Login

russian armor

Winter balance (1/2020) feedback - UKF

PAGES (16)down
10 Feb 2020, 15:57 PM
#221
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8561 | Subs: 1



Rushing the officer is pointless vipper. Vet0 it struggles vs sturms depending on approach. And gets handily beaten by pgrens. It's a unit you invest in for flanks and to provide some CQB power mid and late game when it vets up.

Having is as forth unit is not really rushing it. Pls provide replays to back your claim instead of theory crafting.

Last game I saw being streamed the officer had over 35 kill and was the most lethal UKF infatry.

In addition both Sturms and PG are mid to close infatry and there is little reason why QCQ should be able to charge thru open ground and win. That is not a good measure of the value of the unit.


I don't understand the claims if "hero unit" at all. If you're going to put forward an argument why the officer is OP for timing maybe you should look at the timing of pgrens or penals as well. Because pgrens especially are stronger out the gate.

I have said that about Penal more times I can remember and I actually pointed out that it will inevitably lead to PG having to come earlier. In addition PG are more expensive and come later.

The approach of trying to balance the whole faction on unit limited to 1 is bad design. The game will simply be about that units performance.


Your argument to buff royal engineers instead has already been attempted, it turns out having cheap spamable engineers that could double as strong CQB units out trading StG axis infantry was OP and impossible to balance and they were hit by RA, dps and vet nerfs.

That a silly claim balancing Ro.E. can be done.


Surely it makes much more sense to have the officer at a premium price point to provide unit variety to a stale UKF roster and easy to balance CQB unit that's only role is that outside of recon and on me (which could use some minor changes, maybe recon with tech).

No it does not make more sense. The problem of UKF is lacking certain tools like mortar for early anti-garrison. That is the gap the officer should fill. (and the wasp which can be balanced better)

The units is would be allot more useful if it arrived earlier and was of lower power level.
10 Feb 2020, 16:45 PM
#222
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 817

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2020, 15:57 PMVipper

Having is as forth unit is not really rushing it. Pls provide replays to back your claim instead of theory crafting.

Last game I saw being streamed the officer had over 35 kill and was the most lethal UKF infatry.

In addition both Sturms and PG are mid to close infatry and there is little reason why QCQ should be able to charge thru open ground and win. That is not a good measure of the value of the unit.


I have said that about Penal more times I can remember and I actually pointed out that it will inevitably lead to PG having to come earlier. In addition PG are more expensive and come later.

The approach of trying to balance the whole faction on unit limited to 1 is bad design. The game will simply be about that units performance.


That a silly claim balancing Ro.E. can be done.


No it does not make more sense. The problem of UKF is lacking certain tools like mortar for early anti-garrison. That is the gap the officer should fill. (and the wasp which can be balanced better)

The units is would be allot more useful if it arrived earlier and was of lower power level.


35kills across the space of a game is not indicative of how a vet0 unit performs out the gate. You complain it comes too early but don't really provide an argument for why that's a problem... Really the unit gives pretty weak shockpower for the price point, it's a investment more than a unit you rush (in your words "0.5cp") right now.

Of course we know you complain about penals, but this is the reality of balance. And Brits are the only faction that has to veto CQB maps because they lack any means to trade effectively in cqb after engineers, Tommies and nades got nerfed.

Depending on bolster or AEC the officer roughly has the same timing of pgren despite being weaker vet0. So yes it's hardly OP. And nobody is going to change four factions with otheer as a benchmark.

There have been posts upon posts created saying Brits need a new infantry unit, and that relying in just engineers and Tommy is boring and stale. the air landing officer has some great voice acting and a cool model, yet this unit has been hidden away in a mediocre doctrine. So having an extra unit priced and balanced accordingly to fill the CQB role is a lot more logical than trying to mess with RE vet, price and DPS again. Especially with the mess that everything becomes with early bolster and weapon racks.

This is not my opinion, this lack of infantry variety is something pretty much all UKF players have complained about since release. And a fair few in turn also pointed at the ALO being the answer. Just look at the old UKF threads here a couple of months ago.

So good work mod team if you ask me
10 Feb 2020, 16:52 PM
#223
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8561 | Subs: 1



... And Brits are the only faction that has to veto CQB maps because they lack any means to trade effectively in cqb after engineers, Tommies and nades got nerfed.

