The 'required_active_weapon' requirement has a field 'hardpoint_name'. The 32 bit version of the game automatically uses hardpoint_01 when this field is empty. However, 64 bit requires the specific hardpoint name: 'hardpoint_01'
This is news to me, too!
I was wondering why my required_active_weapon stopped working...
I'd argue that a DShK would make this commander pretty attractive and make it an analogue of Lend-Lease instead of Armored Assault. Though, with the nerfs coming to the 76mm Sherman, that might completely overshadow Lend-Lease.
I have also noticed in the updated art, the commander is wearing 1943 uniform so maybe it could get M-42 AT guns instead. Opinions?
We on the UI team specifically intended to visually separate commanders who were themed around early war equipment (such as the obsolete M-42) with the earlier 1939 uniform, with commanders who utilized late war equipment (such as IS-2 Mod. 1944 and T-34/85) with the more modern 1943 uniform.
I don't necessarily agree with the term historical accuracy, as it carries the connotation that everything needs to be exact. However, I do agree that the game is less and less historically authentic. I think many balance changes, while good, are done in a way that gradually moves away from historical authenticity.
I am not necessarily upset at the balance team because they're still doing their best to keep the game alive, but I do wish some of the changes were a bit more nuanced and giving more attention to historical backing.
I really really dislike, for example, the addition of the Soviet M2HB in the next patch as it feels like a change for the sake of change, fulfilling basically the same role as DShK with a token buff to its arc. However, my biggest issue is that this also ignores the fact that the M2 .50cals the Soviets received were not infantry variants, but rather vehicle mounted varieties on tanks and halftracks. Instead, the Lend-Lease doctrine could have gotten something far more unique, interesting, and authentic, such as a DShK-armed Universal Carrier. If the balance team insists on sticking to the arbitrary requirement of 'no cross-faction vehicles,' (which IMO is a terrible precedent to set for any potential future updates) I'd rather have the doctrine's DShK remain as-is instead of swapping it out for a 'Lend-Lease .50' that isn't actually faithful to history.
"Balance comes before history" should never be an argument for ahistorical changes because there are always alternative methods that can satisfy BOTH historical authenticity AND gameplay balance.
As a further example, Volksgrenadiers could well have their uniforms tinted from the current Feldgrau to Luftwaffe Blue (Feldblau? I'm not sure what it's designated as), if one were to wish to create a "Luftwaffe Ground Forces" unit for a doctrine. (simple model edits would even allow you to, for example, use Osttruppen Feldmütze to make them even more visually distinct. Both of these operations are quite simple, but provide a massive improvement to visuals, out of scale with the effort expended.
Interestingly, the Volksgrenadier model in CoH2 seem to be inspired by the uniforms of the elite Panzer Lehr Division, who wore the grey, double-breasted panzer wraps of StuG crews. They are however missing the the Lehr Panzergrenadier's iconic splinter camo helmet, perhaps an oversight by Relic.
Please post all general feedback from the Commander Update beta here. Each faction has its own thread for specific feedback related to their commanders, units, etc.
I agree with the majority of these changes, but I have some major issues regarding the arbitrary limit on cross-faction units. As many have pointed out, a King Tiger for Ostheer could be very interesting and reuse the current Tiger voice lines (as it was officially just Tiger Ausf B by army regulations). There are also plenty of German skins we can 'force' onto the vehicle, like how the 221/223, Command Tiger, or Tiger Ace handles it.
I think the decision to avoid cross-faction units really hurts this time. The .50 cal for Soviets is the exception, probably justified by it not needing skins, but I really dislike this change as not only is it historically innacurate, but it also doesn't add anything new or interesting - its just a token buff to the firing arc. A Universal Carrier would have been more thematic and far more interesting. Like how the 221/223 is forced to use Panzergrau, the Universal Carrier can be forced to use Olive Drab or something. Many photographs of Soviet Universal Carriers show minimal paint or no paint at all, so the lack of faction camo skins shouldn't be a big deal.
More in-depth explanation for Soviet UC:
I really suggest a reconsideration of using cross-faction vehicles, especially for Soviet Lend-Lease. As it stands, this limitation will set the precedent that there will never be any cross-faction vehicles for future patches, severely limiting the capability of the balance team to make interesting units/doctrines in the future, especially to the German factions.