Login

russian armor

My personal issues with UKF

28 Oct 2019, 20:11 PM
#1
avatar of Latch

Posts: 431

Currently this patch has a lot of good and a lot of bad associated with it, I wouldn't say its the best patch we have had but its certainly not the worst, however as many have pointed out, UKF have been forced into some weird niche play style as the patch has highlighted their weaknesses further.

1. No Indirect - The mortar pit is simply far too easy too risky to use, but without it, you have no ability to smoke/barrage MG's until you get either an AEC or a Cromwell out and even then, it costs Munitions to do so.

OKW had this issue a while back (with smoke) and was granted smoke for the LEIG as without smoke, you're in a very bad place, sure you can go for a sniper but this again, is incredibly risky for potentially no reward.

This solution is simple and is nothing new, give UKF a mortar in tier 0/1, you could even take this further and have engineers construct an empty emplacement that you can crew mortars into that replaces the mortar pit. Therefor removing the static play of emplacements whilst keeping the mobility of mortars as and when required. The mortar pit will obviously need some negative attributes or it would just be OP.

2. Expensive side tech - To make tommies viable you need 5 men, you need brens and you (sometimes) need nades. However, if you go 5 man before tech you get run over by light vehicles with no way to counter, and if you tech first you run the risk of light vehicles wiping squads or losing squads due to their performance being under par.

If tommies aren't in cover, they're useless and as they can get rushed down by CQC units the fith man really helps. If you go 5 man, tech and AEC, you've massively delayed your tanks and as a result no matter what you do as UKF, you always feel on the back foot trying to play catch up.

I don't really have a solution for this but adjusting the cost of the side tech really could do with a look at.

3. AEC - I hardly ever use this as it is just ruined by a Puma/Shrecks (Why teller mines 1 shot LV's I will never know) it is also incredibly poor against infantry, excelled even by the Puma. If the AEC was as is against LV's but UKF received another vehicle to fight infantry with, I could accept this but as the only option for AI LV is a UC, its simply far too micro intensive as small arms damage the UC reliably.

Solution, slightly increase the AEC's AI ability, not to stupid levels that we have before, but enough to make them actually fear it and let it be used as something more than a quicker AT gun or, give the UKF an AI vehicle (or maybe I've just been spoiled by the M5 quad AA :P)

4. Pinatas - When have you ever picked up a FG43, an STG, an AT rifle from spec weapon tommies, hell, how often do shrecks or LMG's drop from grens/Obers? I have played thousands of games of COH2 and I can honestly say that out of all these games, I have picked up an LMG/Shreck maybe 50 times. If however, we ask how many Brens/Piats I drop it is simply every game I equip a squad with them.

Your squads just turn into loot boxes for the enemy as you give them weapon upgrades for free, it is honestly incredible how often the weapons drop, costing you 45/50 munitions to replace.

Simply, adjust the rate that all weapons drop when a squad/member is killed, it should be rare, not as common as it is with UKF and I presume (USF).

I have more as do other people but feel free to disagree with me, just don't go all Dane on me.
28 Oct 2019, 20:24 PM
#2
avatar of Clarity

Posts: 247

I feel like putting a standard mortar into Tier 2 would be fine, I also think they should allow you to tech HEAT Grenades for Tommies and probably lump it in with Mills bombs and increase the cost to 150 mp 15 fuel. In change they could maybe slightly lower the cost of teching Tier 3 manpower wise.
28 Oct 2019, 20:32 PM
#3
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4003

>My personal issues with UKF

exactly, personal, not in the balance section
28 Oct 2019, 20:35 PM
#4
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 1541

UKF has one big problem. Playing vs. Ostheer. The match-up with OKW is somewhat OK for both sides after the last major patch.
28 Oct 2019, 20:35 PM
#5
avatar of Latch

Posts: 431

>My personal issues with UKF

exactly, personal, not in the balance section


Thanks so much for the great feedback as always, anyway I'll leave this here just for you!:

forum
/ˈfɔːrəm/

noun
1.
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
28 Oct 2019, 20:36 PM
#6
avatar of Clarity

Posts: 247

UKF has one big problem. Playing vs. Ostheer. The match-up with OKW is somewhat OK for both sides after the last major patch.


I think with side-tech snares on Tommies and a standard mortar in Tier 2 they would be much better against Ostheer.
28 Oct 2019, 20:38 PM
#7
avatar of Latch

Posts: 431

UKF has one big problem. Playing vs. Ostheer. The match-up with OKW is somewhat OK for both sides after the last major patch.


OST are difficult especially if they get an MG in a good building early game, had a game of crossroads, was north and he got an MG in the little house followed by a sniper, can't smoke it, cant wait for 90 muni and tech for wasp, cant flame it without doctrine and even then, I need tech. Quite frustrating.
28 Oct 2019, 20:45 PM
#8
avatar of Hon3ynuts

Posts: 816

It feels like so much of the effort into UKF was placed into the Emplacements and the Hammer/Anvil Dynamics. All of it at this point is relatively unhelpful as the emplacements are quite weak and the Hammer/anvil bonuses come extremely late.

They don't have a good diversity of infantry or light vehicle options as a result of these design decisions.

I feel they could benefit from an additional light vehicle or infantry choice in t2 to make up for the lackluster emplacements. A good candidate might be one of the many halftracks allies have access to. They can come early but aren't overwhelming by themselves (Barring the quad)
28 Oct 2019, 20:45 PM
#9
avatar of Clarity

Posts: 247

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Oct 2019, 20:38 PMLatch


OST are difficult especially if they get an MG in a good building early game, had a game of crossroads, was north and he got an MG in the little house followed by a sniper, can't smoke it, cant wait for 90 muni and tech for wasp, cant flame it without doctrine and even then, I need tech. Quite frustrating.


Yeah I feel like in that match-up I have to crutch on Mobile Assault or Lend Lease to help me out in the early game.
28 Oct 2019, 21:47 PM
#10
avatar of Grim

Posts: 757

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Oct 2019, 20:36 PMClarity


I think with side-tech snares on Tommies and a standard mortar in Tier 2 they would be much better against Ostheer.


i think if the UKF has to side tech for one more thing I'll explode XD
28 Oct 2019, 22:04 PM
#11
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 6343 | Subs: 1

It feels like so much of the effort into UKF was placed into the Emplacements and the Hammer/Anvil Dynamics. All of it at this point is relatively unhelpful as the emplacements are quite weak and the Hammer/anvil bonuses come extremely late.

They don't have a good diversity of infantry or light vehicle options as a result of these design decisions.

I feel they could benefit from an additional light vehicle or infantry choice in t2 to make up for the lackluster emplacements. A good candidate might be one of the many halftracks allies have access to. They can come early but aren't overwhelming by themselves (Barring the quad)


You forget about operations.
It's the same issue as with OKW and USF before. A faction with so many holes in their repertoire been carried by particular OP units.
28 Oct 2019, 23:34 PM
#12
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4003

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Oct 2019, 20:35 PMLatch


Thanks so much for the great feedback as always, anyway I'll leave this here just for you!:

forum
/ˈfɔːrəm/

noun
1.
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
i mean it's the wrong section try
https://www.coh2.org/forum/45/coh2-gameplay
https://www.coh2.org/forum/18/strategy-desk
28 Oct 2019, 23:48 PM
#13
avatar of Vermillion_Hawk

Posts: 32

I'm a big fan of making the Hammer Gammon Bomb a sticky AT satchel clone to give Infantry Sections a heavy AT snare locked behind an unpopular tech choice. I feel they already have enough tools to deal with light vehicles.

I'm also a big fan of the AEC - I don't think it needs extra anti-infantry power as that would just make it more of a no-brainer choice. It's my favourite light vehicle after the Puma. Treadbreaker is very nasty against enemy light vehicles, and I've never had too much of an issue using it against Axis LVs.

I do highly recommend the Vickers Universal Carrier for anti-infantry duties - the suppression ability is incredibly useful, if a bit unreliable. It's a nice little machine for no fuel cost, and I feel like it's far too overlooked in favour of the WASP upgrade, seeing as it's the only non-doctrinal anti-garrison unit the Brits get.

I feel we should move away from the concept of 5-man Tommies as essential - as I've outlined in my own thread, I feel like with their current performance, 4-man Tommies should have some benefit over 5-man sections, namely no accuracy penalties or received accuracy penalties. That's an argument for another thread though.
29 Oct 2019, 00:37 AM
#14
avatar of Hon3ynuts

Posts: 816

I'm a big fan of making the Hammer Gammon Bomb a sticky AT satchel clone to give Infantry Sections a heavy AT snare locked behind an unpopular tech choice. I feel they already have enough tools to deal with light vehicles.

I'm also a big fan of the AEC - I don't think it needs extra anti-infantry power as that would just make it more of a no-brainer choice. It's my favourite light vehicle after the Puma. Treadbreaker is very nasty against enemy light vehicles, and I've never had too much of an issue using it against Axis LVs.

I do highly recommend the Vickers Universal Carrier for anti-infantry duties - the suppression ability is incredibly useful, if a bit unreliable. It's a nice little machine for no fuel cost, and I feel like it's far too overlooked in favour of the WASP upgrade, seeing as it's the only non-doctrinal anti-garrison unit the Brits get.

I feel we should move away from the concept of 5-man Tommies as essential - as I've outlined in my own thread, I feel like with their current performance, 4-man Tommies should have some benefit over 5-man sections, namely no accuracy penalties or received accuracy penalties. That's an argument for another thread though.


I agree on the 5 man idea, It seems like if you don't commit to the Infantry sections with 5 man your other units really can't pick up the slack AND your 4 man sections aren't that good. Idk how to balance that But I think the current design kind of promotes spamming infantry.
29 Oct 2019, 20:52 PM
#15
avatar of Clarity

Posts: 247

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Oct 2019, 21:47 PMGrim


i think if the UKF has to side tech for one more thing I'll explode XD


I was saying the AT Nades could be in a bundle with the Mills bombs and just slightly increase the price to 150 mp 15 fuel.
30 Oct 2019, 05:22 AM
#16
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 711

For me, only need to make bofor and aec non exclusive. And give aec phosphorus shot as anti garrison anti mg.

And they are good enough
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 288
unknown 4
United States 3

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

159 users are online: 4 members and 155 guests
SturmtigerCobra, Aarotron, Khan, dewamacau99
92 posts in the last 24h
1127 posts in the last week
4744 posts in the last month
Registered members: 69609
Welcome our newest member, megan86
Most online: 918 users on 27 Oct 2019, 01:03 AM