Login

russian armor

How are Infantrysections since patch?

PAGES (16)down
26 Sep 2019, 21:43 PM
#81
avatar of Fire and Terror

Posts: 224

i feel like they could use a small buf (when in cover) or maybe even outside, if their 5 men upgrate is locked after the tech that calls in tanks( cant remember name) , otherwise it will be impossible to balance, either too good or too bad
26 Sep 2019, 22:07 PM
#82
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 2954

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

+1

SAS in coh2 would make me very excited. They could just use the airlanding officer model and could be Brit's version of paras/shocks or something.
26 Sep 2019, 22:15 PM
#83
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 4116 | Subs: 1

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.

I agree. I think they are moving in the wrong direction trying to turn them into grens. Keep them unique. Realign some faction design here.... Officers are forced rifle squads, volks are do it all ignore your elite infantry infantry, Tommies are a shell of their initial design with all the drawbacks and none of the advantages of ANY design and cons, the early game map control unit are only viable after a full tech. At least Ost still have its design at heart... The others are being made more or less the same throwing out the elements that make the game interesting.
26 Sep 2019, 22:54 PM
#84
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 2954


I agree. I think they are moving in the wrong direction trying to turn them into grens. Keep them unique. Realign some faction design here.... Officers are forced rifle squads, volks are do it all ignore your elite infantry infantry, Tommies are a shell of their initial design with all the drawbacks and none of the advantages of ANY design and cons, the early game map control unit are only viable after a full tech. At least Ost still have its design at heart... The others are being made more or less the same throwing out the elements that make the game interesting.

IDK they're still very good 5 man long range lmg squads that can build bags and trenches. Arguably better anti infantry for the first half of the game than rifles (with that coming at severely less versatility).

I think they're fine, they just need some sort of other nondoc infantry like SAS to complement their weaknesses. Also nondoc SAS would just be extremely cool lol.
26 Sep 2019, 23:23 PM
#85
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8606 | Subs: 1

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.


That is probably because the Bren does not fire on the move :). All infatry that can not fire their weapons on the move suffer a dramatic DPS drop while moving....
26 Sep 2019, 23:36 PM
#86
avatar of BenKenobi

Posts: 34

Thanks. Your intellectual capacity, ability to understand both the text and the meaning behind it, as well as the ability to convey important messages without drowning in banal observations, empty sophistry, meaningless one-liners and tangential walls of texts are unparalleled on this forum. I am only lost on why you waste your incredible capacities in here instead of putting it to use with Clifford Chance, BBC analysts or the Legal Service of the European Commission. They would all kill to get you on board.
26 Sep 2019, 23:50 PM
#87
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8606 | Subs: 1

Thanks...

You are welcomed. I am just glad that you are now aware that Bren tommies do not fire their bren on the move exactly the same way grenadier do not fire their lmg42 on the move.

And actually DB guards lose more DPS on the move...
27 Sep 2019, 08:10 AM
#88
avatar of Stark

Posts: 590 | Subs: 1

Like Barton said, the main issue here is that Tommies are the only basic infantry UKF has. They had to be good early, mid and late game. They have to face spam of volks, grens and more elite infantry like obers or panzergrens. Lack on any form of diversity force to make them overperforming vs axis mainline infantry. If UKF tech would allow to build more elite form of infantry similar to obers, panzergrens, jeagers etc would give more options to balance team more directly for a early/mid and weaker in later stage of a game.

Similar thing we can notice in USF tech. All factions should have at least 2 infantry unit that they can build (expect of engineers squad), one weaker and more spammable, second more elite and better in the longer term.

Conclusion of this tread is that IS should have their 5th man upgrade should be also move individualy to a squad and take 1 weapon slot. Then we can buff there early game - 4 men squad.
Perfect scenario would be that Tommies with costly upgrades can scale from early game (equal vs volks/grens but not overperforming vs them) into late game where they can fight vs obers/pgrens/falls but avoiding deadly blobs that we had before.
27 Sep 2019, 09:48 AM
#89
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8606 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Sep 2019, 08:10 AMStark
Like Barton said, the main issue here is that Tommies are the only basic infantry UKF has. They had to be good early, mid and late game. They have to face spam of volks, grens and more elite infantry like obers or panzergrens. Lack on any form of diversity force to make them overperforming vs axis mainline infantry. If UKF tech would allow to build more elite form of infantry similar to obers, panzergrens, jeagers etc would give more options to balance team more directly for a early/mid and weaker in later stage of a game.

Similar thing we can notice in USF tech. All factions should have at least 2 infantry unit that they can build (expect of engineers squad), one weaker and more spammable, second more elite and better in the longer term.

Conclusion of this tread is that IS should have their 5th man upgrade should be also move individualy to a squad and take 1 weapon slot. Then we can buff there early game - 4 men squad.
Perfect scenario would be that Tommies with costly upgrades can scale from early game (equal vs volks/grens but not overperforming vs them) into late game where they can fight vs obers/pgrens/falls but avoiding deadly blobs that we had before.

Maybe one could offer some sort of upgrade with the anvil/hammer tech similar to 7th man for conscripts.
27 Sep 2019, 11:04 AM
#90
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 618

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Sep 2019, 09:48 AMVipper

Maybe one could offer some sort of upgrade with the anvil/hammer tech similar to 7th man for conscripts.


6 man infantry sections in anvil? No slot?
27 Sep 2019, 11:24 AM
#91
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 618

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Sep 2019, 09:48 AMVipper

Maybe one could offer some sort of upgrade with the anvil/hammer tech similar to 7th man for conscripts.


Allow me to add some of my thinking on your ideas. Let say, make infantry sections 5 man from the stat but with only 1 weapon slot, then hammer add the 6th man and anvil add the 2nd weapon slot. Upgrade will be paid for each squad separately once hammer/anvil has been researched.

Bolster upgrade and cover gimmick can be completely remove then.
27 Sep 2019, 11:33 AM
#92
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8606 | Subs: 1



Allow me to add some of my thinking on your ideas. Let say, make infantry sections 5 man from the stat but with only 1 weapon slot, then hammer add the 6th man and anvil add the 2nd weapon slot. Upgrade will be paid for each squad separately once hammer/anvil has been researched.

Bolster upgrade and cover gimmick can be completely remove then.

I personally I am not a big fun of 6 men squads lets leave that for soviet as stock...

My personal opinion is that UKF is one of the worst design factions. A decent solution I see would be to take advantage of the hammer anvil design and offer to paths of UKF for each stage of the game. Either defensive units closer to Ostheer design (4 men squads with LMGs) or offensive units close to USF design (5 men squads with BAR type of weapons). Similar with tanks.

In addition to more option on how much one can invest in emplacements both in tech and cost.

Finally UKF stock units that semi elite infatry could get some sort of upgrade with hammer/anvil. For instance the 4 men squads an officer with Pistol/Smg that increased the durability of the unit without increasing the Far DPS or some sort of timed ability for 5 men squad increasing RA or DPS for 5 men squads.
27 Sep 2019, 11:48 AM
#93
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 618

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Sep 2019, 11:33 AMVipper

I personally I am not a big fun of 6 men squads lets leave that for soviet as stock...

My personal opinion is that UKF is one of the worst design factions. A decent solution I see would be to take advantage of the hammer anvil design and offer to paths of UKF for each stage of the game. Either defensive units closer to Ostheer design (4 men squads with LMGs) or offensive units close to USF design (5 men squads with BAR type of weapons). Similar with tanks.

In addition to more option on how much one can invest in emplacements both in tech and cost.

Finally UKF stock units that semi elite infatry could get some sort of upgrade with hammer/anvil. For instance the 4 men squads an officer with Pistol/Smg that increased the durability of the unit without increasing the Far DPS or some sort of timed ability for 5 men squad increasing RA or DPS for 5 men squads.


So, following your feedback. Infantry sections will still stat with 4 man, i'm ok with that.

Now if we let them stat with 1 weapon slot, then anvil will add the 2nd slot and give them survivability upgrade like armour/RA to become ober equivalent, and, hammer add 5th man and change their only bren to elite bren profile - aka fire on the move, the 5th model will use a sten or Thompson.

What's about that ?
27 Sep 2019, 11:56 AM
#94
avatar of The Spycrab

Posts: 38

I agree brits need an alternative infantry, perhaps a unit from the colonies e.g. India, poorly trained supporting inf secs performing slightly better than conscripts due to their weapons and assuming nothing changes about the brits at the moment, come in 5 man and bolster allows it to become 6 man but loses cover bonus, possible 6th model could be an officer that boosts the squads by coming with a self healing med kit for 10 to 20 muni because of the fuel cost of bolster with a cooldown time for it being comparable to grens and only working out of combat

However on the note of infantry sections themselves they need to be the obers for brits, but ramp up from from the start to the level of obers to prevent brits dominating early game, so a suggestion would be to with building unlocks increase the accuracy, lowering their starting accuracy similar to how mortars are locked behind the first building upgrade, this will still allow them to compete with grenadiers when in cover and volks.

I understand some of this might be a flawed idea however I am open to suggestions on any way this can be improved as a suggestion
27 Sep 2019, 12:04 PM
#95
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8606 | Subs: 1



So, following your feedback. Infantry sections will still stat with 4 man, i'm ok with that.

Now if we let them stat with 1 weapon slot, then anvil will add the 2nd slot and give them survivability upgrade like armour/RA to become ober equivalent, and, hammer add 5th man and change their only bren to elite bren profile - aka fire on the move, the 5th model will use a sten or Thompson.

What's about that ?

One could try an anvil/hammer upgrade for T0 that replaces weapon unlock. Now instead of brens, Anvil gets Vickers -K and the cover mechanism that provides a bonus in cover and penalty out of cover.

Bren can be redesign to be more like BAR and I guess one could allow 2 weapon slots.

Non upgrade Enfield should be redesigning to be more like K98 and cost IS could go down 260. Bolster could be limited only to hammer.

Tanks could see similar changes with valentine (redesigning as mini Churchill)/Cromwell and maybe Tulip/17p options in T4.

The idea is to separate the upgrades thus creating more tools for balancing and more choices for the player play-style.
27 Sep 2019, 12:17 PM
#96
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2815

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Sep 2019, 12:04 PMVipper

One could try an anvil/hammer upgrade for T0 that replaces weapon unlock. Now instead of brens, Anvil gets Vickers -K and the cover mechanism that provides a bonus in cover and penalty out of cover.

Bren can be redesign to be more like BAR and I guess one could allow 2 weapon slots.

Non upgrade Enfield should be redesigning to be more like K98 and cost IS could go down 260. Bolster could be limited only to hammer.

Tanks could see similar changes with valentine (redesigning as mini Churchill)/Cromwell and maybe Tulip/17p options in T4.

The idea is to separate the upgrades thus creating more tools for balancing and more choices for the player play-style.


Yes please on the Hammer/Anvil theme choice.
27 Sep 2019, 13:49 PM
#97
avatar of Jilet

Posts: 400

IMO Sections are fine currently. They still beat every single mainline in cover and are a Grenadier clone at the game start (except for the 14 damage part yet they still got higher DPS at long to mid range).

Edit : I was saying they are a grenadier clone in terms of durability.***

The best way to balance them is IMO reducing their weapon slot to 1 and using some of the models to create a new unit to support them. (Think it like OST PGrens supporting Grens) While this will add more diversity to the faction itself it will also create a micro-play enviroment.
27 Sep 2019, 13:51 PM
#98
avatar of Jilet

Posts: 400

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Sep 2019, 12:04 PMVipper

One could try an anvil/hammer upgrade for T0 that replaces weapon unlock. Now instead of brens, Anvil gets Vickers -K and the cover mechanism that provides a bonus in cover and penalty out of cover.

Bren can be redesign to be more like BAR and I guess one could allow 2 weapon slots.

Non upgrade Enfield should be redesigning to be more like K98 and cost IS could go down 260. Bolster could be limited only to hammer.


That is actually a great idea.
27 Sep 2019, 13:53 PM
#99
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1362 | Subs: 3

remove / reduce the received accuracy penalty out of cover, not alpha striking models already has done allot for balancing tommies.
27 Sep 2019, 15:12 PM
#100
avatar of SpaceCow

Posts: 44

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Sep 2019, 12:04 PMVipper

One could try an anvil/hammer upgrade for T0 that replaces weapon unlock. Now instead of brens, Anvil gets Vickers -K and the cover mechanism that provides a bonus in cover and penalty out of cover.

Bren can be redesign to be more like BAR and I guess one could allow 2 weapon slots.

Non upgrade Enfield should be redesigning to be more like K98 and cost IS could go down 260. Bolster could be limited only to hammer.

Tanks could see similar changes with valentine (redesigning as mini Churchill)/Cromwell and maybe Tulip/17p options in T4.

The idea is to separate the upgrades thus creating more tools for balancing and more choices for the player play-style.


Wow that is a good idea
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

245 users are online: 3 members and 242 guests
BIS-Commando, Highfiveeeee, Sully
141 posts in the last 24h
535 posts in the last week
3765 posts in the last month
Registered members: 25145
Welcome our newest member, Stidham
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM