Login

russian armor

What's wrong with UKF?

9 Apr 2020, 15:23 PM
#21
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



All other factions have stock light AI vehicles to fight against CQC units in the early mid game. Soviets have stock flamethrowers, the M3 and Penals to ward off CQC units. OKW has Sturmpioneers and STG 44 Volks, Ostheer has stock flamethrowers and PGrens. USF has close to mid range orientated mainline infantry.

The UKF are the only ones who can consistently get overrun by CQC units (most notably on urban or other CQC orientated maps) because they have nothing in their stock arsenal to efficiently stop CQC units. The Universal Carrier can work, but doesn't on most CQC maps. The AEC doesn't deal enough AI damage.

Now since we can't magically conjure up a new AI vehicle, and since we do not want to buff Royal Engineers for obvious reasons, they will get the Assault Officer to help defend Infantry Sections from getting overrun by CQC units.

If the idea is to use the officer against Assault grenadier he probably comes too late. Other than that there not many Axis stock Axis CQB units out there to begin with.

UKF have problems but CBQ is not one imo (for instance grenades can work fine) and there a number option in solving some of their problem.

One could try to make:
Hammer/Anvil option available for infatry giving access to 5 entities/Bren modeled after BAR and 4 entities Vicker-K modeled after Grenadier.

For vehicles one could make make the same option available with AEC/Valentine making bofors stock
and/or
one could decrease the power level of Centaur making available earlier.

Or one could make Ro.E available earlier so that they can help defend vs CQB units.
9 Apr 2020, 15:28 PM
#22
avatar of Domine

Posts: 500



All other factions have stock light AI vehicles to fight against CQC units in the early mid game. Soviets have stock flamethrowers, the M3 and Penals to ward off CQC units. OKW has Sturmpioneers and STG 44 Volks, Ostheer has stock flamethrowers and PGrens. USF has close to mid range orientated mainline infantry.

The UKF are the only ones who can consistently get overrun by CQC units (most notably on urban or other CQC orientated maps) because they have nothing in their stock arsenal to efficiently stop CQC units. The Universal Carrier can work, but doesn't on most CQC maps. The AEC doesn't deal enough AI damage.

Now since we can't magically conjure up a new AI vehicle, and since we do not want to buff Royal Engineers or the AEC for obvious reasons, they will get the Assault Officer to help defend Infantry Sections from getting overrun by CQC units.



This isn't helped by the fact that UKF usually only have snares on their sappers, which are highly capped in their maximum usefulness, and therefore consigned to low numbers on the field.
9 Apr 2020, 15:30 PM
#23
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Apr 2020, 08:09 AMRiley
Why were the British called OP recently, and now everyone agrees that this is a useless faction? (Except ardent fans of the axis, because of which the faction nerfs went)


Relic kept trying to make CoH 2's expansion factions play differently by restricting their access to basic tools like snares and indirect fire, but giving them very powerful gimmicks.

It didn't work, and one by one each faction's been reworked to tone down its gimmicks and fill out the holes in its roster.

That makes UKF's power level go up and down every patch. Remove a crutch unit? The power falls through the floor, like when SBP (Centaur and Bren nerf) killed off the faction almost entirely. Give it a missing basic tool? The power shoots up, like the Infantry Section meta we got after Sapper Snares became a thing.

This patch is trying to give UKF some form of viable indirect fire. It'll be interesting to see if it works.
9 Apr 2020, 17:33 PM
#24
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351

The thing wrong with Brits is their design as a whole.
Emplacements were cancer. Now with the nerfs you can't really use them though the cancer mortar pit remains a problem on some maps (crossing in the woods, Charkow).

The concept of a high HP, high armor vehicle (Churchill) is shit. Especially when there is no non doc Axis high range, high pen td. I consider 50 range insufficient for that.

Cover bonus on mainline infantry was a mistake. Hard to balance. You want to attack with your inf, not camp in cover.

A t0 heavy vehicle is frustrating to play against aswell.

Could continue this rant but long story short Brits will always be annoying (either for the user or the opponent) and not fit the game.

Yep. I am especially baffled by the whole idea of extra cover boosts. Cover gives boosts and that is enough. With those extra boosts they will be either too strong in cover or too weak out of it.
9 Apr 2020, 18:03 PM
#25
avatar of thekingsown10

Posts: 232

The REAL reason is people were so used to playing an overpowered faction... and when it gets more back in line they complain because their cheese strat with op units and abilities doesn't work as well anymore.

I am a proud Brit myself but the faction in this game was nothing but cancer ever since day 1. The infantry section was flat out of control for a long time .

9 Apr 2020, 18:32 PM
#26
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351

The REAL reason is people were so used to playing an overpowered faction... and when it gets more back in line they complain because their cheese strat with op units and abilities doesn't work as well anymore.

I am a proud Brit myself but the faction in this game was nothing but cancer ever since day 1. The infantry section was flat out of control for a long time .


My personal belief is that creating lots of UK units relic basically developed ostheer with 5 men squads, self-sufficient mgs, reliable light vehicle and lategame sturdy tanks. Sort of ostheer dream at the moment it was created (plus emplacements) :)
9 Apr 2020, 18:34 PM
#27
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1096

The REAL reason is people were so used to playing an overpowered faction... and when it gets more back in line they complain because their cheese strat with op units and abilities doesn't work as well anymore.

I am a proud Brit myself but the faction in this game was nothing but cancer ever since day 1. The infantry section was flat out of control for a long time .



While the UKF faction was indeed strong on release it was quickly nerfed. I think it still falls short of being 'back in line' at present.

They started out much like an 'allied ost' in many ways, which of course drove certain members of the community into a frenzied rage.



9 Apr 2020, 19:38 PM
#28
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

The REAL reason is people were so used to playing an overpowered faction... and when it gets more back in line they complain because their cheese strat with op units and abilities doesn't work as well anymore.

Hey, look, the first sane thing you've ever said in the last 3 years!
OKW is the prime example of that, nerfs after nerfs and the faction is still too strong, so more nerfs are coming next patch and more REEE will happen.

My personal belief is that creating lots of UK units relic basically developed ostheer with 5 men squads, self-sufficient mgs, reliable light vehicle and lategame sturdy tanks. Sort of ostheer dream at the moment it was created (plus emplacements) :)

That was the whole point of UKF existence, faction that's weak in early game and strong enough to compete against axis factions in late game, rivaling late game tank power spike of stock axis forces.
It was back then when if allies didn't win by 20th minute, it was pretty much autowin for axis player, especially USF suffered because of this as heavy tanks and panthers roflstomped them.

That design is dead, UKF has lost all of its crutches and gimmicks it heavily relied on as the faction lacks a LOT of basic tools and the last strong point of the faction, sections, were nerfed so bad they had to buff them in multiple ways just so they can compete again.
9 Apr 2020, 21:20 PM
#29
avatar of KiwiBirb

Posts: 789

Was adding the Valentine stock to UKF ever considered?

To me this seems like the best option
10 Apr 2020, 00:59 AM
#30
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

Was adding the Valentine stock to UKF ever considered?

To me this seems like the best option


This, again.
10 Apr 2020, 01:22 AM
#31
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

Was adding the Valentine stock to UKF ever considered?

To me this seems like the best option


I really don't think they need it. Why dont we see how they do with the buffs that just went live? Adding a valentine stock would be a huge change, I think they are avoiding anything of that magnitude at this point
10 Apr 2020, 03:04 AM
#33
avatar of blancat

Posts: 810

Was adding the Valentine stock to UKF ever considered?

To me this seems like the best option


No
10 Apr 2020, 03:15 AM
#34
avatar of blancat

Posts: 810

UKF has smaller unit pools than other factions because of the presence of emblacement.

By the way, is the emplacement worth it now?

What's going on with the UKF after killing Emplacement and now Tommy

Isn't it strange that nothing happened?
10 Apr 2020, 03:24 AM
#35
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Apr 2020, 03:15 AMblancat
UKF has smaller unit pools than other factions because of the presence of emblacement.

This premise is false to begin with. Or at least incomplete
PD: Bolster says Hi.
10 Apr 2020, 03:29 AM
#36
avatar of blancat

Posts: 810


This premise is false to begin with. Or at least incomplete
PD: Bolster says Hi.



I'm talking about the number of units right now. What are you talking about?


Perhaps you know I'm talking about the squad number?

Don't you know how to read and understand the context?

You'll only see what you want to see anyway
10 Apr 2020, 04:49 AM
#37
avatar of Skabinsk

Posts: 238

you had me until you said vickers is more effective than MG-42
10 Apr 2020, 05:20 AM
#38
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833


This premise is false to begin with. Or at least incomplete
PD: Bolster says Hi.


By unit pool he means selection of different units. This is especially noticeable with infantry/team weapons. E.g they don't have a mortar in their unit pool because an emplacement was supposed to do that job.

Bolster is not a unit.
10 Apr 2020, 05:31 AM
#39
avatar of Vermillion_Hawk

Posts: 224



Not to defend Ullumulu but these are not all weaknesses.


It's shocking how little you actually know about the Brits. Trenches are essentially useless against CQB infantry and take time to build in friendly territory, so they slow down your initial push too much to be of any value when they're needed most. I'll grant you the Vickers synergy but I also think that the vet 1 extra range should be taken away.

I still feel Tommies should get the Heavy Gammon Bomb as a snare and not a useless pseudo-satchel. Either that or they should reword the description of the ability so it's not a blatant lie. The sniper also doesn't have a stun shot, and their critical shot (which only disables turret rotation on anything above a StuG and doesn't even deal engine damage to the aforementioned) requires vet 1.
10 Apr 2020, 07:27 AM
#40
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358



By unit pool he means selection of different units. This is especially noticeable with infantry/team weapons. E.g they don't have a mortar in their unit pool because an emplacement was supposed to do that job.

Bolster is not a unit.

Oh i get it now, i really though he ment that UKF has 4 men squads. Thats why i pointed out bolster

anyways, my bad
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

749 users are online: 749 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
4 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48722
Welcome our newest member, asherllc
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM