Profile of SeductiveCardbordBox

People defending high rear armor because when you get flanked you want RNG to save you instead of actually having to support your tanks. The L2P is strong in this thread.

If you get flanked = it is your fault.

If you lose your tank to a flank = you did not support it well enough.

I defend it on the Church and the church only.

Its armament and abilities mean it is designed quite literally to drive up to grenade throwing range to be its most effective, and fire ports on both sides with AI guns sticking out means you get most milage aiming for the middle of your enemy's line. It's also slow to get there, and slow to get out, and anvil never gets war speed.

Flanking an advancing churchill is trivial. Almost expected. Unlike a Tiger, the Church cannot stay at long range and still have a big impact with a high pen, infantry busting main gun.

Positioning still matters, because the rear armour is a lot lower. But when your tank has to get THAT close, and doesn't even have the huge punch of something like the Brumm, the rear armour that can take some hits makes sense.

RE adding a mortar to the UKF as stock:
This is literally exactly what they did for the USF. And the USF have T0 available smoke grenades that comr with your starting unit, not a unit locked behind tech that you then need to also buy.


RE the mortar pit barrage:
Unless you give the pit a pack up and move option it will never replicate what a mobile mortar does. Mobile mortars scale to any game mode because you can move them with your force. A static pit is garbage on a big map once the fight shifts.
Giving them a massive barrage range is just slapping a band aid on the problem that also means you can always barrage your opponent's base as soon as they retreat. If the cooldown is quick enough to allow a stationaty pit to replicate a short range non doc mortar its borderline abuse to base sectors.
Not to mention that stationaty emplacements mean after they fire once your opponenent always knows whwre itis and can plan accordingly, unlike mobile weapon teams. Its the same problem the vickers has with trench based vet bonuses. Static play is bad and should be discluraged. Even a static line shoupd be repositioning units to remain protected from blindfire and catch pushes off guard. Why you want to further encourage a literal pit in the ground baffles me.

There's no way you can make a purely stationary emplacement sufficient for all games modes. If it works on the largest 2v2 maps, never mind the 4v4, it will totally saturate the map in 1v1. And for an expensive static late game howitzer, that is fine. For an early game autofiring mortar it is not.

Mobility is important because the units have to be able to move with a front line.
Mobility is important because preserving veterancy on your indirect requires an ability to retreat when a flame barrage round lands on you.
Mobility is important because on big maps no unit in the game has a range that spans the entire area of a map you could potentially fight on.

Mortar pits are not a viable replacement for mobile indirect because mobility is crucial to their functionality, not an optional extra. No range on a static post will ever be viable in the extremes of 1v1 to 4v4 in the way that a mobile mortar is.

Even the size sifference on some 1v1 maps make a barrage that could support both flanks on the largest straight up overshoot the enemy base on the smallest.

In what way is the lack of mobile indirect somehow addressed by the mortar pit?

The shortest range static emplacement going? Key word static?

And how is a sexton somehow worse than a non doc Katty or Stuka or Werfer available already?

The brits lack any way to bring the indirect firepower that team games downright necessitate and range is literally the most important factor for static howitzers in those situations.

A mortar pit is not a solution to needing on demand smokes. A mortar pit is not something you can use with your army on flanks or pushes. Mortar rounds do not have the single burst damage or area saturation needed to break up a defensive line.

Given that no UKF rocket truck model exists and apparently just giving them a mortar the exact same way the USF got one for the exact same historical problem, we're going to have to rely on the Sexton.

Wouldn't a Churchill charging two Paks get snared though?

Sander's issue is between the chair and keyboard, its nothing to do with the design of the Churchill.



More serioualy - really. A moving church can, apparently, move through the full length of a PaK range, wipe one purely with moving shots, advance on another, eat no snares and then grenade wipe the second?

BS. Maybe one every tousand games the perfect tank shell rng will come through, that's hardly a balance worry.