Commander Update (upcoming) Ideas and Suggestions

#1
2 months ago

Hello everyone visiting this post :smile:

I just wanted to state some issues and suggestions I've found in commander patch, that might seem a bit either off the ground or a bit iffy and should be tweaked/added for the upcoming patch :smiley:

I would like to start with

UNIVERSAL CARRIER
Wasp upgrade would make it have similiar stats on armor to its original, pre nerf value, so rifles did reduced damage to it...
Personally, I understand both axis and allies sides when it comes to dealing with UC, and with changes to Armored car from Osteer and others, I think this armor should be made into VET 1 thing for all variants, not only WASP upgrade

Since either way it will end up in danger spot, and since wasp is the primary purpose of the UC carrier nowadays anyhow, this would make it possible for its MG upgrade to have more meaning

OVERALLY I am really happy to see brits get some LOVE, to provide them with multiple outcome options and tactics that will make their infantry sections actually viable on battlefield once more...
And everything else that is coming their way really brightens up the mood since nowadays they are really REALLY unviable on any level... be it tournament or casual gaming.

Second thing that I've tested and has given me a little issue, both to play with and against, and i must say I OPPOSE THIS UPGRADE EXTREMELY, is the tier 4 Osteer Cap/decap speed buff...
Allies already have hard time supressing (especially USF) units that just rush and dive capture points, lategame OKW 5 star units are almost impossible to scare off unless artied, and having bonus cap speed on osteer panzergrens on point will make them decap faster than the supression will sometimes even trigger...

DO NOT IMPLEMENT THIS... this is some serious no brainer danger fuckery for multiplayer games 3v3 and 4v4s, and highly unfair...

Also, in my opinion... USF forces and allied forces could use some buffs for MG-s overally since their saturation is nothing compared to mg 42 (which i agree even historically should be the best mg on early) but other things are not half as utilized as they should be...

USF MG should be able to do more damage on light vehicles and infantry
BRITISH MG should deal atleast minimal damage to infantry since suppression itself is nothing alone...

And Falls really need nerf, sorry not sorry but blob tactic with them is just for kids

Really looking forward to this update, and I would be really happy if it actually got a soon release date... Since this Corona virus thingie is keeping everyone indoors nowadays...

Comments

  • #2
    2 months ago
    GrayGabiGrayGabi Posts: 23

    Its hard...but to be honest the Falls are plain retarded...they can come in as a group way better then paratroopers ( all over the area ) and start with Assault rifles so they can wipe squads as soon as they land its retarded...as for paratroopers there are a rifleman squad that can die if by terain if you send em behind enemy lines and cant upgrade to assault package or LMG to hold em....as for the 5 vet yea... its a garbage...you litteraly have to send 3 squads fully upgraded and hope you can wipe a squad but its not likely

  • #3
    2 months ago

    I agree... For elite unit they are a bit too much... on tehnically EVERYTHING...
    I used to love playing old Fallshirms but after rework i found em too disgusting to play... Like every kid can play them and call it skill*

  • #4
    2 months ago
    DarkpiatreDarkpiatre Posts: 48

    Well, I guess the Ostheers will remain the worst faction of all time

  • #5
    2 months ago

    Ostheers? Atm Axis nations are top tier nations...

  • #7
    2 months ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 807
    edited March 27

    USF skill cap is far higher than other faction, being a glass canon. When there are many players who get great with USF, the win rate is higher cause the nerf coming.

    In 2014 when USF was extremely OP, but there were many players complained USF is so fragile that they prefer to play Soviet to use T34/85 KV or IS2.
    But today USF top players' skill is insane that we see USF win rate is high.
    Ost faction,unit design are the best, but their skill cap doesnt requires much.

  • #8
    2 months ago
    DarkpiatreDarkpiatre Posts: 48

    Usf skillcap is low, even consider the second easiest faction right after soviet

  • #9
    2 months ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    edited March 27

    Regarless of any skillcap debates, the winrates linked by Darkpiatre show that USF have high win rates across the board, being the most winning faction in 1v1 and 3v3. At 2v2 they are the best allied faction and on 4v4 they are equal to Soviets. On the other hand, Wehrmacht is showing the lowest win rate of all factions across all modes. That in turn puts any asessment that their unit designs are good - let alone "best" - into question, as superior faction/unit design would translate into higher win rates.

