British - New Commander Mod Official Discussion



  • #62
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,748

    British - Lend Lease Assault ver 3
    In my opinion:

    CP 0 Assault Sections
    The upgrade provides 2+3 SMG and take 1 slot. Similar abilities should be bought in line since MP-40 take all weapon slots while PPsh none.

    Make the unit was separate unit and not an upgrade similar to Tank hunters. It could can be 5 men with no need for bolster and with vet bonuses custom made for the role. CP could be 0 (build-able from HQ)-2 if the Thompson are locked behind tech.

    No weapon slots, 1+ bren +2 Thompson have to much DPS at range 20.
    Make WP grenade share CD with mills and gammon.

    CP 0 (passive) M5 Half-Tracks (the "s" is a typo?)

    The unit seem to be a different version since it can reinforce with Quad and can suppress on the move.
    The unit can not get "warspeed" upgrade.

    Lower the chance to shoot down planes
    Increase DPS on the move
    Make suppression a timed ability

    CP 1 81mm Mortar Team

    CP 6 Crew Repair

    CP 0 Achilles I Tank Destroyer

    The unit can not get "warspeed" upgrade.

    Redesign the unit as a "flanker".
    Increase turret rotation, increase rear armor, increase DPS close.
    AP round could be limited to 1 shot

  • #63
    2 years ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346
    edited April 2019

    I have a different vision:

    Lend-Lease Assault

    (0 CP) M10 Wolverine/Achilles I

    • exactly the same as US version

    (1 CP) 81 mm Mortar

    • preferably with Coordinated Barrage ability as an upgrade

    (3 CP) Mechanized Assault Section

    • in M5 halftrack, 5-man team armed with Thompsons, 1 free slot

    (6 CP) Vehicle Crew Repairs

    • unchanged

    (8 CP) Mortar Cover

    • off-map strike that includes smoke

    I still prefer the Sherman to the M10 but, I don't think that's going to happen. This version is a compromise but, at least it looks viable. It has enough elements to satisfy both the Lend-Lease and the Assault components of the doctrine. It's also far more balanced than what is currently on offer.

    With the Assault Sections, I agree with Vipper that the WP grenade should share cooldown with the other grenades and that Vet bonuses should be customized for this unit (if that's possible).

  • #64
    2 years ago
    WAAAGH2000WAAAGH2000 Posts: 139

    Forgot M5HT and mortar squad,why not mortar HT?And I think assault pack for UKF should bundle flamethrower,this change use to all already have flamethrower commander too,because most time most player just training 2 squad engineer ,and one of them will upgrade sweeper,only one weapon use one commander ability is worst

  • #65
    2 years ago
    Ver 4.0 is out and still nothing new for UFK.
  • #66
    2 years ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    BUG - Mortar Pit is working but, Bofors and 17 pdr emplacements are still not working.

    In my opinion, this commander is not viable as is. It's destined to be a novelty doctrine that few people will use. It sits in stark contrast to the German commanders, which are quite powerful by comparison. Very disappointing.

  • #67
    2 years ago
    YoshilinYoshilin Posts: 2

    Made this account just to share my two cents. Not a particularly hardcore, or indeed high-tier player by any means, but I do play British quite a bit and had high hopes for this commander. As it currently stands, I have to agree with what a lot of others are saying, right now the commander just doesn't seem viable. I was really excited for the idea of a commander that could provide the British a more up-close and aggressive style. Whether this was Relic's intention for the commander or not, I don't know, but in this regard, I feel the commander falls short.

    When you talked about the Assault Sections before the mod I envisioned something more a long the lines of Assault Grenadiers from the Wehrmacht. A call in unit that came equipped with the Stens and/or Thompsons by default. With Thompsons perhaps this is too OP and maybe would be better kept behind a CP limit like Shock Troops. But even just a 4-man (can be bolstered to 5) squad with Stens. As they stand now however, they just seem like a real fuss to get out. From my testing by the time I had built the Platoon Command and had the munitions to potentially unlock the upgrade I often times didn't want to. By that point why waste that slot when you would likely rather med-kits and I usually had Sappers out anyway - not the most fearsome CQ troops granted, but they get it done.

    The mortar team is fine. Not having real access to mobile indirect fire has often been a problem I've encountered while playing as British.

    The Half-track I'm a bit on the fence about however. It too takes some time to get out, not like the Soviet Scout Car which you can turbo out quite quickly. And on that note, also unlike the Soviet Scout Car, you don't have access to an immediate and potent unit that can work well with it like the Engineer/Flamethrower combo. If we for a moment forget about the Assault Sections, which for reasons I discussed earlier you might not be fielding anyways - I can't really think of something I'd put in the M3. Tommies with Brens? Heavy Engineers maybe? But in these two examples you're really starting to pass the point in the game where a scout vehicle is even relevant. And in addition, as someone previously mentioned, if you really want cheap, mobile fire-support then we already have that in the Universal Carrier, which can also transport troops if you are desperate. On the other hand however, I do see the potential of it. I've seen how effective the Soviet Scout Car and the US Utility Car, etc. can be if played well. Also, why not just use the M3-Resupply Half-track from the Special Weapons Regiment? It does everything this one does whilst granting access to mobile weapon racks.

    Vehicle Crew Repairs is fine, I'm glad at least for that change - Smoke Raid Operations just doesn't do it for me. It does feel a little uninspired though if I'm honest. This is the fourth commander with VCR, it's a solid ability that's for sure, but I think some variety would be welcome, something like Strafing Support from Vanguard Op or Concentration Barrage (as there is now 1 less reason to get Artillery Flares).

    Finally, the M10. I really don't like this one. I know some people seem to like it and that's fine, I personally am in the Sherman boat. Like someone pointed out earlier, why do the British need another questionable AT option between PIATS, AEC, 6-Pounder and Firefly? The Cromwell is kind of a disappointment compared to most of the Armoured Arsenal the British have access too. I'd really like an alternative that can fill a similar main-battle tank role, in this case a Sherman variant.

    Sorry for the long post, didn't mean for it to sound too rant-like. That's all.

  • #68
    2 years ago
    Aiborne82Aiborne82 Posts: 22
    edited April 2019

    It's interesting to see this update develop. It seems there are a lot of people asking for the Sherman on all 3 forum platforms and some other power factors in the Allied commanders that this team seems very hesitant to give them. As for the German commanders they are going to become meta very fast because they are great and getting most of what is being asked for them. They have a lot of synergy and with the new OST buffs team games are going to become and even larger joke than they used to be. We'll see how the competitive side does

  • #69
    2 years ago

    Totally agree with the questionable British and USF Commander development, however, these started as proposals from players and from that they have been modified to try to match needs and desires from players maining those factions.
    In fact, giving to the USF more Smoke is insulting hahah

    Sadly the buffs to Axis infantry, weapons, and Panzergrenadiers moved to the T0-HQ plus the 5 very useful abilities are causing Allied players to feel diminished after comparing results.

  • #70
    2 years ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346
    edited April 2019

    @Andy_RE Hi Andy. Is there any chance of making the new British commander a Salvageable Item so that I can swap it for something I'll actually use? As it is currently formulated, I will never use this commander and I'd like to trade it for something else.

    It's really sad because, I submitted a Lend-Lease commander proposal, I voted for this doctrine and yet what's being offered is so very disappointing. It would be nice to salvage something from it.

  • #71
    2 years ago

    the brit still holding invisible thompson
    i prefer change it to call in 1 squad of Royal Commando (from all unit mod) with 5 man holding 5 Thompson smg

  • #72
    2 years ago


    Infantry sections upgraded with the new Assault Package have Thompsons missing

    @PanzerFutz the Commander is kind of great now after the new buffs to the Halftrack and the Mortar Team costing now 0CP. But the best thing about this Commander, in my opinion, is having a cheap version of your official Tank destroyer.

  • #73
    2 years ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @Patrol_Omega It still has no artillery. Good luck playing this commander against anyone who knows what they're doing. Your force will get ripped to shreds by the enemy's arty and you'll have nothing with which to counter it. You will also have no support for assaults and no cover for retreats. That's a huge flaw for a British doctrine, consigning this commander to the novelty bin. I'm willing to predict that a few months after they release this commander no one will be using it in tournament play.

    I just want to get ahead of the pack by asking to make it trade-able. I'm sure plenty of others will want to trade it as well.

  • #74
    2 years ago
    RomanovRomanov Posts: 48

    @PanzerFutz You really are a bit overly negative about it. The commander gives you new options, its not a end-all-be-all no brainer choice. The lack of a heavy artillery piece or ability isnt that big a deal, there are viable commanders with no or just light Artillery options, not to mention your stock arsenal. overall i would agree this commander will be less useful for 3v3 and 4v4 but can certainly be a good option for smaller scale games. The mobile mortar has incredible utility, you can cover assault and retrerats with smoke barrages and the M10 gives you a nice alternative to the firefly and AEC.

  • #75
    2 years ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346
    edited April 2019

    @Romanov No, I'm just being honest about it. Get back to me in a few months, when the novelty has worn off and you're sick of getting your arse handed to you every time you play this commander. Then we can have a frank discussion about the relative merits of this doctrine.

    The mobile mortar is the best thing about this doctrine, even without having any vet abilities or upgrades. That really should be setting off alarms.

    The M10 is acceptable but, it will get slaughtered by shreks and AT guns if it isn't supported by a handful of other units. Its ability to defend itself against infantry is practically non-existent.

    If you rely on Forward Observer Tommies or a Sniper for your only artillery, be prepared to lose them every time you try to use them. The Coordinated Barrage is good for defense but, it falls way short on offense.

    If you want to see how good this doctrine might have been, see here:

  • #76
    2 years ago
    RomanovRomanov Posts: 48

    @PanzerFutz All you really did was change the M10 for a sherman and the halftrack for a Priest. the changes to assault sections and the mortar are negligble. the M10 overlaps less with the Firefly or AEC than the sherman would with the cromwell, but i would agree the priest would be a better addition than the halftrack, not only because of the vCoH nostalgia.

  • #77
    2 years ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @Romanov Assault Grenadiers and Panzerfusiliers are both available immediately and without a munitions cost. The change to the Assault Section was to give the UK the same advantage; it's small but not negligible. It allows a player to use them right from the start, when they are most useful.

    The change to the mortar is also small but not negligible. It gives the unit a veteran ability which is entirely consistent with an assault doctrine. The team couldn't be bothered doing this for a UK unit but, they probably would have done it for a German unit. [The US version doesn't need the veteran ability because, it's a core unit and it gets superseded by the pack howitzer, which does have the veteran ability. The UK has no superseding unit.]

    There are big differences between the M10 and the Sherman that make this change anything but negligible. The M10's purpose is to give the UK a cheaper (and less effective) AT platform than the Firefly. It's an inferior weapon that can be acquired quicker because of the lower cost, filling the gap between the 6 pdr and the Firefly. It's handy but not really necessary because, it does overlap with so many other units.

    On the other hand, the Sherman is superior to the Cromwell in almost every way. The cost is comparable but, it is a far more effective tank. The Sherman is similar in its AT performance but, its HE rounds and top-gunner make it a much better anti-personnel platform. Plus, its Radio Net veteran ability will buff any other tanks around it, something the Cromwell can only do if it's designated as a command tank. So, the Sherman shouldn't be seen as overlapping the Cromwell; its purpose is to replace the Cromwell entirely with something better, without overlapping any other units.

    Even though the Sherman is superior to the Cromwell, it has its limitations. This means it doesn't preclude the use of the British heavies. The Comet & the Churchill will still be needed and would, in fact, benefit from the Sherman's Radio Net buffs.

    On a historical note, only 4,000 Cromwells were produced but, the UK received over 17,000 Shermans, making it the most common tank in the British arsenal. By rights, the Sherman should be the core tank and the Cromwell should be the doctrinal tank. However, if they did that, who would ever use a Cromwell?

  • #78
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    @panzerfutz a few months out of free content is pretty good... Just because it's not what you want doesn't mean it's not what others want. I feel like we have had this convo before but it opens up alot of new options for players who are playing usf. If you want Sherman's and priests there is an entire faction of toys like that waiting for you to discover!
  • #79
    2 years ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @thedarkarmadillo I was having a bad day on Saturday and I took my frustrations out on this forum. I might just take a break from posting for a while; I've been taking it too personally of late. I'll still lurk but, I'll keep my opinions to myself until after the new commanders are officially released. By then, everyone will have a much better idea of where the new commanders sit in the overall scheme of the game.

  • #80
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824

    @PanzerFutz said:
    @thedarkarmadillo I was having a bad day on Saturday and I took my frustrations out on this forum. I might just take a break from posting for a while; I've been taking it too personally of late. I'll still lurk but, I'll keep my opinions to myself until after the new commanders are officially released. By then, everyone will have a much better idea of where the new commanders sit in the overall scheme of the game.

    well, i hope you find better days friend.

  • #81
    2 years ago
    pfcpfc Posts: 8
    Combine the lendlease units in 1 slot
    Current skill slots are too inefficient
  • #82
    2 years ago
    YoshilinYoshilin Posts: 2
    edited April 2019

    I'm loving the change to the Mortar Team, being able to get it out a 0cps makes a huge difference. Still not entirely sold on the half-track but the buffs are appreciated. I'm still pretty disappointed by the Assault Sections however, which I see as the core of this commander. I still think they're too tedious to get out, especially for the role they are intended to be used for. On that note, I have a suggestion as to how I think they might be solidified.

    I think the Assault Sections should be a 0cp call-in unit. A four man squad armed with just Stens (can be bolstered as usual), then upon constructing the Platoon Command Post (Tier 1), the squad can be upgraded with 2x Thompsons + Phosphorous Grenades for 75-90 Munitions.

    I think this would be a great change to the unit, allowing them to fulfil an early game aggressive role like Assault Grenadiers, while not being too OP early on due to the lack of pre-equipped Thompsons. The Thompson upgrade will then allow the unit to scale into mid-late game.

    Just a thought. I'd also still love a Sherman variant over the M10 personally.

  • #83
    2 years ago
    WAAAGH2000WAAAGH2000 Posts: 139

    Maybe Assault Sections should bundle with flamethrower and change to all commander ?

  • #84
    2 years ago
    > @WAAAGH2000 said:
    > Maybe Assault Sections should bundle with flamethrower and change to all commander ?

  • #85
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    5 man flamethrower squad with 0.8 target size and Smgs... Ass engies on crack... That's going to go well now won't it...
  • #86
    2 years ago
    > @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > 5 man flamethrower squad with 0.8 target size and Smgs... Ass engies on crack... That's going to go well now won't it...

    I think his mean is assault section upgrade for infantry section bundle with flamer for RE.
  • #87
    2 years ago
    US's Urban assault kit have both rifle nade for rear echelon and wp nade for rifle so i think combined assault upgrade for infantry section and flamer for royal engineer into 1 ability won't be too much.

    Flamer can be replace by demo charge or satchel, or echelon's mine on royal engineer, for something new.
  • #88
    2 years ago
    0cp mortal call in is nice, i do like it, but i still prefer pack howitzer built form T2, for some more punch and late game scale.
  • #89
    2 years ago
    BloodygoodBloodygood Posts: 77

    These changes to the universal carrier are pretty catastrophic to the UKF early game. If you are going to increase the price of repair munitions to "trade evenly" with enemy snares, then you better buff the self-repair to guarantee it repairs the engine crit, otherwise it's not "trading evenly" -- it's coming out behind. This is putting aside the even more agreeable reasons why this is excessive-- that the weapon upgrades are locked behind t2, and therefore a modicum of fuel and munitions.

    As it stands, there's only about 1-2 minutes where a universal carrier can operate without impunity before axis light vehicles take the field, which can basically kill UCs sight unseen, and that gateway is even smaller for at units like raks (you might not even have time to upgrade them).

    Self repairing takes time, and because it's often performed after an engine crit, when the vehicle slows to a crawl, the enemy has a very good idea of the general vicinity of the unit. It also can't fire during self-repairs. Putting "self repair" behind increased munitions is basically making the self-repair feature non-existent. And it's not overpowered, because repairing takes time and time is not the friend to a universal carrier's viability in the match.

  • #90
    2 years ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    BUG - 7th version and the Bofors emplacement still doesn't work. A classic case of mission overload.

  • #91
    2 years ago
    GeneralIlareneGGeneralIl… Baguette's countryPosts: 420
    edited May 2019

    I was expecting more changes, i mean the commander is 4 passive and a t0 call-in (not that it's bad, just less excinting imo because there is so much possibilities).
    It seems this commander is mostly done but since you're making other changes as well, maybe this -pretty minor- one could go through:
    -Plz fix concentrated sexton barrage (valentine): if your sexton barage is on cooldown it just doesn't work (when similar abilities allow double barrage ie ost w werfer ) and still spend the ammo. Idk if double barrage should be a thing, but at the very least update the requirement so it doesn't let the ammo be spent.

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.