Some thoughts on Sep 17th patch.

I have no words..............

I wholeheartedly hope you will continue the trend.

you can argue "reduce one shooting" sure, but i'd leave mines out of it.


Sure your sweeper wont be everywhere, but they dont need to be. just covering advances and possibly high risk areas of retreat.

You can't avoid some indirect fire, and yeah, getting one shot by stuff like that should be reduced,. but mines? it hard to make an argument about them.

oh stop the BS mate. if you say to me you never hit a mine before i will call you a liar. the difference is that the allies only lose some mp when hitting a mine while the axis can lose entire squads.

oh stop the BS mate. if you say to me you never hit a mine before i will call you a liar. the difference is that the allies only lose some mp when hitting a mine while the axis can lose entire squads.

Brits hitting schu mines can do the same thing, ive personally seen it happen more than once.

If the leig is so OP and much better than the USF counterpart then why in 1v1 do USF have a higher win ratio? Why do top USF generally find OKW so easy to deal with? If leig was so OP then OKW would be dominating 1v1, this magic cannon that 1 shots on every shot.

The reason is because you are losing because of skull, remove leig from the game and it does not make you better.

deny it all you want mate

also your such a Axis fanboy that you THINK brits give me free win streaks and its so funny reading that

you wanna know something really ironic?

i am at a lose strike with them(literly unplayable at 1vs1 and 2vs2)

mate if you ever get the chance to play british just be prepared to face the awful truth of their AWFUL weak early and mid game state

If they are unplayable then how are players winning with them? More so how are top players regularly losing to Brits?

Without a doubt they are extremely weak in 1v1 but for sure are not unplayable, I mean damn go check out the ratios, Brits have a higher win ratio than OKW. They do completely have a problem with ost in 1v1 for sure though.

As for 2v2, that's just you being bad, Brits are fine in 2v2 with a higher ratio than both axis factions.

But it wont matter how they get balanced, you will still be bad, you will lose games and still come to the forums and blame balance.

If the leig is so OP and much better than the USF counterpart then why in 1v1 do USF have a higher win ratio? Why do top USF generally find OKW so easy to deal with? If leig was so OP then OKW would be dominating 1v1, this magic cannon that 1 shots on every shot.

The reason is because you are losing because of skull, remove leig from the game and it does not make you better.

Are you suggesting that they change their skull?

I know medical science's come quite far, but I'm unsure if it is capable of that even now.

Are you suggesting that they change their skull?

I know medical science's come quite far, but I'm unsure if it is capable of that even now.

Completely off topic but a human head transplant is planned to occur next year.

What's going to happen with the infantry company LMG now that defensive stance is removed? It's pretty junky alone and costs 70mu. Previously when you pop def stance you get this massive suppression boost. With defensive stance gone, this lmg is going to perform worse than lower priced axis versions and still cost more, plus doctrinal.

What's going to happen with the infantry company LMG now that defensive stance is removed? It's pretty junky alone and costs 70mu. Previously when you pop def stance you get this massive suppression boost. With defensive stance gone, this lmg is going to perform worse than lower priced axis versions and still cost more, plus doctrinal.

MG 42: "Might need nerfed."
M1919: "It's pretty crap."
Actual: *nearly identical*

If they are unplayable then how are players winning with them? More so how are top players regularly losing to Brits?

Without a doubt they are extremely weak in 1v1 but for sure are not unplayable, I mean damn go check out the ratios, Brits have a higher win ratio than OKW. They do completely have a problem with ost in 1v1 for sure though.

As for 2v2, that's just you being bad, Brits are fine in 2v2 with a higher ratio than both axis factions.

But it wont matter how they get balanced, you will still be bad, you will lose games and still come to the forums and blame balance.

First when i lose with a faction i dont come to the forums to demand nerfs

i dont know were you got the idea about that so if you could explain to me why you think so you might ease my curiosity

Second
if you dont provide some statistics about winrates then dont mention them AT ALL

Third
if you search the winrates on the leaderboards from top players you will see REALLY HIGH winrates BUT still you havent provided OVERALL Statistics

(by your reasoning we should nerf USF to the ground along with OKW cause 25 players are very very good at the game with them)

MG 42: "Might need nerfed."
M1919: "It's pretty crap."
Actual: *nearly identical*

i used that stance alot but i really believe the suppression should be a short time ability that costs munitions and adds suppression to attacks(like vCOH BARS)

the problem with riflemen with defencive stance was how durable they were(you needed light arty to even push them back from yellow cover)

other then that if they dont add something to it i believe it wont be worth to get it when they buff Bars

I have a huge problem dealing with Brits in 2s. Might be L2P issue but they excel at supporting their teammate, either another Brit or SU/USF.

The synergy is great. The same thing can be said about OKW in larger games (3s and 4s). But in 2s, it's easy for Brit player to play passive until they can build a bofors supported by a mortar and then stall for multiple Churchills.

In 1s, they struggle (haven't played but watched high ranked games). In 2s though, they hit very hard. The problem might also be map design (this argument never gets old). The maps are mostly too small so a mortar pit and a Bofors need a lot of co-ordination and resources to deal with. On the other hand, if you counter them fast the game is pretty much over.

Brits must be "normalized". Buff their early game and nerf late game. Emplacements are gonna be useless in the next patch though.

I have been saying this from british faction launch. Bravo mate, you saw this too.
I am sick and tired to explain what yous aid above to all these tards that think brits are not OP. How could they see it though if they play exclusevely brits since the faction launch?

MG 42: "Might need nerfed."
M1919: "It's pretty crap."
Actual: *nearly identical*

I know their dps are suppose to be nearly the same, but formulas can be wrong.

I have been saying this from british faction launch. Bravo mate, you saw this too.
I am sick and tired to explain what yous aid above to all these tards that think brits are not OP. How could they see it though if they play exclusevely brits since the faction launch?

There needs to be a distinction here, Brits have OP gimmicks in their army
But as a whole they are not OP.

They as a army have huge weak spots that are easily exploited
And the gimmicks they have are very very strong, Brits have very good comeback potential.

I have been saying this from british faction launch. Bravo mate, you saw this too.
I am sick and tired to explain what yous aid above to all these tards that think brits are not OP. How could they see it though if they play exclusevely brits since the faction launch?

2x ISG, mortars HT with incendiary rounds. gotta use the right counter to emplacement. bofors hit hard but only hit hard if you put dudes infront of them. brits lack in early indirect fire and mortar pits arent worth it because they fall fast to incendiary rounds or ISG can barrage them indefinitely, they're basically sitting ducks.

emplacements are still sitting ducks, easily countered not sure why people are having problems with them at all. the schwere panzer HQ is much tougher to counter and dislodge than emplacements to be honest.

churchill and comets are great tanks but not a balance issue, panthers/AT guns can still take them on, on top of that, they cost a whole lot of resources. churchill crocs are the real problem, that flamer needs a bit of toning down.

if you play them alot, brits are extremely reliant on clutch units, wasp flamer and centaur for most of their anti infantry work, these 2 are performing a little too well currently, but wasp will get patched, centaur needs a small damage and penetration nerf and its gold.

once these are patched, things will change

2x ISG, mortars HT with incendiary rounds. gotta use the right counter to emplacement. bofors hit hard but only hit hard if you put dudes infront of them. brits lack in early indirect fire and mortar pits arent worth it because they fall fast to incendiary rounds or ISG can barrage them indefinitely, they're basically sitting ducks.

On paper, yes you can counter them and I've said that it might be L2P issue but the ammount of Muni and time you have to invest to counter an emplacement "specially in some maps like Trois" is too damn high. And again, if you counter them early the Brit player could leave the game as well since it's over. There are good suggestions on how to tweak (not nerf or buff, tweak) emplacements. I'm tired of going MHT almost every game (while we are at it, the accuracy on that incendiary...)

emplacements are still sitting ducks, easily countered not sure why people are having problems with them at all. the schwere panzer HQ is much tougher to counter and dislodge than emplacements to be honest.

Schwere is off-topic, no comment there. But in 2s, Brits can stall and the other faction (SOVs of course) can keep you busy. The snowballing effect is very high for Brits.

churchill and comets are great tanks but not a balance issue, panthers/AT guns can still take them on, on top of that, they cost a whole lot of resources. churchill crocs are the real problem, that flamer needs a bit of toning down.

Comets are fine, for Churchills we have to wait but I think 1400 is still a bit too much. Its HUGE HP pool allows them to soak too much damage, push and call arty, scout etc. then fall back. A supported Churchill is a beast. Even if you flank it, it's gonna take ages to finish it off granted it's unsupported. And the longer the game takes, the more powerful Brits become-Snowballing

if you play them alot, brits are extremely reliant on clutch units, wasp flamer and centaur for most of their anti infantry work, these 2 are performing a little too well currently, but wasp will get patched, centaur needs a small damage and penetration nerf and its gold.

I'm with you there. They rely on cheese and their cheese is very powerful. I don't have a problem with Wasp (222, 'nough said). If anything, I would like to see itss damage nerfed and its armor buffed (or give it utility to escape) 222 shreds that thing. For Centaur, it suffers from the Bofors problem, Shreds infantry in no time. Correct me if I'm wrong but it has the same price as an Ostwin (or maybe cheaper-tech costs not included) but it is clearly an "effective" unit. StugS handle them though)

once these are patched, things will change

^up here^

Keep in mind that I don't have Brits, and because of 10-90 Axis to Allies ratio I haven't had the chance to play beside them so I might be wrong/biased since I'm frustrated.

Keep in mind that I don't have Brits, and because of 10-90 Axis to Allies ratio I haven't had the chance to play beside them so I might be wrong/biased since I'm frustrated.

Let's just see what the new patch brings, then we go from there.

Let's just see what the new patch brings, then we go from there.

That's the only possible and logical way yes. But Brit emplacements are gonna get REKT

MG 42: "Might need nerfed."
M1919: "It's pretty crap."
Actual: *nearly identical*

Even still, they aren't identically priced. I'm sure the vet doesn't stay identical either. I'll admit I haven't looked at stats, I'm going off experience alone right now. I don't think the mg42 needs nerfing, but the m1919 needs to be a little better or cheaper, especially since it's a doctrinal weapon. Defensive stance made up for that with the suppression, but now it's just the same as an mg42...but you pay an extra 10mu?

Even still, they aren't identically priced. I'm sure the vet doesn't stay identical either. I'll admit I haven't looked at stats, I'm going off experience alone right now. I don't think the mg42 needs nerfing, but the m1919 needs to be a little better or cheaper, especially since it's a doctrinal weapon. Defensive stance made up for that with the suppression, but now it's just the same as an mg42...but you pay an extra 10mu?

stats are nearly identical they cost 70 ammo because you can also equip them on RE. Stop being biased.