USF - Airborne Commander
#1
4 years ago
whitesky00
Posts: 409
Hello everyone,
I think through the changes of gameplay over the last couple of months have put the Airborne commander out of place.
Since all of the things unlock past 1 CP, USF is still required to spam riflemen to start the game and doesn't exactly change the build order. I have a couple of suggestions and feel free to comment.
- Move Pathfinders down to 0 CP as an alternative to riflemen or at least spamming riflemen.
- Decrease the MP cost of the .50 cal to half (130) or change to a munitions cost (50). I just don't think it's worth it to call down a 260 MP MG and use up a squad to pick it up and then required to spend additional MP to reinforce both squads.
- Change Airborne down to 2 CP. Unless I'm wrong, I feel like they were supposed to the alternative to riflemen.
- Move 57mm AT gun down to 3 CP. Change squad size to 1 from 1.25. I believe USF AT gun is the only AT gun with this profile making them the most easy to kill. Also, since light vehicle play has been pushed earlier and earlier over time, by the time access to the 4CP AT gun has arrived, opposition should clearly have a head start on vehicles. Also, same proposition as MG, reduce MP or change to munitions requirement.
- I've heard the P47 is extremely inaccurate to vehicles other than heavy tanks. Please fix the strafing so that it's in line with axis counterpart.
Again, this is only my opinion, feel free to disagree or make other suggestions.
Comments
The pathfinder's are a risky call at CP1, the only really use of the airdrop team weapons is to skip tech and still have access to the .50/57mm depending on tech path.
And there is almost no incentive to call in paratroopers over riflemen becuase they don't have AT grenades or smoke (which makes them less flexible) and they also have expensive upgrades (which they are absolutely useless without) that get in the way if a player intends to use P47s.
Though I do admit I have found use of the 45MU demo charge that the paratroopers have. It can be used to take down OKW halftracks after forcing a retreat.
Overall the commander is awkward to play due to what feels like a lot of competing choices.
And I would also like P47s to be made more consistent, in there current state they are more threatening to the infantry around the tank they are firing at. Also they are prone to missing moving tanks.
Not exactly true. They don't have the stats for that and they have shitty vet which leaves them with a stupidly high received accuracy.
The only logical way to use them is to replace fallen riflemen squads with them. Or to drop them and use them to bolster an on going offensive.
Paratroopers have a glaring 120MU cost + build time before they can get any work done. Rangers have good accuracy and they don't drop like flies which means its safe to use them without upgrades.
No reason to upgrade paras with m1919 if you can do it to riflemans and have better and less expensive result. If you want tompsons than buy rangers. Pathfinders have 1.0 received accuracy and cost 37 manpower to reinforce, kek, most expensive allied infantry squad to reinforce. Oh and did i said that pathfinders suck?
Seeing as this is discussing an entire commander. Moving this to commander feedback.
As for your arguments. They're all running on the logic that they should be rifleman replacements. Which is a bit odd really. In particular since the design clearly has no room for that idea.
The Pathfinders are there to support your troops. Marksmen that can pick off the wounded. Used properly they can be pretty nasty in that role. Plus their beacons can give you an intel advantage over your opponent and works with paratroopers.
There might be an argument to lowering the cost of the 50.cal that is air dropped. But at the same time i see the cost as being for when you haven't gone lt and still want the .50 cal. Thusly you pay that bit extra for not having teched there.
As for paratroopers. They're elite infantry. Expensive and can be airdropped which rather puts them in a league of their own, throw in some good upgrades and well used paratroopers can be pretty nasty. Some people like to say Rangers are so much better. Rangers don't have tactical assault. And tactical assault is a great ability when utilised properly. Plus the paratroopers overall have more durability. Plus the lmg upgrade allows them to fire on the move with the lmgs and can suppress units. So they have plenty of utility.
What applied to the .50 cal also applies to the airdropped at gun.
As for the strafing run. Yeah that one is rather terrible. No argument there. Too innacurate and thusly too expensive. Make it cheaper ot make it better.
Indeed, using Pathfinders as Rifke replacements it like using Jägers as Volk. Paras work very similarly to Rangers, Id say I like Rangers more but Tactical assault just makes them able to turn fights into their favour.
Pathfinders need to come in at CP0 to be of use. Calling them in at CP1 is risky, at the point when they become available they aren't desirable at all.
They cost more than a rifle squad and have a high reinforce cost they can be useful but it seems unnecessary to hold them at CP1 when they are already at such a high cost.