Profile of comm_ash

I really don't get what would be wrong with 'the whole doctrine being carried by one ability.' At the end of the day, commanders are selected based on what they bring to the table. Looking at faction win rates, basically every game mode and faction is balanced (except crazy 4v4s), which means that the most powerful Soviet commanders are not out of the overall strength curve.

In other words, there is no reason to nerf good Soviet doctrines to make weak ones better. Its a stupid argument. Thus, the fix to partisan doctrine would require the doctrine to go to the level of other commanders it competes with, or atleast to be strong enough at a niche to compensate for what it lacks. You can either do this by shoring up the doctrine's weakness (giving it a better lategame), or by making the unique aspects of the doctrine stand out more.

In my opinion, the Partisan doctrine hinges on the idea of superior intelligence and planning. As such, I think all the abilities fit the doctrine very well (except maybe the ATG ambush).I believe mark target + spy network are more than enough of a lategame edge. Stacking more has a risk of making the doctrine OP.

Thus, the obvious fix appears to be with the partisans themselves. They need to bring something to the equation to make up for the lack of elite infantry in the doctrine. Currently, after the initial call in, partisans fall off hard, as they have terrible received accuracy and reinforce cost (thus bleeding hard when fighting German squads that have high DPS). I think an interesting change would be to allow a way for partisans to reinfiltrate. Maybe add a 'tunnel' that partisans can build in friendly territory, which allows them to move around the map faster. It should be fairly easy to find and destroy for the opponent to make it fair. As an easier and less insane fix, I think partisan reinforce cost could be changed to be based on a full 5 man squad, rather than the starting 4 man squad (210/(2*5) = 21)

Authentic is a matter of opinion. Some people might think just having units that fought (regardless of numbers) in the war as all equally viable units for an authentic experience. I personally think COH is already pretty far off the mark when it tries to represent units like Infrared searchlights or Comets as core components of factions. To me, that is about the same level of sin as seeing the Black Prince as a doctrinal unit.

But at the end of the day, units are just skins. The stats we see in game rarely align with what said units were capable of in real life (IE having tanks like the Sherman having worse armor than a P4, or Comets having more armor than Panthers.) If it would make the community happier to see something like a Churchill with a HV 6lber with the same stats as this 'Black Prince,' then that is what Relic should probably go for if they believe the British need a heavy tank capable of slugging it out with other heavies. But removing the Black Prince should not mean that the British faction loses out on having a heavy tank that can fight toe to toe with Tigers or the like.

How about a fun tourney with a 100% abandon chance mod.

I'd watch that

Speaking purely theoretically, I actually think 100% abandonment chance would be far superior to whatever low % chance it is in COH2 right now (though obviously I would rather it be 0%).

If a mechanic was consistent, it can be planned around. If a mechanic occurs only rarely, especially when said mechanic also can represent a HUGE resource shift from one side to the other, it is broken. This is why plane crashes were nerfed, because they rarely happened (maybe 1 ever 10 games), and had the potential to instantly lose a player the game.

17-lber should be the counter to the JT, as a stationary AT weapon should be the counter to a heavy tank destroyer. Especially now that the Stuka's incendiary barrage was moved from vet 4, OKW has no excuse to complain about British emplacements.

It's not like the JT doctrine doesn't also have an offmap to help attack emplaced positions either. JT barrage range should be reduced so the vehicle can't just sit a mile away and fire (not like it doesn't already have very high armor to protect it when enemies get in range).

Personally, I think the IS2 is crippled by being originally designed in COH as an analogue to the Tiger 1, when historically it was closer to the Tiger 2 in terms of armor protection and firepower. If I could redesign the unit from the ground up, I would make it a heavily armored, slow RoF vehicle with the same main gun damage stats as the KT (Slower reload obviously.) To compensate for slow RoF, it should instead have faster movement speed than the KT, and maybe a wider AoE on each shell so it damages infantry in a wider radius (but doesn't kill anymore than the KT does.)

It would obviously have to be priced around as much as a KT with these changes though.