Login

russian armor

Brits in 1v1 is a joke

PAGES (9)down
19 Oct 2019, 16:08 PM
#61
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 6313 | Subs: 1




Alright boiz I literally tested the Cromwell vs infantry (Starting 1:30) and found something interesting.

While being the worst Somehow with the Commander it's even worse vs infantry.

How is that even possibe?


RNG + yellow cover creation.

40 extra mp for a reinforce bunker , that generally cost 125 mp and 60 mp


No one uses the reinforce bunker, which is totally overpriced for what it does. (Talking about the OH one).
19 Oct 2019, 20:00 PM
#62
avatar of NorthFireZ

Posts: 134

rng ? We already know Cromwell is not the best AI medium , it can crush easily tho so some of that is redeemed , but it's the best at medium with a whopping 50% reload speed and commander bonus sight and accuracy, can actually beat the stug as maret tested and has the best pen profile with high pen at all ranges

Btw Cromwell has nothing to do here , there is another thread for it already


Cromwell is part of brits, this is a brit thread.

Crush doesn't redeem it one bit. It can't substitute for horrid actual performance.

Cromwell is one of the hardest mediums to vet up because of its RNG cannon and horrid MG performance. The 50% reload is almost impossible to aquire.

Sigh and Accuracy Commander actually decrease the viable anti infantry performance. It will never be as good as a MG upgrade.

It's pen profile still can't beat anything higher than a Ost P4 which is the low bar of Axis mediums.
19 Oct 2019, 20:10 PM
#63
avatar of NorthFireZ

Posts: 134



RNG + yellow cover creation.



No one uses the reinforce bunker, which is totally overpriced for what it does. (Talking about the OH one).


All tanks were firing into yellow cover. I've already been doing the testing for 10+ minutes at that point. There are enough craters in the ground for that to be irrelevant.

It takes the Sherman HE about 9 seconds to wipe Volks.

Both P4 H and P4J followed up close behind with 13 second wipe times.

T/34 took 19 seconds but it's probably realistically about 15-17ish.

Cromwell Base/Commander took about 26 seconds in total to wipe the Volks squad.

Which means the Cromwell has about half of the Anti infantry power as a P4, and is even lacking behind the much cheaper T/34. This is kind of ridiculous.
19 Oct 2019, 20:32 PM
#64
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 3968



Cromwell is part of brits, this is a brit thread.

Crush doesn't redeem it one bit. It can't substitute for horrid actual performance.

Cromwell is one of the hardest mediums to vet up because of its RNG cannon and horrid MG performance. The 50% reload is almost impossible to aquire.

Sigh and Accuracy Commander actually decrease the viable anti infantry performance. It will never be as good as a MG upgrade.

It's pen profile still can't beat anything higher than a Ost P4 which is the low bar of Axis mediums.
it's mathematically impossible
19 Oct 2019, 20:38 PM
#65
avatar of NorthFireZ

Posts: 134

it's mathematically impossible


Perhaps over a longer period of time it would be so you are right on that. I take it back.

Although from the testing I've done, there doesn't seem to be much visable difference between the two.
19 Oct 2019, 20:42 PM
#66
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 3968

it's very minor buff to AI as very rarely it will roll accuracy better to hit a model directly instead of scatter

anyway for cromwell we have another thread please dont make the same argument everywhere
19 Oct 2019, 20:57 PM
#67
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 6313 | Subs: 1



U asked why there was a performance difference between commander and without it. RNG + Cover.
20 Oct 2019, 00:52 AM
#68
avatar of CODGUY

Posts: 575

Cromwell is a pointless/useless unit no doubt about that. It does nothing well and has no special abilities.

UKF you'd think should be able build bunkers too. They are definitely out classed by OST. MG42s (probably the most all around OP unit in the game) are highly punishing to UKF as are the cheese Assault Grens.
20 Oct 2019, 01:56 AM
#69
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 488 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Oct 2019, 00:52 AMCODGUY
Cromwell is a pointless/useless unit no doubt about that. It does nothing well and has no special abilities.

UKF you'd think should be able build bunkers too. They are definitely out classed by OST. MG42s (probably the most all around OP unit in the game) are highly punishing to UKF as are the cheese Assault Grens.


The MG42 is far from being op, it’s simply the standard HMG that all others are taken from (At least in theory).

MG42: all around very good.
MG34: weaker in every way to compensate for OKW having better infantry.

M2HB .50 cal: more expensive HMG that can damage light vehicles while still being very powerful vs infantry. Only major downside compared to an MG42 is that it’s more expensive.

Vickers HMG: better damage, worse suppression, no anti vehicle ability but can shoot farther when in a garrison. Trades utility against light vehicles for better area denial when combined with a garrison or trench when compared to the MG42.

1910 Maxim HMG: faster set up time and with a more durable 6 man team, the Maxim is meant to trade firepower for mobility and survivability to allow it to be used more aggressively. (Death loop bug kinda destroys this, but that’s not by design. Hence the current Maxim is considered by many to be up and has been changed a lot in an attempt to normalize it.)

1938 DShK HMG: the only doctrinal only HMG is similar to the USF M2HB in its role as an HMG that can also threaten light vehicles, but is locked to only a handful of Soviet doctrines. (Honestly I couldn’t tell you which one is better on paper, but they are pretty comparable in their intended roles.)

Back on topic, the Cromwell does suck though. I’d like to see it’s MGs get a damage boost so it can be more like a T-34/76 in its utility, but without ram and a bit better vs medium tanks.
20 Oct 2019, 02:43 AM
#70
avatar of CODGUY

Posts: 575



The MG42 is far from being op, it’s simply the standard HMG that all others are taken from (At least in theory).

MG42: all around very good.
MG34: weaker in every way to compensate for OKW having better infantry.

M2HB .50 cal: more expensive HMG that can damage light vehicles while still being very powerful vs infantry. Only major downside compared to an MG42 is that it’s more expensive.

Vickers HMG: better damage, worse suppression, no anti vehicle ability but can shoot farther when in a garrison. Trades utility against light vehicles for better area denial when combined with a garrison or trench when compared to the MG42.

1910 Maxim HMG: faster set up time and with a more durable 6 man team, the Maxim is meant to trade firepower for mobility and survivability to allow it to be used more aggressively. (Death loop bug kinda destroys this, but that’s not by design. Hence the current Maxim is considered by many to be up and has been changed a lot in an attempt to normalize it.)

1938 DShK HMG: the only doctrinal only HMG is similar to the USF M2HB in its role as an HMG that can also threaten light vehicles, but is locked to only a handful of Soviet doctrines. (Honestly I couldn’t tell you which one is better on paper, but they are pretty comparable in their intended roles.)

Back on topic, the Cromwell does suck though. I’d like to see it’s MGs get a damage boost so it can be more like a T-34/76 in its utility, but without ram and a bit better vs medium tanks.



When you're playing EZ mode v1 you have the MG42 is a starting unit despite the fact it can pin 4 sqauds at once, despite the fact it's only 260 MP, despite the fact it is available in addition to a sniper and mortar with in the first minute of the game. It is OP as hell. The only faction that can deal with it reasonably well is Soviets because of the Scout Car everyone wants to nerf all the time.

EZ mode V2 doesn't have an MG42 but the MG34 is basically the samething just slightly worse on suppression. Basically the way EZ mode v2 is setup where the MG isn't available until t2 is how the MG42 should be.
20 Oct 2019, 05:41 AM
#71
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 963 | Subs: 1

It would be nice if Relic let the balance team remove the balancing nightmare that is bolster. It would be a million times easier to balance a 5 man Tommy from the beginning than trying to balance 4 man and 5 man tommies at the same time.




Pre patch, may be, but now, i dont think so.


Its honestly not close in my experience, both grens and volks stomp Tommies until brens and bolster. Tommies might win in green cover but I've seen axis infantry beat Tommies in green cover, and they are terrible at any range except long, their inflexibility makes them awful early.
20 Oct 2019, 05:44 AM
#72
avatar of PanzerFutz

Posts: 95

This thread is long on complaining and short on possible solutions to the problems with the UK faction. So, I'm going to have a go at offering some ideas to fix the issues, even though some of these ideas have already been floated and none of them are mine.

First, I'll say that the new Lend-Lease commander is a pretty good choice for 1 v 1 games because, it specifically addresses many of the problems with the faction - especially those relating to early-game play. The Assault Section upgrade addresses the lack of a good close-quarters unit. The mortar solves the faction's lack of mobile indirect fire. The Half-track adds mobility but, it's real value lies in the AA upgrade. This weapon gives the Brits something of similar anti-infantry potency to the MG-42 but with a lot more mobility. Finally, the Wolverine provides a cheap, mobile AT unit that nicely fills the gap between the 6-pdr and the Firefly - both in terms of price and timing.

However, the release of this new doctrine has only highlighted how broken the faction is, now that the recent changes have forced it away from its original design. So, the question is: how can it be fixed (without gutting the new doctrine for stock units)?

Regarding infantry units, it's unlikely that any new units will be added at this point. So, there is probably no reason to suggest any, such as a new parachute squad similar to the US version (5 men, with upgrades to either Thompson's or LMG's). Likewise, changes to the Infantry Sections are also unlikely because, this would gut the upgrade from the new doctrine.

The only unit that makes sense to upgrade is the Royal Engineers squad. It is already a close-quarters unit; it's just one that lacks the necessary potency to be used in that role. To address this, the RE's could receive a Thompson upgrade (gain 2 Thompson's, lose one slot). It wouldn't lock-out the minesweeper but, getting the minesweeper would use up the remaining slot. A fully kitted out combat version of the RE's might look like this: 5 men, 2 Thompson's, 2 Sten's and 1 Bren.

If the UC Wasp gets removed to doctrine, as has been suggested, then it could be swapped with the infantry flamethrowers in the 2 doctrines that have them and the RE's would receive the flamers as another stock upgrade. These two mutually exclusive upgrades would make the RE's quite versatile as a combat unit, fit for either close-quarters or garrison-clearing work. It would neatly plug one of the holes in the UK's stock roster.

Another hole in the roster is the lack of indirect fire options. Currently, before a doctrine is selected, only the Mortar Pit and the Base Howitzers are available for that role. They are quite good units in some ways - the pit offers double the firepower at less than double the price and the howitzers are essentially free and have unlimited range. The problem is that the pit is fixed so the mortars can't move to where they are needed and the method of calling in the howitzers is awkward and risky, lending itself best to defensive uses and being a comparatively poor offensive weapon.

Fixing the pit by splitting it into a single mortar, with the second mortar as an upgrade, has some merit but, it may not even be possible. So, I'm not going to consider it at this time. Another suggestion is to change the mechanics of the unit such that the range of auto-attack is slightly reduced while the range of its barrages is slightly increased. I think this is quite a good idea on its own but, I would take it even further.

I think a timed, munitions-based "Supercharge" boost to the barrages is another way to tackle the problem. Purchasing the boost before selecting the barrage would increase its range (perhaps by as much as 50%) at the expense of all the usual downsides that increased range brings (possibly including a lower number of shells in the barrage). Additionally, a player would have to be careful not to waste the boost by selecting it and then picking a target within normal range. This wouldn't completely fix the problem but, it would make the pit a lot more attractive, especially in 1 v 1 games.

The issues with the howitzer are hard to fix, which is why so many British doctrines include indirect fire options. The method of targeting the howitzers and their inability to improve their accuracy by gaining experience leaves a lot to be desired. At one point, I suggested that mortars should be given the veteran ability to lay artillery flares but, that idea never gained any traction and I don't think it will ever happen.

Instead, I believe the only change to the howitzers that can and should happen at this point is the addition of a smoke barrage to the Pyro Sections kit. It would plug the lack-of-smoke hole in the UK's roster, covering both the deficiencies of the mortar pit and the complete lack of infantry smoke for this faction. It requires the Pyro upgrade and unlocking the Company CP before it can be used so, it isn't as cheesy as some people allege. Additionally, until the Battalion CP is unlocked, only one gun can provide fire so, the barrage would be quite limited during the early game and it would only become truly effective once all the CP's were operational.

These ideas would go a long way toward improving the UK's early-game play, particularly in 1 v 1 matches, but they're not the only things that need alteration. They are just the ideas that involve re-working the relevant units. As far as buffs go, British MG's are the only weapons in real need of a buff, especially their vehicle MG's. It's pretty obvious from this thread that British vehicle MG's are considered the worst in the game and fixing them would help balance the faction in the later stages of games.

I admit I'm no expert but, I do play the faction regularly enough to be aware of its deficiencies. These are just some ideas about how those deficiencies might be addressed. I'm not interested in discussing whether or not this faction is balanced compared to other factions but, I am open to thoughts about how these suggestions might affect the balance of the game.

Sorry it's such a long post but I had a lot to say.
20 Oct 2019, 20:43 PM
#73
avatar of Raviloli

Posts: 62

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Oct 2019, 02:43 AMCODGUY

..The only faction that can deal with it reasonably well is Soviets because of the Scout Car everyone wants to nerf all the time..


Scout Car is actually a horrible idea against OST most of the time, I don't know where you got the impression that it's the scout car that picks up the slack there.
20 Oct 2019, 21:06 PM
#74
avatar of Kurobane

Posts: 137

British need some love as they are quite bad outside of team games.
21 Oct 2019, 04:22 AM
#75
avatar of FelixTHM

Posts: 294 | Subs: 1



Scout Car is actually a horrible idea against OST most of the time, I don't know where you got the impression that it's the scout car that picks up the slack there.


He plays the game at rank 800,000. Things work very differently there.
21 Oct 2019, 04:32 AM
#76
avatar of FelixTHM

Posts: 294 | Subs: 1

There is several problems with Brits atm. We won't see them in the upcoming tournament much.


1: There's no tatical flexibility with Brits. Emplacements are desperatly in need of a rework. For an emplacement faction, they sure get the short end of the stick when it comes to emplacement viability. Motar pit is so despirately needed sometimes with no other barrage weapon availble except base howi but can be countere oh so easily.

2: This patch's dps curve readjustment and the out of cover RA nerf is really forcing people to purchase 5man upgrade even more now. They are severely punished for being out of cover for absolutely no reason other than to reinforce the original factional design which didn't work. One nerf would have been enough but both at the same time is very much Grenades + 5 man + weapon racks is 60 fuel by itself. Imagine any other faction having to pay 60 fuel for their mainlines to perform well.

3: Brit's early game has no light vehicle counter besides from the AEC. Royal engineers has at grenades but no where in the viability of Conscripts or Fausts. The only unit that comes to mind that has soft AV before an AEC and AT gun would be the tank hunter infantry section. That's in a doctrine no one uses. That of which brings me to another point.

4: Brit Commanders are kind of meh. Tatical Support and Vanguard are getting more popular because they both have the Croc and plug up some (not a lot) of holes in the Brit lineup.

5: Cromwell is still bad vs infantry and Brits lack a shock unit.

Whether or not you agree, we will see the results in the tournament that's coming up.



While I've always hated Brits and how they were batshit OP for so many years/patches (and am certainly glad that they're having their well-deserved period of suckage), I do generally agree that Brits aren't very good right now.

The fundamental Brit design is the problem.

For IS: Cover bonus and moving penalty balance each other out on paper, but in reality makes it virtually impossible for Brits to assault any position. Bolster is a nonsensical upgrade which simply shouldn't exist - removing it makes it easier to balance IS. I'd favour scrapping the "faction flavour" and just remove the cover bonus and the moving penalty.

No garrison counter: No flamers, no smoke. Ugh. Sappers need to have non-doctrinal access to flamethrowers.

No indirect fire: If only we could just swap the mortar pit with the 81mm mortar.

Cromwell isn't very good: Yeah, I usually go Centaur instead.


Totally disagree with regards to the AEC. It's an excellent LV counter and with its tread disabling ability you can easily trade it to kill a much more powerful enemy tank.

21 Oct 2019, 06:38 AM
#77
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 663

Has anybody thought that there is a huge potential in makin AEC and Bofors not mutually exclusive?

Also there is this ability to remove empplacements. If you made it give back more resources it could help UKF a lot. Mortar could be basically "retreated" and moved. Could be enough.

Two above solution retain UKF uniqueness and allow different gamplay than you have with US and Sov. I'd love to try them. Just a different approch - not copying other two allied factions is imo the best solution.
21 Oct 2019, 08:55 AM
#79
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 377

Has anybody thought that there is a huge potential in makin AEC and Bofors not mutually exclusive?

Also there is this ability to remove empplacements. If you made it give back more resources it could help UKF a lot. Mortar could be basically "retreated" and moved. Could be enough.

Two above solution retain UKF uniqueness and allow different gamplay than you have with US and Sov. I'd love to try them. Just a different approch - not copying other two allied factions is imo the best solution.


While i agree with you about making AEC and bofor not mutually exclusive, the current ability of removing emplacements is not enough. As now, to remove an emplacements, you need a royal engineer squad and it take you about haft a minute, too long to be count as "retreat anh move". This ability main purpose is allow you to free pop cap later on with 100 mp refun, it only work if you push the enemies far away, lead to the emplacement no longer needed, if you get push back and have to leave the emplacement behind when your army retreat, it still result in a dead emplacement anyway.
21 Oct 2019, 19:19 PM
#80
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 663



While i agree with you about making AEC and bofor not mutually exclusive, the current ability of removing emplacements is not enough. As now, to remove an emplacements, you need a royal engineer squad and it take you about haft a minute, too long to be count as "retreat anh move". This ability main purpose is allow you to free pop cap later on with 100 mp refun, it only work if you push the enemies far away, lead to the emplacement no longer needed, if you get push back and have to leave the emplacement behind when your army retreat, it still result in a dead emplacement anyway.


All true. My poit is that refund manpower amount and deconstructiin speed can be toyed with, and could help a lot if done correctly. I'd make UK emplacements less potent but more quick to demolish and build again. You could even think of, for example, not refunding a dismantled emplacement but having a possibility to build it for free in a different spot. Sort of bank with dismantled emplacements for later use. There could be two dismantling options. Quick blow up with a little refund or slower giving you the possibilty to build a structure for free when you need it.
PAGES (9)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
1v1 Map Unveil Event VonIvan vs Brosras

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • Oberkommando West flag N1cko
  • Oberkommando West flag Scotch1
  • Soviets flag Frosty
  • Soviets flag Beatricks Swire
uploaded by Frost

Board Info

136 users are online: 3 members and 133 guests
Jilet, Ohme, konfucius
188 posts in the last 24h
1200 posts in the last week
5363 posts in the last month
Registered members: 68503
Welcome our newest member, milwaukee
Most online: 918 users on 27 Oct 2019, 01:03 AM