The recent Infantry Sections nerf

Couldn't you simply require T3 before bolster, then adjust Tommies so they're okay early game?

The UKF beta taught us that this is a highway to snipers bullying the UKF into a sorry little hole.

Will be even worse now the UC has been hit with a triple nerf.

Pretty much this. UKF's core design is missing a ton of basic "tools" all other factions have access to (mobile mortars, snares, etc.), and on top of that, is designed around broken and/or gimmicky mechanics that don't really fit into CoH2's base gameplay (cover bonus, mutually-exclusive tech, etc.). Without allowing a full re-work similar to OKW's a while back, I don't see UKF ever being competitively viable - I could be wrong about this, but I don't see how.

This, plus the it seems like they have fewer viable core units than other factions so UKF goes from OP to UP really quickly, mostly depending on how the AEC and Tommies are tuned.

Buff the Bren to approximately MG42 levels but cap them at 1 per squad, like the m1919s got, and surely you cap the worst of the double upgrade late game squad issues.

I don't think the Bren should equal the Gren-LMG42, even if limited to one-per-squad, simply because of the current squad's base stats. With Vet3+Bolster+Cover bonus (and ability to build their own SBs) you end up with a squad that's both stronger and cheaper to reinforce than Vet3/LMG Grens, and can also A-Move better because of the Bren's incredibly quick ready-aim (and other) stats.

I am confused. What is the plan with the Infantry Sections? Last christmas patch they lost a RA cover buff but got compensated with better out of cover performance. Then the balance team decided to revert this and went back to the more static defensive style no one likes. Now you want to give them better accuracy on the move again? Seems very contradictory to me.

Main problems pre-summer patch: Bolster now available early due to added snares, Bolstered stock static DPS too high and too durable in the open; optimal for A-move blobs and beating Axis mainlines in pretty much all match ups.

Some target size was moved to the cover bonus because it was the only way we saw fit, to let Infantry Sections remain quite powerful mainlines in the early game that can hold their ground, while at the same time preventing them from steamrolling the map. It was never the primary goal to force static play, rather something of a necessary evil. To compensate for this somewhat, higher moving accuracy should make Infantry Sections a bit more mobile again. But without going back to the same problem as before, since lower static DPS (due to overkill) and lower out-of-cover target size should mean A-move blobs and stock 5 men performance in general will be much less powerful as it was pre-summer patch.

I don't fully agree with UKF's faction design either, specifically the cover mechanics for IS, and ideally I'd redesign things to get rid of it or at least turn it into something that's rewarding to use rather than punishing for not using, but a total redesign like that would have far reaching and unknown consequences which basically means it'd be a huge risk to take at this point in the game's life span (each patch can be the last one). So it's very likely going to be something we'll continue to be stuck with and we'll just have to work around it as best we can.

"Just completely redesign both basic Infantry Sections stats and Bolster" (and of course redesign half the faction to fill the anti-garrison, light and heavy indirect fire, elite infantry and AI vehicle holes while we're at it) is easier said than done, and would be a way too complicated and long process at this time.

Also regarding the underlined part. This pretty much proves my suspicion that the balance team is simply not applying the same criteria for all factions

I don't care about what belongs to which faction when it comes to balance, if something needs to be changed, I'll opt to change it. This was the case with Infantry Sections totally dominating Axis mainline infantry for a very low cost (only Bolster and A-move were needed, weapon upgrades and cover were irrelevant) ever since the faction ecosystem shift caused by adding snares. I'd have done the same thing if it was Volks/Grens/Cons/Penals/Riflemen causing major issues.

Step 1) Make brits able to survive without hogging cover all game
Step 2) Nerf IS damage output with the guise of 'equal dps`
Step 3) Make them bad out of cover again, because it was so much fun the first time, saying it's to address bobbing
Step 4) Propose buffs to their moving accuracy that they never had before, because that is clearly how you discourage the bobbing which is apparently the problem

Genius. True genius.

This is what I don't understand either. It seems like each patch goes into a different direction instead of just keeping one idea about how Infantry Sections should be like and balancing their raw stats in order to make them fair.

Main problems pre-summer patch: Bolster now available early due to added snares, Bolstered stock static DPS too high and too durable in the open; optimal for A-move blobs and beating Axis mainlines in pretty much all match ups.

Some target size was moved to the cover bonus because it was the only way we saw fit, to let Infantry Sections remain quite powerful in the early game that can hold their ground, without having them steamroll the map. It was never the primary goal to force static play, rather something of a necessary evil. To compensate for this somewhat, higher moving accuracy should make Infantry Sections a bit more mobile again. But without going back to the same problem as before, since lower static DPS (due to overkill) and lower out-of-cover target size should prevent A-move blobs from being as powerful as they were pre-summer patch.

I don't care about what belongs to which faction when it comes to balance, if something needs to be changed, I'll opt to change it. This was the case with Infantry Sections totally dominating Axis mainline infantry for a very low cost (only Bolster and A-move were needed, weapon upgrades and cover were irrelevant) ever since the faction ecosystem shift caused by adding snares. I'd have done the same thing if it was Volks/Grens/Cons/Penals/Riflemen causing major issues.

Why not keep RA as it is and simply lower the DPS by creating overkill as it was done? Why does it need to be RA nerf + DPS nerf at the same time when Infantry Sections already have to carry UKF before they get a medium/heavy tank?

Also Infantry Sections absolutely have to beat Axis mainline infantry in most situations after spending 35 fuel to unlock the 5th man. 5 Man Infantry Sections used to cost 318 MP + Bolster upgrade costs. Why should they not stomp 240/250MP Axis mainlines. This is especially true because UKF is the only faction without AI LV and mobile indirect fire and a very limited number of snares on the field (2 at max) while OKW/Ost usually have at the very least 3 but usually 4 or more. It's ridiculous that UKF mainlines beating Axis mainlines is an issue but when Bar Riflemen+ free officers, 7 Man Cons, SVT Cons, Penals, etc. do it it's ok all of a sudden. I mean even 240 MP 45 muni SVT Cons available at 1 CP are superior to both Axis mainlines and dominate them after vet.

Blobbing is also not a UKF exclusive thing so I don't know if this is really a valid argument. And in the current balance, you are forced to blob Infantry Sections even more because otherwise you will just lose every engagement unless you sit in green cover waiting for the enemy to approach. So I really don't think this had the desired effect at all.

5 Man Infantry Sections used to cost 318 MP + Bolster upgrade costs. Why should they not stomp 240/250MP Axis mainlines

They didn't just stomp 240/250mp Axis mainlines, but upgraded ones too, without ever needing weapon upgrades themselves, causing a severe economic gap, which they could then turn into mine/abilities/grenades spam, causing an even bigger snowball effect. The weapon damage and TZ adjustments were aimed at fixing this.

I think it's blind to look at the Section nerfs in a vaccum when other things have been adjusted too.

There was a stright buff to the Vickers, Sniper, Firefly, Comet, and Cromwell.

The balance team didn't just cuck UKF and be done with it. These changes were probably supposed to help smooth out the powercurve of the faction.

I think the only point to really critique them on is the fact they didn't properly explain the impact of these changes. For example, the USF changes had their own comprehensive graph which drew people's attention away from these changes which has their own massive impact.

As for my take on this, I think sections in combination with a firing on the move buff and a veterancy power curve normalization would be good enough the bring them back into glory.

My proposal: 0.5 moving accuracy, Vet 2 10% accuracy/12% recieved accuracy, Vet 3 15% accuracy/10% recieved accruacy

Why this works: Sections currently have no offensive vet 2 bonuses at the moment (which is different from almost every infantry unit in the game) making their mid game espically reliant on staying in cover and brawling from long range. Whether or not you think those bonuses are OP is a different story but the fact is these promblematic vet bonuses makes it so that it's impossible to bleed sections in the right conditions, and sections are no better at killing than they are stright out of the gate. Now you might be wondering why the vet 2 works that way, well it's probably because Sections were designed around the 16 damage volley which more likely than not bled models massively on approach. With the new 12 damage rifle it is more advantageous to have accuracy at vet 2 in order to secure some more model bleed rather than the 22% RA bonus; WHICH doesn't even help them that much with the true counter to sections which are: Snipers, Barrage weapons, and light vehicles.


Btw i'm gonna post this absolutely everywhere and i'm not trying to derail the flow but god damn it buff Cromwell MG to be simular to Comet MG thx

They didn't just stomp 240/250mp Axis mainlines, but upgraded ones too, without ever needing weapon upgrades themselves, causing a severe economic gap, which they could then turn into mine/abilities/grenades spam, causing an even bigger snowball effect. The weapon damage and TZ adjustments were aimed at fixing this.

This is ridiculous. I can't believe you are serious here. UKF mine spam was never an issue. Maybe take the mines away too so UKF is even more handicapped and lacking basic tools to fix this insanely OP issue of UKF being able to plant mines with their tech-locked engineer unit. Ohh the horror. Just a small hint: There is indeed a faction that is spamming mines, guess which one it is? I give you a hint, the one with super cheap engineers and no non-doctrinal weapon upgrade for their infantry. And oh btw, their infantry doesn't need muni to heal themselves either.

On a more serious note, UKF brens and PIATS are locked behind another MP/fuel investment. So are the grenades. What is the problem here? Meanwhile spending 60 muni on a game-long STG or LMG upgrade is not a big deal whatsoever. Infantry Sections also require munitions for pyro or heal upgrade so your argument of Infantry Sections not needing upgrades being a huge snowball balance killer is just grasping at straws.

Infantry Sections were OP, they deserved a nerf but literally EVERYTHING but not this awkward back to camp-static gameplay change that no one wanted.

A T2 (Company Cmd Post) Hammer/Anvil split would be nice to select a desired playstyle. Possibly

Hammer gives you Scoped Enfields on the pyrotechnics upgrade which gives the squad 2 or 3 scoped enfields that have copy pasted stats from G43s, the Valentine tank, an M5 halftruck for reinforcing on the field and a mortar.

Anvil could give the medic upgrade, bolster, bofors and mortar pits, AEC, and an officer unit that boosts nearby units with 10% damage reduction in the style of the command P4 from Ostheer, and perhaps maybe even a slight vet speed increase. The officer would probably be a 4man squad like the airlanding officer.

There was a stright buff to the Vickers, Sniper, Firefly, Comet, and Cromwell.

Vickers change was a token buff like the Jackson fuel increase nerf. I don't notice any difference in-game.

Sniper buff was good I agree.

Firefly is still the objectively worst Allied TD in COH2. No penetration buff with vet unlike Jackson and SU85, bad mobility, horrible turret traverse, super bad reload. I absolutely hate it.

Comet was buffed to a decent level but at the same time Tiger, Pershing and IS2 are completely batshit broken OP and make the Comet look very mediocre. So there isn't much actual impact from this change.

Churchill was nerfed which hurts UKF because it was widely used and an actually good unit.

Cromwell changes are OK but I still think Cromwell is the worst medium tank. HE Shermans are way better, so are OKW P4s and even the T34/76 when you factor in price and their strong performance vs infantry and synergy with off-map ability (RAM+IL2).

how about removing the nerfs of the unit (keeping the dmg acc change), and locking bolster after tank tech?

if 5 men is the problem 5 men should be adressed and done as a lategame upgrate, not by making 4 men useless

This is ridiculous. I can't believe you are serious here. UKF mine spam was never an issue.

To be honest, the Tommy A-attack blob was CANCER in 3 v 3 and 4 v 4. It was almost impossible to counter this threat until Wher got panzerwerfer.

To be honest, the Tommy A-attack blob was CANCER in 3 v 3 and 4 v 4. It was almost impossible to counter this threat until Wher got panzerwerfer.

100% agree. But UKF mine spam was never an issue regardless of OP infantry section blobs.

Vickers change was a token buff like the Jackson fuel increase nerf. I don't notice any difference in-game.

Vickers (at least for me) is the best HMG. Yes HMG-42 suppresses instantly but Vickers is no joke too and with its absurd DPS and vet1 it becomes a nightmare.

Sniper buff was good I agree.

Agreed on that too.

Firefly is still the objectively worst Allied TD in COH2. No penetration buff with vet unlike Jackson and SU85, bad mobility, horrible turret traverse, super bad reload. I absolutely hate it.

Actually Firefly is the best TD "Designwise". It has the intended weaknesses of a TD such as slow RoF low mobility but hits like a truck and extremely rewarding if you can keep it at range and make good use of tulips. It is a real "skill tank" unlike its batshit OP counterparts such as Jackson,SU-85,JP4.

Comet was buffed to a decent level but at the same time Tiger, Pershing and IS2 are completely batshit broken OP and make the Comet look very mediocre. So there isn't much actual impact from this change.

For me heavy tanks performance is good as they currently are. They must be oppressive for the 230-270 fuel range. Only problem with heavy tanks if you ask me is their absurd timing which kills the window of opportunity for medium tanks.

Churchill was nerfed which hurts UKF because it was widely used and an actually good unit.

Churchill was a retarded unit IMO. Could frontally pen a panther with some luck while being literally uncounterable without anything lesser for a dirt cheap 160 fuel.

Cromwell changes are OK but I still think Cromwell is the worst medium tank. HE Shermans are way better, so are OKW P4s and even the T34/76 when you factor in price and their strong performance vs infantry and synergy with off-map ability (RAM+IL2).

Definently agreed on that one. IMO comet can make use of a main gun aoe buff to be more like OST P4 clone.

Vickers change was a token buff like the Jackson fuel increase nerf. I don't notice any difference in-game.

Sniper buff was good I agree.

Firefly is still the objectively worst Allied TD in COH2. No penetration buff with vet unlike Jackson and SU85, bad mobility, horrible turret traverse, super bad reload. I absolutely hate it.

Comet was buffed to a decent level but at the same time Tiger, Pershing and IS2 are completely batshit broken OP and make the Comet look very mediocre. So there isn't much actual impact from this change.

Churchill was nerfed which hurts UKF because it was widely used and an actually good unit.

Cromwell changes are OK but I still think Cromwell is the worst medium tank. HE Shermans are way better, so are OKW P4s and even the T34/76 when you factor in price and their strong performance vs infantry and synergy with off-map ability (RAM+IL2).

This isnt an other unit thread. we are talking about sections. the performance of other units can stay in other threads. It is undeniable that these listed units were buffed no matter your personal feelings about them.

The sections changes i proposed will bring them into a reall good spot. Perhaps even a great spot.

if 5 men is the problem 5 men should be adressed and done as a lategame upgrate, not by making 4 men useless

We go back to early UKF been bullied by sniper play early on before teching is possible towards sniper as counter.
You could argue that there is no dirt cheap 222 though.


Outside of the whole faction design problem and focusing on IS:

-Bolster will always be a problem, whether is it because it arrives too early or too late.
-4 man IS been shit, even when fielded with 1 Bren is a problem. 5 IS double Bren been too good is a problem.

As long as both extremes exist, IS will always be problematic.

It would have been an easy, straight forward adjustment to make Infantry Sections less potent at max range.

Then you're stepping on sections identity - they have excellent long range, but its not for free, in CQC they are worse then grens and assuming they both meet each other around the corner at CQC, grens will win that engagement.

If you want to make them grens with higher cost, they should beat grens at all ranges and should receive CQC and mid range buff to compensate for any long range dps loss.

Outside of the whole faction design problem and focusing on IS:

-Bolster will always be a problem, whether is it because it arrives too early or too late.
-4 man IS been shit, even when fielded with 1 Bren is a problem. 5 IS double Bren been too good is a problem.

As long as both extremes exist, IS will always be problematic.

Okay, how about this.

We keep IS performance at 4 men appropriate for their cost - as much as a rifle squad with less of the padding. Make them cost a more suitable amount to reinforce.

Bolster adds a 5th man, but it also makes the squad worse at combat overall - tweak the description of bolster as drafting additional men or bringing in colonial reserves. Overall the DPS of the squad does not change.

Bolster is then a late game upgrade which improves durability against explosive weapons and reduces reinforcement costs, akin to how the 7 man conscript upgrade functions.

You can rush it against snipers or delay it if you don't need it right away. It can get a cost adjustment if it needs it, or be bought a squad at a time.

Okay, how about this.

We keep IS performance at 4 men appropriate for their cost - as much as a rifle squad with less of the padding. Make them cost a more suitable amount to reinforce.

People who forget history are deemed to repeat it - that line couldn't be anymore true with what you're suggesting here, it means ost utter dominance through sniper attrition.
It also provides upgrade that isn't worth the cost anymore.

Bolster is then a late game upgrade which improves durability against explosive weapons and reduces reinforcement costs, akin to how the 7 man conscript upgrade functions.

Con function is a replacement for no stock weapon upgrade, but instead of all out DPS boost of a weapon upgrade it provides couple of bonuses that ensure cons can win attrition war in small arms firefights.

Bolster isn't really comparable here as its supposed to enhance survivability and performance of least numerous british infantry, so instead of getting 1-2 more squads, they can focus on existing 2-3, your suggestion completely ignores that fact.

You can rush it against snipers or delay it if you don't need it right away. It can get a cost adjustment if it needs it, or be bought a squad at a time.

It also creates convolution, requires new weapons and weapon profiles to be implemented, requires switching them, ignores how that would interact with weapon upgrades and forces rushing the upgrade against ost because it would be incerdibly stupid not to build sniper to bleed them early game while having easier time to prepare for now delayed vehicles and tech due to need to rush the upgrade.

In short, it adds a shitload of problems and fixes nothing.