USF Commander Revamp Discussion

13»

Comments

  • #62
    11 months ago
    az244az244 Cracow, PolandPosts: 16

    In my opinion, light vehicles are to weak to be valuable option in a match. Maybe a good idea for Mechanized commander would be a perk that increase line of sight of light vehicles to make using them less risky.

  • #63
    11 months ago

    One thing I'd like to see with USF's Armor Company is a Thompson upgrade for the Assault Engineers

    The Thompson SMG in coh2 is really great and I'd always love to see more of them.

    Suggestions for balance with the Thompson upgrade are:
    1) Have Thompsons take up two weapons slots, locking out additional upgrades (M2 flamethrower or BAR)
    2) Limit Thompsons to four weapons (this could be done in combination with the above point, or without it)
    a) Limit Thompsons to three weapons (and taking up only one weapons lot)
    b) Bundle three to four Thompsons WITH the M2 Flamethrower (and increase price, obviously)
    3) Requiring either Lieutenant OR Captain already on field to unlock the Thompsons (basically, 50 or 60 fuel requirement + build time)

    With the addition of a Thompson SMG package, Assault Engineers would be an even more attractive option due to their CQB versatility. If the Thompson upgrade and the M2 flamethrower are mutually exclusive, it would give the Assault Engineers a distinct role as a CQB squad (and not a building-clearer).
    However, if the Thompson package and the M2 flamethrower are not mutually exclusive (or bundled together), it would increase the overall potential performance of the squad in its current role as a building clearer + CQB squad + utility squad.
    Bundling the upgrades together into an "assault package) would further direct the player to the squad's intended role as a close combat/anti-garrison unit as it throws out the ability to equip an M2 flamethrower and BAR. (This is based on the assumption that mid-range DPS with Thompson + M2 would be lower than BAR + M2.)

    However, to be frank, the competitive issues with USF are beyond the scope of several commanders and due to the organization of key units in the tech buildings (.50 cal vs. AT gun vs. delay armor). There's a reason why so few games were played with USF during GCS2 (both the qualifiers and the live event in Manchester). Their win rate during the 4 qualifier tournaments was also dismally poor at 36% (although there are certainly other issues at play when it comes to faction selection at lower levels of play).
    That being said, the proposed changes above would definitely be enjoyed by players at the mid-skill level where the meta is somewhat different.

  • #64
    10 months ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 681

    @Gbpirate said:
    One thing I'd like to see with USF's Armor Company is a Thompson upgrade for the Assault Engineers

    The Thompson SMG in coh2 is really great and I'd always love to see more of them.

    Suggestions for balance with the Thompson upgrade are:
    1) Have Thompsons take up two weapons slots, locking out additional upgrades (M2 flamethrower or BAR)
    2) Limit Thompsons to four weapons (this could be done in combination with the above point, or without it)
    a) Limit Thompsons to three weapons (and taking up only one weapons lot)
    b) Bundle three to four Thompsons WITH the M2 Flamethrower (and increase price, obviously)
    3) Requiring either Lieutenant OR Captain already on field to unlock the Thompsons (basically, 50 or 60 fuel requirement + build time)

    With the addition of a Thompson SMG package, Assault Engineers would be an even more attractive option due to their CQB versatility. If the Thompson upgrade and the M2 flamethrower are mutually exclusive, it would give the Assault Engineers a distinct role as a CQB squad (and not a building-clearer).
    However, if the Thompson package and the M2 flamethrower are not mutually exclusive (or bundled together), it would increase the overall potential performance of the squad in its current role as a building clearer + CQB squad + utility squad.
    Bundling the upgrades together into an "assault package) would further direct the player to the squad's intended role as a close combat/anti-garrison unit as it throws out the ability to equip an M2 flamethrower and BAR. (This is based on the assumption that mid-range DPS with Thompson + M2 would be lower than BAR + M2.)

    However, to be frank, the competitive issues with USF are beyond the scope of several commanders and due to the organization of key units in the tech buildings (.50 cal vs. AT gun vs. delay armor). There's a reason why so few games were played with USF during GCS2 (both the qualifiers and the live event in Manchester). Their win rate during the 4 qualifier tournaments was also dismally poor at 36% (although there are certainly other issues at play when it comes to faction selection at lower levels of play).
    That being said, the proposed changes above would definitely be enjoyed by players at the mid-skill level where the meta is somewhat different.

    i agree assault engineers should get the tommy gun upgrades not the tank crews since no one uses them in combat or they are not feasible. another side note i am quite disappointed the pershing did not get a health buff or a cost reduction (i am not exactly getting what i pay for)

  • #65
    9 months ago
    thekingsownthekingso… Posts: 447
    edited October 2018

    wrong thread

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.