Login

russian armor

Should UKF get one or more of their doctrinal tools non-doc?

30 Jun 2018, 23:19 PM
#21
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 3094 | Subs: 2

Just a question, have you any propositions if any of these are made non-doctrinal? I mean, they're going to have to be replaced in their respective doctrine, might as well suggest something to replace them with while you're at it if you ask me, just my opinion.

For example, I like the idea of the IS getting a 3rd upgrade in the form of the AT rifle package (I am guessing the HEAT grenades are going to be included) by default so perhaps replace it with the Land Mattress in the Special Weapons doctrine? I mean, that's the only "special weapon" that comes to mind when I think about it.

P.S.

It would also maintain the mobility of the UKF provided by the Special Weapons HT so infantry can reinforce and arm on the move as well.
1 Jul 2018, 08:13 AM
#22
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13290 | Subs: 1



(emphasis mine)

Do you realize just how big of a difference is between a -25% received accuracy and a -80% received accuracy?

That was a simply sing typo. From * to -. What swordfisch claimed was that they did not get the accuracy/CD bonus anymore which they do.

And actually my original point was that having access to 2 auras (Air-landing officer/Command vehicle) would make unit broken and it would.
1 Jul 2018, 08:47 AM
#23
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2418 | Subs: 1

Too bad I cant select multiple options. They need both non-doctrinal flamers + AT infantry sections.
1 Jul 2018, 12:47 PM
#24
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

Where can I select "None of these"? All of these units are doctrinal for a reason. What brits really need is some buffs here and there, not making them ostheer like faction that has everything without commander choice.
1 Jul 2018, 14:30 PM
#25
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

Alternatively, a British (semi)non-doc option could be altered to be an actual snare.

AEC Stun > Damaged Engine.
1 Jul 2018, 18:20 PM
#26
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3047

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Jul 2018, 08:13 AMVipper

That was a simply sing typo. From * to -. What swordfisch claimed was that they did not get the accuracy/CD bonus anymore which they do.

And actually my original point was that having access to 2 auras (Air-landing officer/Command vehicle) would make unit broken and it would.

I'm pretty sure airlanding officer does not have an aura. Unless you're talking about the ability.
1 Jul 2018, 18:41 PM
#27
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13290 | Subs: 1


I'm pretty sure airlanding officer does not have an aura. Unless you're talking about the ability.

The ability "heroic charge" provides an aura.
2 Jul 2018, 07:37 AM
#28
avatar of FelixTHM

Posts: 503 | Subs: 1

Anti tank package as an upgrade to Infantry Sections.

Package contains two Boys AT rifles and unlocks the anti tank grenade ability. Locks the use of medical kits or pyrotechnic kit.

That’s my vote.



I like this idea a lot, think it's the best one out there atm.

While we're at it, just remove the gardening emplacements from the game and give Brits an ISG equivalent, and Brits would be a complete and playable faction.

Win or lose, I hate playing with or playing against emplacements.
2 Jul 2018, 08:06 AM
#29
avatar of Stark

Posts: 623 | Subs: 1

Giving Tommies "AT package" would include AT nades and BOY at rifle. Adding this ig would make PIATs useless (I know - no1 uses it anyway). Snare is needed, i agree but don't think non doc Boy AT rifle squad is an answer.

AT nades and some sort of indirect fire should be added to the Brits - that's what they need the most
2 Jul 2018, 14:02 PM
#30
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Jul 2018, 08:06 AMStark
Giving Tommies "AT package" would include AT nades and BOY at rifle. Adding this ig would make PIATs useless (I know - no1 uses it anyway). Snare is needed, i agree but don't think non doc Boy AT rifle squad is an answer.

AT nades and some sort of indirect fire should be added to the Brits - that's what they need the most


Further delineation between Boys AT rifles and PIATs could make this still work.

For example, Boys have low penetration but high accuracy and a decent rate of fire. This makes them effective against light vehicles, but not so much against medium and heavy armory. Then you buff PIAT penetration and damage, but reduce range or accuracy. Then the PIATs can act as a DPS supplement to AT guns but are ineffective against light vehicles.
3 Jul 2018, 00:18 AM
#31
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930



Further delineation between Boys AT rifles and PIATs could make this still work.

For example, Boys have low penetration but high accuracy and a decent rate of fire. This makes them effective against light vehicles, but not so much against medium and heavy armory. Then you buff PIAT penetration and damage, but reduce range or accuracy. Then the PIATs can act as a DPS supplement to AT guns but are ineffective against light vehicles.


okay, this is just complicating matters.

the Soviet have PTRS in game because they did not have ATW like the bazooka during ww2. They received some bazooka via lend lease but apparently never use them.

Trying to "balance" the boys versus the PIAT is just going to lead to unnecessary specialization and nerf. You're over crowding the tech three with necessary stuff.

Even if I agree the british's lack of snare is a serious disadvantage, the PIAT is already an "okay" weapon comparable to the Bazooka. They don't need the BOYS.

Anti-tank rifle like the BOYS have long been rendered obsolete as anti-tank weapon by 1944-5. The soviet is really the only one to kept using them due to a lack of alternative.

Subsequently, the only reason the BOYS in game was even relevant is because the PIAT didn't heatseak.

I think all of us know why the AT section is even on the list to begin with. It's the at nade.
3 Jul 2018, 01:29 AM
#32
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

so ALO still makes vanilla unvetted tommies have better rec acc than any vetted unit in the game including obers full stop? thats a hard no on being non doc then because 5 man armmed tommys are plenty is is with "just" panzer gren levels of rec acc
3 Jul 2018, 05:41 AM
#33
avatar of Euan

Posts: 158



Further delineation between Boys AT rifles and PIATs could make this still work.

For example, Boys have low penetration but high accuracy and a decent rate of fire. This makes them effective against light vehicles, but not so much against medium and heavy armory. Then you buff PIAT penetration and damage, but reduce range or accuracy. Then the PIATs can act as a DPS supplement to AT guns but are ineffective against light vehicles.


Sounds good to me.
3 Jul 2018, 06:17 AM
#34
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2209 | Subs: 1

Should UKF get one or more of their doctrinal tools non-doc?


no
3 Jul 2018, 08:05 AM
#35
avatar of Latch

Posts: 769

I've spoken about some of these issues months ago, it's sad that they have been ignored for so long and simply been resulted in a seriously gimped UKF:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/58650/ukf-snares-how-to-balance

2016 I suggested A LOT of changes that have only just been realised by the comminty balance team and implimented...
https://www.coh2.org/topic/48174/latch-s-15-suggestions-to-balance-coh2

UKF are massivley gimped by the lack of a decent CQC unit (non doc), snare and mobile indirect. The huge problem here is that each tool they lack, is availible in a commander which will then gimp one or the other weaknesses that you have.

If you go AT tommies you are guaranted to lose any CQC engagements and get ruined by indirect fire as Tommies are best firing at long range behind cover, mobile indirect is the solution to knock tommies out of cover.

Giving tommies snares will fix the majority of UKF holes, but then obviously Spec wep will need a change to make it worth investing in.

A lack of indirect is a problem but it's not major, a solution to this whilst keeping UKF unique would simply be allowing emplacements to be doconstructed for a % of the price back, that way you are not completely gimped (by pop cap mainly) if you place a mortar pit in a bad spot for the late game. To balance it from being abused, if the emplacement is under any sort of fire, cancel the deconstruct.

A better idea that I have seen floating about however is to give UKF a mortar, with poor range but allow them to garrison a Mortor pit emplacement for its range increase
3 Jul 2018, 12:13 PM
#36
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Giving tommies snares will fix the majority of UKF holes, but then obviously Spec wep will need a change to make it worth investing in.


Would it? It can still call in an AT infantry squad for manpower alone. Getting a PIAT Sapper Squad out costs 310 manpower, 100 munitions and 15 fuel. Getting an AT Infantry Section costs 300 manpower.
3 Jul 2018, 13:01 PM
#37
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17583 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Jul 2018, 12:13 PMLago


Would it? It can still call in an AT infantry squad for manpower alone. Getting a PIAT Sapper Squad out costs 310 manpower, 100 munitions and 15 fuel. Getting an AT Infantry Section costs 300 manpower.


BOYS AT rifle is irrelevant.
The AT nade is the primary and pretty much only reason why you would go for AT section.
3 Jul 2018, 13:14 PM
#38
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2241



BOYS AT rifle is irrelevant.
The AT nade is the primary and pretty much only reason why you would go for AT section.


you missed to tell us that this dmg isnt little and they can deal with light and mdeium armor ...min push them away.

my suggestion:

give them a nondoc snare, but remove than:

- sniper stun
- Tulips from FF

than it would be ok.
3 Jul 2018, 13:36 PM
#39
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

BOYS AT rifle is irrelevant.
The AT nade is the primary and pretty much only reason why you would go for AT section.


I wouldn't go as far as saying it's irrelevant. If the Relic patchnotes speak the truth it's not a downgrade versus Infantry compared to the Lee Enfield. Light AT capability isn't bad for 20 manpower.
3 Jul 2018, 14:07 PM
#40
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2241

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Jul 2018, 13:36 PMLago


I wouldn't go as far as saying it's irrelevant. If the Relic patchnotes speak the truth it's not a downgrade versus Infantry compared to the Lee Enfield. Light AT capability isn't bad for 20 manpower.


he doesnt understand than this AT boys allows the following:

blobb and a-move around the fiel. no at gun or other isnt really need...you can deal with all targets. Like the Guards and upgraded rifles.
and no...no axis faction can do this. because of squisy 4models squads or only schrecks...with misses alot on mid and far range...and NO axis faction can field infntery squads which can have snare AND handheld AT!

only allies can...i dont know why..but they can.
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
  • U.S. Forces flag shadics ARG.
  • U.S. Forces flag TüMe
  • Ostheer flag The101stAirBorne
  • Ostheer flag Clororaa
uploaded by TüMe

Board Info

332 users are online: 2 members and 330 guests
Rosbone, jamesjamozo
17 posts in the last 24h
106 posts in the last week
490 posts in the last month
Registered members: 36501
Welcome our newest member, meliodas7
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM