they are playable. all their strenghts are still in gamem
You can say that about any of the 5 factions without context as well and it'll be equally true for each one of them.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
they are playable. all their strenghts are still in gamem
Posts: 39
they are playable. all their strenghts are still in gamem
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
Posts: 39
Maybe if we actually fixed the UKF pitiful roster and reliance on static emplacements, we could make them fun to play as and against.
Nothing less fun than a painfully handicapped army.
Posts: 203
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
Honestly, UKF feels like Ost, like worse Ost to be exact
Infantry Sections are like Grens, only more expensive, worse on the move, and/or out of cover (i'm not sure if they that much better even with cover bonus) IS only start working when you pump them full of fuel, mp and munitions (and they still won't have a snare)
UKF gets a T0 Vickers for 260mp, which is very much like an MG42, only much worse
UKF has a vehicle based flamer, only worse (yeah, it's cheaper for sure)
UKF gets a sniper, only worse and comes slightly later (sure it can ping at vehicles, and it's fun but thats not why you get a sniper for)
UKF gets a mortar, only it's immobile
UKF has a Centaur, which i guess is close enough to a Ostwind
UKF has a Cromwell, which is like a P4, only less armoured, and has worse AI
Basically I feel like bunch of the UKF roster is "like Ost, but worse", not much worse, but enough.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Worse, and with worse options, too.
No pgren equivalent (Commandos & Airlanding Officer)
No halftrack (M5 from doctrine)
No casemate TD (Firefly is better than StuGG)
No heavy for call in meta like the tiger (Crocodile & AVRE)
No spotting infantry like pios (pyro package Sections)
No cheap squad like ostruppen (Brits had severe manpower shortages throughout the war, why would a cheap 6man squad be relevant for the faction?)
No heavy AI AoE vehicle (Croc & AVRE)
No rocket Arty (Land mattress in doctrine)
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Worse, and with worse options, too.
...
No casemate TD
...
No spotting infantry like pios
...
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
But what must the Mg do now after facing that 1 squad? You got it, Retreat! That area is no longer covered by an MG After an engagement with 1 squad head on and a vet 3 MG might I add,
the obers still have 2 vet levels to go
Posts: 224
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Everything you just quoted kind of proves the original point - all but two of your rebuttal units are doctrinal (and who considers the AVRE part of the heavy meta?) and most are mutually exclusive. There are some serious holes in the British roster.
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
Indeed there are holes, but people acting like the ukf has nothing but trash are either idiots or have an agenda.
Now let’s see what UKF has that Ostheer doesn’t.
60 range high pen TD
Sturmtiger, but actually good
Satchels on infantry with hammer
Heavy engineers with anvil
Light AT vehicle to contain LV play
Command vehicle to boost DPS of everything around it
5 man mainline inf with double LMGs
Posts: 773
#
So in that scenario a 340 manpower and 80 munitions squad got forced off and has to reinforce for 120 manpower, by a 260 manpower squad that now has to retreat and reinforce for 66 manpower. Congratulations, you've had a great engagement where you've successfully traded very cost effectively. Next time use sandbags or other cover for your HMG and you can trade even better.
Which is completely irrelevant, since their vet 4 and 5 do not give any combat bonuses.
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
No pgren equivalent (Commandos & Airlanding Officer)
No halftrack (M5 from doctrine)
No casemate TD (Firefly is better than StuGG)
No heavy for call in meta like the tiger (Crocodile & AVRE)
No spotting infantry like pios (pyro package Sections)
No cheap squad like ostruppen (Brits had severe manpower shortages throughout the war, why would a cheap 6man squad be relevant for the faction?)
No heavy AI AoE vehicle (Croc & AVRE)
No rocket Arty (Land mattress in doctrine)
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
1) Doctrinal vs. Non doctrinal
2) Doctrinal vs. Non doctrinal
3) Firefly isn't that good, comes later and costs more. This is minor compared to the other points.
4) AVRE is bad, actually. Crocodile costs as much as a heavy but cannot fight said havies, so it is not a part of the call in meta as it stands.
5) Point. I always forget that.
6) Not having the option is the point. Also - British & Commonwealth formed nearly 9 million serving. Hardly tiny. America only fielded 16, and germany 15 (all figures rounded off)
7) Doctrinal vs Non doctrinal
8) Doctrinal vs Non doctrinal
At best, with a commander, you can have almost as many units as a stock Ost roster has. Nearly.
Whereas ost commanders are many, with a wide option of abilities, and many similar options allowing granular choices
Posts: 773
Indeed there are holes, but people acting like the ukf has nothing but trash are either idiots or have an agenda.
Now let’s see what UKF has that Ostheer doesn’t.
60 range high pen TD
Sturmtiger, but actually good
Satchels on infantry with hammer
Heavy engineers with anvil
Light AT vehicle to contain LV play
Command vehicle to boost DPS of everything around it
5 man mainline inf with double LMGs
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
You are basically saying the same thing as a Firefly should not be able to kill a tiger because it is simply cheaper despite the FF being a tank destroyer (You know like an MG being a counter to infantry but because obers are elite and snowflake, Mg's shouldn't counter them when they run into the front of them, in no cover with no other squads attacking
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
You know you just mixed and matched non doc and doc units so, if this is a free for all then....
60 range high pen TD - You have Elephant (14CP super heavy TD, might as well throw in 17 pdr)
Sturmtiger, but actually good - OST have a sturmtiger? You've a Brumbar (yes, aavre and brummbar are comparable lmao)
Satchels on infantry with hammer - Bundle nades > Heavy gammon bombs (gammons are better than nukenades, also don’t forget the commandos with nukenades you abused last time we played)
Heavy engineers with anvil - You dont mean for combat efficiency surely, if you mean repairs then ok thats 1 (no that’s 4)
Light AT vehicle to contain LV play - Erm, teller mines? Or Puma you know, as we can throw in doctrines when it helps (Puma needs BP2 so you’re shooting yourself in the foot as Ostheer if you build it. Getting a stugg is way better for a bit more fuel)
Command vehicle to boost DPS of everything around it - Command panzer says hi (dps, learn to read, also the command P4 itself is useless vs armour and 10% dr in a smalla ura isn’t worth it.)
5 man mainline inf with double LMGs - With no snares, but 5 men grens say hi with the LMG and a bren gun they picked up from a tommy squad(everyone aside from okw deops weapons, what about MG42s dropped by Grens?)
Posts: 773
Yes, I am saying that a Firefly (Vickers) should not win against a Tiger that is disproportionally more expensive (Obers) and is designed to kill vehicles (Obers: infantry). The fact that the Firefly is a dedicated tank destroyer (Vickers is a dedicated suppression platform) does not mean it should win every single fight against all enemy infantry, in particular when positioned improperly (not in cover) and against a much more expensive unit.
I'm never one to ask for playercards but I'm getting really curious to see yours.
Posts: 5279
Wait what? So all the butthurt about infantry killing MGs frontally that has been going on since forever
don't apply to Obers?
13 | |||||
159 | |||||
14 | |||||
1 |