he doesnt understand than this AT boys allows the following:
blobb and a-move around the fiel.
I guess you could do that, but you can get a similar result with any faction by typing /l in the match chat.
Posts: 3260
he doesnt understand than this AT boys allows the following:
blobb and a-move around the fiel.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
you missed to tell us that this dmg isnt little and they can deal with light and mdeium armor ...min push them away.
my suggestion:
give them a nondoc snare, but remove than:
- sniper stun
- Tulips from FF
than it would be ok.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Light armor, sure, med armor? I think you should read up on patch notes or STOP driving your med armor forward by pressing R - it means REVERSE, not RAPMAGE.
Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1
Posts: 955
I suppose a middle ground option would be to add an AT Grenade upgrade to sections that is mutually exclusive with Med Kits and Pyrotechnics Supplies. Tradeoff of on field healing for snares is pretty fair I think. With addition of Forward Assembly Medics a Brit player can choose to focus on AT if they want to. That way AT Sections retain their flavor of having light AT support AND free snare upgrade.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Posts: 1220
Imo tommies should be 4 men squad price of 260. Pyrotechings increasing size to 5 proving 2 scoped Enfields, taking all weapon slot and removing all fring bonuses/penalties of cover. Also replacing their mills bomb with a smoke grenade.
Medic kits could be moved to engineers. Bolster infantry could become allot cheaper and affect only Ro.En and maybe call-in infantry.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Etherealdragon idea is better and i guess easier to implement
Posts: 3260
I suppose a middle ground option would be to add an AT Grenade upgrade to sections that is mutually exclusive with Med Kits and Pyrotechnics Supplies. Tradeoff of on field healing for snares is pretty fair I think. With addition of Forward Assembly Medics a Brit player can choose to focus on AT if they want to. That way AT Sections retain their flavor of having light AT support AND free snare upgrade.
Posts: 138
That was a simply sing typo. From * to -. What swordfisch claimed was that they did not get the accuracy/CD bonus anymore which they do.
And actually my original point was that having access to 2 auras (Air-landing officer/Command vehicle) would make unit broken and it would.
Posts: 138
Imo tommies should be 4 men squad price of 260. Pyrotechings increasing size to 5 proving 2 scoped Enfields, taking all weapon slot and removing all fring bonuses/penalties of cover. Also replacing their mills bomb with a smoke grenade. They could also provide "victor" barrages for mortars (maybe gain the 1 25p barrages as veterancy bonus).
Medic kits could be moved to engineers. Bolster infantry could become allot cheaper and affect only Ro.En and maybe call-in infantry. Heavy sapper could be a dual option either for faster repair or for slower repair but better combat performance.
Posts: 138
I suppose a middle ground option would be to add an AT Grenade upgrade to sections that is mutually exclusive with Med Kits and Pyrotechnics Supplies. Tradeoff of on field healing for snares is pretty fair I think. With addition of Forward Assembly Medics a Brit player can choose to focus on AT if they want to. That way AT Sections retain their flavor of having light AT support AND free snare upgrade.
Posts: 2742
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
Imo tommies should be 4 men squad price of 260.
Posts: 503 | Subs: 1
Posts: 495 | Subs: 1
IMO it could be bundled in with grenade tech or make AT tommies non-doc (unrelated but I believe molotovs and AT nade should be combined for Soviets too). easy fix
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
No.... I claimed it was nerfed, which it was
you claimed they get -80% RA in an aura, which is wrong. I said they get a decent RA and accuracy buff for around 10-15 seconds with heroric charge, hardly gamebreaking when we have a command P4 giving units the extra health to survive direct grenades at their feet.
Posts: 138
snip
Posts: 138
Please see the discussion that’s already been done on this. I agree with you, which is why I created the poll in the link. Cheers!
https://www.coh2.org/topic/79043/british-snare-problem-and-potential-fixes
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I said iirc and disagreed with what you said because looking at your original stats you posted they seemed incorrect, and they were as others have pointed out.
Anyway there is an easy fix here and it's simply making the bonus not stack. So not really an argument to why UKF shouldn't be allowed a non-doc CQB unit to help with flanks.
118 | |||||
21 | |||||
1 | |||||
63 | |||||
60 | |||||
15 | |||||
11 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |