Login

russian armor

How are Infantrysections since patch?

PAGES (16)down
23 Sep 2019, 12:15 PM
#61
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2806 | Subs: 6

Tommies must be good, maybe nerf them early game but boost them late game, why? bcs that's the only legit infantry unit that they have, not counting sappers as they're like a utility unit, look at other factions:

Ostheer: non-doctrinal: Grens, PG's, doctrinal - ostruppen, storms, jaegers, ass grens
OKW - non-doctrinal: volks, obers, (possibly sturms?), doctrinal - falls, fussilers, jaegers
soviets - non-doctrinal: cons, penals, doctrinal - guards, shocks, partisants(lol wut), DP guards and something else
USA - maybe bad example cuz they only have rifles, but they are very versatile unit and have a snare after all and can build up many things with proper doctrine, doctrinal - rangers, paras, ass engies, pathfinders and such.

While Brits only got Tommies and what else infantry units? commandos only? that's it? no wonder that Tommies must be good cuz it's only 1 unit, without a snare, needs upgrade to use grenades, cant build anything except sandbags and trenches, they are simple as that and that's the reason why i say they need buff for late game, and slight nerf for early game. Apart of that i'd give them some 2nd non doctrinal unit like SAS maybe or non doctrinal commandos which can get upgrades with the proper doctrine
23 Sep 2019, 18:45 PM
#66
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 7217 | Subs: 1

Couple hours from this post, previous history offtopic posts are gonna be removed.


Use the https://www.coh2.org/forum/108/the-library to continue.
23 Sep 2019, 22:39 PM
#67
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2816

Tommies must be good, maybe nerf them early game but boost them late game, why? bcs that's the only legit infantry unit that they have, not counting sappers as they're like a utility unit, look at other factions:

Ostheer: non-doctrinal: Grens, PG's, doctrinal - ostruppen, storms, jaegers, ass grens
OKW - non-doctrinal: volks, obers, (possibly sturms?), doctrinal - falls, fussilers, jaegers
soviets - non-doctrinal: cons, penals, doctrinal - guards, shocks, partisants(lol wut), DP guards and something else
USA - maybe bad example cuz they only have rifles, but they are very versatile unit and have a snare after all and can build up many things with proper doctrine, doctrinal - rangers, paras, ass engies, pathfinders and such.

While Brits only got Tommies and what else infantry units? commandos only? that's it? no wonder that Tommies must be good cuz it's only 1 unit, without a snare, needs upgrade to use grenades, cant build anything except sandbags and trenches, they are simple as that and that's the reason why i say they need buff for late game, and slight nerf for early game. Apart of that i'd give them some 2nd non doctrinal unit like SAS maybe or non doctrinal commandos which can get upgrades with the proper doctrine


Literally nobody ever said Tommies must be bad. Everyone got fed up dealing with this insulting faction that was designed to be OP and sold to make money, so the community team has been fixing this broken mess.. Tommies were overperforming and it was time to tone them down. 0.1 target size debuff out of cover is not the end of the world.

As for the extra inf option idea, I agree. Perhaps an officer unit like the airlanding one? Maybe Observation Tommies from game files in a JLI role?
23 Sep 2019, 23:27 PM
#69
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

Tommies must be good, maybe nerf them early game but boost them late game, why? bcs that's the only legit infantry unit that they have, not counting sappers as they're like a utility unit, look at other factions:

Ostheer: non-doctrinal: Grens, PG's, doctrinal - ostruppen, storms, jaegers, ass grens
OKW - non-doctrinal: volks, obers, (possibly sturms?), doctrinal - falls, fussilers, jaegers
soviets - non-doctrinal: cons, penals, doctrinal - guards, shocks, partisants(lol wut), DP guards and something else
USA - maybe bad example cuz they only have rifles, but they are very versatile unit and have a snare after all and can build up many things with proper doctrine, doctrinal - rangers, paras, ass engies, pathfinders and such.

While Brits only got Tommies and what else infantry units? commandos only? that's it? no wonder that Tommies must be good cuz it's only 1 unit, without a snare, needs upgrade to use grenades, cant build anything except sandbags and trenches, they are simple as that and that's the reason why i say they need buff for late game, and slight nerf for early game. Apart of that i'd give them some 2nd non doctrinal unit like SAS maybe or non doctrinal commandos which can get upgrades with the proper doctrine


A late game upgrade for Royal Engineers could be a way to give UKF some more options in the late game.

