Login

russian armor

The UKF solution

5 Dec 2019, 14:02 PM
#81
avatar of Euan

Posts: 177

This is literally the first patch in so many years that the Brits have been the weakest faction. Cheers to it staying that way for as long as possible.


This isn't true, there have been other tournaments where they were barely picked and lost almost every game where they were picked, then faced another rework (such as when Sappers were given a snare).

But thanks for at least being honest in saying that you prefer the game to exist in an unbalanced state.
5 Dec 2019, 14:59 PM
#82
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

I would revert back the changes for the Tommy if the next patch does not address the issues with medium/close range infantry problem.
5 Dec 2019, 15:30 PM
#83
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3



LOL, losing to rank 800+ players when you were formerly ranked 40 just shows how broken IS were in earlier iterations. While most other Brit players agree that Brits are weaker now, you're literally the only one dropping off by such insane amounts, probably because you got too used to abusing high armour UC + IS with early bolster -> ggez win. Brits have been a ridiculous faction for ages, with a combination of glaring roster holes and overly-powerful units cobbled together into a makeshift faction.

I'd rather they be slightly underpowered than go back to the days of rampant Brit cheese. This is literally the first patch in so many years that the Brits have been the weakest faction. Cheers to it staying that way for as long as possible.
5 Dec 2019, 18:30 PM
#84
avatar of Leo251

Posts: 311

I like to play Brits.
I dont think Brits have any problems. I just consider that the other 2 allied factions are much more rewarding, specially Sovs.
But honestly, Brits are OK against OKW, and more than OK agaisnt OST.
5 Dec 2019, 21:37 PM
#85
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351

I also think that once sovs or USF are not that strong ppl will come back to ukf and start thinking of new strays to play with ukf. I like them myself and I'm ok with using doctrines to fill the gaps and having emplacements to fulfill similar role. I would only like to get back more resources for dismantling emplacements to make them more useful.
6 Dec 2019, 01:25 AM
#86
avatar of FelixTHM

Posts: 503 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Dec 2019, 14:02 PMEuan


This isn't true, there have been other tournaments where they were barely picked and lost almost every game where they were picked, then faced another rework (such as when Sappers were given a snare).

But thanks for at least being honest in saying that you prefer the game to exist in an unbalanced state.


Brits have always been a cheese faction that's disgusting in automatch but is not viable in tournament settings because pro players can exploit the poor factional design.

The Brit faction has always had glaring holes, with no assault infantry, no indirect fire, no garrison counter, no snares, but it is an undeniable reality that many of the units were oppressively overpowered. Old Centaur would instant-delete units. Old Tommies could 1 v 2 other mainlines, while being able to cap faster and heal on the field. Old UC was unkillable till late game because it had nonsensically high armour.

I get that you're trying to be an edgelord but the current state of game balance is the best it's ever been, contrary to what you posit. No amount of Brit fanboi tears upon having your favourite faction nerfed slightly will justify reverting the faction to its previous bullshit levels.

You want Brits to have ridiculously overpowered units, while I would rather they fix the Brits to make it a playable faction. If Brits can't be a proper faction I'd rather they not even be played.
7 Dec 2019, 17:47 PM
#87
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1

I guess one could try the following:

AA/AEC no longer mutually exclusive, separate into 2 successive tech unlocks.
First research unlock AEC
Second research unlocks AA and redesign Valentine with new abilities and vet bonuses
Valentine toned down and become cheaper
Observation vehicle still available to the commander but as an upgrade

These changes aim to create a sort of "soviet" T3 intermediate that option that would allow UKF an AI vehicle.
7 Dec 2019, 19:16 PM
#88
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Dec 2019, 17:47 PMVipper
I guess one could try the following:

AA/AEC no longer mutually exclusive, separate into 2 successive tech unlocks.
First research unlock AEC
Second research unlocks AA and redesign Valentine with new abilities and vet bonuses
Valentine toned down and become cheaper
Observation vehicle still available to the commander but as an upgrade

These changes aim to create a sort of "soviet" T3 intermediate that option that would allow UKF an AI vehicle.


A reworked valentine sound very good.

Still, two successive tech requires to access to the valentine is too much, i think. With that high of requirement it will have to be quite strong to worth.

So, my suggestion will be two mutually exclusive tech give the choice between AEC and valentine with Bofor unlock after any of those tow researched. AEC will still be a fast AT vehicles while valentine being an AI infantry support tank with aoe profile close to T70 but less effective vs tank. It will have 2-3 AT shoots of HP with smoke pot but slow as a churchill.
7 Dec 2019, 19:26 PM
#89
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

Also, i was thinking of infantry section. With the current performance of section, how about move HEAT grenade from royal engineer to section but lock it behind grenade tech and increase cost back to 280.

Royal engineer then can use a flame nade (also lock behind grenade tech or rack tech) to fill the role of garrison clearing with cost increase to 220 - 230.
7 Dec 2019, 19:57 PM
#90
avatar of Euan

Posts: 177

I get that you're trying to be an edgelord but the current state of game balance is the best it's ever been, contrary to what you posit. No amount of Brit fanboi tears upon having your favourite faction nerfed slightly will justify reverting the faction to its previous bullshit levels.

You want Brits to have ridiculously overpowered units, while I would rather they fix the Brits to make it a playable faction. If Brits can't be a proper faction I'd rather they not even be played.


Mate, we are the ones trying to have a balance discussion. All you're doing is throwing around insults and aggro, not to mention assumptions and false accusations on other people's opinions. That's not the way to have a constructive discussion.

Back on topic, I think we all pretty much agree that Brits had OP units that needed nerfing, and now the problem is that the holes in the faction are more obvious. The question asked by OP, which we should actually try and answer, is whether we should revert the nerfs, fill another hole, or do nothing. If we fill a hole which one (flamer, assault inf, elite inf, rocket arty, mortar, halftrack, superheavy, ???) and wat do with the doctrine that we take it from?

Personally I do think some simple reverts on Sappers or Tommies might work fine, if accompanied by a significant corresponding price increase. On the other hand happy to play the current state of the game for a bit longer before I decide. Maybe there are some new strategies that work for Brits 1v1 involving early Bolster, who knows.
7 Dec 2019, 20:18 PM
#91
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1



A reworked valentine sound very good.

Still, two successive tech requires to access to the valentine is too much, i think. With that high of requirement it will have to be quite strong to worth.

So, my suggestion will be two mutually exclusive tech give the choice between AEC and valentine with Bofor unlock after any of those tow researched. AEC will still be a fast AT vehicles while valentine being an AI infantry support tank with aoe profile close to T70 but less effective vs tank. It will have 2-3 AT shoots of HP with smoke pot but slow as a churchill.


The AA/AEC tech is dirty cheap adding another is hardly going to be "too much" it would still be less the T3 for soviet.

The point is to give UKF access to both a AI and AT vehicle that come earlier than medium tanks.

Valentine could get have good anti garrison gun and smoke rounds to help vs mgs.

And no units do not have to quite strong to be worth it, they need to bring something new to the table in this case it could be anti garrison utility.
8 Dec 2019, 03:11 AM
#92
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Dec 2019, 20:18 PMVipper


The AA/AEC tech is dirty cheap adding another is hardly going to be "too much" it would still be less the T3 for soviet.

The point is to give UKF access to both a AI and AT vehicle that come earlier than medium tanks.

Valentine could get have good anti garrison gun and smoke rounds to help vs mgs.

And no units do not have to quite strong to be worth it, they need to bring something new to the table in this case it could be anti garrison utility.


I was confusing with the cost, AEC and bofor tech are 30 fuel totally so not that expensive, indeed.

So the next question is how will be the new valentine. What do you think about my proposal?
8 Dec 2019, 05:29 AM
#93
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

I can't agree with some subjects here thinking poor UKF need desperate love.
Those so mentioned 'gaps' in ukf roster are for weaknesses by design, because previously OP available units were the solution. What I mean is, ukf design was simple and clear, superiority at the cost of variety, plus emplacements.

I would suggest not to follow the clone faction solution, because it's boring and the game already lost most of its unique traits for the sake of player learning and """"""""fairness"""""" (commonly known as red units OP)

Revamp, tweak and improve ukf design seems to me the best solution. Snares are a keeper but that means the IS has to suffer for it. Emplacements should be part of ukf common strategy and meta aswell.
8 Dec 2019, 06:12 AM
#94
avatar of Kasarov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 422 | Subs: 2

If only Lend Lease didn't take away the possibility of Thompsons and WP grenades on Sappers.

If it were up to me, Bren Sections would have Button Vehicle. I'd also suggest Sappers with an upgrade for Thompsons and WP grenades that locks out any other weapon pickups/upgrades, but would function as assault infantry AND garrison clear AND smoke. (No HEAT grenade because Button Vehicle exists).

I know Button Vehicle would be a weak snare, but it shouldn't cost 40 muni as the Guards Button (not that Guards Button should either) and it would be more accessible due to being on mainline infantry rather than a support unit. Additionally, it keeps the original theme of trying to work without snare grenades to bring a bit of faction identity back.

Also, I'd say .55 Sniper ability could be vet 0 and can inflict temporary light engine damage as a Button Vehicle alternative. Maybe at vet 3 levels the .55 sniper can turret lock (for very short durations) certain vehicles with standard shots, but that might be a bit too exploitable.
8 Dec 2019, 08:30 AM
#95
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1



I was confusing with the cost, AEC and bofor tech are 30 fuel totally so not that expensive, indeed.

So the next question is how will be the new valentine. What do you think about my proposal?


Well if on what to be historically accurate Valentine should be a slow infatry support tank similar to Churchill. So one could try to redesigned as a slow relatively well armored vehicle with AI role and good infatry synergy. Veterancy could focus on Armor/HP bonuses so that unit had little shock value and was counter productive to be spammed.

One could a utility like. Smoke round to stop MG fire, a timed ability that provided UKF infatry cover status without the actual received accuracy bonuses (the DPS cover bonus would apply).

Some of the issues with the current Valentine are that it had its damage increased without changing its profile and the gun is quite deadly and its mobility is also very high. It was part of the reason it was a problem when it could be spammed.
8 Dec 2019, 11:17 AM
#96
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Dec 2019, 08:30 AMVipper


Well if on what to be historically accurate Valentine should be a slow infatry support tank similar to Churchill. So one could try to redesigned as a slow relatively well armored vehicle with AI role and good infatry synergy. Veterancy could focus on Armor/HP bonuses so that unit had little shock value and was counter productive to be spammed.

One could a utility like. Smoke round to stop MG fire, a timed ability that provided UKF infatry cover status without the actual received accuracy bonuses (the DPS cover bonus would apply).

Some of the issues with the current Valentine are that it had its damage increased without changing its profile and the gun is quite deadly and its mobility is also very high. It was part of the reason it was a problem when it could be spammed.


Buff infantry around seem more fit a command vehicle than a stock AI. For synergy with infantry, a smoke pot will be enough. I prefer a slow but more durable infantry tank as well, for historical accuracy.
8 Dec 2019, 11:21 AM
#97
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

May be hull down as a vet ability will fit the valentine for adding durable. At that tier, slapping too much armor or HP on a vehicles will both lead to issue.
8 Dec 2019, 12:14 PM
#98
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1



Buff infantry around seem more fit a command vehicle than a stock AI. For synergy with infantry, a smoke pot will be enough. I prefer a slow but more durable infantry tank as well, for historical accuracy.

Actually the suggestion for the cover bonus comes from my suggestion for Churchill's smoke. The smoke does not suit the vehicles and its current implementation since the unit is extra durable and smoke is an overkill. On the other hand if the smoke worked like original commando smoke providing cover status but not bonus it would make Churchill better designed.

As most "durable" units one can reduce their shock value by moving any HP/armor bonuses to veterancy bonuses. I have pointed out many times that veterancy overhaul is very long overdue. At least some units got some change in their vet bonuses and vet 1 abilities (and some vet bonuses close to my suggestions).

Anyway it is is not necessary for Valentine I was simply trying to example the synergy with infantries.
8 Dec 2019, 15:45 PM
#99
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1792

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Dec 2019, 17:47 PMVipper
I guess one could try the following:

AA/AEC no longer mutually exclusive, separate into 2 successive tech unlocks.
First research unlock AEC
Second research unlocks AA and redesign Valentine with new abilities and vet bonuses
Valentine toned down and become cheaper
Observation vehicle still available to the commander but as an upgrade

These changes aim to create a sort of "soviet" T3 intermediate that option that would allow UKF an AI vehicle.


Yes i advocate AEC and Bofors non exclusive.
We should start small for Ukf. And making that is a good start.
Give AEC wp shots to clear garrision too.
And switch IS arty to incendiary drops, but smaller aoe less burnful, just enough to force support weapons to move but not insta-3s kill.
Make cromwell comes out a bit earlier at about stug timings.
9 Dec 2019, 02:07 AM
#100
avatar of IsThatATank

Posts: 1

Yeah, AEC and Bofors should be non-exclusive, considering how the AEC is essential in 1v1s. This will also allow the balance team to find a role for the Bofors as a 'core' unit in the UKF gameplan.

Bofors have too high an opportunity cost. They should either build faster, or have a slight cost reduction, or perhaps both. This should encourage UKF players to experiment with them since emplacement utility is so map dependent.

Tearing down emplacements should return 50% manpower, to promote a more 'active' and fluid style of holding territory with UKF. Just my two cents
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Offline

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

431 users are online: 431 guests
4 posts in the last 24h
30 posts in the last week
85 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44635
Welcome our newest member, Mitali11
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM