Airborne VS Commandos

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Killer344]

All snipers have weaknesses, the mando sniper is a 2 men squad.

[Hicks58]

The Commandos themselves could use some loving...

For their cost, they die so very quickly.

They might have the single highest point blank DPS on an infantry unit (Aint sure if it's Commandos or Falls...) but they rarely get in range unless you ambush enemy infantry.

Which isn't particularly easy due to the fact that people WILL run in the opposite direction upon seeing them and then the first piece of armour sent at them will eat them alive.

I've noticed that the Commandos are the only elite infantry which has absolutely no anti tank option. Not even a deterrent. But even with this fact, they still get only one buff, and that is the Red Devils, which gives a meagre 10% extra health. It goes well with a vet 3 Commando squad... But it's hardly noticeable in combat.

[lionel23]

It's 15% I believe, not 10% but I agree they are a poor assault unit.

What kills them the most is they only have an extra 5 HP over Tommys and use the SAME ARMOR.  That's what kills them so fast.  They get smoke grenades but whoop there.  They need to have those airborne camo suits to be great at ambushing or an option to give them an AT weapon (boy's AT would work) to defend themselves against vehicles or something.

For actually assaulting, I would never trust anyone but COHCommando in using them properly.  SMG Rangers outperform them and with fire-up are able to quickly take advantage of a flanking opportunity and capitalize on it over Commandoes who have to walk.  With my rangers I can generally survive an assault with no losses or 1-2 rangers at most.  Commandoes I've only seen be effective if you had 2-3 SQUADS on the field and they ALL ATTACKED, and even then they'll take such heavy losses its silly.  I tried doing a commandoes assault company but the squads just don't get enough buffs or abilities to help them out compared to my rangers, who just are more survivable and more into my playstyle and so gave up with them.

So yeah I agree with you Hicks on all those points there.

[Hicks58]

I was thinking of the vet 3 Health buff. One is 15%, the other is 10%. Got the vet and Doctrine buffs mixed up.

Well, I'm currently holding the three highest Commandos on the leader board. To get them there, has took basically every game since the company was made - I was gutted when the fourth squad died before he hit vet 3, a mere 4 exp from it...

However, I can assault positions with them pretty well. HMG's, dug in Infantry, etc, I can do it. The problem is it *Requires* use of the Smoke Grenades to assault the position, or multiple squads. Sometimes both. But a single screw up will be more costly than any other assault unit, and you wont be able to assault another position till the smoke grenades are ready again unless you want to write that squad off.

As I said, ambushing, or surprise attacks are the only real way to attack with Commandos at the moment, or counter blobbing vanilla infantry blobs. But surprise attacks... They WILL know where you just cratered that glider and if something doesn't gank you on landing, you can bet enemy armour will be there ASAP.

[lionel23]

Oh wasn't trying to slight you at all Hicks, thought it was Commando also at the top of the boards with the Vet 3s!

But yeah I know exactly what you're talking about on the use of multiple squads and smoke being needed while other assault infantry really don't need to do that so much and have more room for error or just perform the role better.  I did run a commando company afterall.

The armor I think is commandoes biggest weakness, I almost have my entire vet 3 ranger company again, and once I get my last advantage I'll have 10 full package rangers all at vet 3s, with SMGs AND bazookas and still ammo to spare I believe on maybe a 2nd officer, I was messing with the numbers in my head last night.  Can't do that with commandoes and they just get out attritioned faster than US Infantry or Terror, and it seems you have to take fewer of them in order to protect them from vehicles, while KCH and Rangers both have access to some form of AT.. not the best, but it is something.

[Hicks58]

4 Squads of Commandos is all you can reasonably afford if you want to maintain a good supply of AT and support options. Any more than that and you'll get brought down by pop and resources.

I have 4 squads, and I use them to control blob numbers or to get rid of persistent enemy mortar/nebel teams. The recon unlock helps out a lot, as you can spot out a drop zone and have your Commandos in the back lines safely. However it's a one objective job. You'll end up losing most of the squad hitting the target and *Need* to have either 2 high health men or 3 reasonable health men left over to retreat without getting them killed.

[lionel23]

Yeah having only 4 of them and using the rest of your army to support them.. they really do need an armor upgrade I think to make them a bit more feasible instead of one job squads... heh.  If they ever get some love, I might go back to them, you're a brave man for using Commandoes, Hicks.  You know, if they had the option to get Lee Enfields or half Stens it would certainly help.

[Hicks58]

Honestly, they don't need the option for Lee Enfields.

My major issues with Commandos right now are...

Heavy costs
Paper thin armour
Not so discrete entrance.

I mean, the Glider was a pretty quiet piece of kit unless the thing landed on your head... In CoH you can hear it coming from the other end of the map. Being able to choose the direction of approach would be incredibly useful as well...

The only reason people are asking for Enfield Commandos are because normal ones are so expensive to field.

Though I'd agree that the idea of droppable riflemen to cover the Stens would be somewhat helpful.

Infact, at the moment, I'm playing my Armoured account as it's so much more fun getting it ranked up. I dare say I'll get that last squad of Commandos to vet 3 soon enough for the lulz though.

[lionel23]

Yeah the commandoes are expensive for a glider dropped force.. Enfields would give you more guys in the back without relying heavily on the four commando squads... or even half package them so you can spread them out and it can equally deal with threats.

Biggest issues I agree are:
1. Their very high cost, which is not on par with their performance
2. Their armor is crap for a 3 pool unit.
3. Glider yeah I agree it's not exactly quiet and you can see it coming a mile away, while airborne can literally drop all around german tanks like practically on top of them and you're still not sure where they will land, and unlike the glider you won't lose the entire callin when dropping as opposed to landing the glider, ouch.

[Sharpshooter824]

If a rock solid fundamental would be followed for CoH infantry, it'd make inf a lot better like poor commandos. Units that have close range weapons need to have the higher HP or better armor to get in close, typically they have to run across open ground or be coverless to close in on their target so they need better armor/HP. Where as long ranged units like grens and tommies should have slightly lower HP and the weaker armor because they can camp and still have a great DPS without sacrificing cover and protection to get in to an effective distance of the enemy, obviously giving mandos more HP or way better armor would make them OP but what ive said is just how I think the current system of inf should be like.

All this said though, would obviously be game changing so..

[lionel23]

Totally agree.  I don't mind holding ground with M1 garand rangers against assault infantry as often say.. a Volks squad with Mp40s will lose so many guys and take too long to drop my numbers sufficiently to win the engagement.  I'm in cover, getting free shots on him as he closes the distance over coverless land... and my better armor IN cover allows me to overcome his weapon advantage.. or if it gets bad I can run away much faster than he can chase, reset up on cover and make him repeat the charge, heh.

[Smokaz]

jumping in a garrison makes mp40's pretty useless

[Hicks58]

I've noticed that the Stens do pretty pants damage against units in buildings, even if you have a full squad of vet 3 Commandos blasting away at the building.

What's up with that?

[Mysthalin]

0.25 acc
0.5 dmg

These modifiers against units in garison cover are likely the main culprits.

[Hicks58]

Ew... Nasty multipliers right there.

Just always expected 6 extremely well trained fellas with SMG's at point blank firing into windows to do a little... More.

>.<

[COHCommando]

make mandos cheaper and have mandos riflemen with just lee riflies then make like commandos have an upgrades for sten make it around 110 just make mandos cost manpower                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         (like how my names matches topic) 

[Warfreak166]

I WANNA PLAY WID YOU GUYS O_O ive never seen ppl use commandos I WANNA SEE UR COMMANDOS HICKS!! got any replays? O_O

[Smokaz]

I've noticed that the Stens do pretty pants damage against units in buildings, even if you have a full squad of vet 3 Commandos blasting away at the building.

What's up with that?

All smgs/autos suck against garrison I think

[lionel23]

Not so, mass MP44s and Ranger SMGs rape guys in garrison. MP40s suck terribly at it though.

[BigDick]

all smgs including stg44 and thomson have the same modifiers against units in buildings

stalin posted them

no need for a change

mp40s just suck thats why they suck vs buildings even more

and commandos are awesome units shooting from nowhere and raping support weapons