Profile of nee

thread title should be "poll: favourite allied medium tank".

Is it me or is Reverse totally fucked now? I'd tell a vehicle to go three feet behind, and it opts to do a complete turn around.

I've personally managed myself well enough in regards to Axis vs. UKF. Against OKW simcity however is far less common.

IMO the problem I see with simcity is that, at least from the UKF perspective, you kind of have to go for it because of faction design. It's not like a commander choice, you either take ground and huddle, preferably with Bofors, or you try to rush expensive base units holding territory. UKF is the complete opposite of USF and Soviets, units are neither cheap nor mobile enough to make for a offensive-oriented aggressive approach.

Sure you CAN try to be gutsy with an AEC, but ultimately UKF is about emplacements: try playing any game using zero emplacements as UKF, it's not even designed to work that way. So the problem is that you really can't try anything else when you play as British. OKW is kind of the same thing- putting down HQ trucks in far territories is both an advantage and sometimes a necessity to win...but you can still opt to just put them down in HQ sector and operate like Ostheer/ Soviets. The need to simcity you HQ trucks only really comes in if they are put in a position where you have to; unlike UKF emplacements you can try to hide them in corners of a base or in a protected salient of the map- in contrast you're wasting precious manpower, fuel and popca if you did that as UKF.

In that regard, my feelings toward playing as/against UKF has largely been the forced need to deal with simcity. Had UKF been designed where emplacements were a non-doctrinal alternative then that might be different. For example, amalgamating both mortar and bofors emplacement as a T2 upgrade via a Defensive specialization, whereas a light mortar team and AEC fulfill an alternate Offensive specialization. At least then, you've got two things going: as UKF you can opt to try a more mobile but squishy approach instead of campy simcity, and as opponent you are guessing whether the British player is going for mobility or consolidation.
That might require revisiting certain UKF designs though, especially the latest Advanced Emplacement commander, whose sole purpose in its selling point is augmenting the emplacement end of things.

On the whole I never liked how a specific faction is designed so much around emplacements. At least for Axis, PaK43 and Hulldown are only available if you sacrifice the choice of Tiger or CAS. For UKF it's not only a given, it's a must.

So what makes (UKF) simcity boring is that you literally cannot do anything else. Same goes for Soviets: wanna build emplacements? Well Soviets have zero.

Firstly the portraits, one looks like a bad guy fawkes disguise and the other a melted donald trump. Really poor effort compared to the originals

Yeah I have to agree, it kinda looks like they got interns photoshopping one or more reference drawings. Some CoH2 portraits look realistic whereas others look cartoony in comparison. But then again it's Relic.

2: Infiltration commandos are just regular commandos with four dudes? Relic are new skins really that hard to add when you are selling this as new content. I mean you could have added some badass SAS type skins but no

To be fair the newness is the unit as spawning from building (but ranted that's neither really new, and frankly they felt like severely nerfed Fallschirmjaegers without panzerfaust).
Youre also not talking about skins, but also models. SKkins would be giving them different camo but still look like dudes with funny hats and wearing the same gear; what you're asking are totally different models with their own meshes and such. Are these guys even technically a separete distinct unit in their own right, or are they literally a copypaste of the Glider Commandos with a few abilities removed? But then again it's Relic.

3: American weapons (m2 flamer) as an unhistorical upgrade for British infantry, really is there any excuse for this? just lazy recycling of assets again posed as new content

The newness is giving UKF infantry flamethrower upgrade. Personally I think the last thing they need is flamer, you already got a great flamer in the form of the UC, and that thing doesn't require waiting for CP unlock (plus a T2 unit).

4: The entire advanced emplacement commander being nothing but slight code changes to units, zero new content, zero new emplacements

Quite a lot of commander things are based heavily slight code changes. But then again it's Relic.

5: Now the land mattress is cool, new units are always a plus but the landmatteress was in the game files during the UKF beta. So again relic pretty much just snipped existing content away from UKF launch and sold it as "new" content a few months down the line.

I personally didn't think land mattress was cool, besides flashy rockets, it was more like what Sexton shoulda have been: effective.

But then again it's Relic.

Overall they aren't horrible, just obviously rushed and tacked on for profit. Looking at them in the game makes me think "are these fake?"

I'm sorry for the mapmaker but I assume my words. We are speaking of maps to which purpose is to be enjoyable when played, not canvas to be printed in your bedroom wall.
Making a map beautiful with a lot of details isn't making of you a good mapmaker. Ensuring the map is balanced and provides an acceptable level of gameplay does....
I also agree on the fact it is probably not 100% his fault, he didn't ask to have the map in the automatch and Relic, as always has a part of responsibility in it.

But you are laying blame on the wrong person. Personally I don't think the map is as bad as you say it is, but I can understand why it's problematic to be in automatch. Just because I think it's great doesn't mean it should, and certainly not because I happen to like particular types of maps more often than others.
Certain design considerations inherently make certain (types of) maps unsuitable for automatch. This I think is the real problem behind maps like Sittard; it's not a bad map per se, it's just not the kind of map that anyone would want to find consistently playing; at least in custom matches the host chose it at will, or you entered a lobby because you wanted to play Sittard. In Automatch, you play Sittard because the game decided you should...even after you played like eight times in a row and since become sick of it. Maps like Sittard are simply not the kind of maps that fit the automatch bill. Yes yes I know veto, but then you end up playing another map you probably hate more since there are only so many maps you can veto.

The REAL problem is: Relic has no real criteria for automatch besides its apparent popularity or the reputation of the map maker. They'll put in a map that looks good and they may have actually played it a few times, but that's hardly a gauge to whether the community would want to play it.

As much as I love Sittard, it's certainly not one of the maps that should be in automatch, not until Relic adds a subsection of "Defense/ Bridge battle" category to veto.