Brits are responsible for the most bullshit and crap experiences of this game:
comet swarms
Arty cover
unbeatable croc
emplacements with brace
they had their fair share of this game. good thing they arent as present as before
I'm sorry, but when were "Comet swarms" EVER a thing? Ever? Like ever? |
I personally like the speed suggestion. It means that there would now be that much thinner of a line in which you can reasonably keep your sniper in an engagement, and you'd have to pay better attention to their positioning. I have no issue with sprints and the like forcing a retreat, they should be doing that anyways. |
You don't necessarily need to be leading them into an MG. |
The argument for the Jackson's superiority made sense when the USF sincerely struggled with any sort of anti-tank duties in earlier versions of the game. Now that we have the Pershing seeing more use, and their handheld AT options being more viable, I feel like it needs to be toned down. I'd support a 50 range Jackson. |
I'm a big fan of making the Hammer Gammon Bomb a sticky AT satchel clone to give Infantry Sections a heavy AT snare locked behind an unpopular tech choice. I feel they already have enough tools to deal with light vehicles.
I'm also a big fan of the AEC - I don't think it needs extra anti-infantry power as that would just make it more of a no-brainer choice. It's my favourite light vehicle after the Puma. Treadbreaker is very nasty against enemy light vehicles, and I've never had too much of an issue using it against Axis LVs.
I do highly recommend the Vickers Universal Carrier for anti-infantry duties - the suppression ability is incredibly useful, if a bit unreliable. It's a nice little machine for no fuel cost, and I feel like it's far too overlooked in favour of the WASP upgrade, seeing as it's the only non-doctrinal anti-garrison unit the Brits get.
I feel we should move away from the concept of 5-man Tommies as essential - as I've outlined in my own thread, I feel like with their current performance, 4-man Tommies should have some benefit over 5-man sections, namely no accuracy penalties or received accuracy penalties. That's an argument for another thread though. |
Back on the original suggestions: Sticky gammons would be fantastic. Are they the same range as satchels right now?
I'm not 100% on if they have the exact same range but's definitely at least half that of a standard grenade if not less. Essentially I wouldn't mind the Gammon Bomb just copying the current AT Satchel. |
The formula is simple.
4man sections - 1 weapon slot, can have medkit or pyro
5man sectioms - 0 weapon slots cannot upgrade.
My fav change however would be to make sections default 5men with 1 slot and pyro/medkit and the bolster upgrade for 6 men and no slots or upgrades.
Edit: obviously nerfing 5men sections to not have slots would mean an accompanying buff to stock sections to compensate and make the 5man upgrade attractive. Same with the 6man version.
I'm not a fan of 6-man Sections, and I would rather not make 5 men the standard squad size. I like the design philosophy of the Brits as a smaller, more well-trained force within the Allies, and I think giving 4-man Sections advantages over 5-man Sections would speak to this, as well as add a bit of versatility to the faction.
I also think that, in your proposal there, I'd rather 5-man Sections get an extra weapon slot as opposed to having theirs removed. |
The recent patch has not been kind to what was the standard Brit meta, which I feel was entirely justified. That being said, I feel that there is a lot of room for improvement, much of it focused around the Infantry Section. It's a weird unit that every Brit player is forced to use, and sits on a knife edge between extremely effective and absolute crap depending on the combat situation.
I think most can agree that the original design for the unit, centred around a very necessary Bolster upgrade and the cover bonus, is not tenable or even particularly fun to play against. As such, I had a few suggestions regarding how to change the unit with its current performance in mind, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on them. This is not an exhaustive list of all changes I think should be implemented at once, but rather some of the ones I've been spitballing.
Hammer Gammon Bombs Become Sticky
I'm not sure why the Hammer Gammon Bomb has remained the way it has. It's effective at taking down garrisons if your opponent isn't paying attention at all, and for destroying ambient buildings, but is utterly useless at its stated anti-tank role. It's a massive munitions investment for one explosive which doesn't even have the utility of the Penals' anti-tank satchel.
I feel it deserves the same treatment as the original satchel. This would fix the glaring hole of infantry snares that the faction still suffers from, while also giving tanks enough of a standoff range to engage the Infantry Sections. They're still the least effective mainline infantry unit while on the move, so leaving cover to throw a Gammon Bomb would be a risky move.
Lock Combat Penalties Behind Bolster
I'm not even certain if this is possible, but instead of Bolster being a straight upgrade to the Infantry Sections, what I'm proposing instead is this - 4-man Tommies don't have the received accuracy penalties out-of-cover they currently possess, and possess the current cover bonus permanently (and therefore get nothing extra from being in cover). When they are upgraded to 5-man Tommies, their accuracy is reduced and the necessity of the cover bonus is reinstated.
I personally enjoy playing with 4-man squads, and I almost never go for the Bolster upgrade, but it's obvious that the faction was designed around it. Therefore, I want to change this. Make 4-man squads combat effective enough without Bolster, and make Bolster inflict penalties on the squad in exchange for the extra man.
This is probably the riskiest proposal, and it would require looking at the economics of the Infantry Section again, but I really want to see Bolster as a choice instead of a requirement. I'd ideally like to see a tradeoff between larger, tankier 5-man squads versus more mobile but riskier 4-man squads.
Reintroduce a Recon Section
This has been suggested before, but I like the idea of an Infantry Section upgrade that gives Scoped Enfields. Ideally, these would fill a similar role as Pathfinders and Jaeger Light Infantry, and it would possibly be locked behind 4-man squads exclusively. As Brits lack for indirect fire, another unit capable of picking off squads in cover would be nice. Admittedly I've probably thought about this proposal the least.
What do you think? |
Difference being of course that no Allied faction actually crutches on support weapons and has much less fragile squads in general.
The Soviets don't crutch on support weapons? Really? |
Here's what would be better - "Forward Gear" and "Reverse Gear" as toggleables that switch between the two movement behaviours we've had thus far. |