nope u pay for a 4 men squad not a 5 men
I think for the cost and getting their nades and lmg,s and punishment out of cover they are slightly up.
Your pay for a 5 men squad but get 4 men until you pay more. The 2mp less reinforce cost and sandbags dont cover that completely.
Brits in 1v1 is a joke
Posts: 4474
Posts: 88
Posts: 97
It needs Smoke that's not tied to the mortar pit (which isn't very useful in 1v1). Giving Smoke of some description to Pyro Sections makes the most sense.
The faction also needs a stock assault option, given that it has none designed for this purpose.
Fix those issues and let doctrine take care of the rest.
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
The faction doesn't need a complete overhaul, just some tweaks to make it competitive in 1v1.
It needs Smoke that's not tied to the mortar pit (which isn't very useful in 1v1). Giving Smoke of some description to Pyro Sections makes the most sense.
The faction also needs a stock assault option, given that it has none designed for this purpose.
Fix those issues and let doctrine take care of the rest.
Mortar pit isn't useful in 2v2+ either. Other than that I agree.
Posts: 1289
nope u pay for a 4 men squad not a 5 men
They cost more and preformance difference with grens is not much in cover, out of cover they are worse. Their price also does not change after they bolster.
Posts: 3053
The faction doesn't need a complete overhaul, just some tweaks to make it competitive in 1v1.
It needs Smoke that's not tied to the mortar pit (which isn't very useful in 1v1). Giving Smoke of some description to Pyro Sections makes the most sense.
The faction also needs a stock assault option, given that it has none designed for this purpose.
Fix those issues and let doctrine take care of the rest.
+1
They also need mobile indirect or something to at least counter indirect spam, because double leig or mortar against brits is basically gg. They can't assault the position super well because most of the faction is not at all mobile and can't hunker down and play trench warfare attrition because they have no answer to indirect. Even smoke and a stock assault option wouldn't fix this entirely.
Posts: 4474
again they are not worse out of cover , only on the move , they beat gren out 9f cover
They cost more and preformance difference with grens is not much in cover, out of cover they are worse. Their price also does not change after they bolster.
Posts: 1351
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
If you give them assault squad stock, sections will have to be nerfed.
Well, you're up for a surprise then, because they just were nerfed so hard, they had to have a cost decrease.
Posts: 1351
Well, you're up for a surprise then, because they just were nerfed so hard, they had to have a cost decrease.
I'm aware as I play them a lot. They are balanced as they are. Adding different types of units will make them too potent. Players should start using some structures, UKF tanks are awesome and extremely sturdy. It is a really cool army in 1v1. USF is OP at the moment and shouldn't be used as a benchmark.
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
I'm aware as I play them a lot. They are balanced as they are. Adding different types of units will make them too potent. Players should start using some structures, UKF tanks are awesome and extremely sturdy. It is a really cool army in 1v1. USF is OP at the moment and shouldn't be used as a benchmark.
As said, sections are fine as now, but the faction is not. I dont see why adding some basic tools that the lineup lack suddenly make sections op, because their performance as an individual unit unchanged, the faction will be better then, but isn't it the purpose ?
Also, You say you play UKF alot, but if so, you must know all emplacements are in a terrible point and almost cant be seen in competitive lv. So far, i only see 1 single game as UKF in the championship, it is LLAR from Amstrong and there is no emplacements in it.
Posts: 1351
As said, sections are fine as now, but the faction is not. I dont see why adding some basic tools that the lineup lack suddenly make sections op, because their performance as an individual unit unchanged, the faction will be better then, but isn't it the purpose ?
But the faction is fine, too. Maybe churchill's rear armour is just too good.
Also, You say you play UKF alot, but if so, you must know all emplacements are in a terrible point and almost cant be seen in competitive lv. So far, i only see 1 single game as UKF in the championship, it is LLAR from Amstrong and there is no emplacements in it.
Emplacements are ok. Most players will go for USF as it is just soooo powrful atm and Soviets also have some crutch units thay are very good. It is more about putting USF in line and removing some cheese from Sov., more than buffing UKF. I'd add some more refund for packing up an emplecement rather than do anything else. For UKF it would be good to promote emplacements more to retain the design. Top players don't use them as static postions are not the best idea on high level play. If they were refunded with more resources it would lead to interesting engagements where they could prepare new static positions in different places surprising the enemy. It would be cool and players could experiment more with all those cool structures and the unique UKF design.
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
But the faction is fine, too.
With the lowest win rate at all mode and lowest pick time at the championship, sure.
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
Emplacements are ok... For UKF it would be good to promote emplacements more to retain the design.
Trust me, i like trench warfare, too, so Let buff emplacements.
Top players don't use them as static postions are not the best idea on high level play.
Cant fit in high lv of competitive play but still "OK". I'm so confused.
Posts: 5
Regarding the assault sections, I think it would solve a lot of issues, if they would be buildable from T0, spawned with the sten guns the currently have in game. The thompson upgrade would be locked behind weapon racks. The WP grenade would be bundled with it, or with the mills bomb upgrade. That is up for a debate. Assault sections from T0 would synergize well with the unupgraded UC, and carry brits through the rough early game. These guys might even be worthy to carry the PIATs.
I agree that the pyro sections should get some kind of smoke. I don't think that the faction needs a mobile mortar, just some tweaks to the barrages in the pit. But overally I find it viable if it is really well microed.
This would promote a lot more diversity in the infantry spectrum of the faction, which it in my opinion needs the most. The three types of sections would synergize together very well along with the universal carrier, so the medic upgrade won't be the obvious and no brain choice. I also think it's reasonable to make these upgrades lock one weapon slot. The thompson upgrade should lock both weapon slots.
The bofors should not be exclusive with the AEC, because brits have nothing against aircrafts other than the centaur, which is a pretty big investment and you sometimes really don't need it. Perhaps even remove the HQ upgrade and make it buildable by royal engineers from the start but with increased price by 10 fuel and some manpower.
The last thing is some kind of light vehicle. Perhaps the valentine, as it was proposed in the previous threads. This one should be locked behind tech and it should be exclusive with the AEC. I find these tweaks a lot simpler than those proposed in the previous threads and I think it should make brits unique, competitive and yet not too difficult to implicate and balance.
Posts: 556
As said, sections are fine as now, but the faction is not. I dont see why adding some basic tools that the lineup lack suddenly make sections op, because their performance as an individual unit unchanged, the faction will be better then, but isn't it the purpose ?
I agree with you on many points in this post but if Brits got their much needed tools (Assault Infantry,Non-doc mobile indirect platform) then Tommies will definently be nerfed.
In contrast with OST you can see the reason why Grens lose to any other infantry other than Cons (they lose to them when they get ther 7 man too) is because they have all the tools to help them out. Now imagine a faction which can grab 5man (durable) man with double LMGs supported by assault infantry and mortars
Have a good day.
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
I agree with you on many points in this post but if Brits got their much needed tools (Assault Infantry,Non-doc mobile indirect platform) then Tommies will definently be nerfed.
In contrast with OST you can see the reason why Grens lose to any other infantry other than Cons (they lose to them when they get ther 7 man too) is because they have all the tools to help them out. Now imagine a faction which can grab 5man (durable) man with double LMGs supported by assault infantry and mortars
Have a good day.
While saying about basic tools, i dont mean a complete set like ost. Beside some direct solutions of adding usf mortar and assault sections, Many ideas has been posted about how to fill the gaps in the lineup while still remain the unique. For now, pyro smoke barrage and a stock flamer is all i will ask, may be non exclusive bofor and AEC on top of that but not necessary a must.
Posts: 556
While saying about basic tools, i dont mean a complete set like ost. Beside some direct solutions of adding usf mortar and assault sections, Many ideas has been posted about how to fill the gaps in the lineup while still remain the unique. For now, pyro smoke barrage and a stock flamer is all i will ask, may be non exclusive bofor and AEC on top of that but not necessary a must.
Well thats reasonable.
Livestreams
9 | |||||
38 | |||||
13 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.611220.735+5
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.918405.694+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
6 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Xclusive
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM