USF - New Commander Mod Official Discussion

13

Comments

  • #62
    3 months ago
    Matulko13Matulko13 Posts: 10

    I know my word is nothing but in the mode I think that new commander urban is pretty weak and its like taking everythink good and replacing it by really bad combination of thinks

  • #63
    3 months ago
    Matulko13Matulko13 Posts: 10

    we need there additional tank like pershing and easy eight or M4A3

  • #64
    3 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,722

    USF - Urban Assault ver. 3
    In my opinion:

    CP 0 Rear Echelon Rifle Grenades

    The ability is simply too strong for Rear echelons who no longer feel like rear echelons.
    They currently have Rifle-grenades, smoke and volley fire.

    R.E. are now turned into a more mobile mortar able to attack provide smoke and attack ground while being able to suppress...

    Once in garrison they difficult to dislodge, while in pit they can fire 2 rifle-grenades and can squad wipe.

    They are very effective vs lmg grenadier forcing them to move and lose DPS or cover.

    Suggestions:
    Upgrade should take up all weapon slot
    Move ability to riflemen and swap it with flamers from riflemen company

    CP 0 Renamed Urban Assault Kit
    Incendiary Grenades too strong in riflemen.
    M4A3 Shermans can now fire a single WP shell at the target position for 20 munitions.
    This ability seem very strong vs Paks.

    Suggestions:
    Move molotov to Rangers
    WP should be redesign to do damage vs garrison and not vs units in the open.

    CP 3 Rangers
    Unit is OP compared to PG for about the same manpower cost.

    Suggestions:
    Consider removing the damage reduction, reducing the Thompson DPS at range 15-20, removing extra slot.
    Or one can tone them down and move them to CP 2.

    CP 5 Cover to Cover
    Ability seems a better version of tactical movement.
    Could increase the power level of USF blobs, far better ability than fire it up.

    CP 10 Calliope
    The unit is rather difficult to counter and not really good in urban map.

    Suggestions:
    Replace with Dozer

  • #65
    3 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    My feeling is that they should make 2 assault packages, one for infantry and one for armor.

    (0 CP) Infantry Assault Package

    • Rear Echelons get Flamethrower upgrade (1 free slot after upgrade)
    • Riflemen get Rifle Grenade upgrade (1 free slot after upgrade)
    • Rangers get Molotovs

    (5 CP) Sherman Assault Package

    • Shermans get WP shells
    • Shermans get Dozer Blade upgrade

    The Calliope is a bit of a conundrum - it's a good unit but, it's not really suited to urban combat. The Sherman 105 is better for urban combat but, it leaves the doctrine without a good long-range strike option. It's really a matter of personal taste.

  • #66
    3 months ago

    @PanzerFutz said:
    My feeling is that they should make 2 assault packages, one for infantry and one for armor.

    (0 CP) Infantry Assault Package

    • Rear Echelons get Flamethrower upgrade (1 free slot after upgrade)
    • Riflemen get Rifle Grenade upgrade (1 free slot after upgrade)
    • Rangers get Molotovs

    (5 CP) Sherman Assault Package

    • Shermans get WP shells
    • Shermans get Dozer Blade upgrade

    The Calliope is a bit of a conundrum - it's a good unit but, it's not really suited to urban combat. The Sherman 105 is better for urban combat but, it leaves the doctrine without a good long-range strike option. It's really a matter of personal taste.

    You cant just put everything in one slot of commander skill man.... The other factions are not "rich" like this.

  • #67
    3 months ago

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    can we talk a bit about the rifle nades?
    i feel that they may be too much due to their range.
    they are a great addition abut i feel thay are very much over performing. they can be fired from building and over shot blockers at a tremendous range and i fell that makes them a bit too strong

    any thoughts?

    I do agree with you. I like this idea that add rife grenades (RG) into this game and it is indeed interesting one. However, the RG is definitely over performing. One as you mentioned, the RG could be fired from buildings with a looooong rang, even more farther than a MG? That is too much for this game.

    Another point is, RG is like a free-grenade in common infantry squad, we have to think of the issue that someone may abuse such an aggressive unit and make it looks dirty.....

  • #68
    3 months ago

    @Yanggesaisi yeah one thing I've noticed is that the USF kind of get more abilities than they should. Relic likes to combine abilities into one to overpopulate the commanders. I think one has not one but TWO "abilities" that give two units each, so thats like 4 total vehicles from just two slots. The only other ability I can think of like this that isnt USF is the early warning systems for OKW, but thats just a Goliath, which is situationally useful, and the flares, which are all but useless.

  • #69
    3 months ago
    WAAAGH2000WAAAGH2000 Posts: 48

    Better bundle RE rifle grenade with flamethrower,and change to all already have flamethrower commander too,only flamethrower use one commander ability is waste

  • #70
    3 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346
    edited April 11

    Why don't we compare apples with apples and not apples with pineapples? Other factions may not be "rich" with multiple upgrade abilities but, the US is not "rich" with heavy tanks, artillery and off-maps like other factions.

    Doctrines with a heavy tank, artillery and an off-map:

    Svt:

    • Terror
    • Guard Rifle Combined Arms

    OKW:

    • Fortifications

    US:

    • none

    Doctrines with 2 heavy tanks and either artillery or off-map:

    Svt:

    • Shock Rifle Frontline

    OKW:

    • Breakthrough

    US:

    • none

    Doctrines with 1 heavy tank and either artillery or off-map:

    Svt:

    • Shock Motor Heavy
    • Anti-infantry
    • Mechanized Support
    • Conscript Support
    • NKVD Rifle Disruption

    Ost:

    • Spearhead
    • Assault Support
    • Mechanized Assault
    • Lightning War
    • Jaeger Armor

    UK:

    • Vanguard Operations
    • Special Weapons
    • Royal Engineer

    US:

    • Heavy Cavalry (off-map is smoke only)

    It's a bit "rich" to be complaining how OP the US commander is because, it has items which contain more than one weak unit or upgrade. It's also a bit unfair to say that Reserve Armor contains 2 "units" when one of them is a Dozer Blade upgrade, something which will always be used sparingly.

    Besides, it is not unprecedented to have more than one item per slot. Mechanized infantry units contain both an infantry unit and a transport unit. Defensive Fortifications, Heavy Fortifications and Assault Package all include multiple upgrades. Supply Drop and Air Resupply Operation both deliver 2 unmanned weapons along with resources and medical supplies respectively. It's not like the US faction is getting something no other faction has ever had.

    If we're going to compare the US to the OKW, then perhaps we need to ask why the US doesn't get the Pershing with every doctrine once they've reached full tech? It would certainly fix a lot of their problems with armor and with their doctrines in general. US doctrines wouldn't have such a great need for additional armor in that situation and they could devote more slots to artillery and off-maps like other factions.

    However, I'm getting off-topic. If the US Urban Assault commander had to devote one slot to each of the upgrades, it would end up being the most p*ss-weak commander in the entire game and no-one would ever use it. The whole point was to create a doctrine that was different from any other in the US roster and that it would be one which players would want to use. Forcing the doctrine to have only one unit or upgrade per slot would relegate this commander into the "never used because it's too weak" category. We've had enough of those already; we don't need any more.

  • #71
    3 months ago

    @PanzerFutz

    Well, now you are diverging a little bit too far on this thread man because you are arguing about every single mechanism of every faction in this game........

    When you are asking to compare "apples" to "apples", some of important points you may forget to mention.

    While US has no heavy tanks for common units, which is called from bases, US has got the most powerful Tank-destroyer, most repair capability, "perfect infantry system", "excellent battlefield reconnaissance"and over-population combat ability, which is especially not possessed by any other factions.

    While you were arguing that why M26 Pershing can not be added into battlefield, you chose to forget that M26 Pershing for the moment is a call in doc unit, which means it may have some privileges in it stats no matter in flexibility, moving accuracy, penetration, or cost--only 600 Manpower, 230 Fuel and 19 Population (versus 720-280-23 and tech-lock for King tiger).

    All in all, what my point here is, if you are trying to point out any commander is not suitable, just arguing about that and make some simple statement....... for example, you believe that Dozer Blade upgrade is useless, then make your demonstration on that only, please don't pull the whole thread to another giant-grandness topic because it will make no sense at all........

    Personally, thanks to your research and study on those doctrines and units above. Hopefully US could get something you want in the new patch! :smiley:

  • #72
    3 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @Yanggesaisi OK, I'll stick to the point.

    On its own, Dozer Blade is a weak upgrade, not useless but not worth its own slot.

    On its own, Molotovs for Riflemen isn't worth its own slot, even though it makes Riflemen stronger (maybe too strong).

    On its own, the WP round for the Sherman is a weak upgrade, not useless but not worth its own slot.

    So, I don't think its too much to ask that they are bundled together into an assault package even if other factions don't have something similar. There are plenty of things other factions have which the US doesn't. 3 factions get flamers as standard equipment, 2 don't and have only one commander each that has them. Fair? I don't know but, that's just one of many anomalies in this game.

    Every faction has something the other factions don't have and I don't see this as a problem. What I believe is a problem is when every faction but one has something - that is a big issue for me. That's why the fact that the US has only one doctrine with a heavy tank bugs me so much. I'd be happy to see the cost for the Pershing lifted if the trade-off was having it available with every US doctrine.

    The Urban Assault doctrine is pretty good so, I'm not asking for any major changes - just a few minor tweaks. I'm still not sold on the Rifle Grenades (they may be OP against infantry if spammed). I would have preferred the flamethrower but, the RG's are different and worth trying. The real test will come when these new commanders make it into tournament play; then we'll know for sure just how good they are (or aren't).

  • #73
    3 months ago
    Nerf rangers????? Yes they are cheaper with 350 mp but it is a close quarter combat unit. I may accept this nerf if rangers has some kind of utility other than frag. But no relic refuses because they think offmap skoke will cover their prob

    If ranger still had DMG reduction i would have been fine. Without it though its lack of skills and expensive cost comes at a price. Relic seems to think that an offmap smoke+sprinr buff makes it up for its lack. Nut having to soley rely on 90 mmunition skill seems off to me.

    My suggestion for rangers are if they are going to remove dmage reduction will be

    1. Make rangers available in 2cp just like shock troops and guard rifle. Allowing rangers to be fielded early will make up for its nerf for late game

    2. Grant rangers with tactical assault skill when equipped with thompson.
    It will allow rangers to be differentiated with other elite infantry by focusing more on damage rather than utility. USF players will ve able to utilize rangers as high risk high retrurn close combat unit
  • #74
    3 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346
    edited April 13

    "Cover to Cover - We are slightly reducing the power of this ability to only affect units in the nearby target area."

    Translation: We are nerfing this ability back to the weak, sh*tty, slot-filling item with limited use we always intended it to be.

    Thanks, Relic. [sarc off]

  • #75
    3 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,802
    I like the change to cover to cover. Making it a targeted area ability instead of a global +smoke is a good change for actually requiring tactical use. The only reason I could see behind disliking the change is wanting it to be a brainless buff type ability instead of requiring any tactical input at all.
  • #76
    3 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346
    edited April 13

    @thedarkarmadillo I look forward to Tactical Movement being limited to a 50 meter radius.

    My dislike stems from the limited number of applications this ability has. I disliked it from the start because, I thought (mistakenly) it could only be used in this manner. Once I realized it was a US Tactical Movement with a smoke round, I warmed to it. I could use it throughout a game. Now that they've made it exactly what I didn't want to see, I'm back to thinking it's a pile of puke; a waste of a slot; something that I might use once or twice in a game. Maybe it suits other players' styles but, it doesn't suit mine.

    They're handing out Tigers like free candy to the German factions, while the Allies get weak junk. It's not my idea of "balance".

  • #77
    3 months ago
    What about
    -replace cover to cover to sth else
    -lower ranger from 3cp to 2cp
    & give rangers smoke grenade

    Clearly relic dislikes the idea of rangers being a cost effective combat unit when they removed their damage reduction. If so, why not give them utility usf needs vs heavy mg in buildings?
    1. It fits the concept of urban combat.
    2. Unlike offmap smoke barrage, it requires strategic manuever to be utilized
    3. It can also be countered by appropriate measures by an opponent.
    ex) place another mg behind to suppress rangers approaching to throw smoke

    Any opinions on this idea anyone?
  • #78
    3 months ago
    Sander93Sander93 Posts: 49
    edited April 13

    @USFzaBESTno1 said:
    Clearly relic dislikes the idea of rangers being a cost effective combat unit when they removed their damage reduction.

    Did you miss the part where their base target size was reduced from 0.8 to 0.73?

    Rangers before had 80 : 0.8 : 0.9 = ~111 effective HP per model versus small arms fire
    Rangers now have 80 : 0.73 = ~ 109.6 effective HP per model versus small arms fire

    So their performance against infantry barely changed at all. The only thing that was removed is their magical ability to tank certain explosive AOE damage that other infantry couldn't, but they got a lot cheaper in return.

  • #79
    3 months ago
    > @Sander93 said:
    > @USFzaBESTno1 said:
    > Clearly relic dislikes the idea of rangers being a cost effective combat unit when they removed their damage reduction.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Did you miss the part where their base target size was reduced from 0.8 to 0.73?
    >
    > Rangers before had 80 : 0.8 : 0.9 = ~111 effective HP per model versus small arms fire
    > Rangers now have 80 : 0.73 = ~ 109.6 effective HP per model versus small arms fire
    >
    > So their performance against infantry barely changed at all. The only thing that was removed is their magical ability to tank certain explosive AOE damage that other infantry couldn't, but they got a lot cheaper in return.

    You are right. I should have checked that part beforehand. Thx for pointing it out.
    With that said, do u think the current change for rangers enough? I still think they should either

    1. have some kind of utility
    2. offensive skills like tactical assault
    3. available at 2cp
  • #80
    3 months ago
    RomanovRomanov Posts: 48

    I'll keep saying it, Rangers are simply a boring unit, all they can do it run around and shoot stuff, occasionally chuking a grenade. i can't think off the top of my head of any unit that is so void of abilities like rangers are. no smoke, no mark tagets, concentrated fire or ability to build structures etc.Every other assault unit brings some interesting ability to the table. Even Osttruppen are more versitile than rangers. I stick with my proposal for a WP grenade with a timed fuze (since the British WP grenades were impact detonation IRL and US WP were not), other than that maybe a satchel charge or sticky bomb but those would probably be a bit much.

    the nerf for cover to cover is not so bad, tho would have gone with either the smoke shell reduction or sprint in a radius, not both. Still this should be a good ability to counter MG positions.

  • #81
    3 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,802
    Rangers have 3 weapon slots on top of a weapon rack faction and they maintain a slot after getting Thompsons. Sometimes a just kill shit unit is fine. Both ranger commanders have smoke off maps, this one bundles in sprint. Keep in mind that units in the usf roster are not meant to REPLACE riflemen
  • #82
    3 months ago
    > @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > Rangers have 3 weapon slots on top of a weapon rack faction and they maintain a slot after getting Thompsons. Sometimes a just kill shit unit is fine. Both ranger commanders have smoke off maps, this one bundles in sprint. Keep in mind that units in the usf roster are not meant to REPLACE riflemen

    I agree on you that rangers shouldn,t be a blatant replacement for rifleman, just like what guard rifles are doing for Soviets. (Personally I do not like guard rifles as they seem to be a no brainer spam infantry)

    With that said, how about giving rangers offensive skills other than grenades while nerfing their weapon slots?
    The skill that comes to mind is the tactical assault(same as skill on thompson paratroopers). Make them available when rangers are upgraded with thompsons. While it will provide huge dps, it also puts rangers in a vulnerable situation due to debuff on speed and evasion. This will make the player careful management in order to utilize ranger's full potential, unlike mindless guard rifle spam & blob.

    If this does happen though, I do think rangers weapin slot should be nerfed. If USF wants to take advantage with tactical assault on rangets, he should be having them in close combat, not in long range with 3 LMGs. That way they wont replace rifleman as a mid range core infantry.
  • #83
    3 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,802
    That makes rangers more like airborne then. Each infantry squad should fill a unique flavor. Rangers flavor is raw fire power.
  • #84
    3 months ago
    > @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > That makes rangers more like airborne then. Each infantry squad should fill a unique flavor. Rangers flavor is raw fire power.

    Considering that most usf players choose to equip airborne with lmg, i dont see no big problem with giving ranger high risk-high return ability.
    Plus, while thompson airborne comes with more utility (planted satchel), rangers will be more of a combat focused unit as they have only grenades.

    I still think giving rangers tactical assault is the best solution. It's undeniable that regardless of their power, rangers are way too boring. To me they seem like a malee version of rifleman, thx to their lack of unique abilities. They are just not fun to use.
  • #85
    3 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,802
    Their lack of utility ensures you don't completely replace rifles with them given the chance. 3 weapon slots, fantastic durability AND utility could easily become too much. It's a fine line keeping both rifles and call in infantry relevant. For the longest time paras were not worth their extra cost simply because of rifles flexibility. Make rangers too versatile and you run the same risk.

    I think you are more or less only to get 1 maybe 2 rangers as spearpoints not as replacement mainline.
  • #86
    3 months ago
    > @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > Their lack of utility ensures you don't completely replace rifles with them given the chance. 3 weapon slots, fantastic durability AND utility could easily become too much. It's a fine line keeping both rifles and call in infantry relevant. For the longest time paras were not worth their extra cost simply because of rifles flexibility. Make rangers too versatile and you run the same risk.
    >
    > I think you are more or less only to get 1 maybe 2 rangers as spearpoints not as replacement mainline.

    What about nerfing rangers weapon slot in returnfor giving tactical assault for thompson upgrade? Limit their weapon slot to 1, making them more oriented as malee combat unit? It will retain ranger's identity as a offensive close combat specialist instaed of a core infantry like rifleman. Basically like shock troops but instead of utility (smoke), more combat oriented.
  • #87
    3 months ago
    Patrol_OmegaPatrol_Om… Posts: 211

    Facts: USFs have no need for more smoke as they already have a lot of options for it, including a T0 cheap Mortar Squad, this ability falls so big compared to Axis abilities. Should be totally replaced for something more useful to counter Axis meta incoming.

  • #88
    3 months ago
    RomanovRomanov Posts: 48

    @Patrol_Omega said:
    Facts: USFs have no need for more smoke as they already have a lot of options for it, including a T0 cheap Mortar Squad, this ability falls so big compared to Axis abilities. Should be totally replaced for something more useful to counter Axis meta incoming.

    Any ideas on what that could be? So far the doctrine seems to be a mixed bag, the Urban assault kit is good, same with calliope and arguably rangers while the dozer blade is as mediocre as it is in mechanized.

  • #89
    2 months ago
    pfcpfc Posts: 8

    Ranger needs bazooka upgrade (150 munis 3 bazookas) to get bazookas without unlocking weapon rock
    New USF commander have to unlock grenade package to throw molotov and rear echelon can upgrade grenade launcher
    So It's uncomfortable to unlock grenade and weapon rock both together (lack of muni)
    This way is more reasonable I think

  • #90
    2 months ago
    RomanovRomanov Posts: 48

    A nice change to rangers a that could give them more utility. I hope both they and Paratroopers get descriptions that make it clear they perform better than other infantry with bazookas, maybe say as elite units they have access to bazooka rockets with improved warheads or something. a quad upgrade to purchase single bazookas(up to three) could also be an interesting choice like pfc suggested, but i wouldnt wanna overdo it.

  • #91
    2 months ago
    -like the change on incendiary grenade now requring an officer instead of frag inlock.
    - I still perfer rangers opting as a more close combat & anti infanty unit by either giving them thompson from a start or giving tactical assault
    -HP nerf on caliope is ridiculous. Its rocket still lands too slow to make a useful killing power. Reducing its hp means that its still a waste of a commander slot.
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.