Anvil Tech unlocks the Heavy Sapper upgrade that is more defensively focused, why not add an “Assault Sapper” upgrade to Hammer Tech?

“Assault Sappers”: Gives the Royal Engineer squad two Thompsons and the ability to throw a satchel charge (copied from Penal Troops).

Now UKF has a non-doctrinal CQB unit, more incentive to invest in Royal Engineers and more incentive to go for the less desirable Hammer Tech.

It doesn’t override doctrinal CQB unit’s like Assault Infantry Sections, Commandos or Flamethrower Royal Engineers because of the later timing that Hammer would come at. If you need a CQB unit in the early game you’ll still need to go for a doctrinal solution, but if you chose a doctrine without a CQB unit then you’ll still be able to get one later if you choose to tech for it.
24 Sep 2019, 00:40 AM
#70
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 618



A late game upgrade for Royal Engineers could be a way to give UKF some more options in the late game.

Anvil Tech unlocks the Heavy Sapper upgrade that is more defensively focused, why not add an “Assault Sapper” upgrade to Hammer Tech?

“Assault Sappers”: Gives the Royal Engineer squad two Thompsons and the ability to throw a satchel charge (copied from Penal Troops).

Now UKF has a non-doctrinal CQB unit, more incentive to invest in Royal Engineers and more incentive to go for the less desirable Hammer Tech.

It doesn’t override doctrinal CQB unit’s like Assault Infantry Sections, Commandos or Flamethrower Royal Engineers because of the later timing that Hammer would come at. If you need a CQB unit in the early game you’ll still need to go for a doctrinal solution, but if you chose a doctrine without a CQB unit then you’ll still be able to get one later if you choose to tech for it.


Wait to hammer for 2 Thompsons is too late and 2 Thompsons at that time doesn't have much effect. Ukf need an improved early game, their late game is OK.

I suggest swapping royal engineer and Universal carrier. Royal engineer available in T0 will give UKF early caping power, provide close range defense for Tommy against OKW rush and taking flanking opportunities.

Meantime, by moving Universal carrier to T1, we can slap fuel cost on it and buff it up to become a truly AILV, increase armor/HP and allow troops to shoot from inside like in coh1, a smoke discharger upgrade for mobile smoke outside of pits.

Assault engineer can be a call in for some new doc.
24 Sep 2019, 00:52 AM
#71
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2816



Wait to hammer for 2 Thompsons is too late and 2 Thompsons at that time doesn't have much effect. Ukf need an improved early game, their late game is OK.

I suggest swapping royal engineer and Universal carrier. Royal engineer available in T0 will give UKF early caping power, provide close range defense for Tommy against OKW rush and taking flanking opportunities.

Meantime, by moving Universal carrier to T1, we can slap fuel cost on it and buff it up to become a truly AILV, increase armor/HP and allow troops to shoot from inside like in coh1, a smoke discharger upgrade for mobile smoke outside of pits.

Assault engineer can be a call in for some new doc.


+1
24 Sep 2019, 01:54 AM
#72
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1



Wait to hammer for 2 Thompsons is too late and 2 Thompsons at that time doesn't have much effect. Ukf need an improved early game, their late game is OK.

I suggest swapping royal engineer and Universal carrier. Royal engineer available in T0 will give UKF early caping power, provide close range defense for Tommy against OKW rush and taking flanking opportunities.

Meantime, by moving Universal carrier to T1, we can slap fuel cost on it and buff it up to become a truly AILV, increase armor/HP and allow troops to shoot from inside like in coh1, a smoke discharger upgrade for mobile smoke outside of pits.

Assault engineer can be a call in for some new doc.


Why not both?

Putting the Royal Engineers in tier 1 makes a lot of sense for early game CQB but are still fairly weak compared to dedicated CQB units like Sturm Pioneers and Assault Engineers.

But if you put them in Tier 1, AND give them a Hammer Tech upgrade then UKF build orders might include Royal Engineers more often in the early game but also promote keeping them around late game regardless of whether you go Anvil or Hammer.

I don’t know about the UC though. I like the proposed unit design but without it in tier 1 UKF lacks a sniper counter until they tech up.

If you also reworked the Infantry Section’s recon upgrade to include a pay per shot snipe ability, passive cloak and a single scoped Lee-Enfield, a No.4 Mk1(T), then Infantry Sections could be used to counter snipe a sniper, but not be economical to be using the ability too often. It would also have to take up at least one, maybe both, weapon slots so you wouldn’t want to spam them and be able to “double tap” or “triple tap” a Grenadier Squad for cheesy wipes.

I think it would work, and was already done in CoH 1, so the idea is sound, it would just require adjusting the costs around a bit to make it balanced.

24 Sep 2019, 04:13 AM
#73
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 618



Why not both?

Putting the Royal Engineers in tier 1 makes a lot of sense for early game CQB but are still fairly weak compared to dedicated CQB units like Sturm Pioneers and Assault Engineers.

But if you put them in Tier 1, AND give them a Hammer Tech upgrade then UKF build orders might include Royal Engineers more often in the early game but also promote keeping them around late game regardless of whether you go Anvil or Hammer.

I don’t know about the UC though. I like the proposed unit design but without it in tier 1 UKF lacks a sniper counter until they tech up.

If you also reworked the Infantry Section’s recon upgrade to include a pay per shot snipe ability, passive cloak and a single scoped Lee-Enfield, a No.4 Mk1(T), then Infantry Sections could be used to counter snipe a sniper, but not be economical to be using the ability too often. It would also have to take up at least one, maybe both, weapon slots so you wouldn’t want to spam them and be able to “double tap” or “triple tap” a Grenadier Squad for cheesy wipes.

I think it would work, and was already done in CoH 1, so the idea is sound, it would just require adjusting the costs around a bit to make it balanced.



My point of putting royal engineer in T1 is to support, as said, they provide early capping power, close dps protection for sections/vicker mgs, to avoid easy rush, and flanking if opportunities appear, but they are still not dedicated cqb unit. Royal engineer as now already have decent dps (comparable with pioneer) and 0.9 target size, i think this is enough to be very effective if combined with sections in early game. Dont get me wrong, i definitely like Thompson smg but latest tech is too late, i suggest a side tech in T2, as Thompson and satchel will be more useful in early mid to mid game.

About your concern about counter sniper if UC is moved to T2, i think it will not a serious problem. As now, using UC for sinper hunting is not very effective, since UC is not fast, fragile and snare is everywhere. Meanwhile, UKF's sniper just got buff so counter snipe with him is easier and sure is a better choice, and you have more field present with RE in T1.

I believe RE in T1 will improve UKF early game, while Turning UC into a truly fighting LV in T2 will bring more diversity to UKF mid game/lv play.
24 Sep 2019, 05:00 AM
#74
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1



My point of putting royal engineer in T1 is to support, as said, they provide early capping power, close dps protection for sections/vicker mgs, to avoid easy rush, and flanking if opportunities appear, but they are still not dedicated cqb unit. Royal engineer as now already have decent dps (comparable with pioneer) and 0.9 target size, i think this is enough to be very effective if combined with sections in early game. Dont get me wrong, i definitely like Thompson smg but latest tech is too late, i suggest a side tech in T2, as Thompson and satchel will be more useful in early mid to mid game.

About your concern about counter sniper if UC is moved to T2, i think it will not a serious problem. As now, using UC for sinper hunting is not very effective, since UC is not fast, fragile and snare is everywhere. Meanwhile, UKF's sniper just got buff so counter snipe with him is easier and sure is a better choice, and you have more field present with RE in T1.

I believe RE in T1 will improve UKF early game, while Turning UC into a truly fighting LV in T2 will bring more diversity to UKF mid game/lv play.


All are fair points.

Any new special upgrade for Sappers would only make sense as part of Hammer since Anvil gets one currently. You’re right that it would come very late, but that doesn’t mean it would be useless, just situational. Doing it as side tech earlier just wouldn’t fit the progression model for UKF.

RE are decent already and I like them as a supporting unit for Tommies in tier 1. Adding additional incentive to get them by guaranteeing a future upgrade with both final tier tech choices would encourage players to build them early and keep them unupgraded in order to get the better upgrade later instead of only getting them as PIAT holders and repair guys.

24 Sep 2019, 08:44 AM
#75
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

i think we should start with a close range buff to match grens. rather than reworking so many things.

the reason is simple. well microed tommies should beat assault grens when outnumbering them with focused fire.

that the only problem with tommies right now and would fix most CQB situation that tommies come under early game and allow some sort of territory contest.
26 Sep 2019, 17:31 PM
#76
avatar of Panzerjager1943

Posts: 31

Here's how I see the issue of Tommies.

Pre-patch, the 5-man, Vet-3, double-Bren Tommy squad was nearly indestructible. The 4-man, Vet-0, no upgrade Tommy was balanced.

Post-patch, the 5-man, Vet-3, double-Bren Tommy is now balanced.
But the 4-man Vet-0, no upgrade Tommy is basically useless and the early game is grossly in favour of the Axis, so getting that improved squad tends to be difficult if you're being continually forced off the field.

It would be good to find a balance point where the upgrade paths for the Tommies offered less of a huge advantage, but the base starting squad is still a functional asset. This would require some carefully thought-out changes.

Here is what I think could work:
-Revert the 'cover bonus' change or improve SMLE's base accuracy.
-Reduce the effectiveness of Veterancy especially regarding squad survival.
-Increase the manpower upkeep of 5-man Tommy squads, and add a note about it in the upgrade tooltip. You sacrifice some additional manpower income to have 20% more health and 20% more firepower in all your squads.
-Possibly raise or lower the cost of the 5-man upgrade relative to these changes. We will need to see how they affect the unit to decide if modifying its cost needs to be done in either direction.

Ideally, we would be able to improve the starting squad's utility while reducing the ridiculous effectiveness of the maximum-upgrade/veterancy squad. Maybe none of my changes could be used at all, but that is what I think would be the most desirable outcome. And it's the end results that matter to me most of all.
26 Sep 2019, 20:31 PM
#77
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2140 | Subs: 1

I played a few games of UKF today and they feel almost completely useless now. Tommies can't carry the load anymore and are a complete liability at any stage of the game. Hard to believe how such small changes had such a big impact. RIP UKF for now.
26 Sep 2019, 20:49 PM
#78
avatar of BenKenobi

Posts: 34

Apart from late game, they are simply horrible; especially if you include all the tech that must go to getting them. This is especially crucial if your enemy goes for Luchs, 251 or flame halftrack, because you are then forced to either bolster and have semi-competitive infantry, or AEC and have an AT asset that is not all-or-nothing like an AT gun.

Not to mention that unlike other mainline infantry, they do have glaring weak spots, mainly the inability to snare, the need to chose between potentially being wiped when hugging a cover and full DPS in the late game, and their non-existent DPS on the move. Apart from very late game, the only saving crutch of Tommies is their health kit that is quite useful to keep the battlefield presence.

Anyway, post-patch Tommies are imho utterly incapable of dealing with inf-heavy strats. I don't know if it is just the nerf to Tommies, or the nerf coupled with buffs to assgrens, falls etc., but their effectiveness in early, mid and early late game is nowhere near what it was.

There was quite an interesting point by Vipper earlier in the thread to make them cost 240 and always come with 4 men, having to always buy the additional one after bolster is researched.

EDIT: Also, dropped from 65 to 160 and it seems AEC is now mandatory as you cannot protect your AT gun nearly as reliably as before.
26 Sep 2019, 21:08 PM
#79
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 4116 | Subs: 1

Just so we're clear, not being good on the move is SUPPOSED to be the norm, not the crux of a unit. Before WFA you were supposed to be stationary to fight to best effect so that special units could make use of mobility and firing on the move. Just because rifles and volks and WFA style penals are charging monsters doesn't mean that Tommies should be awful not being able to do that.

I think the game needs to slow down a bit and return to its roots here. Handing out automatics that fire on the move to everyone and dps centralizing weapon upgrades are pulling the tactical elements away from the game. Same thing with snares. They used to semi limited, now since the most prevalent infantry has them they are saturated to the point that not having it is a huge negative instead of a redeeming positive and huge advantage. At this point we might as well just say fuck it and give all Infantry a. 75 moving modifier and snare and just suck the rest of the uniqueness out if the factions entirely
26 Sep 2019, 21:17 PM
#80
avatar of BenKenobi

Posts: 34

I understand you (I would still claim that no other unit has such a dramatic DPS drop as BREN sections on the move). What I meant is that before, Tommies could not do these things, but gave a good performance in the actual anti-infantry combat. It was an understandable trade off of sorts. Now they perform poorly in anti-infantry combat and still cannot do all the things other mainline infantry (bar Grenadiers on the move) can.
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
  • Oberkommando West flag Zyswen
  • The British Forces flag T.R. Opportunity Cost
Faymonville Approach
Faymonville Approach Honor
Honor it
3
Download
Download
15
uploaded by Zyswen

Board Info

134 posts in the last 24h
538 posts in the last week
3772 posts in the last month
Registered members: 25149
Welcome our newest member, Mumus778
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM