Login

russian armor

Commander Rework approach

7 Jul 2018, 12:44 PM
#1
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 2595 | Subs: 1

Imo the commander approach should have the following aims:

1) Balance commander abilities while bringing similar abilities inline taking into account faction.

2) Balance commander themselves by removing abilities combination that are simply too strong.

3) Keep abilities and commanders to a "theme" as much as possible



Balance commander abilities

There are many commander abilities that are simply way to weak I will mention the following although I might miss some:


Soviet
PMD-6 mines (both AI and AT) (AI mines should be balanced have the same limitation as other mines)
Tank traps (All tank trap should have built time increased and HP increased. Assault engineer should also be able to dismantle them)
M5 assault group
Armored vehicles detection
Booby trap territory
KV-8

PMD could be merged with tank traps.

M5 could also allow assault guard to be built in HQ. The weapon could be changed to USF/UKF built like Bars/Thompson/bazookas/Piats

AVD could become passive for elite infantry Penal/Shock/Guards when stationary while having an active part that works like UKF vehicle tracking cost MU.

Booby trap territory could be changed to require engineers and have the Mu cost lowered.

KV-8 should not require T4 (maybe require 3 buildings), it should also not be available with Super heavies thus proving and alternative built for Soviet without T4.

Ostheer
Defensive fortification
250 MHT
250 mechanized grenadier group

Defensive Fortification can be merged with entrenching tools (the speed of building for all mainline infantry should go down while the same option should become available for all engineers).

250 MHT take too much damage from mortars pits while the fire barrage has too much scatter and is rather ineffective as DOT. The units should take less damage from mortars since it is easy to hit and its DOT should be more effective vs emplacements (maybe last longer).

250 should have the grenadier replaced by a Stormtrooper with a shreck, the 250 should be able to vet as other units.

USF

Elite vehicles crews
Fire it up

Elite crew can be changed by giving 2 Thompson to crews for no MU cost, or give a change to crew to survive vehicle distraction while losing half their vet level or allow player to buy an extra vet level for vehicles at fuel manpower cost.

OKW
Sturm officer
Emergency repairs
Panzer Commanders
Incendiary munition
Forward receivers
Early warning
thorough Salvage
Hezter
Ostwind

Sturm officer should be able to gain veterancy as other units. His aura should scale with veterancy (that applies to all auras)

Emergency repair should come inline with similar abilities

Panzer commander should become cheaper and the barrage should become weaker (incendiary?)and cheaper

Incendiary munition sort for force T1 maybe it should be available for puma or stuka also.

Forward receives and early warning could be merged into one. The ability could also provide some bonuses to UHU like more vision or slightly Target size increase for painted targets, vehicle tracking. Maybe make a night fighting panther available for the commander.

Hezter/Ostwind should not require T3 since they are specialized tanks or should be call-ins from base similar to KT and thus available even in T3 is lost.

UKF
Valentine
Anti building flame mortar support
Forward observation Post

Valentine should CP and Pop lowered. The radar should be an upgrade and limited to one like the command vehicles.

ABFMS should become weaker cheaper and earlier available. Maybe make it available to Pyro Tommies from CP 0.

FOP provides very little for price. Increase utility like reinforce and allow to build medic. Call in cost should be decreased or make free with long CD and able to be called in in smaller radius around the building.

To be continued...
7 Jul 2018, 13:17 PM
#2
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 221

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jul 2018, 12:44 PMVipper
Sturm officer should be able to gain veterancy as other units. His aura should scale with veterancy (that applies to all auras)

Emergency repair should come inline with similar abilities

Panzer commander should become cheaper and the barrage should become weaker (incendiary?)and cheaper


Sturm Offizier should also lose the mechanic that all squads in close proximity retreat when the officer is killed. The aura is nowhere strong enough to justify that imo. Focussing the officer squad first and forcing it to retreat (getting rid of the aura buffs) is a big enough reward. If the unit is allowed to vet up with the aura scaling along, it could be brought back at vet2 or 3 perhaps.

Agreed on emergency repairs. Either needs to repair crits instantly or it needs to become a passive repair ability.

I'd rather have the Panzer Commander stay the same price but getting some better buffs. Especially sight range. The arty barrage could stay the way it is, but it needs to deploy much quicker.
Unlike the Brits, it would need to be a viable alternative to the pintle mounted MG.
7 Jul 2018, 13:32 PM
#3
avatar of wandererraven

Posts: 312

I suggest
Ranger Change Default weapon form M1 carbine to M1 garand
For Def stance Because M1 carbine and Thompson In Fix role for Assault role
unlike paratroop can get M1919A6 for long dps Boost

7 Jul 2018, 13:59 PM
#4
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 1575 | Subs: 2

The Sexton also feels a bit underwhelming compared to the Priest, I mean yeah sure it's got an 87mm gun compared to the 105mm but it should at least compensate somehow.

Historically speaking the 105 had a bigger punch and was used to pound a position while the 25 pounder (87mm) was used more as a area denial/supression weapon firing more shells.
7 Jul 2018, 14:35 PM
#5
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 2595 | Subs: 1

The Sexton also feels a bit underwhelming compared to the Priest, I mean yeah sure it's got an 87mm gun compared to the 105mm but it should at least compensate somehow.

Historically speaking the 105 had a bigger punch and was used to pound a position while the 25 pounder (87mm) was used more as a area denial/suppression weapon firing more shells.

I am trying too focus more on design of commanders/abilities and less in the balance on individual units themselves.

Units balance imo is separate issue to commanders rework.
7 Jul 2018, 15:00 PM
#6
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 1575 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jul 2018, 14:35 PMVipper

I am trying too focus more on design of commanders/abilities and less in the balance on individual units themselves.

Units balance imo is separate issue to commanders rework.


Oh, alright then.

Uhhh the Mechanized and Heavy Cav companies for the USF then are weirdly themed.

You have raid in Mechanized, for an Army that can cap with it's vehicle crews, I mean sure it's faster but it makes less sense than for someone like let's say, Wehr or OKW.

Also, for a Commander focused around the combined arms aspect of Mechanized Infantry, it has a lot of that lacking in it.

The WC51 Military truck is fine since it can transport infantry, but like I said Raid just doesn't make sense, it would be better off to be replaced with Combined Arms from the Heavy Cav Company, and the Mortar HT... I don't know but it just feels redundant with the regular mortar now. And the biggest offender, the M3 Halftrack Assault Engineer group, the description of the ability literally says that the M3 can support the Ass Engies while they dismantle obstacles, how is that going to work exactly when they are the ones driving the damn thing lol.

Heavy Cav's theme is supposed to be heavy tanks or at least the support of such, but the only "Heavy" is the Pershing, and the only other tank related thing in the commander is the Combined Arms. So I don't know exactly what's the idea here, blobbing Rangers around the Pershing or something? Not to mention the random field defenses for Riflemen.

I think it would be better if an M3 HT with Cav Rifles replaced the Rangers and M4A3 76(W) Shermans replaced Field Defenses because honestly I don't see how blobbing Rangers around shitty M4A3s or a single Pershing is going to work exactly using the Combined Arms ability.

Rangers can be in their own doctrine centered around them.
7 Jul 2018, 15:22 PM
#7
avatar of Stark

Posts: 323

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jul 2018, 12:44 PMVipper


Hezter/Ostwind should not require T3 since they are specialized tanks or should be call-ins from base similar to KT and thus available even in T3 is lost.



Eh, more uniquness. T3 has already tank destroyer - jp4, hetzer is similar to jp4 so why put it there?

Make it buildable from a T0 but after require a T1 and T2 (med and mech). This allow player to diffrent strats without going t4. Unique and special...

To not make this strat opieOP Hetzer will have low penetration therefore it won't be good vs heavies and that's gonna be his counter.

If you put hetzer (like ostwind right now) you will kill that unit at release. It's already plenty of units in that tech, there is no need to put anymore which won't act better on battlefield than jp4. You will get m10/jakson situation one more time.
7 Jul 2018, 15:29 PM
#8
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 2595 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jul 2018, 15:22 PMStark


Eh, more uniquness. T3 has already tank destroyer - jp4, hetzer is similar to jp4 so why put it there?

Make it buildable from a T0 but after require a T1 and T2 (med and mech). This allow player to diffrent strats without going t4. Unique and special...

To not make this strat opieOP Hetzer will have low penetration therefore it won't be good vs heavies and that's gonna be his counter.

If you put hetzer (like ostwind right now) you will kill that unit at release. It's already plenty of units in that tech, there is no need to put anymore which won't act better on battlefield than jp4. You will get m10/jakson situation one more time.

Was referring to flame hetzer already in the game. The fact that one has to the T4 building to built these specialized tank is wrong imo. These unit could and should promote alternative build orders.
11 Jul 2018, 11:12 AM
#9
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 2595 | Subs: 1

On the other hand certain commander abilities bring too much like:

Soviet

PPsh.
hit the dirt should remain a separate ability, in addition of making this ability too powerful it combines a defensive ability with an offensive one.

On weapon upgrades: Imo weapon upgrades like PPsh/G43/m1919A6 should not be free but should have a tech cost. currently these weapon promote spamming infantry and then being rewarded for it for having access to weapon with no tech. On the other hand by introducing a tech cost to them one would have to chose when to invest in them.

Especially PPSH are overall bad because they combine a sort range weapon with long range weapon.
They could either be replaced by SVTs or replace all weapon of the squad.

For instance PPsh could come with 2 unlock, first allow mosins to be replaces by 3 ppsh and 3 pistols next allows the remaining 3 pistols to be replaces by ppsh.

Conscript PTRS package
This ability turns the one of cheapest AT infantry into one of the most effective AT infantry with abilities like mines, cloak, first strike bonuses, powerful snare...and certainly they do not seem to behave like "conscript". If Penal continue to have PTRS access and be "elite" the ability should be move to them.

Antitank ambush
Remove the first bonuses or make them come with veterancy. Finally make all ATGs break camo when they move (not rotate).

Tank hunter ambush tactics.
This ability benefits the T-70/T-34/76 more in their AI role than it help vs tanks. Make the ability available only to SU-76/SU-85 remove the rotation penalties, Remove the first strike bonuses or make them available via veterancy.

Ostheer
Ambush training.
The ability should not include sprint. Ambushes should be statics and camo should not be used to sprint around the battlefield. Remove sprint add some RA bonus or reduce cost replace Explosive grenades with DOT grenades.

Jaeger command Squad.
This unit bring that reminds a "command" unit and has little reason to limited to 1. Either turn into an "officer" type unit with aura bonus/abilities and limit to 1 or decrease combat efficiency and remove limit.


UKF
Assault.
Firing while running greatly increases squad wipe potential and should be removed.

Commandos.
Cloaked units should have DOT grenades not explosives




11 Jul 2018, 11:45 AM
#10
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 436

bias thread so many axis units need rework but sexton for u is ok lol
11 Jul 2018, 11:55 AM
#11
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 2595 | Subs: 1

bias thread so many axis units need rework but sexton for u is ok lol


As I have explained I avoid comment on units balance issues since imo they are separate issue from commander.

Pls avoid "bias" calling in this thread, it is not about balance its about design. If you want to talk about Sexton there is a thread about it.
11 Jul 2018, 13:28 PM
#12
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1258 | Subs: 1

The problems with the Forward Observation post are many but primarily in my opinion is that it is a high CP ability that requires an ambient building AND the offmaps are limited in range to the building itself. How many times are you A) On a Map with a suitable building B) That building survives into the late game or even have enough starting health to be sturdy enough to justify upgrading into FOP. C) That building is located in a safeish place you can actually use abilities on the frontline. Not to mention you have the munitions to use them all.

I feel like the FOP needs to be unlocked at a low CP but the individual offmaps are unlocked by tech or CP - that way you can use smoke at a low CP but the arty strikes are available later. Either that or the FOP needs to be an upgrade to the Forward Assembly so you can use it in more situations. Expanding the range of the off maps might also help.
11 Jul 2018, 13:46 PM
#13
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 2595 | Subs: 1

The problems with the Forward Observation post are many but primarily in my opinion ...

True, I agree in most points about the ability.
11 Jul 2018, 13:52 PM
#14
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 10532 | Subs: 6

Forward Observation could actually be fixed by introducing back recon section, limit it to 1, give according cost and make them use the abilities with that range limit.

It would not be map dependent, we'd get unused brit unit back and we could scrap a crappy concept that never worked to begin with.
11 Jul 2018, 13:58 PM
#15
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 2595 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Jul 2018, 13:52 PMKatitof
Forward Observation could actually be fixed by introducing back recon section, limit it to 1, give according cost and make them use the abilities with that range limit.

It would not be map dependent, we'd get unused brit unit back and we could scrap a crappy concept that never worked to begin with.

A nice constructive suggestion that might work.
19 Jul 2018, 09:05 AM
#16
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 2595 | Subs: 1

2) Balance commander themselves by removing abilities combination that are simply too strong.

Generally avoid combination of premium mediums, Super heavies and powerful off maps.

Here is list of commander that imo should change:

Wehrmacht Doctrines

1) Jaeger Armour Doctrine
The combo of elefant and Stuka Bombing Strike should be removed so that both abilities can better be balanced. Stuka could easily be replaced by less powerful attacks like Incendiary Bombing Run or even strafing run

2) Assault Support Doctrine/Spearhead Doctrine
Tiger and fragmentation bombing. Fragmentation bombing could be replaced by light artillery barrage or incendiary bombing.


3) Lightning War Doctrine
The combo of Jaeger Light Infantry, Stuka Close Air Support, Tiger Tank is simply too much.
Replace Jaeger Light Infantry with things like smoke bombs, Model 24 stun Grenade, assault grenadiers, artillery officer.

Replace Stuka Close Air Support with think like Light Artillery Barrage, Incendiary Bombing Run, Strafing Run.

4) Mobile Defense Doctrine
Puma and Command tank.

Replace Command tank with sector artillery (an ability that needs to be looked at)

By separating super heavies like the Tiger and Elefant from strong off maps and g43 one could better balance all these abilities.

In the case of G43 my suggestion would be (as for other weapon upgrades) that they get a tech cost and become more powerful so that the player need to decide when to invest in them instead of being able to spam infantry until he can reach the required CP.

For instance g43 could be change to be near M1s in DPS but provide 4+1 increasing the member of PG (or even grenadiers to 5).
20 Jul 2018, 14:53 PM
#17
avatar of F1sh

Posts: 498

I really want to use Royal Artillery, but it's just such crap. The whole commander should be looked at.

- Early Warning Flares are fine, pretty useful.
- Concentration Barrage is just awful. It's over twice the price of the Infantry Section's artillery strike and fires only half the shells.
- Valentine comes much too late, I often can get a Cromwell out before I can call it in. I'd say lower it to 4 CP.
- Sexton is terrible. It's cheap, but has very little range and it's shells have hardly any AoE damage
- Perimeter Overwatch is just underwhelming. For 225 munitions, you have 2 minutes of your base howitzers fire at enemy units only that are in your
territory. I suppose just lowering its cost would be fine.



As for your suggestions:

- I think the Booby trap territory ability is fine, might be a little pricey at 100 muni.
20 Jul 2018, 15:40 PM
#18
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 2595 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Jul 2018, 14:53 PMF1sh
...
- Concentration Barrage is just awful. It's over twice the price of the Infantry Section's artillery strike and fires only half the shells.
...

As for your suggestions:

- I think the Booby trap territory ability is fine, might be a little pricey at 100 muni.

The commander could use some changes.

But I have to point out that Concentration barrage uses Airburst shell even if one has not unlocked Anvil so it not actually that bad compared to the one from Pyrotechnics (unless someone has already unlocked anvil).

Thanks for reading and providing feedback.
20 Jul 2018, 16:11 PM
#19
avatar of August1996

Posts: 190

With your suggestions might as well delete all infil units cause they can't wipe for shit. Removing grenades with is the entire point of calling them in the first place. To insta wipe squads. Not only infil units cant fight due to being extremely squishy but they also need cloak to maximise DPS potential by hugging retreating units.

Lightning War is also being butchered. Weapon upgrades being tied to tech is also too much. I don't want a repeat of stupid decisions like UKF HT weapon tech tied to rack research because muh team games. Who the hell cares about team games I dont see 4v4 GCS tournaments dont you?
21 Jul 2018, 09:09 AM
#20
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 2595 | Subs: 1

With your suggestions might as well delete all infil units cause they can't wipe for shit. Removing grenades with is the entire point of calling them in the first place. To insta wipe squads. Not only infil units cant fight due to being extremely squishy but they also need cloak to maximise DPS potential by hugging retreating units.

As you might have noticed most of the tactics that lead to squad wipes with little reaction time have been gradually removed. The same should apply to cloaked infantry with mini nukes. This units could then be rebalanced if needed or given more utility.


Lightning War is also being butchered. Weapon upgrades being tied to tech is also too much. I don't want a repeat of stupid decisions like UKF HT weapon tech tied to rack research because muh team games. Who the hell cares about team games I dont see 4v4 GCS tournaments dont you?

Imo if some commander are very strong combining the best doctrinal abilities/units make it more difficult to balance the faction since it is difficult to tell if the problem is commander or the faction. In addition it usually results in overnerfing abilities that are shared across commanders just because they are problematic in one commander.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
GCS2 Benefactor Tournament
Event in Progress

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag ₪ | Caesar
  • Soviets flag Mark
  • Ostheer flag F I R E A N D T E R R O R
  • Ostheer flag Olvadi
uploaded by Olvadi

Board Info

149 users are online: 6 members and 143 guests
Sturmpanther, Sander93, StorminaTcup, Osinyagov, Khan, iridium86
86 posts in the last 24h
650 posts in the last week
3961 posts in the last month
Registered members: 24098
Welcome our newest member, Angriff
Most online: 775 users on 26 Oct 2014, 01:01 AM