Wehrmacht - New Commander Mod Official Discussion

24

Comments

  • #32
    8 months ago
    Friedrich2Friedrich2 Posts: 1
    edited March 22

    Tiger ace

    I would like to talk about Tiger ace in soon reworked game. It doesn't deserve to be called Tiger ace. I think this reworked ace doesn't match with unit concept. How can say ace to 0vet Tiger? Adjusting game balance is so important and I agree that. But think about what makes different Starcraft between Coh2. Game concept makes it's identity and also unit too. 'Limited 1 time call-in removed' is what? If Otto Carius die and next Michael Wittmann call in? It's weird to me. How about name it 'Command Tiger' or something?

    If you wanna 'make it a less controversial unit', just roll back 'target weak point'. Roll back is not admit your mistake. Situation is different. When released Coh2, Tiger ace was just 800 manpower and had 'target weak point'. It was almost unstoppable unit in 1v1 game. After that all tanks were nerfed, include Tiger ace, and AT guns were buffed, especially Tiger ace has been nerfed until recent date(additional 150 fuel). In this time, Tiger ace is no more unstoppable unit and extremely low pick rate prove that.

    Considering about unit spec, Tiger ace is most powerful unit. But is it willing to take a risk? That is point thing. Judging call in Tiger ace or not is player's thing to do in game. And player's ability determine success or fail. But in this time, the risk is too high to judge. Although Tiger ace have most powerful unit spec, SU-85, Jackson, another tank destroyers and AT guns are horrible things to Tiger ace. So if you roll back 'target weak point', even though tiny change, it helpful to judge call in Tiger ace or not.

    First of all, 'target weak point' does match with unit concept. Historically, Tiger aces have numerously 'tank kills'. It means they had special skill to kill tanks, so 'target weak point' is profitable to concept. And in game situation, of course it is powerful skill. but like I said, things changed. In order to call in Tiger ace, generally it is possible in late game. So, opposite player could prepare enough - tank destroyers, AT guns, etc.

    I think that Tiger ace's concept is 'powerful but risky' and 'ace'. 'Ace' means verified skilled crews. So, 3vet is so important thing to Tiger ace unit. If not 3vet, I think it isn't ace. It's another one. I hope that just roll back 'target weak point' and make 'another Tiger' or leave Tiger ace and make 'another Tiger'.

  • #33
    8 months ago
    WAAAGH2000WAAAGH2000 Posts: 94

    maybe balance team can give Panzer IV H OKW panzer commander upgrade?it will make Piv H special in wehrmacht

  • #34
    8 months ago
    az244az244 Cracow, PolandPosts: 17
    edited March 22

    Maybe PzKmp II would fit better to the idea of strategic reserves? Instead of for example: radiodecoding? OST needs a light tank. Maybe with some smokes?

  • #35
    8 months ago

    @Sander93 one other question, are these new commanders only in a victory condition mod for testing before a full release in an official update? It would suck if these commanders cant be used in other win condition mods.

  • #36
    8 months ago
    Andy_REAndy_RE Posts: 274 admin

    @freejones12 said:
    @Sander93 one other question, are these new commanders only in a victory condition mod for testing before a full release in an official update? It would suck if these commanders cant be used in other win condition mods.

    Hey @freejones12

    You can now play annihilation and annihilation with cheats!

    Try and do so with a buddy, as the ai isn't working properly due to the type of work we've had to do to make this mod.

  • #37
    8 months ago
    Aiborne82Aiborne82 Posts: 17

    Can we get the theatre of war PZIV Ausf E instead? The anti infantry one would be immensely more useful in conjunction with our already available PZIV's. I think it would be a much better option to basically the same tank.

  • #38
    8 months ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21
    edited March 23

    The PzIV Ausf. F isn't even close in performance to that of the OKW Pz4. And I'm not even talking about its performance against other tanks, but simply against infantry.

  • #39
    8 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    edited March 24

    @Farlion said:
    The PzIV Ausf. F isn't even close in performance to that of the OKW Pz4. And I'm not even talking about its performance against other tanks, but simply against infantry.

    they should be the exactly the same. thats how copy and paste works. 20 fuel for way more armour is a fairly good deal.

    as for the commander on the whole, i liked it. i ended up on an open map so the ass grens were a bit tricky, i find sprint's duration is a weee bit short. due to the open map i found few opportunities to use the satchel but destroying cover really put the brits at a disadvantage so that was really nice
    -didnt end up getting to the tiger ace
    -really dont like radio intercept, stuka smoke pots would probably synergize well with the commander or some sort of munition sink as i felt that i had boat loads of munitions although this might have been due to the open map and few opportunities to use the satchels and grenade barrage on ass grens.

  • #40
    8 months ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21

    I agree, it is a very good deal. I was just answering why the OKW Pz4 is much better at anything than the Theater of War 1941 Panzer IV, and nobody should want to have those traded.

  • #41
    8 months ago
    Lnk003Lnk003 Posts: 418
    edited March 25

    You could bundle the p4 H with a Panzer 4 F1 so we get more out ot this commander.
    Radio intercept should be changed i think.

    Assault grenadier not a fan of it.
    I'll edit when i'll use them more.

  • #42
    8 months ago
    VonManteuffelVonManteu… Posts: 159
    edited March 25

    Hey folks,

    According to the new Wehrmacht Commander getting OKW P4 with better armor right from the beginning, I made some comparrisons between OST P4 and OKW P4. They both have the same cannon (Penetration values) but different armor values.

    All values are from: https://coh2db.com/stats

    Used penetration values are for mid range, cause it's the most common range for fighting.

    TLTR: Reduce OKW and OST Vet 2 P4's armor a bit and in exchange increase hitpoints to survive a 5th shot and increase fuel from 140 to 150. That would make a difference between those variants and give you a real choice.

    So here we go. All percentages show the chance of penetration. E.g. the USF 57mm AT gun penetrates the OKW P4 with 60% chance, OST P4 with 78%. That means, OST P4 survival chance is 18% worse.

    Anti Tank Guns:

    6 Pounder vs OKW P4: 85%
    6 Pounder vs OST P4: 111% => 26% (difference)

    Zis vs OKW P4: 81%
    Zis vs OST P4: 105% => 24%

    57mm vs OKW P4: 60%
    57mm vs OST P4: 78% => 18%

    Medium Tanks:

    Sherman vs OKW P4: 56%
    Sherman vs OST P4: 72% => 16%

    T34/76 vs OKW P4: 43%
    T34/76 vs OST P4: 56% => 13%

    Cromwell vs OKW P4: 51%
    Cromwell vs OST P4: 67% => 16%

    T34/85 vs OKW P4: 60%
    T34/85 vs OST P4: 78% => 18%

    Sherman E8 vs OKW P4: 71%
    Sherman E8 vs OST P4: 92& => 21%

    Tank Hunters:

    SU85 vs OKW P4: 98%
    SU85 vs OST P4: 127% => 29%

    Jackson vs OKW P4: 102%
    Jackson vs OST P4: 133% => 31%

    Firefly vs OKW P4: 102%
    Firefly vs OST P4: 133% => 31%

    Handheld AT:

    Bazooka vs OKW P4: 51%
    Bazooka vs OST P4: 67% => 16%

    PTRS vs OKW P4: 36%
    PTRS vs OST P4: 47% => 11%

    Piat vs OKW P4: 50%
    Piat vs OST P4: 64% => 14%

    Allied "Heavy Mediums":

    Sherman 76mm: HP: 640 Armor: 160 MP: 340 Fuel: 110
    Sherman Easy Eight: HP: 720 Armor: 215 MP: 380 Fuel: 140

    T34/76: HP: 640 Armor: 150 MP: 300 Fuel: 90
    T34/85: HP: 800 Armor: 160 MP: 380 Fuel: 130

    Pak 40 vs T43/85: 125%
    Pak 40 vs Sherman E8: 93%

    Panzer 4 vs:

    Sherman 76mm: 72%
    Sherman Easy Eight: 53% => 19%

    T34/76: 77%
    T34/85: 72% => 5%

    Conclusions:

    1. The higher armor value of OKW P4 doesnt matter when it comes to allied tank destroyers. They almost all penetrate with 100%. Same could be said about AT guns. The differences are marginal. You don't feel a difference ingame. For example the 6 pounder at gun penetrates OKW P4 with 85% chance. That menas you have a chance of 15% to survive, thats not even every 5th shot.
    2. Better armor seems a bit stronger vs allied medium tanks. But even there, almost about 1 in 2 shots penetrates your OKW P4 at mid range. Thats not pretty much. And heavy mediums (T34/85 and Sherman E8) also don't care much about better P4 armor. They penetrate with ~65%, which means 2/3 of all shots fired will penetrate.
    3. If you turn tables and look at the penetration values of the German Pak 40 vs T34/85 and Sherman E8 you can see similarities between Pak 40 and 6 Pounder:

    Pak 40 vs T43/85 (160 armor): 125%
    6 Pounder vs OST P4 (180 armor): 111%

    => Both at guns will always penetrate. The higher armor value doesnt matter.

    Pak 40 vs Sherman E8 (215 armor): 93%
    6 Pounder vs OKW P4 (234 armor): 85%

    => For having 19 armor more you get 8% higher chance of not getting penetrated. Thats neglectable.

    T34/85 does nearly cost the same as OST P4 and Sherman E8 nearly costs the same as OKW P4.

    BUT both allied heavy mediums do have more hitpoints, so they survive one more shot! And thats much more important in combat, than having a little bit more armor.

    My proposal:

    Reduce OKW and OST Vet 2 P4s armor from 234 to 215, to bring it in line with Sherman E8, but increase hitpoints from 640 to 720 and increase fuel from 140 to 150. That would make a huge difference and could help P4 to better compete in late game.

  • #43
    8 months ago

    @VonManteuffel said:
    Hey folks,

    According to the new Wehrmacht Commander getting OKW P4 with better armor right from the beginning, I made some comparrisons between OST P4 and OKW P4. They both have the same cannon (Penetration values) but different armor values.

    All values are from: https://coh2db.com/stats

    Used penetration values are for mid range, cause it's the most common range for fighting.

    TLTR: Reduce OKW and OST Vet 2 P4's armor a bit and in exchange increase hitpoints to survive a 5th shot and increase fuel from 140 to 150. That would make a difference between those variants and give you a real choice.

    So here we go. All percentages show the chance of penetration. E.g. the USF 57mm AT gun penetrates the OKW P4 with 60% chance, OST P4 with 78%. That means, OST P4 survival chance is 18% worse.

    Anti Tank Guns:

    6 Pounder vs OKW P4: 85%
    6 Pounder vs OST P4: 111% => 26% (difference)

    Zis vs OKW P4: 81%
    Zis vs OST P4: 105% => 24%

    57mm vs OKW P4: 60%
    57mm vs OST P4: 78% => 18%

    Medium Tanks:

    Sherman vs OKW P4: 56%
    Sherman vs OST P4: 72% => 16%

    T34/76 vs OKW P4: 43%
    T34/76 vs OST P4: 56% => 13%

    Cromwell vs OKW P4: 51%
    Cromwell vs OST P4: 67% => 16%

    T34/85 vs OKW P4: 60%
    T34/85 vs OST P4: 78% => 18%

    Sherman E8 vs OKW P4: 71%
    Sherman E8 vs OST P4: 92& => 21%

    Tank Hunters:

    SU85 vs OKW P4: 98%
    SU85 vs OST P4: 127% => 29%

    Jackson vs OKW P4: 102%
    Jackson vs OST P4: 133% => 31%

    Firefly vs OKW P4: 102%
    Firefly vs OST P4: 133% => 31%

    Handheld AT:

    Bazooka vs OKW P4: 51%
    Bazooka vs OST P4: 67% => 16%

    PTRS vs OKW P4: 36%
    PTRS vs OST P4: 47% => 11%

    Piat vs OKW P4: 50%
    Piat vs OST P4: 64% => 14%

    Alled "Heavy Mediums":

    Sherman 76mm: HP: 640 Armor: 160 MP: 340 Fuel: 110
    Sherman Easy Eight: HP: 720 Armor: 215 MP: 380 Fuel: 140

    T34/76: HP: 640 Armor: 150 MP: 300 Fuel: 90
    T34/85: HP: 800 Armor: 160 MP: 380 Fuel: 130

    Pak 40 vs T43/85: 125%
    Pak 40 vs Sherman E8: 93%

    Panzer 4 vs:

    Sherman 76mm: 72%
    Sherman Easy Eight: 53% => 19%

    T34/76: 77%
    T34/85: 72% => 5%

    Conclusions:

    1. The higher armor value of OKW P4 doesnt matter when it comes to allied tank destroyers. They almost all penetrate with 100%. Same could be said about AT guns. The differences are marginal. You don't feel a difference ingame. For example the 6 pounder at gun penetrates OKW P4 with 85% chance. That menas you have a chance of 15% to survive, thats not even every 5th shot.
    2. Better armor seems a bit stronger vs allied medium tanks. But even there, almost about 1 in 2 shots penetrates your OKW P4 at mid range. Thats not pretty much. And heavy mediums (T34/85 and Sherman E8) also don't care much about better P4 armor. They penetrate with ~65%, which means 2/3 of all shots fired will penetrate.
    3. If you turn tables and look at the penetration values of the German Pak 40 vs T34/85 and Sherman E8 you can see similarities between Pak 40 and 6 Pounder:

    Pak 40 vs T43/85 (160 armor): 125%
    6 Pounder vs OST P4 (180 armor): 111%

    => Both at guns will always penetrate. The higher armor value doesnt matter.

    Pak 40 vs Sherman E8 (215 armor): 93%
    6 Pounder vs OKW P4 (234 armor): 85%

    => For having 19 armor more you get 8% higher chance of not getting penetrated. Thats neglectable.

    T34/85 does nearly cost the same as OST P4 and Sherman E8 nearly costs the same as OKW P4.

    BUT both allied heavy mediums do have more hitpoints, so they survive one more shot! And thats much more important in combat, than having a little bit more armor.

    My proposal:

    Reduce OKW and OST Vet 2 P4s armor from 234 to 215, to bring it in line with Sherman E8, but increase hitpoints from 640 to 720 and increase fuel from 140 to 150. That would make a huge difference and could help P4 to better compete in late game.

    i think not only panzer 4 need buff, t34/76, sherman, cromwell hitpoints to 720 and maybe 800,That would make them better in late game against non doc unit like King Tiger with 240 damage,panzerschreck spam and Raketenwerfer 43(CAMO) can press T or R.

  • #44
    8 months ago
    ComradComrad Posts: 122
    edited March 25

    @Tunguska 9k22 написал:

    @VonManteuffel said:
    Hey folks,

    According to the new Wehrmacht Commander getting OKW P4 with better armor right from the beginning, I made some comparrisons between OST P4 and OKW P4. They both have the same cannon (Penetration values) but different armor values.

    All values are from: https://coh2db.com/stats

    Used penetration values are for mid range, cause it's the most common range for fighting.

    TLTR: Reduce OKW and OST Vet 2 P4's armor a bit and in exchange increase hitpoints to survive a 5th shot and increase fuel from 140 to 150. That would make a difference between those variants and give you a real choice.

    So here we go. All percentages show the chance of penetration. E.g. the USF 57mm AT gun penetrates the OKW P4 with 60% chance, OST P4 with 78%. That means, OST P4 survival chance is 18% worse.

