About IS

So let’s examine your “sections UP” complaints.
1. Assgrens can waste 30muni on a barrage that has a huge wind up and is happening while you’re microing the only engagement on the field.
2. Spios do engineer things
3. Pios do engineer things
4. You lose a Tommy vs Sturms engagement at the start so instead of going in a garrison and wrecking them or soft retreating to your 2nd section, you come to the forums to ask for a sections buff.

1.Because of the wind up you can fake out using the barrage to clear cover/garrisons or punish the enemy if they stay. Don't pretend it's not useful.
2/3. Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. That's utility. And it's to be considered when finding a cost/performance sweet spot. Units that can do nothing but fight are supposed to do so more effeciently than those that can fight and do other things as well.
4. What about maps without garrisons? Do you just hold up there all game and wait for the Tommies to turn up? Waiting to outnumber them isn't an argument either as the initiative is on the sturms. They comin for you like it or not.
Im "complaining" because Tommies are not doing their job and are ineffecient until they are 5models. Tommies cost 10% less than sturms but have none of the utility, are not good on the move and will lose outright even in ideal conditions. That is not balanced. I complained when Tommies were dumpstering grens no contest too because I actually do care about balance.
I'm suggesting sections get buffed because they are UP. that's what you do. You shouldn't need 540mp in combat only squads to fend off 300mp of do everything infantry.
Sturms should beat Tommies if they get an angle on them, catch them out of position or manage to get part way without taking heat but NOT charging across open ground head on into a dug in squad.

brits still have the lowest APM of all factions.

Nerf that pls

1.Because of the wind up you can fake out using the barrage to clear cover/garrisons or punish the enemy if they stay. Don't pretend it's not useful.
2/3. Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. That's utility. And it's to be considered when finding a cost/performance sweet spot. Units that can do nothing but fight are supposed to do so more effeciently than those that can fight and do other things as well.
4. What about maps without garrisons? Do you just hold up there all game and wait for the Tommies to turn up? Waiting to outnumber them isn't an argument either as the initiative is on the sturms. They comin for you like it or not.
Im "complaining" because Tommies are not doing their job and are ineffecient until they are 5models. Tommies cost 10% less than sturms but have none of the utility, are not good on the move and will lose outright even in ideal conditions. That is not balanced. I complained when Tommies were dumpstering grens no contest too because I actually do care about balance.
I'm suggesting sections get buffed because they are UP. that's what you do. You shouldn't need 540mp in combat only squads to fend off 300mp of do everything infantry.
Sturms should beat Tommies if they get an angle on them, catch them out of position or manage to get part way without taking heat but NOT charging across open ground head on into a dug in squad.

Yes you need 2 tommies to destroy 1 Sturm, just like you need 2 Grenadiers to fend off 1 riflemen (1 Gren& 1 Pio can fail at that lol). Wanna buff Grens too?

Don’t pick bad engagements and use the UC early. Brits need a buff, but not to sections.

Yes you need 2 tommies to destroy 1 Sturm, just like you need 2 Grenadiers to fend off 1 riflemen (1 Gren& 1 Pio can fail at that lol). Wanna buff Grens too?

Don’t pick bad engagements and use the UC early. Brits need a buff, but not to sections.

They shouldn't need to when in cover is what I am saying. Tommies are supposed to be cover fighters (like ostroppen, but obviously different) they are supposed to perform above their "cost" when the conditions are met. Tommies in cover should be very effecient because they are designed to be expressly INEFFECIENT outside of cover. This is what I am saying.

All units are better in cover this is true, but none (again, aside from ostroppen) perform worse when not in cover. A Tommy in cover shouldn't be frontally beaten by a unit attacking over no cover especially since repositioning negatively impacts them more than any other unit. A Sturm seeing a Tommy should result in an automatic loss for Tommies even in the best case scenario for Tommies. I'm not saying they shouldn't beat them ever, hell if they are crossing in yellow cover I'd be fine. It's the walking across open ground and beating a unit designed solely to defend and. A 10% cost difference doesn't warrant that. Look at armour for reinforcement. 10% is less than the difference between a p4 and a t34. The edge is definitely on the p4 (more pen, more durability) but it's still anyone's game. 10% isn't enough to decide that it's a blow out.

To reiterate : Tommies should have the edge when a unit is attacking them when they are dug in. IF sturms beat Tommies charging across no cover it should be both squads running home every time. If sturms use one of the core game mechanics to help them get up close and reduce their exposure to damage closing they should definitely win a blow out.

The more I think about it the more I think cover should buff ROF more for Tommies. They maintain their slower but steady dps (by that I mean not as bursty like it was at 16 damage) but it gives them more opportunity to make the most when they are in cover since they certainly can not when out of it.

As for the grens/rifles bit I think you are misunderstanding why I find issue with Tommies being underwhelming: grens out of cover are just less durable than grens in cover. They are undeniably better in cover, but it isn't really "required" like it is for Tommies. Tommies have durability (standard AND bonus durability) as well as dps. Being out of cover is detrimental for their performance. They are supposed to be superior in cover because of this.
Otside of cover= perform worse than price would suggest
In civer= better than cost would suggest

And that only compounds with the utility (or lack of) factor we discussed earlier.

In fairness I hate the cover bonus of Sections more than anyone. I’d just give them the bonus out of cover and be done with it.

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.

Wth this actually makes sense and I actually agree with it.

This is all in my opinion and from experience so take it with a pinch of salt. IS perform worse pre-nerf even with minor buffs to try and fix this. The best I can suggest is to revert the changes and push the upgrade behind the platoon or company command post, varying on where it is placed giving them a relative buff to allow them to at least compete with grens/volks/sturmpios, not kill them straight up but at least provide some bleed that is lasting. Personally I'm also fine with the cover mechanic but I don't believe it should work as it currently does. I propose for the cover mechanic to make it a defensive focused trait with an invisible setup time so rocket artillery like the katyusha in team games and land mattress in 1v1s if that ever happens don't provide their cover bonus unless they want to be made vulnerable while attacking to indirect such as mortars and axis rocket artillery.

If you have any questions or better versions feel free to send it, but don't start insulting each other again.

The biggest problem at the moment is that UKFs only non-doctrinal mainline infantry can be bullied around by OSTs pioneer at close range. AFAIK its the only mainline that can lose to a 200mp worker unit and arguably the weakest unit in the game. IS needs to have perfect conditions - range and cover to be competitive while most other late game units can just run and gun.

Brits need an extra infantry unit and a mortar in their roster and they would finally be perfectly balanced. Some kind of ober like unit but having to tech brens
To keep it relevant

No dude, Sections don’t have to be better because Pgrens are stock. By the time Pgrens hit the field Sections are 5 men with a Bren and grenades.

Any actual points besides the “muh UP sections”?

Fully upgraded Tommies by the time a pgrens are built? I'll have some of what you've been smoking

If you said obers you would have a factually correct sentence there

The world would have been a better place if UKF had some sort of infantry tiers, and not one slowly upgrading infantry squad which is expected to scale all game.

But here we are, and right now Sections are inadequate to make UKF competitive. Either they or the army around them need fixing, but right now UKF are not great at anything and all their build options can be countered and hard.

If not IS, something else has to give, because IS do a shoddy job right now. The supposed 'neutral' change to their damage output has turned out to hobble an already underperforming faction.

Easy fix; remove tech requirement for grenades.