  • #10
    1 month ago
    ClearCutClearCut Posts: 39

    @Hingie said:
    Regarless of any skillcap debates, the winrates linked by Darkpiatre show that USF have high win rates across the board, being the most winning faction in 1v1 and 3v3. At 2v2 they are the best allied faction and on 4v4 they are equal to Soviets. On the other hand, Wehrmacht is showing the lowest win rate of all factions across all modes. That in turn puts any asessment that their unit designs are good - let alone "best" - into question, as superior faction/unit design would translate into higher win rates.

    These win rates do not answer any questions about skill and balance. Why?
    If we would assume a causal effect of balance to winning, i.e. higher win rate is caused by imbalanced then we would need to keep "skill" of player meassured by %/rank constant. Which we don't know because they are just charts. Also it's questionable if rank states skill....
    Apart from the fact, that 2 different numbers do not necessarily be different in statistical way.

  • #11
    1 month ago
    DarkpiatreDarkpiatre Posts: 48

    All the winrate differences told by Hingie are even more clear in the top 2.5% of the ladder. Each and every balance decision are made mainly by theses numbers (+ probably the effectiveness of each units).

  • #12
    1 month ago
    MorisMoris Posts: 57
    edited March 29

    All that is needed for the Wehrmacht is to solve the problem of glass grenadiers. It’s hard to find a compromise. But the idea of ​​giving reinforcements to the initial infantry is interesting for the Soviet ones. What is being prepared in the patch for the Wehrmacht is rather doubtful. Maybe you should do something like: the old veterans of the grenadiers and a 20% reduction in damage after the construction of all buildings?

    Or even something like an upgrade in a heavy tank corps. “Infantry Strengthening" - all grenadiers take 20% less damage, but reinforcements cost 1 or 2 more.

  • #13
    1 month ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    edited March 30

    @ClearCut said:
    These win rates do not answer any questions about skill and balance. Why?
    If we would assume a causal effect of balance to winning, i.e. higher win rate is caused by imbalanced then we would need to keep "skill" of player meassured by %/rank constant. Which we don't know because they are just charts. Also it's questionable if rank states skill....
    Apart from the fact, that 2 different numbers do not necessarily be different in statistical way.

    You are aware that in the linked thread there is a chart detailing win rates relative to the ladder position of players? For 1v1, for example, its this one:

    If you dont measure skill by rank, I dont know how else you would measure it. Im open for suggestions, though. And of course they are "just charts". You cannot quantify balance on an individual basis. You need to extrapolate it out of a multitude of datasets. This requires charts. By merit of these charts we can also make the skill portion of your equation moot, as we have a large enough dataset to create an empirical result, which smoothes out potential fluctuations due to skill discrepancies and other factors - such as mood, attentiveness, etc.

    Regardless, as you can see, USF - green - is doing well across all ranks. The other charts show similar results for the other game types.

  • #14
    1 month ago
    ClearCutClearCut Posts: 39

    @Hingie said:

    @ClearCut said:
    These win rates do not answer any questions about skill and balance. Why?
    If we would assume a causal effect of balance to winning, i.e. higher win rate is caused by imbalanced then we would need to keep "skill" of player meassured by %/rank constant. Which we don't know because they are just charts. Also it's questionable if rank states skill....
    Apart from the fact, that 2 different numbers do not necessarily be different in statistical way.

    You are aware that in the linked thread there is a chart detailing win rates relative to the ladder position of players? For 1v1, for example, its this one:

    If you dont measure skill by rank, I dont know how else you would measure it. Im open for suggestions, though. And of course they are "just charts". You cannot quantify balance on an individual basis. You need to extrapolate it out of a multitude of datasets. This requires charts. By merit of these charts we can also make the skill portion of your equation moot, as we have a large enough dataset to create an empirical result, which smoothes out potential fluctuations due to skill discrepancies and other factors - such as mood, attentiveness, etc.

    Regardless, as you can see, USF - green - is doing well across all ranks. The other charts show similar results for the other game types.

    Hingie: Skill is here confounded with faction and win and lose... Imagine you had a new game. We have 10 players. We don't know anything about the players. There are only 2 factions to make it easy; A and B. Now players play 10 games. We don't know what faction they play but we see the results. 2/3 of the wins are with faction A and 1/3 with faction B. How can we be certain now, that this is caused by the faction and not the players or the other way around? Maybe it's random. Maybe the better players just played more with faction A then it'd be not a balance issue. But maybe it's imbalanced and therefor faction A had most wins. In order to get a clear result we would need to assess the skill of players and then let them play systematically A and B and then counterbalance the games...

  • #15
    1 month ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006

    @ClearCut said:
    B. How can we be certain now, that this is caused by the faction and not the players or the other way around? Maybe it's random. Maybe the better players just played more with faction A then it'd be not a balance issue. But maybe it's imbalanced and therefor faction A had most wins. In order to get a clear result we would need to assess the skill of players and then let them play systematically A and B and then counterbalance the games...

    By not measuring 10 players, but 100, or 1000, or more and a correspondingly large set of matches played. 10 players are not empirical, neither are a mere 10 games. A larger amount of players/games is. Randomness does not create patterns as clear as these. Also, you have a variety of ranks and therefore skill levels displayed on the graph. Your skepticism here is uncalled for. USF shows higher win rates all across the board, from the unranked potato player to the 1% elite. Skill of individuals is irrelevant in light of the statistical consistency clearly visible here.

  • #16
    1 month ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 807

    @Darkpiatre said:
    Usf skillcap is low, even consider the second easiest faction right after soviet

    I suggest u to try USF and see how their tanks easily die.

    I said, USF has most of tools available, in return of lack of tanking unit. The more skill u have, the more amazing thing u can do with USF (I dont agree with Ranger 3 Zook blob is skill though). Ost is straight forward, every unit has their own job to do. Even if your skill is great, u dont have the tool to do.

  • #17
    1 month ago
    ClearCutClearCut Posts: 39
    edited March 30

    @Hingie said:

    @ClearCut said:
    B. How can we be certain now, that this is caused by the faction and not the players or the other way around? Maybe it's random. Maybe the better players just played more with faction A then it'd be not a balance issue. But maybe it's imbalanced and therefor faction A had most wins. In order to get a clear result we would need to assess the skill of players and then let them play systematically A and B and then counterbalance the games...

    By not measuring 10 players, but 100, or 1000, or more and a correspondingly large set of matches played. 10 players are not empirical, neither are a mere 10 games. A larger amount of players/games is. Randomness does not create patterns as clear as these. Also, you have a variety of ranks and therefore skill levels displayed on the graph. Your skepticism here is uncalled for. USF shows higher win rates all across the board, from the unranked potato player to the 1% elite. Skill of individuals is irrelevant in light of the statistical consistency clearly visible here.

    I used an example to show the error in your argumentation. Confounding means that you predict SKILL by win/lose and!!! balance (with just 1 variable). But skill and balance should be indipendent. in your argumentation it's not...
    "Skill of individuals is irrelevant in light of the statistical consistency clearly visible here. " No it's not. See above. Statistics in the way you use it (btw it's a chart, not statistics, if you use it, at least do a t-test or ANOVA to show differences..) doesn't show cause and effect... Correlation do not show causal effects. If you don't undersatnd that read about it. E.g. take a look what a mediation model is...
    And randomness creates a lot of patterns in a statistical way but this is due to confounding variables and ppl not understanding what results mean...
    Btw. imagine a very skilled player starts playing more USF - then USF win ratios will go up. Also imagine a user just playing USF he makes 10 games after the new patch having a win streak. Then he's high ranked and has 100% win rate. Others who play 20 win the 1st 10 games and then losing 5 in the next 10 games has a win ratio of 75 %. Both have won the 1st 10 games....

  • #18
    1 month ago
    DarkpiatreDarkpiatre Posts: 48

    @C3Tooth I do, and I spam the Urban doctrine, doesn't need much skill, you have eveything, you can skip nades upgrade because you have molotov, rear echelon has rifle-grenade, this doctrine also gives the ability to upgrade your sherman with dozer blades (I admit I never play sherman without), which makes your tank amazingly strong and easy to micro by adding HP and armor. Plus you have thoses dear rangers, you make 2 with fulls zooks (300 ammo but its worth the cost) and not a single tank will be a problem, even a KT die fcking fast. And for the last, Calliope is a fcking amazing arty, doesn't need much micro, it will survive most counter arty and has a great wipe ability. Why would you bother to have situational commander and having to make a choice depending on the situation when you have a perfect commander for all kind of situation?

  • #19
    1 month ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 807

    I was one of many people suggest USF to have Urban assault doc. But my idea was far different from what they give.

    Their grenade should be locked with grenade package.

    1. Calliop cost 30% more than Kat/Werfer cost.
    2. Calliop is doc, u dont see them every time u face a USF, u see Kat/Werfer every match.

    Ranger is what Allies just have to let Axis see how it feel when they spam 3 Pzgren shreck. As long as 3 PzGren 6 Schreck blob and also 3 Fusilier. Ranger is necessary evil. Dont forget PzGren get auto Sprint if a friendly vehicle is nearby

  • #20
    1 month ago
    DarkpiatreDarkpiatre Posts: 48

    @C3Tooth Yes I forgot that this amazing doc also gives a smoke cover which also give the sprint ability to all units in a large area, which is just incredible when chasing tank and cheesing MG. Now I do understand why there is so many agressives USF player very reluctant at the idea of nerfing their favorite faction, its so simple to play, you have (without making any sacrifice) every option in a single doctrine, plus each of your units are a better version of the axis ones, and they keep complaining about the tank superiority of the axis.

  • #21
    1 month ago
    ClearCutClearCut Posts: 39

    @Darkpiatre said:
    @C3Tooth Yes I forgot that this amazing doc also gives a smoke cover which also give the sprint ability to all units in a large area, which is just incredible when chasing tank and cheesing MG. Now I do understand why there is so many agressives USF player very reluctant at the idea of nerfing their favorite faction, its so simple to play, you have (without making any sacrifice) every option in a single doctrine, plus each of your units are a better version of the axis ones, and they keep complaining about the tank superiority of the axis.

    Why do axis player not use mines? Btw axis has smoke themselves and in SMOKE USF can't shoot with infantry directly...
    Btw if u put a detonator satchel on top of a mine you'll clearly kill a unit.

  • #22
    1 month ago
    DarkpiatreDarkpiatre Posts: 48

    @ClearCut What is the link?

  • #23
    1 month ago
    GrayGabiGrayGabi Posts: 23
    edited April 1

    @C3Tooth said:
    I was one of many people suggest USF to have Urban assault doc. But my idea was far different from what they give.

    Their grenade should be locked with grenade package.

    -Yea but the 30 ammo for a dot that the best you will get out of it its a cover deny the grenade upgrade its a must I never use the molotovs(Maybe for mg flanks or building) when I have the mk2 nade available

    1. Calliop cost 30% more than Kat/Werfer cost.
    2. Calliop is doc, u dont see them every time u face a USF, u see Kat/Werfer every match.

    -nothing to add here

    Ranger is what Allies just have to let Axis see how it feel when they spam 3 Pzgren shreck. As long as 3 PzGren 6 Schreck blob and also 3 Fusilier. Ranger is necessary evil. Dont forget PzGren get auto Sprint if a friendly vehicle is nearby

    Oh god yes :D 3 pzgren with zhrecks almost every game vs ost...1 volley and the Sherman or Jackson its out

    But the biggest problem with USF its the tanks...you take Sherman out for infantry...rarely for AT purpose and Jacksons for tanks ( they cant hit infantry at all...) so you need 1 tank for a situation in axis side its not that you can get medium tank and its the same you get decent AI (Without switching ammo like the Sherman) and good AT.

    Lets not talk about the ost that can get the Brumbar with no doc and its a best...3 shoot from a brumbar today and I lost 2 rifleman squads and a IRPath all vet 3 all died from full hp on retreat...now that guy was extremely luck or the brumbar its a beast
    -The USF copy to brumbar its the dozer Sherman that comes behind a doctrine and its not as good as the brumbar

    And again one point why accept the bunker spam?...never get it why this game don't have a pop cap on bunkers so they will not spam it out.... make like 5 pop/bunker or something like that so the bunker will be good in early but in late will hurt you
    Got a teamgame with some friends and one of the enemy an OKW did build 10 or more flak-turrets near the point and 5 mg bunkers … well he lost all that once the tanks rolled out but it was soooo annoying we tryied everything from Mortals to Howitzers and smoke but by the time we destroy one he will build another...he didn't do much but he did deny us resources and time...so its kinda unfair here the USF have only mg bunker

  • #24
    1 month ago
    DarkpiatreDarkpiatre Posts: 48
    1. Calliop cost 30% more than Kat/Werfer cost.
    2. Calliop is doc, u dont see them every time u face a USF, u see Kat/Werfer every match.

    We do see them at every game because it's part of the best doc, and if it is not, the only second doc you will see is one you can spam pathfinder. And actually, the panzerwerfer only cost 23% less than the Calliope. And I'm sure that nobody will say that the panzerwerfer has the same efficiency as the Calliope.

    @GrayGabi The bunker spam is the same for USF (nearly the same cost) and it represente a MP invesment.
    Molotov=incendiary nade of the OKW and that's a great ability (you don't even have de same delay as the conscripts)
    Let's do more basic maths:
    -2 zooks-rangers= 700 MP + 300 ammo
    -3 schrek-Pzgren= 1020 MP + 300 ammo

  • #25
    1 month ago
    GrayGabiGrayGabi Posts: 23
    edited April 1

    @Darkpiatre said:

    1. Calliop cost 30% more than Kat/Werfer cost.
    2. Calliop is doc, u dont see them every time u face a USF, u see Kat/Werfer every match.

    We do see them at every game because it's part of the best doc, and if it is not, the only second doc you will see is one you can spam pathfinder. And actually, the panzerwerfer only cost 23% less than the Calliope. And I'm sure that nobody will say that the panzerwerfer has the same efficiency as the Calliope.

    ahhh its not the best doctrine by far the problem its that USF don't have to much to choose they don't have a big rooster to choose from and the Urban assault can give you best of the 2 worlds …Shock troops/artilery( that in late USF DONT HAVE! the scott its NOT a late game artilery) and a tank (well sort of a tank it will give the Sherman the bulldozer upgrade) but adding more hp and armor to a tank dat cant do much meah
    and with the Calliop you really cant bash that subject for so long...lets say the calliope its better then the werfer ok so its better so? axis have better tanks its like I come here and say why its my Sherman losing versus a panther its only 60 fuel cheaper its not that much

    Sherman 110 fuel - Panther 170 fuel = 60 fuel
    Callio 140 - werfer - 85 = 55 fuel (+calliope its a doctrine locked unit)
    calliope 2 min cd - Werfer 1.5 min cd if im not mistaken

    So you see there are diference...you can't put it like "why it is better then my faction unit"

    @GrayGabi The bunker spam is the same for USF (nearly the same cost) and it represente a MP invesment.
    Molotov=incendiary nade of the OKW and that's a great ability (you don't even have de same delay as the conscripts)

    I didn't care the cost of the bunker...and I do not care if the Allies or axis spam the bunkers I just said its an unhealthy and boring mechanic and for every faction it should cost population and munition or atleast put a 80 munition,100 manpower for the upgrade so people will not go to the fuel point capture it and then build a bunker straight out

    Let's do more basic maths:
    -2 zooks-rangers= 700 MP + 300 ammo
    -3 schrek-Pzgren= 1020 MP + 300 ammo

    • I think if im not mistaken 3 pzgren with shrecks(180 armor pen) do more damage because zhrecks have more penetration then rangers zookas ( + pzgren get automatic weapons so they can hold the line agains infantry + sprint when near a vehicle + OP nade + smoke and repair + can build ) if you like math ok do the math for the damage of 3 squads shrecks + the pzgren utility then do the rangers utility ( a decent grenade ) and the zooka damage (160 armor pen)

    its a fair deal In my opinion

    me for one id love to see the otherway give the rangers the utility of the pzgrenadiers (OP nade,repair,build,combine arms passive,4x thompsons from the start) and not be a doc unit and make the pzgren a doctrine unit make em 5 unit squad give em 3 pzshrecks and one normal grenade and to pay for the 4x assault rifles if you desire assault rifles not shrecks

  • #26
    1 month ago
    DarkpiatreDarkpiatre Posts: 48

    They don't do more damage, they are less likely to bounce

    Panther cost 185 fuel

    calio 110 fuel

    again, more pop cap, you don't know anything about the game and i'll not bother to answer someone who don't even bother himself to bring accurate numbers and/or facts.

  • #27
    1 month ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 807

    Calliop 115fuel..
    Did u tell other who don't even bother himself to bring accurate numbers and/or facts.

  • #28
    1 month ago
    DarkpiatreDarkpiatre Posts: 48
    edited April 2

    I let u know which is the most inaccurate between 140/115 and 110/115.

  • #29
    1 month ago
    VampirePrinceVampirePr… Posts: 48

    Keeping things simple here since I see a lot of comparisons have exploded... Wehrmacht and OKW are currently overloaded and game balance especially in 4v4s and 3v3s is going downwards since Allies do NOT have tanks who can mechanically take more than 4 AT shots... And that's a fact

    I am not accounting Comet tank who can take 5-6 max, or Churchill who is just frankly absurd tank... But not a single game nowadays is played without tiger tank for example...

    And why is that?

    A) No brainer... With all due respect for Axis forces since I main Werhmacht there, with Axis forces you either play with Tiger and snowball the moment you get him out, or you actually need to micro / plan your mechanics/assaults out
    B)Forgiving unit... Tiger can take 7+ shots depending on VARIANT and alongside it has quite a Bounce chance to it, even if you end up facing 1-2 AT-s by just brainlessly spearheading you are more likely to get him out than NOT
    C) Effectivity... Must have taken you a lot of thinking to get a tank that can both fire further, do AoE shell damage, penetrate almost everything with almost absolute guarantee for hit if its not moving :smile:

    Tbh I don't think anyone in any way of strategic thinking should develop units that are that tough to crack and that much oriented on brainless behavior... And I'll input that allies might have Pershing, IS2 and KV2, but none of the are either that accurate or have that much pin point braindead amount of health and efficiency as tiger...

    I understand Allied forces had terrible losses but some of these things are just ridiculous, and same goes for panther which is basically 1-2 shots below Tiger, and is Considered a Medium/Heavy tank which once again, can take ridiculous amount of damage and get away with speed (yes bad anti infantry cannon but with 3 MG-s...)

    As axis player, once I see a pershing or IS2 on field ( which is quite rare ), general idea is to bait and trap him and you can take them out with 2 stugs or a combined assault (or simply just blob panzergrens like my friend, 3 squads and just delete them) which also is 2ndary issue here...

    Why are we making units like Panzergrens, Fallshirms and Panzerfusiliers who get so much Recieved accuracy* buffs while in same time no other unit can have Accuracy buffs to COUNTER to it?

    I said it once and I'll say it again, Having combined more than 39% Reduction of Recieved accuracy on Panzergrens is just making an SMG MATRIX scene all over again, and that is just plain degrading of any tactical value

  • #30
    1 month ago
    FaxFax Posts: 92

    @VampirePrince said:
    Keeping things simple here since I see a lot of comparisons have exploded... Wehrmacht and OKW are currently overloaded and game balance especially in 4v4s and 3v3s is going downwards since Allies do NOT have tanks who can mechanically take more than 4 AT shots... And that's a fact

    I am not accounting Comet tank who can take 5-6 max, or Churchill who is just frankly absurd tank... But not a single game nowadays is played without tiger tank for example...

    And why is that?

    A) No brainer... With all due respect for Axis forces since I main Werhmacht there, with Axis forces you either play with Tiger and snowball the moment you get him out, or you actually need to micro / plan your mechanics/assaults out
    B)Forgiving unit... Tiger can take 7+ shots depending on VARIANT and alongside it has quite a Bounce chance to it, even if you end up facing 1-2 AT-s by just brainlessly spearheading you are more likely to get him out than NOT
    C) Effectivity... Must have taken you a lot of thinking to get a tank that can both fire further, do AoE shell damage, penetrate almost everything with almost absolute guarantee for hit if its not moving :smile:

    Yeah I never understood the logic of Axis having superior armor and also having superior Anti Tank like PzShreck and PAK43 when they already have dedicated heavy AT Tanks... why not give better AT options to Allies? I totally understand the play of counters like elite infantry counters regular infantry and some have better utility than others but it needs to be more clear how to do so.
    I also rarely get to see an IS-2 or Pershing well used or at least that survives well enough to see it get to high vet, in other hand Tiger seems much more effective to all targets, it's not as great as KT which I think it's the exception since it's a tank that is quite well armored, is effective against infantry and other tanks aswell and I'm not complaining about it at all, I do like to play against this tank because it's challenging, it's like a final boss or something but it'd be more interesting to have something as Ally that clearly helps you achieve that... but zooks? Jackson? PTRS? KV-2? it's super hard to actually get to harm tanks with such high armor when most of shots bounce at a far distance because you only have access to assault tanks and is super dangerous to close in since you get pen from these tanks at all ranges, it's not impossible but when doing random matches it's super hard to coordinate with teammates that won't communicate.

    I think in part is Relic's fault to take for granted the communication in all matches with all players... and in part the players for not actually communicating

    Also I've always said it but there is a lot of wasted potential in the game with the bulletins, it's so useless to have 3% something... 4% armor increase... some don't even work anymore and some are useless like 50% recharge on Heavy tanks ability when only 1 can be on the field... doesn't make sense and just looks bad in the eyes of new players.

    Bulletins could also help balance the game and focus on different builds, but Relic won't add more for some reason.

    Making one of each type and make them not stackable (so you can't stack armor on top of penetration, or speed on top of armor, so you can only use 1 of each) but give significant bonus that can help your gameplay I think it would be good idea if done correctly... but that's just my opinion. I want this game to be more exciting and clear to play than it already is.

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.