    Anti Tank Guns:

    6 Pounder vs OKW P4: 85%
    6 Pounder vs OST P4: 111% => 26% (difference)

    Zis vs OKW P4: 81%
    Zis vs OST P4: 105% => 24%

    57mm vs OKW P4: 60%
    57mm vs OST P4: 78% => 18%

    Medium Tanks:

    Sherman vs OKW P4: 56%
    Sherman vs OST P4: 72% => 16%

    T34/76 vs OKW P4: 43%
    T34/76 vs OST P4: 56% => 13%

    Cromwell vs OKW P4: 51%
    Cromwell vs OST P4: 67% => 16%

    T34/85 vs OKW P4: 60%
    T34/85 vs OST P4: 78% => 18%

    Sherman E8 vs OKW P4: 71%
    Sherman E8 vs OST P4: 92& => 21%

    Tank Hunters:

    SU85 vs OKW P4: 98%
    SU85 vs OST P4: 127% => 29%

    Jackson vs OKW P4: 102%
    Jackson vs OST P4: 133% => 31%

    Firefly vs OKW P4: 102%
    Firefly vs OST P4: 133% => 31%

    Handheld AT:

    Bazooka vs OKW P4: 51%
    Bazooka vs OST P4: 67% => 16%

    PTRS vs OKW P4: 36%
    PTRS vs OST P4: 47% => 11%

    Piat vs OKW P4: 50%
    Piat vs OST P4: 64% => 14%

    Alled "Heavy Mediums":

    Sherman 76mm: HP: 640 Armor: 160 MP: 340 Fuel: 110
    Sherman Easy Eight: HP: 720 Armor: 215 MP: 380 Fuel: 140

    T34/76: HP: 640 Armor: 150 MP: 300 Fuel: 90
    T34/85: HP: 800 Armor: 160 MP: 380 Fuel: 130

    Pak 40 vs T43/85: 125%
    Pak 40 vs Sherman E8: 93%

    Panzer 4 vs:

    Sherman 76mm: 72%
    Sherman Easy Eight: 53% => 19%

    T34/76: 77%
    T34/85: 72% => 5%

    Conclusions:

    1. The higher armor value of OKW P4 doesnt matter when it comes to allied tank destroyers. They almost all penetrate with 100%. Same could be said about AT guns. The differences are marginal. You don't feel a difference ingame. For example the 6 pounder at gun penetrates OKW P4 with 85% chance. That menas you have a chance of 15% to survive, thats not even every 5th shot.
    2. Better armor seems a bit stronger vs allied medium tanks. But even there, almost about 1 in 2 shots penetrates your OKW P4 at mid range. Thats not pretty much. And heavy mediums (T34/85 and Sherman E8) also don't care much about better P4 armor. They penetrate with ~65%, which means 2/3 of all shots fired will penetrate.
    3. If you turn tables and look at the penetration values of the German Pak 40 vs T34/85 and Sherman E8 you can see similarities between Pak 40 and 6 Pounder:

    Pak 40 vs T43/85 (160 armor): 125%
    6 Pounder vs OST P4 (180 armor): 111%

    => Both at guns will always penetrate. The higher armor value doesnt matter.

    Pak 40 vs Sherman E8 (215 armor): 93%
    6 Pounder vs OKW P4 (234 armor): 85%

    => For having 19 armor more you get 8% higher chance of not getting penetrated. Thats neglectable.

    T34/85 does nearly cost the same as OST P4 and Sherman E8 nearly costs the same as OKW P4.

    BUT both allied heavy mediums do have more hitpoints, so they survive one more shot! And thats much more important in combat, than having a little bit more armor.

    My proposal:

    Reduce OKW and OST Vet 2 P4s armor from 234 to 215, to bring it in line with Sherman E8, but increase hitpoints from 640 to 720 and increase fuel from 140 to 150. That would make a huge difference and could help P4 to better compete in late game.

    i think not only panzer 4 need buff, t34/76, sherman, cromwell hitpoints to 720 and maybe 800,That would make them better in late game against non doc unit like King Tiger with 240 damage,panzerschreck spam and Raketenwerfer 43(CAMO) can press T or R.

    yeah

  • #45
    8 months ago
    freejones12freejones… Posts: 58
    edited March 28

    @Andy_RE Found a bug with the new commanders, Jaeger Armor Doctrine gives both Panzer IVs, even though that isn't part of the commander, not sure if this was a universal rollout? Also, even with the spotting scopes unlocked, the IV H does not have access to that upgrade. Thanks

    Edit: Also, Strategic Reserves has a few minor bugs as well. The Pioneer demolition package has no requirement text when hovering over the upgrade, simply saying "Requires: ". Also, the text on the ability itself is exactly the same as the Sappers upgrade, mentioning the Royal Engineers. I'll keep this updated with anything else I find.

  • #46
    8 months ago
    Patrol_OmegaPatrol_Om… Posts: 301

    Buffing even more the most OP medium in the game? The famous Panzer IV hahaha Check patch notes and please admire how this tank received several buffs and because of it is overperforming more than any other medium tank.

    A more balanced and coherent proposal should be

    • reducing both deflection values and armor around 10 to 15% to Axis medium tanks, allowing Allies tanks and AT-guns to penetrate their armor and actually do some damage to them.

    Allies AT-gun take several shots to barely scratch Panzer IV or higher tanks if and only if they get to land a hit by not getting it deflected. For this reason, I have decided not to spent resources on AT-guns and since then I have increased my win rate to 50% from 45%

    In my opinion deflection values are set to high for them, which is ironic since they already have so much better armor than allies tanks.

    On youtube, there was a video from a 3v3 on Pro level where a King Tiger got to deflect 3 consecutive shots from medium tanks from both the rear and even from the back . . . . and everyone started screaming and laughing hahaha ...... yikes

    Axis medium tanks > allies tanks on any 1v1

  • #47
    8 months ago
    AzurewrathAzurewrath Posts: 11

    @VonManteuffel said:

    My proposal:

    Reduce OKW and OST Vet 2 P4s armor from 234 to 215, to bring it in line with Sherman E8, but increase hitpoints from 640 to 720 and increase fuel from 140 to 150. That would make a huge difference and could help P4 to better compete in late game.

    Yeah, how about increasing allied tank destroyers range to 80 because they're out ranged by JagdTiger and Elephant?

    Sherman E8 and T34/85 are a doctrine-only unit. Buffing a non-doctrine unit to match special units available only to few commanders will seriously damage the game.

  • #48
    8 months ago

    I still don't think Panzergrenadiers should get Satchel Charge, and I have an alternative idea

    remove Panzergrenadiers Satchel Charge, and add a new unit the Veteran grenadiers (replaces Radio Intercept or add to Panzer 4h slot)

    Veteran grenadiers

    Visual note: use Obersoldaten models and voice lines

    built at Leichte Mechanized Komp

    Cost 300MP

    Squad size: 5

    armament 5x kar98ks

    Veterancy same as grenadiers

    Reinforce cost/time same as ostheer grenadiers

    abilities: Satchel Charge

    upgrades: 2x stg 44 requires Battle Phase 2

    Description:
    the unit essentially a 5 man grenadier squad with Satchel Charges, Its meant for mid to late game anti-infantry squad as the Assault Grenadiers transfer to a more capture point harassment/ambush role in the late game

  • #49
    8 months ago
    Alkroop99Alkroop99 Posts: 1

    The standard Wehrmacht panzer 4 should be the G version with its 75mm L / 43 cannon, while the 4 H panzer would keep the armored skirts and the J version would only have the upper skirt.

    Another necessary change is to redesign the tip of the panzer cannon 4 in the game since it looks like the tip of a trumpet

  • #50
    8 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    I'm excited to try the new changes in this commander as of 3.0. Very cool and interesting direction that I think will take the commander from good but bland to a real contender for one of the 3 spots on my chit
  • #51
    8 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    For me, the satchel charge feels much more at home with the Pioneers; it's more in line with their short-range combat role and makes them much more potent in that role. With the PanGrens, it was just too much power concentrated in one unit.

    The Forward Supply Station is interesting - it's a bit like the Soviet Forward HQ but, it also harks back to the CoH1 bunker system. It suits the theme of this doctrine quite well. One drawback is that it means this doctrine will be handicapped on maps with few buildings, just as the Soviet HQ was before they fixed it.

    Building the Pz4H out of the HQ feels a bit weird but, it does stop the no-tech spam. I applaud the ingenuity of the solution.

  • #52
    8 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    @panzerfutz good point. Perhaps the repair bunker assets can be used for a not building dependant version.
  • #53
    8 months ago
    Patrol_OmegaPatrol_Om… Posts: 301

    Shouldn't the Tiger Ace still lower the player's income to both fuel and mp as the original version?

    Since a full Vet3 Tiger Ace does it, and in this case, the chances of reaching to Vet3 are still quite high, because your tank will be starting at a solid Vet1.

    So everyone started asking to Vet the unit up since it is a Tiger Ace, but everyone forgot to also include the side effect that this unit brings to the player

    1. 90% reduction to fuel income
    2. 25% reduction to man power income
    3. Until the tank is destroyed

    Meaning that this side effect should be brought as well, but in a proportional way to the Tiger Ace starting Veterancy, so it doesn't becomes to overwhelming after all.

  • #54
    8 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    If people are in a piss about the TA coming in with vet we could do the following:
    Use the 5 star system
    Starts at vet 2
    Vets 3-5 are the exact same as vets 1-3 as of now
    Vets 1 and 2 provide the unique element to the TA like increased accuracy and abilities.

    We have a "veteran tiger" esthetically without awkward balance of a unit "starting" with vet. As aside from the already unique tiger ace exclusive bonuses it is essentially an unvetted tiger from a statistical standpoint with the same bonuses to be earned. No need for a resource penalty or such as its basicly the same unit.

    It also creates an interesting scenario where these new commanders bring okw a bit of the OST and vice versa.
  • #55
    8 months ago
    Patrol_OmegaPatrol_Om… Posts: 301

    @thedarkarmadillo it is the same unit, therefore it should keep its side effect as well, even tho if you don't consider Vet1 as a significant variable, then why even bother asking for it? instead of starting with Vet0 as it initially was set to come to the battlefield.
    Vet1 is still an advantage compared to other heavy tanks arriving with Vet0 to the battlefield.

  • #56
    8 months ago

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    If people are in a piss about the TA coming in with vet we could do the following:
    Use the 5 star system
    Starts at vet 2
    Vets 3-5 are the exact same as vets 1-3 as of now
    Vets 1 and 2 provide the unique element to the TA like increased accuracy and abilities.

    We have a "veteran tiger" esthetically without awkward balance of a unit "starting" with vet. As aside from the already unique tiger ace exclusive bonuses it is essentially an unvetted tiger from a statistical standpoint with the same bonuses to be earned. No need for a resource penalty or such as its basicly the same unit.

    It also creates an interesting scenario where these new commanders bring okw a bit of the OST and vice versa.

    If people are pissed about the 'Tiger Ace' coming with veterancy, just change it to a normal tiger for this doctrine. It's not like it'll make a big difference. Elite troops already has the ace and imo this doctrine is already powerful enough as is.

  • #57
    8 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    @Patrol_Omega thanks for replying to my post that you clearly actually didn't even read! Reread it please
  • #58
    8 months ago
    Mr_RuinMr_Ruin Posts: 92

    @Patrol_Omega said:
    Shouldn't the Tiger Ace still lower the player's income to both fuel and mp as the original version?

    Since a full Vet3 Tiger Ace does it, and in this case, the chances of reaching to Vet3 are still quite high, because your tank will be starting at a solid Vet1.

    So everyone started asking to Vet the unit up since it is a Tiger Ace, but everyone forgot to also include the side effect that this unit brings to the player

    1. 90% reduction to fuel income
    2. 25% reduction to man power income
    3. Until the tank is destroyed

    Meaning that this side effect should be brought as well, but in a proportional way to the Tiger Ace starting Veterancy, so it doesn't becomes to overwhelming after all.

    Tiger Ace already comes with it's own cost increase over regular Tiger so you pay for that power.

    Reduction in income was a very strange choice even when it was introduced cause it just crippled the rest of your army and made Ace Tiger into a very very risky choice. Add to that a fuel cost increase before several patches and you had a unit which esentially lost you the match. And because of that how many Ace Tigers have you seen in any better matches in the last couple of months? None? One?

    And now it's cost is increased yet again. And it's power is decreased. But you still want it to come with a slow drain on resources (although it already is a drain with it's high pop cost). I truly don't understand.

  • #59
    8 months ago
    harahara Posts: 4
    edited April 6

    @Mr_Ruin said:

    @Patrol_Omega said:
    Shouldn't the Tiger Ace still lower the player's income to both fuel and mp as the original version?

    Since a full Vet3 Tiger Ace does it, and in this case, the chances of reaching to Vet3 are still quite high, because your tank will be starting at a solid Vet1.

    So everyone started asking to Vet the unit up since it is a Tiger Ace, but everyone forgot to also include the side effect that this unit brings to the player

    1. 90% reduction to fuel income
    2. 25% reduction to man power income
    3. Until the tank is destroyed

    Meaning that this side effect should be brought as well, but in a proportional way to the Tiger Ace starting Veterancy, so it doesn't becomes to overwhelming after all.

    Tiger Ace already comes with it's own cost increase over regular Tiger so you pay for that power.

    Reduction in income was a very strange choice even when it was introduced cause it just crippled the rest of your army and made Ace Tiger into a very very risky choice. Add to that a fuel cost increase before several patches and you had a unit which esentially lost you the match. And because of that how many Ace Tigers have you seen in any better matches in the last couple of months? None? One?

    And now it's cost is increased yet again. And it's power is decreased. But you still want it to come with a slow drain on resources (although it already is a drain with it's high pop cost). I truly don't understand.

    Not only that, he is restricted to only one call in, it means if you lose him and can happen very fast very often, your last commander slot is out of the game, allied players tend to go on a rampage every time they see it and try to take it out as fast as they can with everytihing possible.

    You lost all your fuel and manpower by the time they take him out, lets say you had him for 5-10 mins, you used your infantry, you lost your tank, and game is over for axis. Very risky and not potent. I am not saying they should give him more call ins, but remove stupid negative side effects of calling him in, he already is very expensive, very late game and you have to micro good to pull off tank kills like every other tank. What they did with all that manpower reduction, they restricted axis players not to involve infantry in fights, because if i do involve they will bleed me to death with manpower, every late game situations offer so much wipe potential that manpower bleed is inevitable especially with your tiger ace on the field.

  • #60
    8 months ago
    PrincessBubblegumPrincessB… Posts: 110

    Played a couple of matches against AI just to check ver. 3
    What is the point of that change to Forward Supply Station from Radio Intercept?
    Radio Intercept in this current mod is OP, but since soviets have it giving it to ostheer at even 1 doctrine was good and fair idea and this ability fitted greatly into line of doctrine itself.
    But now this is just a slot, really. Forward base with 6 repairmen without a FRP for 30 fuel and 250mp when we can get the same thing for 150mp and 60muni undoctrinnally? Yeah, there are repairmen, but if somebody needs a repair station they can pick "Community defence" and put a repair bunker anywhere they want without depending from neutral sctructures, which are not that durable on most 1v1 and 2v2 maps atm and cannot be repaired. Bunkers also do not require fuel.
    Imo this change weakened the doctrine. Putted back radio intercept of strengthened FSS will make sence.

  • #61
    8 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    @PrincessBubblegum the audio was screwy for Ost radio intercept so I think that played a part. Additionally offering something new is preferable to something that's buggy. The assets are already in game so why not make use of the repair station? Just because you can pick a single commander with some repairs doesn't make this less useful
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.