New Commander Submission - Discuss

Term "new ability" can be used not only to new content but also old units/abilities that were completele revamp. Commander doesn't have to have any new stuff to be desirable. Main key is to make good composition of slots that will fill the certain gaps that faction lacks. So overhaul abilities like Hold the Line or TigerAce (for example modify to be Tiger Command Tank) even though they are in game, they will be something new.

Even only slightly improvements to certain units for example panzerfuzzilier or assualt grens (but with diffrent effect than JeagerLightInfantry) will be like renewal and restore old stuff and will give players feeling of fresh a breath of wind into the gameplay.

But to all players who came up with commanders proposal made only with already existing abilities, plz remember that doesn't mean that doctrine will be easy to create. Abilities meansioned about like HullDown, TigerAce, British Hold the Line etc. They need complete changes and have to be make from scrach. It's often easier make something new that fix it. Generally speaking it doesn't matter how many "new" old "old" abilities will new commander will include. Most important is how they gonna be implemented and balance.

Let's be honest, all commander proposal aren't perfect and they will have to be slightly revise. I hope balance team will contact with those people and suggest them highly welcome improvement of them before the final vote.

Agreed.

We're aiming to have the Commander Revamp go live in October/Novemeber and the new commanders hit the game in December. Posted by RE_Andy in on 1:05PM Jul 3, 2018.
During the seven months of existence of this topic, it was possible to actually create new units for all factions, for example: paratroopers for the Soviets, Super pershing / Sherman Jumbo for the USA.

It was absolutely realizable. You just had to vote what new Commander you would like to see, and for seven months it is a long time to make all the new commanders.

During the seven months of existence of this topic, it was possible to actually create new units for all factions, for example: paratroopers for the Soviets, Super pershing / Sherman Jumbo for the USA.

Did you miss the part where it says that no new models can be made or added?

No, I did not miss it, but it was realizable in 7 months. Question of desire.

Plus, the decision on new commanders was clearly not decided on June 2, 2018, and much earlier

New commanders realese will be summer 2019

New commanders realese will be summer 2019

Heh, if the whole of this year was spent on creating new units for new commanders (which is absolutely real) and didn’t talk about it for 7 months. Just wasted time.

creating new units for new commanders (which is absolutely real)

Why do you keep on insisting creating new units is realistic when only Relic could create new units and they won't? The game is in its fith year, Relic doesn't have any developers working on it anymore.

Why do you keep on insisting creating new units is realistic when only Relic could create new units and they won't? The game is in its fith year, Relic doesn't have any developers working on it anymore.

So.... you have a whole studio. Support and development of Dawn of War 3 will be abandoned, support for the Company of Heroes 2 is conducted by the strengths of the game's community, to extract a small group of 3D painter who will leisurely draw several new models several months - absolutely real, because creating and balancing these commanders most likely made the Community a balance and modding group.

Let's be honest, all commander proposal aren't perfect and they will have to be slightly revise. I hope balance team will contact with those people and suggest them highly welcome improvement of them before the final vote.

I hope thats the way the mod team will do the process. The community should not vote about the first submitted concepts but vote about already improved versions.This would guarantee a transparent vote. It would be really bad if drastic design changes had to be made after the vote - people may have voted for an other concept then.

I hope thats the way the mod team will do the process. The community should not vote about the first submitted concepts but vote about already improved versions.This would guarantee a transparent vote. It would be really bad if drastic design changes had to be made after the vote - people may have voted for an other concept then.

That does sound like a good way to do things from our end, but it would be a lot more effort, since the final versions of the commanders will take a lot of testing. They'd have to make both commanders and iterate on them at the same time, before having to scrap half of the work.
I'm ok with voting based on the general concept of a commander.

I see what you guys are saying about all-new content vs fixing existing stuff- I should have clarified that the "I want 5 of my favorite powerful abilities" approach was more what I was talking about.

That does sound like a good way to do things from our end, but it would be a lot more effort, since the final versions of the commanders will take a lot of testing. They'd have to make both commanders and iterate on them at the same time, before having to scrap half of the work.
I'm ok with voting based on the general concept of a commander.

Offtopic:
Well, the runner up concepts could then be released on a later time and/ or Relic could package them to a "Community Commander DLC" or sell them separately. I already mentioned this earlier but i dont see no real reason why this should not be at least an option.
1. Relic keeps his promises and players get 5 commanders for free.
2. Relic would show further goodwill to the community with more -unexpected- contend.
3. Relic could earn some additional money with the DLC. I for my part would happily pay for the runner up concepts and i dont think im alone.

I only see winners in this scenario BUT the mod team would have additional work thats for sure. And they worked their butt off in the last months. But if the team would be on board....

Andy_RE, pls read this

Additional changes:
StuG E - cp requirement reduced to 5, health reduced to 400
Smoke barrage ability added

HEAT shell upgrade added:
Direct fire HEAT shell toggle (HEAT has the valentine’s gun stats, 80 damage and 120 penetration, 5.6-6s reload) (requires bp2)
Advanced Optics upgrade added:
Changes the HE gun stats to that of the M8A1 Gun Motor Carriage ( requires bp3), unlocks HE and smoke barrage.


The objective of these changes is to allow the StuG E to come out just before medium tanks instead of afterwards right now, and in exchange reduce its health.
The smoke barrage allows it to support infantry and cover it while it retreats (around 10% of StuG ammo was smoke, according to tank encyclopedia)
HEAT shells give the StuG E limited AT capability, but it still requires support to defeat enemy armour:
Vs. Valentines (480hp/80 = 6 shots for the StuG E to kill the valentine), vs (400/80 = 5 shots for the Valentine to kill the StuG E)
Vs. AECs: (400/80 = 5 shots for the StuG E to kill the AEC, with 5.6s reload) vs. (400/120 = 3.33 -> 4 shots for the AEC to kill the StuG E with 3.6s reload)

StuG E is still not good against other armoured vehicles, accounting its lack of turret and greater shots to kill. However with these changes it isn’t totally useless against armoured vehicles

How do you feel about my idea?

That does sound like a good way to do things from our end, but it would be a lot more effort, since the final versions of the commanders will take a lot of testing. They'd have to make both commanders and iterate on them at the same time, before having to scrap half of the work.
I'm ok with voting based on the general concept of a commander.

Yes that would take too much time to make entire balance approach from bottom to top after all that would be 10 commanders - two each faction and don't worry i don't suggest that at all.

Although imagine really good commander that has 4 great slots and 1 horrible that would strike him down
by just being too much overpowered. That ability (or unit) should be of course replaced to make commander design more balance before even balanceteam will start working on it. But replacement cannot be addded AFTER the vote. People vote for this composition of abilities/units in certain commander and that wouldn't be fair to revert everything upside down.

Plus, if the presented commanders are put into the vote before ajustments then (even if they include really good stuff) they won't be taken into consideration becouse they will be UP/OP.

Therefore i simply suggest and advice balance team to contact with the Creators of top list commander proposal and allow them to make some tweaks and corrections before voting.

Therefore i simply suggest and advice balance team to contact with the Creators of top list commander proposal and allow them to make some tweaks and corrections before voting.

That would guarantee that not too drastic changes had to made AFTER the vote, so im all in on your idea.

Additional changes:
StuG E - cp requirement reduced to 5, health reduced to 400
Smoke barrage ability added

HEAT shell upgrade added:
Direct fire HEAT shell toggle (HEAT has the valentine’s gun stats, 80 damage and 120 penetration, 5.6-6s reload) (requires bp2)
Advanced Optics upgrade added:
Changes the HE gun stats to that of the M8A1 Gun Motor Carriage ( requires bp3), unlocks HE and smoke barrage.


The objective of these changes is to allow the StuG E to come out just before medium tanks instead of afterwards right now, and in exchange reduce its health.
The smoke barrage allows it to support infantry and cover it while it retreats (around 10% of StuG ammo was smoke, according to tank encyclopedia)
HEAT shells give the StuG E limited AT capability, but it still requires support to defeat enemy armour:
Vs. Valentines (480hp/80 = 6 shots for the StuG E to kill the valentine), vs (400/80 = 5 shots for the Valentine to kill the StuG E)
Vs. AECs: (400/80 = 5 shots for the StuG E to kill the AEC, with 5.6s reload) vs. (400/120 = 3.33 -> 4 shots for the AEC to kill the StuG E with 3.6s reload)

StuG E is still not good against other armoured vehicles, accounting its lack of turret and greater shots to kill. However with these changes it isn’t totally useless against armoured vehicles

How do you feel about my idea?

I would like that.
The stug comes way too late.
I would be happy if you can call it earlier with about cp4 or cp5.
Or give it this at options.
Both together is not necessary

While i forgot it as potential, but id really love to see ardennes assault campaigns commander turned into multiplayer game one. Airborne is probably not needed, but i personally would like to see dog company but with 5th ability being something like rifle field defenses or sherman bulldozer (even though it might overlap with armor company)

Can I just ask something about A soldiers idea on brits quickly? because I love this idea and it sounds like most of the other brit players do to, but I want to ask about the assault infantry sections

Now the idea is to have a IS squad armed with Thompsons, which is exactly what I would want, but looking at what they did with cavalry riflemen I don't want them to become an IS squad with Sten guns, and you need to upgrade to Thompsons, that imo beats the whole point of them, if that was going to be the case I'd much rather an assault package upgrade on normal IS squads giving them 2/3 Thompsons and the WP grenade

Can I just ask something about A soldiers idea on brits quickly? because I love this idea and it sounds like most of the other brit players do to, but I want to ask about the assault infantry sections

Now the idea is to have a IS squad armed with Thompsons, which is exactly what I would want, but looking at what they did with cavalry riflemen I don't want them to become an IS squad with Sten guns, and you need to upgrade to Thompsons, that imo beats the whole point of them, if that was going to be the case I'd much rather an assault package upgrade on normal IS squads giving them 2/3 Thompsons and the WP grenade

There are 3 variants they can go with. A dedicated assault section, a new call in squad that can upgrade to a assault section or just an upgrade package for the regular IS.

Whatever they do is fine by me as long as they properly embody the idea. Of course there is also then the factors of what would be the more balanced, practical, less time consuming and less complex way of implementing it among other things.

There are 3 variants they can go with. A dedicated assault section, a new call in squad that can upgrade to a assault section or just an upgrade package for the regular IS.

Whatever they do is fine by me as long as they properly embody the idea. Of course there is also then the factors of what would be the more balanced, practical, less time consuming and less complex way of implementing it among other things.

Giving SMG to Tommies is not a good idea since they are using the cover mechanism. In addition SMG and Bolt action rifles should not mix.

Can I just ask something about A soldiers idea on brits quickly? because I love this idea and it sounds like most of the other brit players do to, but I want to ask about the assault infantry sections

Now the idea is to have a IS squad armed with Thompsons, which is exactly what I would want, but looking at what they did with cavalry riflemen I don't want them to become an IS squad with Sten guns, and you need to upgrade to Thompsons, that imo beats the whole point of them, if that was going to be the case I'd much rather an assault package upgrade on normal IS squads giving them 2/3 Thompsons and the WP grenade

Perfect example would be a OKW volks squad. It can be upgraded with 2 stgs but that doesn't make them a terminator squad. Cavalery riflemen are so good in close combat becouse they have 5 thompsons therefore the number of weapons has the biggest inpact.

Personally i would prefer new main line infantry squad for Brits as a substitution for IS. The infantry squad that would be more similar to volks or even riflemen. UKF is the faction with least amount of call-in infantry units so that would be something new whatever if they gonna be called canadian, scotish, polish or royal guard infantry group.