Neither Ostheer or OKW have CQC stock units they have mid to close range units.


Depending on bolster or AEC the officer roughly has the same timing of pgren despite being weaker vet0. So yes it's hardly OP. And nobody is going to change four factions with otheer as a benchmark.

See what tightrope has to say on the subject.

Again the issue is not if the unit should be introduced but how should it be designed.
10 Feb 2020, 17:06 PM
#224
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2426 | Subs: 5

Can we maybe add the Assault Sections to doctrines that have some sort of late-game capability in 2v2?


I had a look at this before but I didn't find any space in any other commander without straight up having to delete something.
10 Feb 2020, 17:12 PM
#225
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3221

I had a look at this before but I didn't find any space in any other commander without straight up having to delete something.


What about Vanguard, replacing the gutted HQ glider?

They're a downgrade from Commandos, fairly munitions dependent (balancing them against the muitions-heavy Vanguard Regiment) and they fit the theme.

The merged Commando Drop/HQ glider would then be Commando Regiment exclusive and improve that commander's viability in team games.
10 Feb 2020, 17:21 PM
#226
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 616

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2020, 16:52 PMVipper

Neither Ostheer or OKW have CQC stock units they have mid to close range units.




The unit type Which ukf also dont have.
10 Feb 2020, 17:32 PM
#227
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 616

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2020, 15:57 PMVipper

In addition both Sturms and PG are mid to close infatry and there is little reason why QCQ should be able to charge thru open ground and win. That is not a good measure of the value of the unit.


And the officer do not charge through open and win. As i already said, i did the test and at vet 0, officer lose outright to pg if charging in open and only can manage to barely win stumpio with 1 model left. Vs axis mainline, officer perform decently at vet 0.

As you said, we provide personal feedback, so, if you believe the officer will be better with your design, it's ok, i respect that. But at the same time, i strongly believe myself that the current application of the officer is nowhere near problematic as you made it out to be.
10 Feb 2020, 17:33 PM
#228
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8561 | Subs: 1



The unit type Which ukf also dont have.

Exactly my point the majority of faction do not have stock CQC other the weak engineer.

That UKF problem is not the lack of a QCQ stock unit. It problem is dealing early with HMG/Garrison or defending vs early enemy doctrinal QCQ units like the Ass. Gren.
10 Feb 2020, 17:38 PM
#229
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3221

As funny as the new UKF medic blob is, might it not be more user friendly to have them as base automatrons? They can keep the high cost to keep them inefficient, but the medic squad is just busywork.
10 Feb 2020, 17:44 PM
#230
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 616

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2020, 17:33 PMVipper

Exactly my point the majority of faction do not have stock CQC other the weak engineer.
That UKF problem is not the lack of a QCQ stock unit. It problem is dealing early with HMG/Garrison or defending vs early enemy doctrinal QCQ units like the Ass. Gren.


All faction left behind ukf have stock close to mid dps unit with semiautomatic rifle or event assault rifle. Both axis faction have stock unit fully equip with assault rifle that charge through open win outright vs ukf mainline, and it is a problem.


10 Feb 2020, 19:28 PM
#231
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2333

I really dislike that it's an officer the one charging to kill. I though it was meant for a cqc defender instead of Attacker.

Just add a debuff out of cover like IS and it will be ok

Buff AIS if needed
10 Feb 2020, 23:37 PM
#232
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1055



I had a look at this before but I didn't find any space in any other commander without straight up having to delete something.
Or maybe replace repair ability with priest in lend lease doctrine :)
11 Feb 2020, 04:57 AM
#233
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 616

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2020, 17:12 PMLago


What about Vanguard, replacing the gutted HQ glider?

They're a downgrade from Commandos, fairly munitions dependent (balancing them against the muitions-heavy Vanguard Regiment) and they fit the theme.

The merged Commando Drop/HQ glider would then be Commando Regiment exclusive and improve that commander's viability in team games.


Actuality, i think replace HQ glider by ass sections will make vanguard a pretty round up Commander, strong in all stage of the game. At the same time, commando regiment will have a better version of the glider.

Worth to consider this option.
11 Feb 2020, 05:02 AM
#234
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 616



I had a look at this before but I didn't find any space in any other commander without straight up having to delete something.


How about special weapons regiment ?Blunder with AT section as an ability allow ass sections buil in HQ, AT section built at platoon CP. It can be call "specialized infantry".
11 Feb 2020, 08:44 AM
#235
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2426 | Subs: 5

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2020, 17:12 PMLago
What about Vanguard, replacing the gutted HQ glider?

They're a downgrade from Commandos, fairly munitions dependent (balancing them against the muitions-heavy Vanguard Regiment) and they fit the theme.


If anything that'd probably make Vanguard even stronger. Commandos are expensive at an inconvenient timing and have a pretty hefty micro tax to use. They'll hardly be the primary reason to pick the doctrine. 0CP Assault Sections would most definitely make it the go-to commander on all close range orientated maps and outshine Lend Lease more than the new glider would Commando Regiment. The popularity of Mechanized Assault and Strategic Reserves show how valuable early game assault infantry pressure into a heavy tank is.

11 Feb 2020, 15:21 PM
#236
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3221

If anything that'd probably make Vanguard even stronger. Commandos are expensive at an inconvenient timing and have a pretty hefty micro tax to use. They'll hardly be the primary reason to pick the doctrine. 0CP Assault Sections would most definitely make it the go-to commander on all close range orientated maps and outshine Lend Lease more than the new glider would Commando Regiment. The popularity of Mechanized Assault and Strategic Reserves show how valuable early game assault infantry pressure into a heavy tank is.


That's a fair assessment.

Then perhaps just the other half?

Give the combined HQ/Commando glider to Commando, and put something underused but not that powerful in Vanguard?
11 Feb 2020, 16:28 PM
#237
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8561 | Subs: 1

Can we also removed the passive healing from the Officer. There is no reason to have that ability.
11 Feb 2020, 21:52 PM
#238
avatar of NorthFireZ

Posts: 195

Is there a possibility to change the Medics from a buildable unit to a in base medic upgrade avabilble at T2?

The facts of the matter is that the USF and UKF medic squads can be very effective at healing but are still so buggy. This is from Tightrope's showcase and my own expereinces.

My anaylysis is that 180mp is too cheap of healing option and in no way Brits should have this weridly cheap squad that can also cap. On the other hand it's also really buggy and therefore inconsistent. As a brit main I want a more consitent healing. As a Axist player I also want brits to not have such cheap healing since Brits tend to bleed very little with a UC opening.

My suggestion. Instead of having HQ glider be upgradeable with FRP and Medics at the same time (making it way too cost effective) Make it 450 Manpower to call in with one squad of Commandos on spawn and upgradable FRP only. Airlanding Medics will remain buildable.

Upgradable base medicts will be a T2 option in base for 200Mp 50Munis

This way, Brits get reliable healing, HQ glider won't be over powered, and Brits also don't get a healing/capping squad in the beginning.

*note cost is up for debate but focus the general idea of moving around medic placements.

Edit: spelling
11 Feb 2020, 22:12 PM
#239
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3221

Is there a possibility to change the Medics from a buildable unit to a in base medic upgrade avabilble at T2?


Medic automatrons are the best way to go.

If the idea is to give UKF limited healing, just give them bad automatrons.

As is, they can get excellent healing for building multiple medics, and cap with the things.

Also, they can build enough of them at once to break the selection UI.
11 Feb 2020, 22:14 PM
#240
avatar of NorthFireZ

Posts: 195

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Feb 2020, 22:12 PMLago


Medic automatrons are the best way to go.

If the idea is to give UKF limited healing, just give them bad automatrons.

As is, they can get excellent healing for building multiple medics, and cap with the things.

Also, they can build enough of them at once to break the selection UI.


Exactly, the buildable medics are buggy but they also are extremely cheap, can cap, and has REALLY FAST HEALING when they do work.

It's much easier to make them autohealingbots.

What do you think about putting the medics back in to the HQ glider and removing the heal bots from the glider?
PAGES (16)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag Reto.GarGamel
  • The British Forces flag °NOOBMarkov.-
uploaded by Augustine

Board Info

171 users are online: 8 members and 163 guests
ullumulu, AtomicRockets, Smaug, Käsezwerg, Alphrum, Esxile, MMX, Jadek
144 posts in the last 24h
943 posts in the last week
4264 posts in the last month
Registered members: 24799
Welcome our newest member, diya4u
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM