Login

russian armor

UKF September patch discussion

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (18)down
17 Aug 2019, 08:50 AM
#41
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

U could just use the non doc in map art
17 Aug 2019, 18:25 PM
#42
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

Could you take a look at the AOE suppression of the Vickers. Its inability to stop blobs advancing is bit of a problem in the mid to late game, especially with vet and decreasing RA.

Please also consider looking at the wasp upgrade which has very poor performance next to the HT flamer. The UC has a harder time staying alive with its previous patch nerf which makes wasp a very risky and unattractive upgrade.

+1


An armor upgrade for the WASP (with the WASP upgrade, not on stock UC) would let it actually do its job.
17 Aug 2019, 21:22 PM
#43
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1392

All over brits got some good changes, but still. They are sometimes way to powerful.

Emplacements are simply cancer. Bofors still killes Inf way to fast (give it stats of Ostwind).

Also the grenade bug isn't fix (they can still trew grenades when red suppressed, if order was before the suppression).


Not trolling, but the fraction was a joke and stays a joke.


There are so many things have to be changed.
18 Aug 2019, 00:43 AM
#44
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

All over brits got some good changes, but still. They are sometimes way to powerful.

Emplacements are simply cancer. Bofors still killes Inf way to fast (give it stats of Ostwind).

Also the grenade bug isn't fix (they can still trew grenades when red suppressed, if order was before the suppression).


Not trolling, but the fraction was a joke and stays a joke.


There are so many things have to be changed.

Emplacements are a joke in 1v1 but I agree that they can be pretty cancerous in teamgames. I find them much harder to kill if they go the advanced emplacement commander, and that's the only time I ever find them to be really serious problems. I think that whole commander needs to be totally reworked from the ground up as something more useful and less cheesy without the focus on emplacements.

I wish there was something that could be done about emplacements in general that would make the game better for both sides, because they're super cancerous to play with or against and just kind of encourage arty spam on both sides, but they're also not super competitive unless you use advanced emplacement commander and brits still lack proper indirect options because hurr durr mortar pit.
18 Aug 2019, 01:27 AM
#45
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279


Emplacements are a joke in 1v1 but I agree that they can be pretty cancerous in teamgames. I find them much harder to kill if they go the advanced emplacement commander, and that's the only time I ever find them to be really serious problems. I think that whole commander needs to be totally reworked from the ground up as something more useful and less cheesy without the focus on emplacements.

I wish there was something that could be done about emplacements in general that would make the game better for both sides, because they're super cancerous to play with or against and just kind of encourage arty spam on both sides, but they're also not super competitive unless you use advanced emplacement commander and brits still lack proper indirect options because hurr durr mortar pit.


Could gut the emplacements, lower their price and gate power behind being garrisoned so that they function as part of an army instead OF an army.

I've said in the past that if brace was tied to garrison alone emplacements would be much better for it since there wouldn't be a 1 click save the unit button with next to no risk and there would be clear counter play. Un supported emplacements would be food, but as defensive positions (kinda like the usf fighting pit) they could hit above their price point as support units.
18 Aug 2019, 06:48 AM
#46
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1793

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j7trxUXVN8

From tightrope 37:14
Brit sniper is now fastest...need to relook i guess.

Like some tweaks, im not a fan of making units same.
Brit could be slower, but inflict heavier damages to vehicles, or stun or have arty.
There is no need to make it same speed..zzz
18 Aug 2019, 08:10 AM
#47
avatar of MakiesKurisu

Posts: 130

Early game

Maybe some buff for universal carrier is needed and more important than the Vickers buff. UKF need something offensive as this faction do not have mobile light arty.
Buff can be increasing the health that self-repair can repaired, decreasing the build time, or adding 0.8 modifier the same as kubel. Anyone may help a lot.

Because IS got nerfed, UKF is struggleing against Wehr in early game with its 4-men IS, unless u pick up the specific commander with SMG upgrade.
Both 4-men squads(IS and Grens), almost even combat stats out of cover, but at much higer price.
Emplacement destruction is good but need some refund or something that preserve the vet.(Emplacement crews maybe)

Late Game
Maybe Centaur also need a buff to match up with Ostwind performance now as this faction bascically lack indirect fire without commander.

Comet is still underperforming with its low rate of fire. Vet 3 is too late, distribute some to lower vet or giving comet a special tank commander upgrade that could increase rate.
18 Aug 2019, 15:30 PM
#48
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4

Consider lowering the absurd 290 armor value of the comet for further buffing its scatter. It should be a threat to infantry. The Comet already gets free EWS with hammer tech and has the speed to flank JP4/StuGs. StuGs and JP4s should not have a ~64% chance (off top of my head) to pen a high speed flanking tank.

Faster "projectile", better scatter, lower armor. That's my suggestion.
18 Aug 2019, 16:50 PM
#49
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



Could gut the emplacements, lower their price and gate power behind being garrisoned so that they function as part of an army instead OF an army.

I've said in the past that if brace was tied to garrison alone emplacements would be much better for it since there wouldn't be a 1 click save the unit button with next to no risk and there would be clear counter play. Un supported emplacements would be food, but as defensive positions (kinda like the usf fighting pit) they could hit above their price point as support units.

Yes. ASoldier in particular has been suggesting something like that for the mortar pit for years, and it'd give a mobile alternative to the pit too. He can explain it better than I can if he ever jumps on this thread.
18 Aug 2019, 18:07 PM
#50
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Consider lowering the absurd 290 armor value of the comet for further buffing its scatter. It should be a threat to infantry. The Comet already gets free EWS with hammer tech and has the speed to flank JP4/StuGs. StuGs and JP4s should not have a ~64% chance (off top of my head) to pen a high speed flanking tank.

Faster "projectile", better scatter, lower armor. That's my suggestion.

I'd rather MG performance be looked at than tighter scatter. Tanks should, imo, be a constant threat to infantry who are in front of them. Let's cut this "wipe or miss" crap once and for all and load most of tank AI into the mgs and allow select tanks to stand out via high AOE HE. I don't think anyone can argue that the t34 isn't the best it's been now that it's constant against infantry under its sights.

This would also be an interesting way for axis vehicles to scale a bit better vs larger allied squads via their pintle mgs at a cost (usf too I guess)
18 Aug 2019, 18:31 PM
#51
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4


I'd rather MG performance be looked at than tighter scatter. Tanks should, imo, be a constant threat to infantry who are in front of them. Let's cut this "wipe or miss" crap once and for all and load most of tank AI into the mgs and allow select tanks to stand out via high AOE HE. I don't think anyone can argue that the t34 isn't the best it's been now that it's constant against infantry under its sights.

This would also be an interesting way for axis vehicles to scale a bit better vs larger allied squads via their pintle mgs at a cost (usf too I guess)


The T34 is probably the pinacle of hull/coaxial MG mounts, and they are fantastic yes, but I do really hate how lategame when the field is covered with yellow that the all so great DPS gets halved. I'd be all for constant MG damage if it wasn't for that fact, and the UKF landmattress is king of making that yellow cover a reality. Fantastic for commandos and tommies, terrible for small arms fire.
18 Aug 2019, 19:09 PM
#52
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



The T34 is probably the pinacle of hull/coaxial MG mounts, and they are fantastic yes, but I do really hate how lategame when the field is covered with yellow that the all so great DPS gets halved. I'd be all for constant MG damage if it wasn't for that fact, and the UKF landmattress is king of making that yellow cover a reality. Fantastic for commandos and tommies, terrible for small arms fire.


I'd argue that that seems pretty fair though right? If you are facing down a tank and there is a hole there you are going to jump in it. If anything it's in line with the game mechanics.
BUT you could maybe buff the coaxial MG (shooting higher, shoots into the crater) to deal increased damage.
I don't see how tank mgs being extra punishing against units outside of cover at the cost of a little less when in cover would be much worse than getting caught out of cover and being wiped.

Idk. For me it's so silly to see a tank roll up point blank to an unsupported AT gun and support to arrive because all of iuts AI is in its cannon and it missed 6 shots in a row. I think MG powered AI gives us more control over how tanks interact with infantry and how reliablely they do so. Less RNG and more consistency has don't nothing but good for the game


Also can't modifiers be added to lessen the power of cover? Could set it at 0.6 or something and go from there?
18 Aug 2019, 19:18 PM
#53
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4



I'd argue that that seems pretty fair though right? If you are facing down a tank and there is a hole there you are going to jump in it. If anything it's in line with the game mechanics.
BUT you could maybe buff the coaxial MG (shooting higher, shoots into the crater) to deal increased damage.
I don't see how tank mgs being extra punishing against units outside of cover at the cost of a little less when in cover would be much worse than getting caught out of cover and being wiped.

Idk. For me it's so silly to see a tank roll up point blank to an unsupported AT gun and support to arrive because all of iuts AI is in its cannon and it missed 6 shots in a row. I think MG powered AI gives us more control over how tanks interact with infantry and how reliablely they do so. Less RNG and more consistency has don't nothing but good for the game


Also can't modifiers be added to lessen the power of cover? Could set it at 0.6 or something and go from there?


I know there's cover damage mechanics, but I'm sure you're able to set certain entities, like MGs, to do bonus damage in certain situations. I'm not a modder, but if I had to guess I'd say yes.

Back to UKF topic though ;)
20 Aug 2019, 10:56 AM
#54
avatar of Osinyagov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 1388 | Subs: 1

JUst want to remind, that there is doctrinal ability named "Improved cover bonus", which need to be looked at too, if you would like to make IS less spammy and more about fighting from the cover (atm it fully sqitch off debuff and give additional bonuses when in cover)
20 Aug 2019, 11:01 AM
#55
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17875 | Subs: 8

All over brits got some good changes, but still. They are sometimes way to powerful.

Emplacements are simply cancer. Bofors still killes Inf way to fast (give it stats of Ostwind).

Also the grenade bug isn't fix (they can still trew grenades when red suppressed, if order was before the suppression).


Not trolling, but the fraction was a joke and stays a joke.


There are so many things have to be changed.

Emplacement are 100% L2P issue.
If you can't fight them after 3 years, you will never be able to, learn to play already.


Could gut the emplacements, lower their price and gate power behind being garrisoned so that they function as part of an army instead OF an army.

Well, they DO have pop cap and upkeep, they ARE part of army just as any other infantry or vehicle.
It may not be the best design, but its the only one we can have.
20 Aug 2019, 11:29 AM
#56
avatar of JulianSnow

Posts: 321

Idea for the emplacements.

Make them de-crewable, just like the PaK 43 gun/2cm Flak of the Axis players.

Extra: remove the extra dmg vs emplacements on most of the flame units and just kill the crew. Would make the emplacements more squishy, but in return the guns could get a buff somewhere?
20 Aug 2019, 11:35 AM
#57
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17875 | Subs: 8

Idea for the emplacements.

Make them de-crewable, just like the PaK 43 gun/2cm Flak of the Axis players.

Extra: remove the extra dmg vs emplacements on most of the flame units and just kill the crew. Would make the emplacements more squishy, but in return the guns could get a buff somewhere?

It would make them less then useless.

Remember that PaK 43 and flak are dirt cheap in comparison. They are also doctrinal addition to core army, not the core army itself.
20 Aug 2019, 12:28 PM
#58
avatar of JulianSnow

Posts: 321

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Aug 2019, 11:35 AMKatitof
It would make them less then useless.

Remember that PaK 43 and flak are dirt cheap in comparison. They are also doctrinal addition to core army, not the core army itself.


Are they really that much cheaper? Don't have the numbers to compare right now but it feels like they're just as cheap. Also Brits AT gun is way more durable than the Axis variant, due to not being de-crewable.



Could make the brits cheaper in return or give the brits crew members a base target size of 0.7 so it's not thát easy to de-crew it.

Would certainly make the sim city strat less cancerous to face.

~just an idea.
20 Aug 2019, 16:12 PM
#59
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Aug 2019, 11:01 AMKatitof

Emplacement are 100% L2P issue.
If you can't fight them after 3 years, you will never be able to, learn to play already.

Well, they DO have pop cap and upkeep, they ARE part of army just as any other infantry or vehicle.
It may not be the best design, but its the only one we can have.

What I'm saying is reduce all that. So that the "real" pop cap would be basicly the pop cap of the emplacement while garrisoned. If it's not exceeding it's current I don't see any issue there. Then you would be paying upkeep for a ready to use strong point. Maintain the ability to tear down the emplacement and I think it could work pretty well.
20 Aug 2019, 17:28 PM
#60
avatar of Smiling Tiger

Posts: 207

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Aug 2019, 11:01 AMKatitof

Emplacement are 100% L2P issue.
If you can't fight them after 3 years, you will never be able to, learn to play already.


Having an infantry squad or light vehicle melted in seconds before you can even react by a newly built Bofors that hasn't been revealed is 100% not an L2P issue. Or I guess people just need to learn to retreat the very instant anything encounters a Bofors.
PAGES (18)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
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

422 users are online: 422 guests
17 posts in the last 24h
43 posts in the last week
97 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44644
Welcome our newest member, felayo364
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM