Brits in 1v1 is a joke

Bah it comes to preference as the stun got nerfed hard, the overall vet of the 6 pounder is better with 100% bonus rotation at vet 2 and 30% bonus accuracy for 10% less reload speed,the vet 1 of the 6 pounder can be used both offensively and defensively at the bonus speed help u cath tank or run from inf/tank/arty

Half of these upgrades grens have without spending additional dime....

...they pay a lot for any upgrade. For ost You also need to add the risk of losing those upgraded 4 men units - much higher than for 5 men squads. Your argument that they are cheaper also is not completely true. First, there is the cost of the building they come from. Sections come from tier 0. Secondly, sections still cost 270 after the bolster. So you replace a 5 men section for only 270 manpower. The cost difference is not that great.

Sections actually can't snipe team weapons just as good, can't make enemy HMG deathloop, can't get opponent out of cover without exposing themselves, can't keep light vehicles away from team weapons.

And yeah, there is a MASSIVE difference on reliance on support weapons between the factions.

That is simply not true. Grens are much worse than sections at all the things you listed. Their reliance of support weapons is not an advantage. It is simply a must because grens are so weak. If you support sections in a similar way with vickers and other support UKF has you will achieve better results.

Now, about the red part, agreed, you are 100% correct, that's why people who want to buff grens should finally shut up. Sections were overnerfed on the other hand and had to be rebuffed.

Lastly, sections have LESS and less efficient support then grens, vickers suppresses worse then HMG42, sniper shoots slower, there is no mobile mortar to help them at all, no reinforcement halftruck that also heals them, no assault infantry protecting them from CQC specialists.
Name one.

And this is just totally wrong I'm afraid. People keep wanting to buff most allied mainline infantry and keep repeating (after you) that ostheeer is designed to be reliant on support weapons. That is correct. But using this logic allies should not have access to them or, if they have (and they have) their infantry can't be overbuffed. You can't have both support weapons and rambo style infantry. The game evolved into allies strong infantry (including sections) and similarly powerful support weapons. In a matchup it is just not fair. For example, vickers is ok and has some cool features, especially range. Remeber once again - it will be shooting at 4 men squads - this alone will make it more efficient at draining manpower and forcing retreats. Sniper is again definitely not inferion as it can stun vehicles and will shot at 4 men squads. Each shot will drain more manpower and reduce more dps on ostheer units. You have a mortar and a mobile mortar with a commander. You also have artillery from sections and their sight increased thanks to that. Again - the reinforcement halftrack means manpower and fuel delayed tech - you can build reinforcement structure. Assault infantry you get with commanders, but sections are ok at dealing with most threats. Brits are more powerful than You think, especially lategame.

Tactical flexibility

Terrible on the move
Cannot build free sandbags or trenches
Grenade that doesn’t help when flanking or against charging units
Poor survivability

Damn it's almost as if Ostheer need some elite assault infantry with a nuke grenade and can scale great with vet non doc.

Oh wait they do, ostheer are not limited to ONLY grens compared to Tommies like UKF are so reliant on. But UKF are now stuck with gren level infantry and nothing else unless you lock yourself out of key doctrinal tools like heavy tanks.


Nobody wants to pick land mattress or m10 commander every game just to have a chance of remaining competitive on any cqb maps.

Oi cheeky fanboi, youre tearing this forum apart with your bias!

Check your facts mate pls, UKF has downsides but nothing was ever fixed by breaking others, when doing comparisons do it with a purpose not just blank rant.

Rule of thumb of a productive post:
-The use of "nobody, everyone, all" are mostly rushed generalizations
-Opinions are not facts, they add flavour but dont feed any argument.
-Suggestions promote solutions, complaints always create more problems.
-Comparisons are hard in this game, because most factors are balanced in other aspects of the unit/faction/game
-Always play all the factions, otherwise most issues are reduced to L2P

...But UKF are now stuck with gren level infantry and nothing else

Lets not spread this "IS being similar to grens" BS. Its a lie.

unless you lock yourself out of key doctrinal tools like heavy tanks...

All other factions have to decide to have either early/lategame doctrinal options, if UKF just joined the club, then congratulations, officialy UKF left being a P2W faction.

All other factions have to decide to have either early/lategame doctrinal options, if UKF just joined the club, then congratulations, officialy UKF left being a P2W faction.

I'm new in the community and keep seeing this P2W UKF everywhere. Can anyone explain me how UKF is or was a P2W faction? You can get the whole game, including UKF, dirt cheap in Steam sales and if UKF is criticized for being sold seperately why OKW and USF aren't criticized for that too?

I'm new in the community and keep seeing this P2W UKF everywhere. Can anyone explain me how UKF is or was a P2W faction? You can get the whole game, including UKF, dirt cheap in Steam sales and if UKF is criticized for being sold seperately why OKW and USF aren't criticized for that too?

They were really strong like a month and a half ago, now they are not nearly as good, so the perspectives you are getting probably depend on when those people were playing the game and making said comments. OKW and USF have been around so long that point is largely lost on them.

I'm new in the community and keep seeing this P2W UKF everywhere. Can anyone explain me how UKF is or was a P2W faction? You can get the whole game, including UKF, dirt cheap in Steam sales and if UKF is criticized for being sold seperately why OKW and USF aren't criticized for that too?

Mostly what hon3ynuts said, plus considering UKF is a standalone faction in a DLC.
Balance wise, most of time you see factions balancing each other, OST vs SU; OKW vs USF but UKF got no counterweight and its current design has migrated far from its original one, UKF is no longer a emplacement faction but a semi USF+OST mixture.

As achalpawal said, people are throwing out use support weapons for wehr. Not sure is purposeful obstufication or just lazy outdated thoughts.

Wehr support teams are no longer superior to counter balance their weaker infantry. They're a few differences in attributes to allies counterparts, and thats it. Allies have also given plenty of hard counters to these support teams.

Mostly what hon3ynuts said, plus considering UKF is a standalone faction in a DLC.
Balance wise, most of time you see factions balancing each other, OST vs SU; OKW vs USF but UKF got no counterweight and its current design has migrated far from its original one, UKF is no longer a emplacement faction but a semi USF+OST mixture.

I'm not arguing UKF are useless but picking the same two doctrines on 70% of the map pool that isn't crossing in the woods is hardly entertaining is it? Try playing against assgrens and pgrens without assault Tommies some time.


And yes Tommies now are on a similar level with grens after years of nothing but nerfs apart from two single minor buffs (tiny moving accuracy buff and 45muni Bren).

Tommies need to be more similar to rifleman OR Brits need some assault infantry if you ask me.

If I was a fanboy I would be here defending emplacements but I've actively been campaigning for their removal in place of a more USF and ost unit roster. Go check my post history, you'll see me calling out certain top "players" that have used nothing but UKF cheese to boost their ranks.

Allies have also given plenty of hard counters to these support teams.

This is another very important yet neglected balance issue. It could be said that a long time ago when mg42 would just completely shut off part of the map (for example, it had no delay when changing sides in a building!) allied factions got a lot of counter mg abilities (smoke, phosphorous smoke, etc.). Most of those abilities and attributes (e.g. ability to remain pinned relatively long without model losses) are still avaliable to them while osther can't deal with mgs in so many ways. Now we have each faction with similar support weapons just with slightly different timing.

This is another very important yet neglected balance issue. It could be said that a long time ago when mg42 would just completely shut off part of the map (for example, it had no delay when changing sides in a building!) allied factions got a lot of counter mg abilities (smoke, phosphorous smoke, etc.). Most of those abilities and attributes (e.g. ability to remain pinned relatively long without model losses) are still avaliable to them while osther can't deal with mgs in so many ways. Now we have each faction with similar support weapons just with slightly different timing.

Now that's a load of steamy bullshit right there.

Smoke existed always and for both sides.
Units taking less damage when suppressed is a mechanics that applies to all infantry of both sides equally.
Soviets have to choose between mortars and snipers to counter HMGs.
USF had to pay fuel for the option, now they have infenrior, overpriced mortar to help them after they have lost completely fuel option.
UKF has tech locked sniper only.

Ost has 2 counters in the very first tier and another one that nukes garrisoned team weapons in less them 10 seconds in T2.

That means ost not only have most cost efficient HMG, they also have most and most veried ways to hardcounter garrisoned HMGs.

Oh, and that "slightly different timing" makes for a world of difference. Cost is also considerably different as allied HMGs cost more, come much later, are much less effective or all 3 combined.

Now that's a load of steamy bullshit right there.

No. It is all true.

Smoke existed always and for both sides.

True. But ostheer has only mortar smoke stock. Allies have many more options on infantry and non doc on vehicles.

Units taking less damage when suppressed is a mechanics that applies to all infantry of both sides equally.

Everybody knows that. But 4 men squads have less health (80*4=360) while more man squads have more health (80*5=440; 80*6=520), which means that health will be depleated more quickly on ostheer main infantry.

Soviets have to choose between mortars and snipers to counter HMGs.

There are many more units to choose from - I usually go for flame engies in a clown car. You could trap a building with a demo; you have oorah cons with molotov, etc. Doctrine shocks with smoke just rule infantry battles, etc. and of course t70 is a beast here.

USF had to pay fuel for the option, now they have infenrior, overpriced mortar to help them after they have lost completely fuel option.

They have smoke on the officers, t0 mortar, and many more options including m20 smoke or even sherman smoke to cover advance.

UKF has tech locked sniper only.

No. They have universal carrier with flames, later mortar emplacement, but they have t0 mg so it may be build as quickly ost mg42. They get IS also in t0.

Ost has 2 counters in the very first tier and another one that nukes garrisoned team weapons in less them 10 seconds in T2.

You just exaggerate. They aren't any better than all the counters other factions have.

That means ost not only have most cost efficient HMG, they also have most and most veried ways to hardcounter garrisoned HMGs.

It is simply not true. Allies have both: more than reliable support weapons and potent and varied infantry squads!

Oh, and that "slightly different timing" makes for a world of difference. Cost is also considerably different as allied HMGs cost more, come much later, are much less effective or all 3 combined.

That is not true. UKF has their mg in t0! Costs are similar! Do you even play this game?

This is another very important yet neglected balance issue. It could be said that a long time ago when mg42 would just completely shut off part of the map (for example, it had no delay when changing sides in a building!)

That's false. MG changing sides was related to MG reload times. MG42 had a higher reload time than maxim, therefore it had a slower reposition time.

All team weapons which can be garrisoned within a building now share the same setup/re-position time of 4 seconds. This means a MG42 will take 4 seconds to switch windows and begin firing, as opposed to their old functionality which relied on their reload time. This creates more consistent behavior between team weapons and prevents some weapons from having delays as high as 6 or 7 seconds.

Everybody knows that. But 4 men squads have less health (80*4=360) while more man squads have more health (80*5=440; 80*6=520), which means that health will be depleated more quickly on ostheer main infantry.

If you are calculating HP against small arm fire, you need to use received accuracy for effective HP values.
The EHP from Pios, Grens or PGs are not equal. Both at vet 0 and at vet 3.

Against explosives, smaller squads are at disadvantage in reaction times against wipes, but higher number squads will get damaged more by nature of number of targets it can hit.


Also if you talk about suppression, i'm sure you don't know that smaller count squads receive less suppression than higher model squads. And that received accuracy makes suppressing units harder.

That's false. MG changing sides was related to MG reload times. MG42 had a higher reload time than maxim, therefore it had a slower reposition time.

There was a patch when it happend - trust me. Allied players rightfully cried.

If you are calculating HP against small arm fire, you need to use received accuracy for effective HP values.
The EHP from Pios, Grens or PGs are not equal. Both at vet 0 and at vet 3.

Against explosives, smaller squads are at disadvantage in reaction times against wipes, but higher number squads will get damaged more by nature of number of targets it can hit.


Also if you talk about suppression, i'm sure you don't know that smaller count squads receive less suppression than higher model squads. And that received accuracy makes suppressing units harder.

I know all about it. Still I stand with what I wrote. It is very easy to make a cons/rifle squad pinned long range and it will remain there forever not losing models. Plenty of time for flanking etc. You can't do that with grens/panzergrens. With stats there is a problem that quoting them in pieces makes no sense. 4 men squads are just easier to kill. Period. It is just incredible how a simple fact can sometimes be so difficult to admit to some.

There was a patch when it happend - trust me. Allied players rightfully cried.
.

Trust me, i had been since alpha and i've been digging on how the game works from pure curiosity. You would put reload bulletins:

" Veteran Training: Heavy Machine Gun (Maxim/MG42) from +3% damage and +2% accuracy to -10% reload"

to make performance inside buildings better.

I know all about it. Still I stand with what I wrote. It is very easy to make a cons/rifle squad pinned long range and it will remain there forever not losing models. Plenty of time for flanking etc. You can't do that with grens/panzergrens. With stats there is a problem that quoting them in pieces makes no sense. 4 men squads are just easier to kill. Period. It is just incredible how a simple fact can sometimes be so difficult to admit to some.

Then use the proper metrics to justify your points.
Osstruppen can be 6 man squads, but they die faster than 5 man squads such as Rifles or Volks. It's like talking about tanks survivability an ignoring armor and size while only focusing on the vehicles HP.

I didn't quote other point cause i either agree or disagree, but i feel they are at least justified.

Just to throw in my 2 cents, I think brits are trash mostly in part to their lack of indirect and their slow mid game that makes them hard to carry to the late.


Quick thoughts/feelings/pls don't rake me over the fires...

Rifle sections - better since the buff they got from the hot fix.
Vikers HMG - still kills models too quick to suppress in my opinion.
UC -in a good spot.
Sappers - in a good spot with AT nade
AEC - needs to fall more in line with Puma's role
AT gun- is fine
Comewell - is alright, could use a moving accuracy buff, anecdotal feels more like the t-34 accuracy.
Centar - in comparison to the new and improved Ostwind this thing is trash vs tanks/meds but fits the AI role well.
Firefly - Give or take, I'd rather have this unit preform better since its so specific but give it a higher cost (see jackson).
Churchill - In a good spot ~ still hands out a fair amount of free vet to AT guns due to low armor and just being slow.
Comet - Should get a range buff


TLDR: They rly just need the indirect with a few tweaks in the current meta
Again just my feelings.

Just to throw in my 2 cents, I think brits are trash mostly in part to their lack of indirect and their slow mid game that makes them hard to carry to the late.


Quick thoughts/feelings/pls don't rake me over the fires...

Rifle sections - better since the buff they got from the hot fix.
Vikers HMG - still kills models too quick to suppress in my opinion.
UC -in a good spot.
Sappers - in a good spot with AT nade
AEC - needs to fall more in line with Puma's role
AT gun- is fine
Comewell - is alright, could use a moving accuracy buff, anecdotal feels more like the t-34 accuracy.
Centar - in comparison to the new and improved Ostwind this thing is trash vs tanks/meds but fits the AI role well.
Firefly - Give or take, I'd rather have this unit preform better since its so specific but give it a higher cost (see jackson).
Churchill - In a good spot ~ still hands out a fair amount of free vet to AT guns due to low armor and just being slow.
Comet - Should get a range buff


TLDR: They rly just need the indirect with a few tweaks in the current meta
Again just my feelings.

Spot on.

Just to throw in my 2 cents, I think brits are trash mostly in part to their lack of indirect and their slow mid game that makes them hard to carry to the late.


Quick thoughts/feelings/pls don't rake me over the fires...

Rifle sections - better since the buff they got from the hot fix.
Vikers HMG - still kills models too quick to suppress in my opinion.
UC -in a good spot.
Sappers - in a good spot with AT nade
AEC - needs to fall more in line with Puma's role
AT gun- is fine
Comewell - is alright, could use a moving accuracy buff, anecdotal feels more like the t-34 accuracy.
Centar - in comparison to the new and improved Ostwind this thing is trash vs tanks/meds but fits the AI role well.
Firefly - Give or take, I'd rather have this unit preform better since its so specific but give it a higher cost (see jackson).
Churchill - In a good spot ~ still hands out a fair amount of free vet to AT guns due to low armor and just being slow.
Comet - Should get a range buff


TLDR: They rly just need the indirect with a few tweaks in the current meta
Again just my feelings.

centaur and ostwind at is equal standing still and much better on the move for centaur

centaur and ostwind at is equal standing still and much better on the move for centaur

The myth that the Ostwind is good against mediums lives on.

I should've made my own video on that "Ostwind OP penetration" thread, with a proper sample size.