First, many doctrines do lack artillery, just not among the British commanders. However, those doctrines which lack artillery all belong to factions which possess non-doctrinal artillery units. Every British doctrine contains some strike element (except this one) precisely because, the UK has no non-doctrinal artillery units. Even Tactical Support has the strike elements associated with the Forward Observation Post. As I've said, it doesn't have to be a Priest; it could be any strike package available to the Brits. It could even be the Forward Observation Post itself but, this doctrine needs something which gives it a bit more bite.

    Second, the Royal Artillery commander has a lot more than just the Sexton. Every single item relates to artillery, even the Valentine has its Sexton Barrage ability. Royal Artillery is perhaps the most powerful doctrine available to the UK but, it's also the most munitions intensive. In my opinion, a doctrine with a Priest in it will not displace it. However, as I have said repeatedly, it doesn't have to be a Priest but, this doctrine needs some punch.

    As for the Coordinated Barrage, snipers and FO tommies have to get mighty close to deploy their flares. They usually die long before they get anywhere near a Panzerwerfer which is chewing up their chums. That's why I think having the barrage attached to the 81mm mortar makes a lot of sense; it would allow the barrage to be used against targets at a greater range. The sniper would only have to get close enough to spot the target, then the mortar could call in the barrage from a safe distance. That alone might just be enough to make this doctrine viable.

    I guess I'm worried that, if this commander gets released without some form of strike, it will drift into irrelevance once other factions realize they can beat it by using their own non-doctrinal artillery. It would be pretty silly if this new commander had to be included in the next revamp (if there is one) because, they didn't get it right before releasing it.

    As an aside, one of the most suggested items for the new British commander was Strafing Support and yet it never got a look-in. If that was used in this doctrine, I can guarantee it would have a lot of popularity.

  • #60
    7 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822

    if you want an off map, thats not unreasonable. pehaps assault tommies could be combined with the halftrack (like assault guards) then as a unique unit instead of an upgrade they could have their vet tuned for an assault role. that would open a slot for an off map. a mobile howitzer would be too much imo though

  • #61
    7 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @thedarkarmadillo I like the way you think. I'm not sure if they can do it but, I hope so. I'd like to see the assault tommies tuned-up in that way, maybe getting access to the gammon bomb (either version) as a bonus . I just hope the team is listening. The Brits could use something like the Assault Guards and, as implied, it's not an unprecedented idea.

    If they do add an off-map, it doesn't need to be anything particularly strong. As I've said, the Concentration Barrage would be good but, Mortar Cover or Strafing Support would also work.

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.