Login

russian armor

Adjustments for the Brits

27 Apr 2020, 15:19 PM
#1
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 948

I know the patch just hit recently, but I'd still like to share my thoughts on the Brits and some suggestions I have for the faction.

The suggestions are designed to address the following:
  • Bolster and its massive powerspike
  • Lack of mid-game build diversity
  • Lack of viable indirect fire options

Constructive criticism and discussion would be welcome.

Bolster Section
Bolster makes British infantry extremely cost-effective, even against upgraded Axis infantry. By delaying this upgrade until the late game, the British player will have to invest in munitions-based weapon upgrades to remain competitive against upgraded Axis infantry in the mid game. This also reinforces the British theme of having a powerful late-game arsenal.
  • Now requires Company Command Post

Vickers .303 HMG
One issue with the Vickers .303 HMG is that it does not suppress as effectively as other HMGs. To alleviate this issue, it is getting an increased burst duration. This increases its effectiveness while also giving it a unique strength.
  • Burst duration from 2.75 to 4.5 (+64%)

Platoon Command Post
The Valentine tank is being moved to the Platoon Command Post to diversify British build orders. While the AEC remains the anti-vehicle option, the Valentine will be a generalist that is better at anti-infantry.
  • Unlock 40mm Bofors replaced with Unlock Valentine Tank

Valentine Mk. XI
The Valentine is intended to be a generalist with no utility. The damage increase is designed to increase AoE damage and thus its effectiveness against infantry. The reload nerf lowers its overall anti-vehicle firepower. The speed nerf solidifies its role as mainly anti-infantry, as it is now too slow to chase after other light vehicles. However, it is certainly able to hold its own, with a bigger health pool, armor capable of deflecting Puma shots, and a gun comparable to that of the Churchill Mk. VII.
  • Damage increased from 120 to 160 (+33%)
  • Reload increased from 5/5 to 7/7 (+40%)
  • (Originally the tank had 1440 DPM, now it has 1370 DPM. The AEC has 1870 DPM)
  • Health from 480HP to 560HP (+80)
  • Speed from 7 to 6
  • Observation removed
  • Concentrated Sexton Barrage removed
  • Sexton Creeping Barrage removed

40mm Bofors Emplacement
After removing this from the Platoon Command Post, allowing it to unlock alongside the 17-prd seems reasonable. Also giving both survivability buffs to make them slightly more usable because emplacement counters are so powerful. The Bofors gets a small sight bonus to self-spot (to a limited degree) and do its job of destroying infantry before they can fire back.
  • Unlocks upon completing Company Command Post tech
  • HP of both Bofors and 17-prd increased to 1200 (from 1000/900)
  • Bofors sight increased from 35 to 40.

Royal Artillery
Royal Artillery is currently a meta commander due to the call-in Valentine. After removing the Valentine from this commander, giving it a powerful indirect fire option and linking Concentration Barrage with Sextons would keep this commander a viable choice.
  • 2CP Call-in: M21 Mortar Halftrack (Same as USF version)
  • 3CP Concentration Barrage now also activates Sextons
27 Apr 2020, 15:33 PM
#2
avatar of SgtJonson

Posts: 143

Vickers is supressing fairly well. I´ve seen so many grens and volks being supressed on max range with the first burst in a mere second that i don´t understand why people say its doing it´s job badly. :(
27 Apr 2020, 15:57 PM
#3
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

In order to balance Brits I’d follow more of a CoH1 model.

Universal Carrier: 280mp 10 fuel, Vickers and Flamer up to 80muni but both give armour bonus.
Infantry Section: 5 men to start the game, replace grenade with Grenadier rifle grenade. Remove cover bonus and nerf them. Put in a recon upgrade (speed boost and 1 scoped Lee enfield with G43 stats) that locks out weapons slots and medic/pyro.
Vickers HMG: Remove vet 1 range increase and reduce damage.
Grenade package: Gives sections incendiary grenades.

Platoon CP
Bolster: Sappers and Weapons crews can have an additional man.
Remove Bofors unlock and put it with the 17pdr unlock in T2.
T1 can unlock upgrade for AEC and a separate upgrade for the usf mortar HT. Both can be unlocked.

Company CP
All emplacements unlock together (bofors and 17pdr and mortar emplacement) and are a bit more expensive and a bit more durable.


Basically nerfs the UC super early and buffs it with the Vickers. Sections no longer OP but rifle grenade allows greater flexibility and can molotov buildings. Vickers no longer abusesn building/trenches, but will be 5man after bolster and can suppress better with less damage. USF mortar HT can fix all indirect fire issues. Emplacements will be more expensive so more of an investment but also harder to kill.
27 Apr 2020, 16:23 PM
#4
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 630

In order to balance Brits I’d follow more of a CoH1 model.


Why would you ever do that?
27 Apr 2020, 16:24 PM
#5
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833

You say you want to increase indirect fire options but your suggestions include nerfing Valentine link with sexton which it needs to perform in team games due to limited range until vet.

Then adding a Pak howi at 5 command points doctrinally? IMO this will nerf British indirect in teamgames more than anything. Also I'm fairly certain the Brits never operated Pak howitzers anyway. Also it will spawn more axis tears as we know how Pak howi threads go.

Also adding a Valentine non doctrinally would be a complete pain to balance because it's effectively giving Brits a unit in the T70 role and give them the biggest power spike in the game next to soviets. Even old AI AEC wouldn't match up to Valentine performance.
27 Apr 2020, 16:24 PM
#6
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 957

Bolster Section
Bolster makes British infantry extremely cost-effective, even against upgraded Axis infantry. By delaying this upgrade until the late game, the British player will have to invest in munitions-based weapon upgrades to remain competitive against upgraded Axis infantry in the mid game. This also reinforces the British theme of having a powerful late-game arsenal.
  • Now requires Company Command Post

This is an interesting idea, and it definitely would address some of the problems surrounding bolster. However, it doesn't actually address the core problem of the power-spike existing in the first place. Early-game IS' will still be incredibly powerful, mid-game IS' will still be incredibly powerful (provided they have muni), and late-game IS' will still be incredibly powerful due to their cost-effectiveness (and eHP pool) upgrade.

Bolster needs to turn into a choice rather than an "always click this" button. Maybe Bolster unlocks a cheap/free per-squad upgrade, but it takes up 1 weapon slot; something to give it a trade-off.

Alternatively, if we're keeping the "always get this" nature of the upgrade, it needs to be toned down a lot. Perhaps turning it into a 'reinforcement cost reduction' upgrade, rather than a +1 model upgrade, similar to OST's new T4 buff.

Vickers .303 HMG
One issue with the Vickers .303 HMG is that it does not suppress as effectively as other HMGs. To alleviate this issue, it is getting an increased burst duration. This increases its effectiveness while also giving it a unique strength.
  • Burst duration from 2.75 to 4.5 (+64%)

While the Vickers doesn't suppress all too well, remember that it does incredibly good damage for an HMG, while also reviving garrison bonuses at vet 1. A +64% burst duration would also mean its doing a lot more damage to the target squad; that means using one squad to draw fire while flanking with another would be much, much riskier, if not impossible.

Platoon Command Post
The Valentine tank is being moved to the Platoon Command Post to diversify British build orders. While the AEC remains the anti-vehicle option, the Valentine will be a generalist that is better at anti-infantry.
  • Unlock 40mm Bofors replaced with Unlock Valentine Tank

Valentine Mk. XI
The Valentine is intended to be a generalist with no utility. The damage increase is designed to increase AoE damage and thus its effectiveness against infantry. The reload nerf lowers its overall anti-vehicle firepower. The speed nerf solidifies its role as mainly anti-infantry, as it is now too slow to chase after other light vehicles. However, it is certainly able to hold its own, with a bigger health pool, armor capable of deflecting Puma shots, and a gun comparable to that of the Churchill Mk. VII.
  • Damage increased from 120 to 160 (+33%)
  • Reload increased from 5/5 to 7/7 (+40%)
  • (Originally the tank had 1440 DPM, now it has 1370 DPM. The AEC has 1870 DPM)
  • Speed from 7 to 5
  • Observation removed
  • Concentrated Sexton Barrage removed
  • Sexton Creeping Barrage removed


These two are actually fairly interesting ideas. My only concern is the "capable of deflecting Puma shots" point; at what rate and what range? A 10% bounce chance would be fine, a 50%+ chance would make it far too resilient for a mid-tier tank. Or do you mean keeping it as-is (which would be fine)?

40mm Bofors Emplacement
After removing this from the Platoon Command Post, allowing it to unlock alongside the 17-prd seems reasonable. Also giving both survivability buffs to make them slightly more usable because emplacement counters are so powerful.
  • Unlocks upon completing Company Command Post tech
  • HP of both Bofors and 17-prd increased to 1200 (from 1000/900)


Again, an interesting idea. My only concern with buffing emplacement HP is the interaction with the "Advanced Emplacement" commander's "Improved Fortifications".

Royal Artillery
Royal Artillery is currently a meta commander due to the call-in Valentine. After removing the Valentine from this commander, giving it a powerful indirect fire option would keep this commander a viable choice.
  • 5CP Call-in: M1 75mm Pack Howitzer (400MP)


No.

The Pack-Howitzer, as it currently is, is an incredibly obnoxious RNG Wipe machine. Giving this to UKF would make defending their emplacements trivial, while also inflicting massive MP drain on anything static (OST in its entirety). Giving UKF a viable mobile indirect fire unit is a good idea, but it should absolutely not be this unit (with its current stats).

Taking the M1's model and applying the LeIG's stats would probably be acceptable, though.
27 Apr 2020, 16:28 PM
#7
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

I like some ideas, butter some others not.

Bolster tot4, bofors bundled with 17p and Vickers buff, yeah.

Valentine as a pseudo t70, no
27 Apr 2020, 16:31 PM
#8
avatar of borobadger

Posts: 184

If the Vickers is getting such a huge burst increase then the damage has to go down, it already deletes units as it is.

Valentine should be nerfed not buffed.

Rather than give the UC a fuel cost it would be interesting to see the upgrades be given a fuel cost, as it is with them that it becomes impossible to deal with.
27 Apr 2020, 16:59 PM
#9
avatar of maahowl

Posts: 40

Disclamer: I'm a pretty mediocre player, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.




40mm Bofors Emplacement
After removing this from the Platoon Command Post, allowing it to unlock alongside the 17-prd seems reasonable. Also giving both survivability buffs to make them slightly more usable because emplacement counters are so powerful.
  • Unlocks upon completing Company Command Post tech
  • HP of both Bofors and 17-prd increased to 1200 (from 1000/900)


I'd rather not move bofors up to T3 though, I feel like it removes the selection of a defensive/offensive playstyle that's simular to hammer/anvil tactics. Also, when bofors is T2, it can be useful before lategame, when the opponent doesn't have a lot of counters to it, and lategame tanks and artillery can deal with it easily, making it a bit of a waste of money later on unless you protect it and repair it constantly + you still unlock the mortar pit at T2 so you can't protect it with a bofors now until T3 rolls out.
Basically, it won't be very useful at T3, but there might be a viable use for emplacements that I didn't discover that isn't slapping all 3 kinds of them next to each other.

Bolster Section
Bolster makes British infantry extremely cost-effective, even against upgraded Axis infantry. By delaying this upgrade until the late game, the British player will have to invest in munitions-based weapon upgrades to remain competitive against upgraded Axis infantry in the mid game. This also reinforces the British theme of having a powerful late-game arsenal.
  • Now requires Company Command Post


I saw a suggestion once that i personally prefer: make bolster an upgrade that can be bought for individual squads, and cannot be bought along with pyro/medic upgrade. Does not lock out any weapon upgrades, so you can choose raw performance with bolster or utility with pyro/medic. When it comes to sappers they can be 5 man squads without upgrading, it shouldn't affect balance too much.
27 Apr 2020, 17:50 PM
#10
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3386 | Subs: 1

I like the bolster and vickers changes a lot. I think bolster should be an individual upgrade for each squad, but i can settle for it being locked behind company command post
27 Apr 2020, 18:16 PM
#11
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1217

About the Vicker, currently, i can sometimes make good use of it vet 1, but it's still gimmicky. Replace the vet 1 range bonus with some suppression bonus from vet 3 and give vet 3 the sight bonus from the old vet 1, and it will be good. Price can go up to 270 if it become too good.

About UC, i will rather move it to platoon, add fuels cost and seriously buff it (increase armour and allow troop fire from inside, or an upgrade allow reinforce) or leave it like it is now.

About the bolster, my newest ideas is:
- fist,roll back moving acc of section to 0.3
- pyro take 2 weapons slot and give 2 scope Enfield and increase moving acc to 0.5. Smoke barrage removed
- Medic upgrade also take 2 weapons slot and rovide 0.05 RA bonus, sections's RA with medic upgrade become 0.8/0.75 out/in cover.
- bolster become per squad upgrade without taking up weapon slot.
- Options available for sections now will be, 4/5 man pyro, 4/5 man medic or 4/5 man double bren.

About the valentine, having it stock by far is my biggest wish. It is a slow, durable infantry tank IRL, but in game, it is nonsensically fast. Following changes are to make it into a slow, more durable infantry tank. It will be an AI tank, can hold again luch and below but will not stand again Puma.
- Speed reduce to 5.
- Smoke remove
- 500 HP so it can survive 3 AT shot, since it is slow and dont have smoke.
- 70 armor, it will not bounce anything above luch.
- main gun damage to 80.
- Mutually exclusive unlock with AEC.
- Valentine im royal artillery regimen replace by designated artillery command vehicle. Give the chosen vehicle vitor barrage from old valentine.
- Boffor now unlock once AEC or Valentine has been unlock. As company cp will be too late and it is rarely used anyway.

27 Apr 2020, 18:57 PM
#12
avatar of Musmula

Posts: 56

In order to balance Brits I’d follow more of a CoH1 model.

Universal Carrier: 280mp 10 fuel, Vickers and Flamer up to 80muni but both give armour bonus.
Infantry Section: 5 men to start the game, replace grenade with Grenadier rifle grenade. Remove cover bonus and nerf them. Put in a recon upgrade (speed boost and 1 scoped Lee enfield with G43 stats) that locks out weapons slots and medic/pyro.
Vickers HMG: Remove vet 1 range increase and reduce damage.
Grenade package: Gives sections incendiary grenades.

Platoon CP
Bolster: Sappers and Weapons crews can have an additional man.
Remove Bofors unlock and put it with the 17pdr unlock in T2.
T1 can unlock upgrade for AEC and a separate upgrade for the usf mortar HT. Both can be unlocked.

Company CP
All emplacements unlock together (bofors and 17pdr and mortar emplacement) and are a bit more expensive and a bit more durable.


Basically nerfs the UC super early and buffs it with the Vickers. Sections no longer OP but rifle grenade allows greater flexibility and can molotov buildings. Vickers no longer abusesn building/trenches, but will be 5man after bolster and can suppress better with less damage. USF mortar HT can fix all indirect fire issues. Emplacements will be more expensive so more of an investment but also harder to kill.


I actually like this but I would leave the UC the same and increase rate of fire on the mortar pit since in 3v3 and up it really doesn't dmg for its cost most of the time and it gets more durable when vet
27 Apr 2020, 19:19 PM
#13
avatar of Applejack

Posts: 353

Currently bolster is a requirement early to keep infantry sections competitive which is sad. I enjoy the buffs but I can't agree with adding it after company commmand post.

Instead of moving bolster to require Company Command post, make it cost more MP, less fuel and require grenade upgrade.

The way I see it, the MP requirement/cost is too low with the amount of power it brings. Especially calculating the cost of adding additional models when the upgrade is complete. Increasing the MP cost gives it a slower power spike while still retaining the early game advantage but a little costlier.

The fuel cost requirement as high as 35 doesn't really make sense to me. Lowering it by 10 is better. I would even recommend adding grenades as a requirement before being able to get bolster as players will not usually get grenades before bolster. Its a nice pre-step before the power increase of bolster anyway.

Final verdict on bolster:

+ 50MP to bolster
- 10 fuel to bolster
+ requirement grenades first

In total:
+150MP requirement (100 grenade + 50)
- 10 fuel saved (but still 35 total for bolster, 10 from grenade).

I disagree with removing valentine from royal artillery as that removes super barrage which makes royal artillery *fun*.

Brits really lack a blob clearing tool outside of mortar pit and land matresses. Both of which are expensive and extremely vulnerable to call in's and other indirects. I would like to see a tool in to help with blob management. The vickers burst increase is a nice start but I feel it adds too much power to the vickers as it is. Its a powerful killing machine but not a blob management machine. It becomes even stronger in a trench which I would say is a requirement to use it effectively as a blob management tool.
28 Apr 2020, 00:42 AM
#14
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 948

Vickers is supressing fairly well. I´ve seen so many grens and volks being supressed on max range with the first burst in a mere second that i don´t understand why people say its doing it´s job badly. :(


The suppression values on the Vickers are fine. I would say the main issue with the Vicker's suppression lies with the fact that it is more lethal (higher accuracy) than contemporary HMGs. If the gun kills a single infantry model before suppression kicks in, the remaining squad will become harder to suppress.

The idea behind the burst duration increase is to maximize this aspect of the Vickers. So it will be a unique HMG that you would avoid not because of suppression, but because of lethality.
28 Apr 2020, 00:50 AM
#15
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 948

In order to balance Brits I’d follow more of a CoH1 model.

Universal Carrier: 280mp 10 fuel, Vickers and Flamer up to 80muni but both give armour bonus.
Infantry Section: 5 men to start the game, replace grenade with Grenadier rifle grenade. Remove cover bonus and nerf them. Put in a recon upgrade (speed boost and 1 scoped Lee enfield with G43 stats) that locks out weapons slots and medic/pyro.
Vickers HMG: Remove vet 1 range increase and reduce damage.
Grenade package: Gives sections incendiary grenades.

I've almost never used the UC, so I didn't touch it (I don't know how to balance it). I don't think it's in a bad spot though, judging from its effectiveness in the tournament.

What do you mean with "nerf Infantry Sections", specifically? Decrease the stats of their SMLEs?

One solution to the Vickers suppression issue is to reduce damage, but I'd like to keep its uniqueness as an HMG.


Platoon CP
Bolster: Sappers and Weapons crews can have an additional man.
Remove Bofors unlock and put it with the 17pdr unlock in T2.
T1 can unlock upgrade for AEC and a separate upgrade for the usf mortar HT. Both can be unlocked.


Bolster applying to weapons crews is interesting.

My new idea is to give Royal Artillery the USF mortar HT (instead of the Pack Howitzer). I would say that it is definitely effective enough as an indirect fire piece, but leaving the AEC with no competition would probably result in the same builds that we see already (AEC nearly every game).

28 Apr 2020, 00:58 AM
#16
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 948

You say you want to increase indirect fire options but your suggestions include nerfing Valentine link with sexton which it needs to perform in team games due to limited range until vet.

I have next to no experience in the larger game modes (3v3, 4v4) so my changes are from a 1v1 (2v2 somewhat) perspective. If the Valentine link with Sexton is removed, would a pricce reduction/cooldown decrease on Concentration Barrage be sufficient to cover the indirect fire gap?


Then adding a Pak howi at 5 command points doctrinally? IMO this will nerf British indirect in teamgames more than anything. Also I'm fairly certain the Brits never operated Pak howitzers anyway. Also it will spawn more axis tears as we know how Pak howi threads go.

The Brits actually did operate Pack Howtizers. Currently I'm in favor of giving them the USF mortar halftrack instead.



Also adding a Valentine non doctrinally would be a complete pain to balance because it's effectively giving Brits a unit in the T70 role and give them the biggest power spike in the game next to soviets. Even old AI AEC wouldn't match up to Valentine performance.

The point is to do exactly that. However, I'd argue that it's not as powerful as it appears. The Valentine proposed in my changes is a drasticly nerfed version with improved anti-infantry firepower but is mainly hampered by its low mobility. It's slower than the Sherman Firefly and even the KV-1 with only 5 speed. This pretty much precludes it from chasing after light vehicles and retreating infantry.
28 Apr 2020, 01:00 AM
#17
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3


I've almost never used the UC, so I didn't touch it (I don't know how to balance it). I don't think it's in a bad spot though, judging from its effectiveness in the tournament.

What do you mean with "nerf Infantry Sections", specifically? Decrease the stats of their SMLEs?

One solution to the Vickers suppression issue is to reduce damage, but I'd like to keep its uniqueness as an HMG.



Bolster applying to weapons crews is interesting.

My new idea is to give Royal Artillery the USF mortar HT (instead of the Pack Howitzer). I would say that it is definitely effective enough as an indirect fire piece, but leaving the AEC with no competition would probably result in the same builds that we see already (AEC nearly every game).



UC getting a fuel cost is the right step, it’s not good for the game to have such a strong no fuel T0 vehicle.

Infantry Section nerf is to bring them down in effectiveness into a balanced state where they are all around good but not OP. Certainly with 5man crews they’d need to be like 5man Volks with 1 STG in effectiveness.

Mortar HT would fit UKF like a glove.
28 Apr 2020, 01:16 AM
#18
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 948


This is an interesting idea, and it definitely would address some of the problems surrounding bolster. However, it doesn't actually address the core problem of the power-spike existing in the first place. Early-game IS' will still be incredibly powerful, mid-game IS' will still be incredibly powerful (provided they have muni), and late-game IS' will still be incredibly powerful due to their cost-effectiveness (and eHP pool) upgrade.

Bolster needs to turn into a choice rather than an "always click this" button. Maybe Bolster unlocks a cheap/free per-squad upgrade, but it takes up 1 weapon slot; something to give it a trade-off.

Alternatively, if we're keeping the "always get this" nature of the upgrade, it needs to be toned down a lot. Perhaps turning it into a 'reinforcement cost reduction' upgrade, rather than a +1 model upgrade, similar to OST's new T4 buff.


The idea is that the power level of Infantry Sections can be curtailed much more easily. Bolster is so powerful because all it costs is Manpower (unlock costs are more expensive than weapon racks, but are comparable). Now, there is a way to "flatten the curve" even more, which is to deny your opponent munitions. Brits are already quite munitions-intensive with all the utility upgrades for Infantry Sections.

As for Bolster as a choice, I like the "Pyro or Medic or Bolster" route, but the Bolster to T3 is probably the simplest change.


While the Vickers doesn't suppress all too well, remember that it does incredibly good damage for an HMG, while also reviving garrison bonuses at vet 1. A +64% burst duration would also mean its doing a lot more damage to the target squad; that means using one squad to draw fire while flanking with another would be much, much riskier, if not impossible.


The idea behind the burst duration increase is to maximize this aspect of the Vickers. So it will be a unique HMG that you would avoid not because of suppression, but because of lethality. I would argue that drawing fire and flanking is still viable, because the Vickers is quite slow at traversing.


These two are actually fairly interesting ideas. My only concern is the "capable of deflecting Puma shots" point; at what rate and what range? A 10% bounce chance would be fine, a 50%+ chance would make it far too resilient for a mid-tier tank. Or do you mean keeping it as-is (which would be fine)?


The Puma has 80 penetration far (30-50 range). The Valentine (right now) has 120 frontal armor. So it has a 33% chance to bounce Puma shots at distance far.


Again, an interesting idea. My only concern with buffing emplacement HP is the interaction with the "Advanced Emplacement" commander's "Improved Fortifications".


I'd argue that it serves its job, and shouldn't become too overpowered even with Improved Foritications. Improved Fortifications increases survivability, which increases the time the opponent needs to spend to take it out. It's a way of buying time and give the British player the time to mount a counter-attack. This is the same notion behind the HP buff, which allows the emplacement to take one (or two) extra 160 dmg shots.

The tools available are more than competent even if emplacements are more survivable. The 7.5cm leIG 18s outrage all emplacements, the Sdfkz. 250/6 mortar HT with its incendiary shells are incredibly effective, and the 10.5cm leFH 18 is exceptionally effective. 7.5cm Pak 40s and Raketenwerer 43s work too.


No.

The Pack-Howitzer, as it currently is, is an incredibly obnoxious RNG Wipe machine. Giving this to UKF would make defending their emplacements trivial, while also inflicting massive MP drain on anything static (OST in its entirety). Giving UKF a viable mobile indirect fire unit is a good idea, but it should absolutely not be this unit (with its current stats).

Taking the M1's model and applying the LeIG's stats would probably be acceptable, though.


My current idea is to give the Brits the USF mortar HT instead. I'd be hesitant to make it a leIG, because the leIG is clearly far less effective.
28 Apr 2020, 01:26 AM
#19
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 948

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2020, 16:59 PMmaahowl

I'd rather not move bofors up to T3 though, I feel like it removes the selection of a defensive/offensive playstyle that's simular to hammer/anvil tactics. Also, when bofors is T2, it can be useful before lategame, when the opponent doesn't have a lot of counters to it, and lategame tanks and artillery can deal with it easily, making it a bit of a waste of money later on unless you protect it and repair it constantly + you still unlock the mortar pit at T2 so you can't protect it with a bofors now until T3 rolls out.
Basically, it won't be very useful at T3, but there might be a viable use for emplacements that I didn't discover that isn't slapping all 3 kinds of them next to each other.

Even with a Valentine, there is still the hammer/anvil offensive/defensive playstyle. The AEC is the hammer option, with great mobility and decent anti-vehicle capabilities (much akin to the Comet). The Valentine is the anvil option, a generalist with poor mobility (much akin to the Churchill).

What you say is quite true, how emplacements face more counters the longer the game goes on. Where else would you fit the Bofors? Allowing it to unlock with the Platoon Command Post would be too early, and if it unlocks with the 17-prd perhaps we can buff the 17-prd as well in the meantime.


I saw a suggestion once that i personally prefer: make bolster an upgrade that can be bought for individual squads, and cannot be bought along with pyro/medic upgrade. Does not lock out any weapon upgrades, so you can choose raw performance with bolster or utility with pyro/medic. When it comes to sappers they can be 5 man squads without upgrading, it shouldn't affect balance too much.


This is my preferred method of implementing Bolster, but delaying it until late game is probably the simplest change.
28 Apr 2020, 01:32 AM
#20
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 948


About the Vicker, currently, i can sometimes make good use of it vet 1, but it's still gimmicky. Replace the vet 1 range bonus with some suppression bonus from vet 3 and give vet 3 the sight bonus from the old vet 1, and it will be good. Price can go up to 270 if it become too good.


Self-spotting at Vet 3 seems to be an interesting alternative to Vet 1 range increase.


About the valentine, having it stock by far is my biggest wish. It is a slow, durable infantry tank IRL, but in game, it is nonsensically fast. Following changes are to make it into a slow, more durable infantry tank. It will be an AI tank, can hold again luch and below but will not stand again Puma.
- Speed reduce to 5.
- Smoke remove
- 500 HP so it can survive 3 AT shot, since it is slow and dont have smoke.
- 70 armor, it will not bounce anything above luch.
- main gun damage to 80.
- Mutually exclusive unlock with AEC.
- Valentine im royal artillery regimen replace by designated artillery command vehicle. Give the chosen vehicle vitor barrage from old valentine.


The Valentine can already survive three 160 dmg shots. The Puma already bests the Valentine as it is right now, and it would be even more effective against it with the proposed mobility nerfs (thus an armor nerf is not necessary).

Instead of a unit with sexton "victor barrage", would a concentration barrage cost decrease/cooldown decrease work?
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
Diversity Cup Isi vs. Inca
Event in Progress

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag shadics ARG.
  • U.S. Forces flag TüMe
  • Ostheer flag The101stAirBorne
  • Ostheer flag Clororaa
uploaded by TüMe

Board Info

247 users are online: 247 guests
15 posts in the last 24h
110 posts in the last week
491 posts in the last month
Registered members: 36382
Welcome our newest member, Yeaey51875
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM