Lend-Lease Assault as a Wehrmacht Doctrine

#1
2 months ago
PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

Here's what Lend-Lease Assault would look like if it were a Wehrmacht doctrine:

(0 CP) Genadier Assault Upgrade

  • Grenadiers receive MP40's
  • Gain extra man
  • Gain Incendiary Grenades, lose Rifle Grenades
  • MG42 upgrade locks out Panzerfausts
  • lower Received Accuracy

(0 CP) Marder III SP AT Gun

  • light tank-destroyer with little anti-infantry capability
  • built out of Support Armored Korps

(0 CP) Sdkfz 250/1 Halftrack

  • Can upgrade to Mortar Halftrack
  • built out of Leichte Support Kompanie

(1 CP) 75mm LeIG 18

  • call-in unit

(6 CP) Relief Infantry

  • unchanged

No heavy tanks, no artillery and no off-map strikes.

Looks great, doesn't it? Who wouldn't want this commander in their line-up?

Now you know how UK faction players feel about their new commander.

Comments

  • #2
    2 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,790
    Tbh that looks like a pretty cool commander. Wouldn't get the marder cause no new models but put the JP4 in there and it would be sold as fuck
  • #3
    2 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @thedarkarmadillo I wanted a direct equivalent to the Wolverine so, it didn't really matter that the Marder doesn't exist in-game. What counts is their similarity.

    The JP4 is too strong compared to the M10 - better gun, better armor and it can hide. The Wolverine has better ammunition, better target tracking and better mobility but, in a stand-up fight, it would always lose to a JP4.

    The halftracks are similar, not the same but a rough equivalent.

    Relief Infantry is nothing like Vehicle Repairs but, it's the only Ostheer ability that comes at 6 CP. I find it less useful than the repairs but, other players seem to think it's pretty good.

    I'm glad you like the doctrine but, I meant it as a comparison to the new Wehrmacht commander, not the new British one. I'm curious to know which of the two doctrines players would choose: the one above or one which contains stand-alone assault infantry, explosives, an intel-gathering item, a good medium tank and a veteran heavy tank. The doctrine I formulated might be fun to play but, I doubt many players would choose it over Strategic Reserves.

    Also, I suspect that if the above doctrine was presented as the new Wehrmacht commander, the forums would be jammed with complaints until it was changed. The UK faction seems to get little attention so, it's easy for the team to ignore the obvious flaws of the new British doctrine.

    I guess my real point is that I think trying to balance the whole game using the new commanders is a stupid idea. The new commanders should be relatively balanced when compared to each other, within the limits imposed by the themes of the respective doctrines. The new UK commander still doesn't meet that standard and the only question is:

    Why are they so determined to keep the doctrine weak?

  • #4
    2 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,790
    Sometimes a commander doesn't need to be all bells and whistles. The new UKF commander offers a collection of new options. Things UKF literally does not have access to. There is 1 mobile mortar and it's linked to a bundle. They have 1 AA vehicle and it's 100 fuel, their sole dedicated AT vehicle is one of the most expensive in the game and also the slowest. I get it, this commander might not appeal to you, but it's opening up a huge number of options for the UKF. Players who didn't quite get the fuel long enough and are up to their arms in P4s can get an AT vehicle that can out run and out gum them. Denying recon won't cost nearly an entire tanks worth of fuel. They can take the initiative and clear buildings. This commander allows UKF to be more than just a slow growing mass of an army. It let's them be mobile and more forgiving.
    Just because it's not what you were hoping doesn't mean it's trash and should be scrapped. It doesn't have to be all A list abilities if it's fun to use and offer variety. That's what the commanders are supposed to be in the first place - variety. And this commander is a shining example of that.
  • #5
    2 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    I'm not asking them to scrap the commander; I just want some form of artillery added to it.

    The doctrine does give the Brits a lot of new options but, I don't think many players will use it in competitive play under its current form. Once heavy vehicles appear, the only item in this roster that will be used is Vehicle Crew Repairs and it will be used a lot.

    Having play-tested it against the AI (as OKW, which is the only faction which fully works under this mod), I can say that, once Panthers and King Tigers showed up, I didn't use any of the other items again. Instead, I spent a lot of time repairing my tanks after they had tried (unsuccessfully) to destroy the enemy's tanks. An artillery strike would have been really handy at that point to help my tanks finish the job or to cover their escape.

    From this, its easy to see that this doctrine is pointless after about 20 mins. There was no point in building any of the 4 units because, they are all light units that are easily wiped by heavy tanks. I realized that I was playing a doctrine that relied exclusively on core units in the second half of the game, with the help of Crew Repairs to keep my tanks from getting knocked out too quickly. What is the point of a doctrine that has only one item which is useful for the second half of a game? It's not even a game-winning item, like the Tiger Ace; it's a "lose a little slower" item.

    The Soviet doctrine suffer from the same issue but, curiously, neither of the German doctrines have this problem. The OKW will use the Smoke Run, Tactical Movement and, of course, the Tiger extensively in the second half of a game; the same is true for the Wehrmacht's satchel charges, Pz4H and Tiger Ace.

    This mod is so unbalanced in so many ways it's a bit of a joke. It's a pity it's not funny.

  • #6
    2 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,790
    You incorporate the units into your build, don't replace them entirely. The m10 gives you a cheap chasing unit, but when the enemy starts rolling out heavy armour you still want a firefly (same way usf will still want a Jackson) you use it to apply pressure earlier or cover your ass. The UKF is already flush with late game armour, you don't need a commander to fill that role. And for the love of God stop comparing it to what the other factions are getting. They are all different factions all with different strengths and weaknesses. Look at THIS commander and what it's bringing to THIS faction. It's not a dick measuring contest between factions. Their commanders will easily slip into obscurity because they are just another heavy tank commander as they fall in and out of meta, this one will always bring a number of new tools to the ukf
  • #7
    2 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    Sorry that I've been harping on this issue so much. I get that you're happy with the doctrine but, I'm not. However, all they have to do to shut me up is put some form of artillery in the next mod, even if it's just adding the Coordinated Barrage to the 81 mm mortar. Everything else is fine because, as you say, they are new tools for the UK faction - ones which fix structural issues within the British arsenal.

  • #8
    2 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,790
    Well, like I said. They could combine assault Tommies and the halftrack and free up a slot while also hopefully making the vet suit an assault Tommy instead of a defensive one
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.