Login

russian armor

How are Infantrysections since patch?

PAGES (16)down
21 Sep 2019, 21:30 PM
#21
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8566 | Subs: 1

I test redesign the whole faction around Hammer/Anvil choices for each tech building as an individual choice.

For instance:
Hammer for infatry 5 men no cover mechanism and bren similar to BARs.
Anvil for infatry 4 men cover mechanism Vickers -K as lmg instead of bren

Hammer for emplacement more damage less durability Anvil for emplacements more durability less damage.

Hammer for tank faster tank, Anvil for tanks more durability
21 Sep 2019, 22:32 PM
#22
avatar of KiwiBirb

Posts: 611

My problem with the cover mechanic is that it is very map dependant.

Their low moving accuracy and better long range DPS than grenadiers already makes them more defensive oriented.

To make the cover mechanic less map oriented and require more planning, I’d propose making the cover bonus only apply when tommies are in trenches, like how REs get rifle nades in fighting positions.

I’d also like to see a ~50mp cost added to trenches
21 Sep 2019, 22:33 PM
#23
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2803

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Sep 2019, 21:30 PMVipper
I test redesign the whole faction around Hammer/Anvil choices for each tech building as an individual choice.

For instance:
Hammer for infatry 5 men no cover mechanism and bren similar to BARs.
Anvil for infatry 4 men cover mechanism Vickers -K as lmg instead of bren

Hammer for emplacement more damage less durability Anvil for emplacements more durability less damage.

Hammer for tank faster tank, Anvil for tanks more durability


Best suggestion so far.
21 Sep 2019, 23:01 PM
#24
avatar of Luciano

Posts: 712

Why are the answers so extreame? Pre patch were slightly overpowered and now seems fine but I wont say thats a 100% balance guarantee, if UKF need something is to fill the design flaws they have like non doctrinal flamethrower and non doctrinal light support artillery
21 Sep 2019, 23:54 PM
#25
avatar of BenKenobi

Posts: 34

My completely subjective experience from around 10 1v1s is that Volks simply bully Sections until bolster; which I have not felt before the patch.
22 Sep 2019, 03:30 AM
#26
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 616


Post patch, positioning become critical woth infantry sections more than ever. If i can find some heavy cover or have time to built sone sandbags, i can still make a good fight with infantry sections. However, heavy cover is a very luxury thing on most of the map and in early game, i usually dont have enough time to prepare sandbags. My wish is infantry sections can be a bit more rewarding than now with proper positioning, since fighting in the opens has become more punishing.


If it come to a rework, I suggest split infantry sections into 2 unit, light infantry sections and heavy infantry sections. Light infantry sections available in T0 for 260-270mp, have 4 man, 1 slot, medic, pyro. Heavy infantry sections available in T3 for 300 - 320mp, have 5 man and have 2 slot, pyro, medic plus light gamon. With this, ukf now have two infantry units and they can be torn up/down easier.
22 Sep 2019, 03:34 AM
#27
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 616

And UKF need some sort of smoke outside of the mortar pits to cover infantry sections, since flanking with them is pretty difficult and they dont have stock close range dps.
22 Sep 2019, 03:53 AM
#28
avatar of PanzerFutz

Posts: 97


any upgrade takes 1 weapon slot...


This sounds like the only idea that won't bugger Infantry Sections in some other way.

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Sep 2019, 21:30 PMVipper
I test redesign the whole faction around Hammer/Anvil choices for each tech building as an individual choice.

For instance:
Hammer for infantry 5 men no cover mechanism and bren similar to BARs.
Anvil for infantry 4 men cover mechanism Vickers -K as lmg instead of bren

Hammer for emplacement more damage less durability Anvil for emplacements more durability less damage.

Hammer for tank faster tank, Anvil for tanks more durability


This is an eminently sensible suggestion and it really would make the UK faction distinctive.
22 Sep 2019, 04:00 AM
#29
avatar of PanzerFutz

Posts: 97


Light infantry sections available in T0 for 260-270mp, have 4 man, 1 slot, medic, pyro. Heavy infantry sections available in T3 for 300 - 320mp, have 5 man and have 2 slot, pyro, medic plus light gamon.


That's another way to do it but, I would give the light section a smoke grenade to help them stay alive longer. T3 is a long time to wait for durable infantry.
22 Sep 2019, 04:09 AM
#30
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 616



That's another way to do it but, I would give the light section a smoke grenade to help them stay alive longer. T3 is a long time to wait for durable infantry.


I mention that Ukf need smoke outside of mortar pits but smoke in mainline is not a good ideas, like the old rifles. A smoke discharger upgrade on UC is my idea.
22 Sep 2019, 04:24 AM
#31
avatar of Rosbone
Senior Mapmaker Badge

Posts: 1093 | Subs: 2

I have only played a handful of 4v4 brit games cause I got stomped hard in each one, so I voted to buff them up :)

But seriously, I dont like the idea of making IS cost more. In a 1v1 Brits seem to lack capping power. If the IS cost more and get pushed off, I think brits will have a harder time than they already do in 1v1.

Seems like the stock IS needs buffed back up a little and maybe reduce the bren upgrade output so they are not terminator blobs late game?

Just a dummies two cents.
22 Sep 2019, 04:33 AM
#32
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4527

While everyone is promoting pretty wild ideas, I might as well throw mine back into the mix.


I was thinking how much of a pain I find it to use Infantry Sections, how strong they are when used to their full potential, but how rigid the right upgrade path is. They have many options but the "correct" option is almost always Healing and Double Bren. Without base healing and with the higher cost of the smoke (both upgrade and throw) versus its effectiveness, using the artillery path seems to be more punishing than rewarding. The goal is to make Infantry Sections less reliant on the heal upgrade as well as promote build variety.



Bolster Infantry is now combined with squad upgrades (Medic/Smoke) and is made more accessible early on. Bolster Infantry no longer automatically increases squad size, instead three options are unlocked so that a new soldier may be added depending on the role desired. The new options are:

Recon Team Upgrade: Adds a Marksman to the squad and unlocks the Artillery Flares. The Marksman will pick off wounded models and his Scoped Lee–Enfield (transferable, no drop) takes one weapon slot.

Medic Team Upgrade: Adds a Combat Medic with a Lee-Enfield to the squad and unlocks the ability to place Medical Crates. The medic passively heals his unit while out of combat and occupies one weapon slot.

Bolster Section: Adds a 5th man with no unique qualities or abilities, a minor increase to staying power and damage output. He does not take a weapon slot so this squad can equip two weapons.


Due to the way the new Bolster works, the new member will need reinforced in even on new squads (unless the game supports automatically adding a man, then it will do that). To compensate, Infantry Sections are cheaper and Squad Upgrades are instant. The positive side of this is that getting an early or late bolster always costs the same.

The concept still needs fleshing out, but this is the basic idea.


The way I set up weapon slot usage in this is inefficient though, and there is a question of what happens if you grab 2 guns before you Bolster. To resolve this I have revised my suggestion: Sections only have 1 weapon slot and Recon and Medic do not take it, instead Bolster Section adds one weapon slot. Same desired effect, Recon and Medic can take 1 Weapon, while Bolster can take 2.
22 Sep 2019, 05:13 AM
#33
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 616

:unsure:
While everyone is promoting pretty wild ideas, I might as well throw mine back into the mix.




The way I set up weapon slot usage in this is inefficient though, and there is a question of what happens if you grab 2 guns before you Bolster. To resolve this I have revised my suggestion: Sections only have 1 weapon slot and Recon and Medic do not take it, instead Bolster Section adds one weapon slot. Same desired effect, Recon and Medic can take 1 Weapon, while Bolster can take 2.


Interesting idea. I suggest the bolster upgrade be call "heavy section upgrade" and the new model come with 1 bren transferable, reinforce cost then can include some munition.

With all that, i think we can remove bolster sife tech and put those upgrade behind main tech. For example, recce section available in T0, medic sections available after platoon cp, heavy section have a side tech in platoon Cp for 15-20 fuel.
22 Sep 2019, 06:18 AM
#34
avatar of Svanh

Posts: 179

While everyone is promoting pretty wild ideas, I might as well throw mine back into the mix.




The way I set up weapon slot usage in this is inefficient though, and there is a question of what happens if you grab 2 guns before you Bolster. To resolve this I have revised my suggestion: Sections only have 1 weapon slot and Recon and Medic do not take it, instead Bolster Section adds one weapon slot. Same desired effect, Recon and Medic can take 1 Weapon, while Bolster can take 2.

A nice idea! With regard to the weapon slot issue, making the Recon & Medic upgrades require an empty weapon slot to upgrade would work better. I'm pretty sure it isn't possible to add weapon slots to a squad - the closest thing would be having IS squads spawn with a dummy slot item and using the upgrade to remove it which is asking for bugs.

It is concerning that many posts in this thread contain some variation of "I don't like the cover mechanic/Bolster..." without any thought as to how one avoids early-to-mid-game attack-moving IS blobs or late-game one-shots. In addition, any change which limits Infantry Sections to four men or a single LMG is going to be compared extremely unfavourably to the new Grenadiers who cost less, have a more accessible and cost-effective LMG, no out-of-cover penalty, and now the ability to survive direct mortar hits at vet 3.
22 Sep 2019, 06:56 AM
#35
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4527

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Sep 2019, 06:18 AMSvanh
A nice idea! With regard to the weapon slot issue, making the Recon & Medic upgrades require an empty weapon slot to upgrade would work better. I'm pretty sure it isn't possible to add weapon slots to a squad - the closest thing would be having IS squads spawn with a dummy slot item and using the upgrade to remove it which is asking for bugs.


Hm, I wasn't aware of that limitation. The first iteration isn't bad, the main problem with it is there's no hard limiter stopping you from doubling up weapon upgrades and locking yourself out of bolster. I guess that's not a huge issue, as you'd learn quickly not to do that, and Bolster itself comes early enough that you wouldn't have enough ammunition to double up every squad by a long shot. I suppose my initial iteration is probably the best.
22 Sep 2019, 08:17 AM
#36
avatar of Osinyagov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 1302

While everyone is promoting pretty wild ideas, I might as well throw mine back into the mix.




The way I set up weapon slot usage in this is inefficient though, and there is a question of what happens if you grab 2 guns before you Bolster. To resolve this I have revised my suggestion: Sections only have 1 weapon slot and Recon and Medic do not take it, instead Bolster Section adds one weapon slot. Same desired effect, Recon and Medic can take 1 Weapon, while Bolster can take 2.


That's cool idea! I was thinking about it after commisar got medic in the squad to represent healing ability. Same should be done with IS, but other two upgrades are interesting as well.
22 Sep 2019, 13:09 PM
#37
avatar of DaPopeCOH

Posts: 44 | Subs: 1

22 Sep 2019, 14:00 PM
#38
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 2478 | Subs: 1

I don't think expanding the cover mechanic is a good idea at this point. Either nerf the cover bonus and buff them overall or leave as is for now

Some of these suggestions are way too much. We just had a huge patch guys, the next one will probably be a small tuning update
22 Sep 2019, 14:32 PM
#39
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 4101 | Subs: 1

I'd hate to see the game watered down for the sake of time. The cover mechanic is neat, it imo just needs refined. Like I said previously, to work on a 4 man squad makes it op with a 5 man squad and to make it balanced on a 5 man squad leaves a 4 man squad lacking. Separate them and go from there. I'd really like to see more CHOICE in tailoring your Tommies individually as opposed to globally (like I would like cons) . They are pretty well the only infantry the brits get so they should be adaptable.
22 Sep 2019, 14:34 PM
#40
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2803

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Sep 2019, 23:01 PMLuciano
Why are the answers so extreame? Pre patch were slightly overpowered and now seems fine but I wont say thats a 100% balance guarantee, if UKF need something is to fill the design flaws they have like non doctrinal flamethrower and non doctrinal light support artillery


You’d have to rework the entire faction, otherwise live brits and stock flamethrowers & land mattress is too much.
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

90 users are online: 1 member and 89 guests
WhiteFlash
99 posts in the last 24h
941 posts in the last week
4231 posts in the last month
Registered members: 24837
Welcome our newest member, tomik161
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM