About IS

I think Is should be rolled back. Cuz it is designed to be strong at typical situation so I think it should be strong if it has bolster and 2 brens. It is suck when out of cover and moving. + Think about g43 pzfusilers,obsers, vet3 pershing and etc.

Or at least Is should get its gun dmg back from 12 to 16.

This change made britsh so weak against okw. 2cp Falls just ignore covered tommies and kill it.
Especially just making 221 rules early 5 min when it came out cuz british has no way to stop it and reduced gun dmg make Is can't scratch 221 at all.
If Is doesnt get changed then 221 should be removed. This unit fucked the balance up. Axis have ways to stop early vehis. But allies don't except sov.

Or mg's suppresion system roll back would fix this problem too. Cuz when mg has become not to do his job, suprressing inf. The blobbing meta has begun. Look what sov does nowadays. Maxim has become trash so they spam dshk or strong units then axis one.

+I wonder ppl who says tommies patch is apporpriate plays Ukf. Cuz as i knoe no one plays ukf since the patch.

About the Tommy nerf this is what I posted on the reddit. The Tommy nerf while dps wise is "technically" the same. It makes a whole world of difference in two ways: The cover to cover movement is now much worse for tommies with the RA nerf. I think the RA nerf is the biggest change and it basically means if IS aren't in green cover they are really suffering. There's not a lot of green cover around most of the time and I can't stand the fact Tommies have worse mid to close range performance out of cover than grens. This RA nerf is on top of an overall dps nerf. The old 16 damage volley, while a bit inaccurate, gave more alpha damage and green cover damage than the 12 damage rifles of now. Remember that IS don't get any real accuracy/firerate combat bonuses until VET 3. Meaning its Vet2 is entirely designed around making them more survivable to do their 16 base damage from cover. This dps over all change fucks with the IS performance until extremely late game and it sucks. It sucks and we just kind of have to deal with it. Brens are costly investment but it's a requirement to deal with vetted up enemy infantry.

If you revert Tommies you'll get the old Bolster Swarm back.

UKF needs buffs to units that support its Sections or it'll just snap back to the infantry spam faction it was after SBP.

If you revert Tommies you'll get the old Bolster Swarm back.

UKF needs buffs to units that support its Sections or it'll just snap back to the infantry spam faction it was after SBP.

Bolster needs to be changed to not be a low risk high reward global upgrade.

Tommies need their burst damage back. In my tests of Tommies in green cover vs sturms closing across no cover the only time they won was when they were able to drop 2 Sturm models before they closed and that was 1/10 times across no cover head on into ideal condition Tommies.
Bolster needs to be a choice that has trade offs, like it is for the other units capable of such a feat in order to both have it viable and competitive as well has not having it being the same

Tommy should have an indirect buff through hammer tactics

ex) if hammer tactics is upgraded, tommy no longer has a cover penalty

Bolster needs to be a choice that has trade offs, like it is for the other units capable of such a feat in order to both have it viable and competitive as well has not having it being the same

What, like Rear Echelons getting it for free at vet 3?

Or Pfusis getting it as part of their anti infantry package?

Yeah, I can see how much of a 'trade off' is needed to make those units balanced. Truly, these upgrades taketh as much as they giveth.

What, like Rear Echelons getting it for free at vet 3?

Or Pfusis getting it as part of their anti infantry package?

Yeah, I can see how much of a 'trade off' is needed to make those units balanced. Truly, these upgrades taketh as much as they giveth.

Yeah it's not like dropping 35 fuel on it isn't a trade off in itself.

Cheese Tonkatsu and Northfire need to L2P. I recall Northfire recently made a thread claiming Brits unplayable. Sections are in a decent spot and won't be changed.

Cheese Tonkatsu and Northfire need to L2P. I recall Northfire recently made a thread claiming Brits unplayable. Sections are in a decent spot and won't be changed.

Painfully incorrect.

Nobody picked brits all tournament long for a good reason (barring some 0-3 stomps)

In my tests of Tommies in green cover vs sturms closing across no cover the only time they won was when they were able to drop 2 Sturm models before they closed and that was 1/10 times across no cover head on into ideal condition Tommies

I'm not saying that Tommies/UKF/bolster don't need any changes, but this is quite irrelevant. Sturmpioneers are a 300mp close range unit, they are meant to beat 270mp rifle infantry. Even Riflemen that are 280mp and a close/mid range orientated squad will almost always lose to Sturmpioneers closing in.

I'm not saying that Tommies/UKF/bolster don't need any changes, but this is quite irrelevant. Sturmpioneers are a 300mp close range unit, they are meant to beat 270mp rifle infantry. Even Riflemen that are 280mp and a close/mid range orientated squad will almost always lose to Sturmpioneers closing in.

Same with rifle vs grens. Rifles will win vs grens in green cover 7 out of 10 times after closing the distance.

Painfully incorrect.

Nobody picked brits all tournament long for a good reason (barring some 0-3 stomps)

Doesn't matter. Sections were nerfed, then partially buffed back, I seriously doubt there would be a third patch in a row to change the sections. Bottom line the old sections were broken after significant buffs were given to Brits early AT capabilities namely, snares and piats.

There is something callled Vickers. But agree on the fact that UKF needs a standart mobile indirect fire platform and not the team game abomination of a mortar pit.

What, like Rear Echelons getting it for free at vet 3?

Or Pfusis getting it as part of their anti infantry package?

Yeah, I can see how much of a 'trade off' is needed to make those units balanced. Truly, these upgrades taketh as much as they giveth.

RE 5th man is earned. If you lose your squad that is it. No more 5th man. It doesn't raise the floor it is a ceiling. There is a huge difference

And yes. The fussies are a decent example as it is a choice that Removes the option for 2 Shreks. It's a decision the player has to make and once they make it there is no going back. You can't take the extra Man AND double sling AT too. It's a tactical decision.

Same with grens even. The 5th man removes the option to get the lmg42 which centralizes their DPS so even as they drop models they are able to keep the pressure up. A choice.

Notice what doesn't have a drawback? Bolster.
The Soviet 7th man has many buffs provided but it either costs SUBSTANTIALLY more or requires a full tech and THEN takes up their only weapon slot. You have a few choices to make there.

Yeah it's not like dropping 35 fuel on it isn't a trade off in itself.

Why bother with anything then? There is actually more to this game than just costs. Or there is supposed to be. The fact of the matter is you can buy 25% more dps and health and appearently thr only way to balance that is to make it so the unit isn't viable unless you do. That's bad design. That's very very bad design.

I'm not saying that Tommies/UKF/bolster don't need any changes, but this is quite irrelevant. Sturmpioneers are a 300mp close range unit, they are meant to beat 270mp rifle infantry. Even Riflemen that are 280mp and a close/mid range orientated squad will almost always lose to Sturmpioneers closing in.

And Tommies are 270mp long range unit designed to excel in cover. As a member of the balance team it's a bit alarming that you are flat out saying "it doesn't matter if you are using the unit EXACTLY as it's intended to do and the enemy is using NONE of the tactical features like cover or vision and are supposed to win because their unit costs 10% more.

At what point are Tommies supposed to be able to win, if not under ideal circumstances and with the enemy doing nothing at all to reduce incoming damage?

Can we get a statement on the record as to if the direction of the balance team is to ensure that the only variables that matter in infantry combat what so ever going forward is cost?

Is this going to start applying to vehicles as well? Will a p4 driven in reverse (because no attempts what so ever to reduce incoming damage while at the same time making a mockery of core game mechanics) lose outright to a t34/76? Keeping in mind there is a decent cost difference in play here.


No. If the sturms were closing in yellow cover at even partially I would buy this reasoning but not closing head on against a squad that that is dug in and is SUPPOSED to excel under those very static restrictions.

Cheese Tonkatsu and Northfire need to L2P. I recall Northfire recently made a thread claiming Brits unplayable. Sections are in a decent spot and won't be changed.

Cheese tonkatsu is better than u

how can u say "L2P"?

RE 5th man is earned. If you lose your squad that is it. No more 5th man. It doesn't raise the floor it is a ceiling. There is a huge difference

And yes. The fussies are a decent example as it is a choice that Removes the option for 2 Shreks. It's a decision the player has to make and once they make it there is no going back. You can't take the extra Man AND double sling AT too. It's a tactical decision.

Same with grens even. The 5th man removes the option to get the lmg42 which centralizes their DPS so even as they drop models they are able to keep the pressure up. A choice.

Notice what doesn't have a drawback? Bolster.
The Soviet 7th man has many buffs provided but it either costs SUBSTANTIALLY more or requires a full tech and THEN takes up their only weapon slot. You have a few choices to make there.



Why bother with anything then? There is actually more to this game than just costs. Or there is supposed to be. The fact of the matter is you can buy 25% more dps and health and appearently thr only way to balance that is to make it so the unit isn't viable unless you do. That's bad design. That's very very bad design.


And Tommies are 270mp long range unit designed to excel in cover. As a member of the balance team it's a bit alarming that you are flat out saying "it doesn't matter if you are using the unit EXACTLY as it's intended to do and the enemy is using NONE of the tactical features like cover or vision and are supposed to win because their unit costs 10% more.

At what point are Tommies supposed to be able to win, if not under ideal circumstances and with the enemy doing nothing at all to reduce incoming damage?

Can we get a statement on the record as to if the direction of the balance team is to ensure that the only variables that matter in infantry combat what so ever going forward is cost?

Is this going to start applying to vehicles as well? Will a p4 driven in reverse (because no attempts what so ever to reduce incoming damage while at the same time making a mockery of core game mechanics) lose outright to a t34/76? Keeping in mind there is a decent cost difference in play here.


No. If the sturms were closing in yellow cover at even partially I would buy this reasoning but not closing head on against a squad that that is dug in and is SUPPOSED to excel under those very static restrictions.

funny i've been wondering the same when using volks and grens. IF sturms close in from max range vs tommies, sturms lose quite alot of times and MIGHT win some, same with riflemen closing in on grens(pretty sure rifles stomp it harder), but let me guess thats ok tho right?

Changes to IS makes them balanced, all they need now is indirect fire changes like a motar and ther good to go

And Tommies are 270mp long range unit designed to excel in cover. As a member of the balance team it's a bit alarming that you are flat out saying "it doesn't matter if you are using the unit EXACTLY as it's intended to do and the enemy is using NONE of the tactical features like cover or vision and are supposed to win because their unit costs 10% more

I have no idea why you'd find that alarming, as this is nothing more than how the entirety of the game works. Ostheer Pioneers used perfectly in an ambush at minimum range are still going to lose to Penals or Rifles no matter what, because of the cost difference. Upgraded Grenadiers firing from max range behind cover are still going to lose to a Thompsons Rangers squad closing in no matter what, because of the cost difference. An SU-85 used from max range is still going to lose to a Tiger I closing in no matter what, because of the cost difference. There is simply a limit to how effective a unit is going to be, even when used correctly, which is (amongst other things) set by cost. If the cost difference is high enough, a unit will/should lose no matter what.

Using a unit at its maximum efficiency isn't about having it win versus higher tier units, it's about getting a good trade out of the engagement. And IS used from max range in cover will usually get a good trade versus Sturmpioneers closing in, dropping 2-3 models and rendering the unit ineffective, even if they ultimately lose the engagement.

Again, there are some problems with Infantry Sections, Bolster (as a now mandatory upgrade, that in its current form is making it quite impossible to balance 4 vs 5 men IS) being the biggest one, but stock IS losing to much more expensive Sturmpioneers is hardly one of them.

The fundumental problem with UKF is they lack units. They just have so few units to work with especially with regards to infantry, they really only have either Infantry Sections or Commandos and commandos are doctrinal so that's why Infantry Sections had to be so good because if they weren't, you'd never survive beyond the 10 minute mark.

Personally I still feel like they should do maybe one of two things:

Make the air landing officer a non-doctrinal 5 man sqaud limited to one unit on the field at a time similar to USF officers but not free, buildable with after teching to Company Command Post.

Or, create a 5 or 6 man British Airborne sqaud using the model for the ALO and arm them with Enfields allowing an upgrade to either 4 thompsons or 2 Bren Guns with better damage stats.

And Tommies are 270mp long range unit designed to excel in cover. As a member of the balance team it's a bit alarming that you are flat out saying "it doesn't matter if you are using the unit EXACTLY as it's intended to do and the enemy is using NONE of the tactical features like cover or vision and are supposed to win because their unit costs 10% more.

At what point are Tommies supposed to be able to win, if not under ideal circumstances and with the enemy doing nothing at all to reduce incoming damage?

Can we get a statement on the record as to if the direction of the balance team is to ensure that the only variables that matter in infantry combat what so ever going forward is cost?

Is this going to start applying to vehicles as well? Will a p4 driven in reverse (because no attempts what so ever to reduce incoming damage while at the same time making a mockery of core game mechanics) lose outright to a t34/76? Keeping in mind there is a decent cost difference in play here.


No. If the sturms were closing in yellow cover at even partially I would buy this reasoning but not closing head on against a squad that that is dug in and is SUPPOSED to excel under those very static restrictions.

So when a Volks squad or a Grenadier squad is dug in and an allied assault unit closes in and wins the engagement, no problem whatsoever. However when the same thing happens to an infantry section it’s mind boggling.

Very interesting.

Bolster's problem was always that it came too early. Pre patch brits build order went something like >Tommy Tommy Tommy Bolster, T2, AEC. With the advent of Cons late game upgrades, I'd say revert Sections but push bolster back behind T3 or at least after unlocking either AEC or Bofors at T2.


That's actually not a bad idea from CODGUY with the Air Landing officer. It's horribly inefficient, promotes blobbing, and doesn't even have commando stealth. I would just keep the officer in the Vanguard operations though but make it more efficient.