Login

russian armor

How To Bring Balance To The Brits

13 Jan 2016, 04:20 AM
#21
avatar of Waegukin

Posts: 609

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Jan 2016, 02:35 AMYunohh
Snipped to save Space


+1 for the most part. I personally believe Comet and Panther are fine, too much pen on the Comet and it'll make the firefly useless.

Only thing I'd add is that the AEC's MP cost is pretty nuts right now. Bringing that down to a more reasonable level would be able to fill in the lack of IS snare and would prevent Cromwell rush being the only real option for them.
13 Jan 2016, 04:47 AM
#22
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

The UC is particularly gutting to lose to small arms fire, and not much small arms fire either. The Wasp and HMG ( 50cal) or MMG versions were meant to be proof to 20mm across their frontal arc late war due to plastic armour. A 222 currently kills it so fast it is difficult to count the number of shots.

The idea that anyone would get into a Wasp that blew up as easily as ingame is insane.
13 Jan 2016, 06:21 AM
#23
avatar of Yunohh
Patrion 26

Posts: 33



+1 for the most part. I personally believe Comet and Panther are fine, too much pen on the Comet and it'll make the firefly useless.

Only thing I'd add is that the AEC's MP cost is pretty nuts right now. Bringing that down to a more reasonable level would be able to fill in the lack of IS snare and would prevent Cromwell rush being the only real option for them.


The combination of AEC side tech then individual unit cost put it in the same place as wher t4 used to be - and for a faction that's going to be pretty MP starved early on it's in a pretty bad spot.

Like I said, it feels like more an issue with the panther than the comet. It turns them into RNG bounce machines. I've seen one dive head-on into two deployed 6lb'ers before and bounce 5 shots out of the 6 fired between them. It's like the old KT at times. A very slight reduction would go a long way - down to 290 or 300 (for reference, comet has 290 and 190 pen, compared to the panther's 320, 240 pen). This would make Panthers that tiny less bit RNG vs all AT sources, punishing poor use and over-extension more than it currently does.

Presently their risk/reward factor is similar to volks+schreks. Low risk, high reward.
13 Jan 2016, 06:33 AM
#24
avatar of The_Courier

Posts: 665

-Either lower IS cost, or buff them to their actual value. They are the most expensive basic infantry unit in the game, yet require cover to be effective and have almost no utility beyond healing, as well as upgrades locked behind tech.

-Buff the PIATs. No two ways around it, they suck badly. Yes, you can attack ground and pray to your favored deity that they actually follow through with the order, but other handheld AT doesn't require that to freaking work. Increase cost if need be. It would solve some of their issues vs OKW if PIATs were a threat.

-Upgrading the UC shoud give it a bit extra armor/HP.

-Buff their midgame in general. The AEC sucks, lower its cost or make it better vs infantry. I am leery of buffing emplacements due to team games, but at least BOFORs shouldn't be gated behind an unlock.

-25 pounders could use some love. Make them cost a bit mmore, but be much more accurate and arrive faster.

-Finally, doctrines could be looked at. The Royal Artillery is almost comically awful, and really anything but the Vanguard Operations is mediocre at best.
13 Jan 2016, 06:36 AM
#25
avatar of Waegukin

Posts: 609

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Jan 2016, 06:21 AMYunohh


The combination of AEC side tech then individual unit cost put it in the same place as wher t4 used to be - and for a faction that's going to be pretty MP starved early on it's in a pretty bad spot.

Like I said, it feels like more an issue with the panther than the comet. It turns them into RNG bounce machines. I've seen one dive head-on into two deployed 6lb'ers before and bounce 5 shots out of the 6 fired between them. It's like the old KT at times. A very slight reduction would go a long way - down to 290 or 300 (for reference, comet has 290 and 190 pen, compared to the panther's 320, 240 pen). This would make Panthers that tiny less bit RNG vs all AT sources, punishing poor use and over-extension more than it currently does.

Presently their risk/reward factor is similar to volks+schreks. Low risk, high reward.


Fair points. I'm just a little surprised hearing an issue with the Panther vs Brits, they're the only faction I've never really had an issues vs Panthers with. Personally, I think when Relic buffed the Panther's armor they should have increased RoF instead.

As to AEC, I completely agree, considering its an overpriced underperforming Puma clone, its pretty bad.
13 Jan 2016, 08:33 AM
#26
avatar of NEVEC

Posts: 708 | Subs: 1

IS and Vickers is fine as it is, abusive ostheer sniper is not fine.
AEC and 25 pounder need some serious buffs, especially at accuracy, last time i used AEC against luchs it 3 times of 4, vet 1 ability is bugged. 40 range makes it ineffective against medium armor, when puma outranges all medium tanks.
17 pounder need durability buff or range buff or shoot through objectives with fuel price increase.
19 Jan 2016, 21:29 PM
#27
avatar of SturmtigerCobra
Patrion 310

Posts: 963 | Subs: 11

UC / Bren Carrier:

Easy fix that would make the UC more useful in early game strats (low tech strats):
1) replace IS starting unit with an engineer squad, adjust manpower accordingly
2) make healing available without tech

15 fuel and munitions upgrade is only too expensive because brits have to tech up early for healing, repair and mine sweeper(situational).
All the other factions can repair and clear mines from their starting unit, brits need tech for this as well. I guess they are tough like that, mine sweeper? Nah brits don't need that :brad:

19 Jan 2016, 21:33 PM
#28
avatar of Pancake Areolas

Posts: 230

Permanently Banned
Note this thread was made before AEC buff. IS are also fine.
19 Jan 2016, 21:46 PM
#29
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

UC / Bren Carrier:

Easy fix that would make the UC more useful in early game strats (low tech strats):
1) replace IS starting unit with an engineer squad, adjust manpower accordingly
2) make healing available without tech

15 fuel and munitions upgrade is only too expensive because brits have to tech up early for healing, repair and mine sweeper(situational).
All the other factions can repair and clear mines from their starting unit, brits need tech for this as well. I guess they are tough like that, mine sweeper? Nah brits don't need that :brad:



Making the Med kits available without tech isn't really balanced if you think about the timing of healing of other factions as they all have the same timing it takes you to tech up as Brits (30 fuel isn't much at all and 15 Fuel for a UC only delays it by maybe half a minute) compared to 60 Muni for Ostheer, Ambu for USF, Etc. Likewise the Brits can get out a Sapper just as fast with that teching as well. If you "rush" a Sapper out there maybe be just 1 or 2 mines out at that point if your opponent is mining early.

Personally I'd rather see squads being able to fire out of the UC (it's less of an issue now that they have toned down the Tommy's cover bonus and damage). Its another way to give it utility. Other than that I think they just need to increase the flare throw range for base howies and maybe give their aoe a slight buff (or reduce scatter a bit). I find the Brits lack of non-Mortar Pit indirect fire a lot more of an issue than light vehicle play now that AEC was buffed.
19 Jan 2016, 23:37 PM
#30
avatar of SturmtigerCobra
Patrion 310

Posts: 963 | Subs: 11



Making the Med kits available without tech isn't really balanced if you think about the timing of healing of other factions as they all have the same timing it takes you to tech up as Brits (30 fuel isn't much at all and 15 Fuel for a UC only delays it by maybe half a minute) compared to 60 Muni for Ostheer, Ambu for USF, Etc. Likewise the Brits can get out a Sapper just as fast with that teching as well. If you "rush" a Sapper out there maybe be just 1 or 2 mines out at that point if your opponent is mining early.

Personally I'd rather see squads being able to fire out of the UC (it's less of an issue now that they have toned down the Tommy's cover bonus and damage). Its another way to give it utility. Other than that I think they just need to increase the flare throw range for base howies and maybe give their aoe a slight buff (or reduce scatter a bit). I find the Brits lack of non-Mortar Pit indirect fire a lot more of an issue than light vehicle play now that AEC was buffed.

UC + tech + RE is around 600 MP iirc. Since brits don't have AT snares you also need AT gun, vet1 sniper or AEC to safely support it.
Add the high acquisition cost of IS and Vickers and the UC don't give enough reward compared to how much is needed to buy and support it. The whole point of the UC should be to put on early game pressure (especially vs early snipers which bleed IS) and you can't do that if forced to tech early for healing/repair/mine clearing.
19 Jan 2016, 23:40 PM
#31
avatar of BeefSurge

Posts: 1891

UC needs hp buff. Tommies are fine because their scaling is insane.
19 Jan 2016, 23:53 PM
#32
avatar of frostbite

Posts: 593

20 Jan 2016, 00:11 AM
#33
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

I suspect all light vehicles suffer from the armour values chosen. These roughly seem to follow historical lines ( UC had 10mm at the front and 5mm back corresponding to 10 and 5 in the game files) though unfortunately the bullets and heavier armours do not!

This is particularly noticeable with the medium and heavy tanks, A PIV certainly didn't have 200 and odd mm of amour nor a Cromwell 100 and odd. These have been extrapolated out for gameplay reasons I'm guessing.

Nothing but armour piercing rounds at 90 degrees and very short range ( and then mainly tungsten cored ones which were taken out of service in 1941) would penetrate 10mm of RHA but in game the average jack bullet will do so once in ten shots if I understand the mechanics.

So whilst some vehicles ( heavier) appear to have been balanced some ( lighter ones generally) retain insufficient armour for their intended purpose.

The whole point of troop or support weapon transports was to render them nigh on invulnerable to sporadic or non focussed ( even tanks went down eventually to highly accurate and focussed HMG fire, especially molybdenum starved German armours) small arms fire and artillery splinters, yet most of the light vehicles in game go down remarkably quickly to anything with a high rate of fire. Whether Commando stens or an MG42 it is just a matter of time. 9mm subsonic having a penetration equal to a 7.92 is borderline amusing...

Overall this leads to a tech up at all costs approach to the heavier armours whereby light vehicles are useless later in the game, which unfortunately nullifies the combined arms approach somewhat.

Now if teching also increased the armour ratings of the light vehicles they would still retain a buildable use in the late game. I don't mean a UC flying around with 100+ armour ratings, merely making them and all other scout or utility vehicles less prone to small arms once you hit Tier3 for instance. Unfortunately this isn't how the game is designed.

20 Jan 2016, 03:17 AM
#34
avatar of Bananajoe

Posts: 17

Well if Relic went with my changes instead of the AEC buff ppl would probably not be complaining as much. The AEC would still have been good and properly priced.
20 Jan 2016, 05:25 AM
#35
avatar of ashxu

Posts: 124

UKF isn't even bad they just have some bad match ups like Ostruppen and OKW to a degree

They don't need major buffs, just some small things
20 Jan 2016, 06:32 AM
#36
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

I suspect all light vehicles suffer from the armour values chosen. These roughly seem to follow historical lines ( UC had 10mm at the front and 5mm back corresponding to 10 and 5 in the game files) though unfortunately the bullets and heavier armours do not!

This is particularly noticeable with the medium and heavy tanks, A PIV certainly didn't have 200 and odd mm of amour nor a Cromwell 100 and odd. These have been extrapolated out for gameplay reasons I'm guessing.

Nothing but armour piercing rounds at 90 degrees and very short range ( and then mainly tungsten cored ones which were taken out of service in 1941) would penetrate 10mm of RHA but in game the average jack bullet will do so once in ten shots if I understand the mechanics.

So whilst some vehicles ( heavier) appear to have been balanced some ( lighter ones generally) retain insufficient armour for their intended purpose.

The whole point of troop or support weapon transports was to render them nigh on invulnerable to sporadic or non focussed ( even tanks went down eventually to highly accurate and focussed HMG fire, especially molybdenum starved German armours) small arms fire and artillery splinters, yet most of the light vehicles in game go down remarkably quickly to anything with a high rate of fire. Whether Commando stens or an MG42 it is just a matter of time. 9mm subsonic having a penetration equal to a 7.92 is borderline amusing...

Overall this leads to a tech up at all costs approach to the heavier armours whereby light vehicles are useless later in the game, which unfortunately nullifies the combined arms approach somewhat.

Now if teching also increased the armour ratings of the light vehicles they would still retain a buildable use in the late game. I don't mean a UC flying around with 100+ armour ratings, merely making them and all other scout or utility vehicles less prone to small arms once you hit Tier3 for instance. Unfortunately this isn't how the game is designed.



this a true but there is an issue that if light vehicles cannot be countered by small arms then the only other options are HMGs (hard to position, relatively low damage, easy to stay out of the cone) and AT weapons then early light vehicles will have no counter. adding (lol, pipe dream) light AT guns like the m-42 would of course solve this but that's not going to happen.

the same issue is present with light tanks and standard AT weapons.
20 Jan 2016, 22:37 PM
#37
avatar of Virtual Boar

Posts: 196

25 pdr can't even reliably destroy a HMG nest, i wouldn't mind it being so bad if the call-in range was a bit bigger. The tommies need to be nearly hugging the target for that and such high risk undertaking for such predictable and inaccurate barrage is not worth it.
22 Jan 2016, 21:01 PM
#38
avatar of whitesky00

Posts: 468

i'd rather them fix that pathing update... that was supposed to improve pathing. I usually find the UC carrier going backwards into the enemy because i click a short distance...
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 39
Russian Federation 105

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

372 users are online: 372 guests
0 post in the last 24h
20 posts in the last week
136 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45005
Welcome our newest member, Kreitner
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM