UKF Minor Redesign
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Doesn't make much sense, but modders have gave us the option to do so, problem with it is, its hefty mp cost and brits don't exactly swim in mp, especially now post tommy nerf.
Posts: 416 | Subs: 1
Command post shouldnt give medics, UKF already has tommie squads and forward retreat point for medics, another would be unneeded.
UKF need mobile indirect not just smoke, you cant smoke a mortar to stop it firing and fuck spending muni every 5 mins to smoke out an MG!
Plus the unlock all is far too cheap, even cheaper than going for bolster and AEC tech in current game...
I'd suggest looking at the vickers too, its ability to pin a squad is non existent and all its vet is mainly tied to buildings which... indirect makes an MG in buildings useless.
My rationale for the Command Post medics is to reduce the reliance on Medical Supply Infantry Sections. It helps make Pyrotechnic Supplies a more attractive choice, which is kind of the British equivalent of mobile indirect fire.
Good point on the Vickers; I included a change for the building vet.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
My rationale for the Command Post medics is to reduce the reliance on Medical Supply Infantry Sections. It helps make Pyrotechnic Supplies a more attractive choice, which is kind of the British equivalent of mobile indirect fire.
Good point on the Vickers; I included a change for the building vet.
Again, they already have that option for cost comparable to soviets.
Posts: 658
Vet 1 : +25% more range in buildings,25% more sight when in buildings
Vet 2 : +30% horizontal rotation, +30% penetration
Vet 3 : +30% Accuracy, +20% rate of fire
I would propose changing the Vickers Vet 1 Veterancy to work in building and Green Cover.
For Vet 2 The penetration should be changed to suppression.
Posts: 3053
^You can have base medics if you put forward assembly in base and upgrade it with medics.
Doesn't make much sense, but modders have gave us the option to do so, problem with it is, its hefty mp cost and brits don't exactly swim in mp, especially now post tommy nerf.
Well, it mostly doesn't make sense because brits already have arguably the best, most accessible healing in the game. It's only 50mp more in total cost than an ost med bunker but the real problem is that brits are a garbage faction with next to nothing good about them now except churchill, comet and commandos.
Posts: 5279
Vickers Veterancy
Vet 1 : +25% more range in buildings,25% more sight when in buildings
Vet 2 : +30% horizontal rotation, +30% penetration
Vet 3 : +30% Accuracy, +20% rate of fire
I would propose changing the Vickers Vet 1 Veterancy to work in building and Green Cover.
For Vet 2 The penetration should be changed to suppression.
Brits can make garrisons with Tommies and blow up things that make it so you can't make trenches with sappers. 25% increased range in green would be so broken it wouldn't even be funny....
Posts: 3053
Brits can make garrisons with Tommies and blow up things that make it so you can't make trenches with sappers. 25% increased range in green would be so broken it wouldn't even be funny....
Yeah please no. It's already kinda broken as is. I'd almost rather just see it get changed to a suppression buff at vet1.
Posts: 416 | Subs: 1
Again, they already have that option for cost comparable to soviets.
That's a good point; I had forgotten that the Forward HQ could be built in the HQ sector. I might revert the base medics.
That said, I did nerf Medical Supplies, and considering how many resources have to be spent to make their infantry decent, it may not be fair to expect players to spend even more to heal them.
UKF almost definitely needs a bigger revamp than this, but I'm happy with this as a lightweight, efficient batch of changes for a game that's old enough where any patch could be its last.
Posts: 416 | Subs: 1
Vickers Veterancy
Vet 1 : +25% more range in buildings,25% more sight when in buildings
Vet 2 : +30% horizontal rotation, +30% penetration
Vet 3 : +30% Accuracy, +20% rate of fire
I would propose changing the Vickers Vet 1 Veterancy to work in building and Green Cover.
For Vet 2 The penetration should be changed to suppression.
Vet 2 actually gives 20% suppression as well.
I like the idea of making vet 1 apply in more situations, but I went with +20% burst length, in order to help with suppression, and give it more of a "water cooled" flavor.
Posts: 563
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Posts: 5279
Vickers range buff in trenches is cancerous af and should be changed to another buff. Even an AP rounds vet 1 ability would be better.
Its rarely used I find. I like it because it's one of the things that let's the defensive designs of the brits have some bite beyond the regular ranges.. Imo it's one of the better designed abilities since it reinforces using the unit in a specific way. AP rounds would be nice I guess but not sure what they would really help much against since the Kuble is already eaten alive by it, the 222 isn't really a threat and the fht would eat it alive regardless. And which AP rounds would you use? The mg42/34 variant that gives 9 pen and double damage, the m2 version that gives 10 pen and 25% more damage or the DSHK version that gives 200% more pen and no extra damage? Perhaps an entirely new ap profile?
Posts: 773
Snippity snip
I'm happy with this as a lightweight, efficient batch of changes for a game that's old enough where any patch could be its last.
I for one appreciate you actually trying to make a visible change than just moan like the rest of us (Myself included) that UKF have been hit too hard with the patches.
The current patch Im floating between rank 80-130 with huge loss streaks even to players that are rank 4/5/600+, all someone needs to do is know the UKF weakness and if they can exploit it, its basically GG.
Here is what I've noticed where the patch has screwed UKF:
- They made heavies tied to tech but then reduced the CPs so you can get a 15 min Heavy, that in itself is an indirect nerf to UKF.
If you go bolster you delay your tech/tanks and if you dont go bolster you lose infantry engagements when weapons start to be equipped. If you go AEC and build one whilst its utility can last well into late game (although rather micro intensive) youv've again, gimped tech so you have to survive against a Tiger with an AEC and a few AT guns and Im not saying that can't work:
https://www.twitch.tv/itslatch/clip/DeadFurryRavenTheThing?filter=clips&range=7d&sort=time
But it requires a lot of luck and isn't fun at all and once its dead, by the time you can get a tank out, they will have another Tiger out too.
You fall crutches on your doctrinal choice, if you go the wrong commander, at times you cant counter your enemies stock units. Lets say you are pinned into your base by MG's and AT Guns (Dont retort with any "But x!", just imagine) what as UKF can you do?
A) Sniper but that wont do much to get you out of base
B) Pyro tommies or vet sniper and hope the arty pushes them away
That's it, not to mention that the latter requires muni so if you are cut off you may only have 1 shot at it. Anyother faction however could build mortars and smoke/barrage but UKF are again gimped as they can't build their indirect inside their base.
So you have to rely on your commander choices and if you chose poorly then its game over, mandos and drop behind enemy lines thats a good one, lend lease for the mortar but then youve fucked yourself after the LV phase is over or mandos with Land matress, but what do each of these not have?
A heavy tank "Go the commander with mandos and the churchill!" well, they gimped that one too as you cant place it into base either and for 1 command squad, its around 950 man power......
So in the heavy tank meta game, as UKF you are sat in the corner like a lightweight in a super heavy weight fight.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Posts: 3260
My main issue as UKF is actually transitioning into the late game. As Ostheer, despite the lack of strong LV, I am able to get a P4 out to kind of bridge the gap towards a heavy tank, an Elephant, T4, command P4 or more T3 vehicles. UKF lacks that because the Cromwell fails to make enough of an impression vs infantry despite being a generalist medium tank. I feel like UKF would be in a much better spot if the Cromwell was a bit better vs infantry since its AT isn’t that bad.
The Cromwell is what it is because it needs to coexist with the Centaur.
If you improve the Cromwell's AI, how do you adjust the Centaur to keep the two distinct?
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
The Cromwell is what it is because it needs to coexist with the Centaur.
If you improve the Cromwell's AI, how do you adjust the Centaur to keep the two distinct?
P4 and Ostwind want to have a word with you.
Posts: 1484
Posts: 416 | Subs: 1
My main issue as UKF is actually transitioning into the late game. As Ostheer, despite the lack of strong LV, I am able to get a P4 out to kind of bridge the gap towards a heavy tank, an Elephant, T4, command P4 or more T3 vehicles. UKF lacks that because the Cromwell fails to make enough of an impression vs infantry despite being a generalist medium tank. I feel like UKF would be in a much better spot if the Cromwell was a bit better vs infantry since its AT isn’t that bad.
I agree. The Cromwell and P4 are very similar, but the most notable difference is the tiny "near" radius of the main gun. It's .25, compared to .75. I'll be buffing that (and its bad MGs) in the next update.
Posts: 416 | Subs: 1
I for one appreciate you actually trying to make a visible change than just moan like the rest of us (Myself included) that UKF have been hit too hard with the patches.
- They made heavies tied to tech but then reduced the CPs so you can get a 15 min Heavy, that in itself is an indirect nerf to UKF.
If you go bolster you delay your tech/tanks and if you dont go bolster you lose infantry engagements when weapons start to be equipped. If you go AEC and build one whilst its utility can last well into late game (although rather micro intensive) youv've again, gimped tech so you have to survive against a Tiger with an AEC and a few AT guns and Im not saying that can't work:
Thank you! So far, I've lowered the tech cost to tanks by 110mp and 15 fuel.
The AEC can be teched very early, especially with my T1 cost reduction, but its performance leaves a lot to be desired. If it were moved back in timing, it could be made as good as the Puma.
Heavy killing seems like it should be the firefly's specialty, but its penetration doesn't live up to that (https://www.coh2.org/topic/102278/what-kills-faster-firefly-or-su85/post/790051). I'd recommend improving its pen, even if it needs to sacrifice something else. For instance, lower accuracy would reduce its performance vs. lighter vehicles.
Posts: 3260
P4 and Ostwind want to have a word with you.
OST T3 has the StuG, which completely changes the equation. If you go for the AI-focused Ostwind, you can get a 90 FU StuG to back it up.
If you go for a Centaur, your AT options are the 110 FU Cromwell or the 155 FU Firefly.
Neither are good options. The Firefly is terrible as a lone AT piece, and the Cromwell at best matches medium armour.
The only thing keeping the Centaur a realistic option is its huge AI advantage over the Cromwell. If you narrow that gap too much, you kill off the Centaur completely.
Livestreams
2 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.653231.739+13
- 2.839223.790+2
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.592234.717-1
- 5.278108.720+29
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.645.928+5
- 8.922406.694+1
- 9.1120623.643+1
- 10.265138.658+2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
0 post in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, praptitourism
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM