Login

russian armor

Adjustments for the Brits

28 Apr 2020, 01:49 AM
#21
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951


Currently bolster is a requirement early to keep infantry sections competitive which is sad. I enjoy the buffs but I can't agree with adding it after company commmand post.

Instead of moving bolster to require Company Command post, make it cost more MP, less fuel and require grenade upgrade.

The way I see it, the MP requirement/cost is too low with the amount of power it brings. Especially calculating the cost of adding additional models when the upgrade is complete. Increasing the MP cost gives it a slower power spike while still retaining the early game advantage but a little costlier.

The fuel cost requirement as high as 35 doesn't really make sense to me. Lowering it by 10 is better. I would even recommend adding grenades as a requirement before being able to get bolster as players will not usually get grenades before bolster. Its a nice pre-step before the power increase of bolster anyway.

Final verdict on bolster:

+ 50MP to bolster
- 10 fuel to bolster
+ requirement grenades first

In total:
+150MP requirement (100 grenade + 50)
- 10 fuel saved (but still 35 total for bolster, 10 from grenade).


I wouldn't say that Bolster is necessary to keep Sections competitive, four-man IS with 2x Bren already stand up to Volks and Grens with no problem. It's just so powerful and cost-efficient to get this upgrade.

Increasing the MP cost of bolster would definitely drag out the powerspike Bolster has, but I'd argue that 150MP is negligable. It's not even one minute of Manpower income. Also, saving fuel on this upgrade is probably not a good idea because fuel investments are central to teching. Spending on side tech delays main tech, so you're essentially trading a later powerspike for an earlier powerspike, which is a decision that must be made by the player.


I disagree with removing valentine from royal artillery as that removes super barrage which makes royal artillery *fun*.

Brits really lack a blob clearing tool outside of mortar pit and land matresses. Both of which are expensive and extremely vulnerable to call in's and other indirects. I would like to see a tool in to help with blob management. The vickers burst increase is a nice start but I feel it adds too much power to the vickers as it is. Its a powerful killing machine but not a blob management machine. It becomes even stronger in a trench which I would say is a requirement to use it effectively as a blob management tool.


Would a concentration barrage cost decrease/cooldown decrease work to make up for the Sexton barrage?

What do you mean by "blob clearing"? If you mean destroying blobs outright, the Land Matress and the AVRE are viable options. If you wish for indirect fire, I would say that providing the Brits with the USF mortar halftrack would be sufficient.
28 Apr 2020, 01:55 AM
#22
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951



UC getting a fuel cost is the right step, it’s not good for the game to have such a strong no fuel T0 vehicle.



What would you say to a fuel cost for the upgrades? This is essentially what borobadger proposed, as the stock UC is only marginally more powerful than the Kubel. Giving the Vickers or Wasp upgrade a fuel cost (maybe 10 fuel?) would delay light vehicle timing and/or Comany Command post tech, which would make upgrading the UC a harder decision.
28 Apr 2020, 14:31 PM
#23
avatar of Applejack

Posts: 359



I wouldn't say that Bolster is necessary to keep Sections competitive, four-man IS with 2x Bren already stand up to Volks and Grens with no problem. It's just so powerful and cost-efficient to get this upgrade.

Increasing the MP cost of bolster would definitely drag out the powerspike Bolster has, but I'd argue that 150MP is negligable. It's not even one minute of Manpower income. Also, saving fuel on this upgrade is probably not a good idea because fuel investments are central to teching. Spending on side tech delays main tech, so you're essentially trading a later powerspike for an earlier powerspike, which is a decision that must be made by the player.



Would a concentration barrage cost decrease/cooldown decrease work to make up for the Sexton barrage?

What do you mean by "blob clearing"? If you mean destroying blobs outright, the Land Matress and the AVRE are viable options. If you wish for indirect fire, I would say that providing the Brits with the USF mortar halftrack would be sufficient.


My idea for bolster is just to delay it slightly as an adjustment instead of a major change such as moving it to company command post. MP is valuable resource in that it is required to train new squads and reinforce existing squads (especially if models are lost in combat once bolster is completed). I think 150MP is already on the high end of adding to the MP requirement. The reason why I suggest adding grenades as a requirement is because it eases the transition as you can get it earlier and while fighting and it delays *research time* of bolster as you have to wait for research grenades first. The UKF player is already significantly investing into their infantry by researching grenades and bolster and they should see a return on that investment.

The delay is 3 fold.
1. MP requirement adds delay
2. Grenade research requirement adds additional time delay
3. Reduced fuel cost to compensate not being able to tech to company command post and thus get pyrotechnics and medical supplies which is another power spike to infantry sections. I see healing in the field as very powerful. Keep in mind that not getting medical supplies means a higher MP bleed over time, using MP for medics is also another form of MP bleed.

Royal Artillery isn't even that great in team games. I find it pretty lack luster especially if your team can't hold ground. And if they can hold ground, they probably don't need (you) royal artillery in the first place. Watch PFC02 on twitch play royal artillery in random team 4v4. Most of the time if he wins, his team carries him and if he loses, its because he didn't have enough impact on the game to turn the tide as royal arty. Don't take away valentine from royal arty.

RE: Blob clearing
UKF is very vulnerable to blobs. They don't have a dedicated unit to deal with blobs. They can't punish blobs in the same way that other factions can without doctrine units.

They either have to counter with their own blob (and be susceptible to enemy blob clearing units) or go a specific commander to deal with it and this is not something you can predict will happen in the game. Outside of what I mentioned before (mortar pit/land matress), you can also try running them over with a Cromwell/Comet but thats a great way to lose your Cromwell/Comet if they have a snare unit in their blob.

I will list the blob clearing units of other factions that do not require a commander.

USF have Sherman HE, Pack Howie, Mortar Carriage.
Soviets have katy, demo charges.
OKW have IG gun and stuka. Stuka arguably the best blob wiping unit in the game.
OST have MG42, Brumbar and Werfer. OST have it good in the blob control department in regards to suppression. I don't mention the MGs in other factions but the MG42 is the best in the game for suppression and the werfer is the fastest out of all rocket artillery and includes suppression.

UKF has a mortar pit which can be easily destroyed by any other blob clearing unit. Building a mortar pit is kinda like a double edge sword. You can fight blobs within the mortar pit's range but the enemy can get a blob control unit to destroy the mortar pit and then they can't blob to fight the enemy blob. In addition, you have to put a squad in the mortar pit to make it fight better which is a great way to lose a squad.

I didn't mention pyrotecnics as a counter but that comes waaaaay too slow and has a very obvious indicator of where its going to land for it to be an effective blob countering tool.

The only effective method I have used to counter blobs is a vickers MG in a trench but it can be easily countered by moving around it, smoke or indirect (such as a stuka). It doesn't punish blobs, only suppresses it so you can deal with it using something else.

Edit: Forgot about Brumbar
28 Apr 2020, 15:09 PM
#24
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

I've always felt like Bolster was the main thing that was fueling Section spam - even to the point where the old sections might have been balanced if they gated Bolster to tech. Brens might need a slight buff if they are going to be the primary early-mid game power spike for sections.

Valentine shouldn't have 160 damage as it shouldn't be able to kill medium tanks by getting on rear armor when AEC already fills that role. Might be cool if Valentine was bundled with AEC as "Light Armor Group" and filled a sort of Greyhound role of being strictly AI specialist that minorly threatens other LVs. Bofors should stay as Anvil tech as per core faction design. If anything Royal Arty should get Land Mattress XD (Okay I admit you would never see Sexton again lol)
28 Apr 2020, 16:38 PM
#25
avatar of Applejack

Posts: 359

Bofors at anvil tech comes too late for it to make it a effective option in the game.

Currently Bofors comes out the same time Stuka and AT guns can come out which makes it already kind of a useless investment. About the same timing as the Schwer Panzer HQ while not providing the same benefits of the Schwer.
28 Apr 2020, 16:41 PM
#26
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

Currently Bofors comes out the same time AT guns can come out which makes it already kind of a useless investment.


Wut

You want a 1-3 mins bofors?
28 Apr 2020, 16:46 PM
#27
avatar of Applejack

Posts: 359

Sorry I worded that wrong.

I want my fuel investment into the Bofor not to delay my tech just like Schwer.
29 Apr 2020, 05:26 AM
#28
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951



My idea for bolster is just to delay it slightly as an adjustment instead of a major change such as moving it to company command post. MP is valuable resource in that it is required to train new squads and reinforce existing squads (especially if models are lost in combat once bolster is completed). I think 150MP is already on the high end of adding to the MP requirement. The reason why I suggest adding grenades as a requirement is because it eases the transition as you can get it earlier and while fighting and it delays *research time* of bolster as you have to wait for research grenades first. The UKF player is already significantly investing into their infantry by researching grenades and bolster and they should see a return on that investment.

The delay is 3 fold.
1. MP requirement adds delay
2. Grenade research requirement adds an additional time delay
3. Reduced fuel cost to compensate not being able to tech to company command post and thus get pyrotechnics and medical supplies which is another power spike to infantry sections. I see healing in the field as very powerful. Keep in mind that not getting medical supplies means a higher MP bleed over time, using MP for medics is also another form of MP bleed.


Pyrotechnics and Medical Supplies come with Platoon Command Post (Sappers, AT Sniper, 6-prd), not Company Command Post (with the Centaur, Cromwell, and Firefly). I've never seen anyone actually tech Bolster before they get Medics. Delaying Bolster to Company COmmand Post will not affect British healing in any way.

Additional MP cost is barely noticable before the late game. As stated before, 150MP is not even one minute of MP income. Thus, MP is significantly cheaper than Munitions before late game. In addition, MP as a whole is much more plentiful than MU. Assuming you have five sections, reinforcing an additional 5 models would cost 140MP. For contrast, buying three LMG42s for your Grenadiers would cost 180MU. I do not include the cost of reinforcing "lost" models because those belong to the original squad (and not part of the upgrade).

In the late game, when MP bleed starts to be an issue, it would be very significant, but in the mid game it would merely be a one minute delay. With grenade tech (which already has a return for your investment), Bolster would probably be delayed for two minutes.


Royal Artillery isn't even that great in team games. I find it pretty lack luster especially if your team can't hold ground. And if they can hold ground, they probably don't need (you) royal artillery in the first place. Watch PFC02 on twitch play royal artillery in random team 4v4. Most of the time if he wins, his team carries him and if he loses, its because he didn't have enough impact on the game to turn the tide as royal arty. Don't take away valentine from royal arty.


I don't see how an exclusively support commander played in an exclusively support manner is an argument against taking away the Valentine away from Royal Artillery. In team games, as you stated previously, the strength of the Valentine would be for its Sexton Concentration Barrage. If the doctrine's Concentration Barrage (which already includes 25-prds) would be reworked to include Sextons in the barrage, this issue would be taken away.


RE: Blob clearing
UKF is very vulnerable to blobs. They don't have a dedicated unit to deal with blobs. They can't punish blobs in the same way that other factions can without doctrine units.

They either have to counter with their own blob (and be susceptible to enemy blob clearing units) or go a specific commander to deal with it and this is not something you can predict will happen in the game. Outside of what I mentioned before (mortar pit/land matress), you can also try running them over with a Cromwell/Comet but thats a great way to lose your Cromwell/Comet if they have a snare unit in their blob.

I will list the blob clearing units of other factions that do not require a commander.

USF have Sherman HE, Pack Howie, Mortar Carriage.
Soviets have katy, demo charges.
OKW have IG gun and stuka. Stuka arguably the best blob wiping unit in the game.
OST have MG42, Brumbar and Werfer. OST have it good in the blob control department in regards to suppression. I don't mention the MGs in other factions but the MG42 is the best in the game for suppression and the werfer is the fastest out of all rocket artillery and includes suppression.

UKF has a mortar pit which can be easily destroyed by any other blob clearing unit. Building a mortar pit is kinda like a double edge sword. You can fight blobs within the mortar pit's range but the enemy can get a blob control unit to destroy the mortar pit and then they can't blob to fight the enemy blob. In addition, you have to put a squad in the mortar pit to make it fight better which is a great way to lose a squad.

I didn't mention pyrotecnics as a counter but that comes waaaaay too slow and has a very obvious indicator of where its going to land for it to be an effective blob countering tool.

The only effective method I have used to counter blobs is a vickers MG in a trench but it can be easily countered by moving around it, smoke or indirect (such as a stuka). It doesn't punish blobs, only suppresses it so you can deal with it using something else.

Edit: Forgot about Brumbar


I do not understand how the above is an argument against my Vickers adjustments. The proposed changes to its burst duration would improve its ability to fight blobs.


I want my fuel investment into the Bofor not to delay my tech just like Schwer.


That is simply not possible, as the 40mm Bofors emplacement is completely different from the Schwerer HQ. And, as with any western front army, you already get benefits for teching up (Brits get 25-prd howitzers).

A closer comparison to the 40mm Bofors emplacement would be the 2cm Flak emplacement: a moderate investment to deny an area to the enemy. Aside from building SimCity or the Westwall, their roles are much the same: a serious deterrent to one section of the map. This is just like building MG bunkers to cover your cutoff or to deny a VP in late game, only the deterrent is stronger (and thus the investemnt is greater).
29 Apr 2020, 05:35 AM
#29
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951


I've always felt like Bolster was the main thing that was fueling Section spam - even to the point where the old sections might have been balanced if they gated Bolster to tech. Brens might need a slight buff if they are going to be the primary early-mid game power spike for sections.


The Bren Gun should be decent enough. 45MU is on the the cheap end of weapons upgrades, and Infantry Sections can get two, which should keep them competitive enough. If Brens are not powerful enough after moving Bolster to Company Command Post, then buffs might be reasonable.


Valentine shouldn't have 160 damage as it shouldn't be able to kill medium tanks by getting on rear armor when AEC already fills that role. Might be cool if Valentine was bundled with AEC as "Light Armor Group" and filled a sort of Greyhound role of being strictly AI specialist that minorly threatens other LVs.


The Valentine proposed in my changes would be weaker than it currently is against vehicles (see the part about the DPM nerf). It would be slower than the Sherman Firefly and even the KV-1 with only 5 speed. This pretty much precludes it from chasing after light vehicles and retreating infantry, which also means it will probably never see the rear armor of a medium tank (which it can do right now). It would be a tanky AI-oriented generalist, but a Puma would still be a reliable counter (as would AT guns due to its speed).


Bofors should stay as Anvil tech as per core faction design. If anything Royal Arty should get Land Mattress XD (Okay I admit you would never see Sexton again lol)


I don't see a reason against moving Bofors to Company Command Post when we already get the 17-prd Emplacement as a stock unit (no need to specialize). Also, as you said, who would want a Sexton if you could get Land Mattresses? :megusta:
29 Apr 2020, 07:11 AM
#30
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8


The Valentine proposed in my changes would be weaker than it currently is against vehicles (see the part about the DPM nerf). It would be slower than the Sherman Firefly and even the KV-1 with only 5 speed. This pretty much precludes it from chasing after light vehicles and retreating infantry, which also means it will probably never see the use.

Fixed, unless I've missed somewhere massive health buff to go with this.

I also can't possibly imagine anyone ever getting bofors in late game, when so many units are just hardcountering it without any effort.
Its not viable in early game now, how would it be viable in late game with just one and a half shot worth of health?
29 Apr 2020, 08:30 AM
#31
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

If the valentine is made slow and AI focus, it will become the anvils of platoon CP while AEC remain being the hammer. These two being mutually exclusive form tactical choice of uk mid game. Boffor should be unlock once valentine or AEC has been tech, to it timing remain the same as now.
29 Apr 2020, 08:42 AM
#32
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351

Bofors - make it non exclusive with AEC - simple (you pay for the extra tech anyway and it was nerfed hard so there shouldn't be problems here)'

Emplacements - I believe that it is what makes the faction unique. They simply HAVE TO be somehow changed into being useful but not OP.

Explantion and details:
29 Apr 2020, 09:21 AM
#33
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Apr 2020, 07:11 AMKatitof

Fixed, unless I've missed somewhere the massive health buff to go with this.

I LOLed pretty hard.

Your point stands. In my focus on balancing it against light vehicles I neglected AT guns.

What if speed was reduced from 7 to 6 (still slower than Axis light vehicles), and health was increased to 560? This would make it nearly identical to the StuG III.


I also can't possibly imagine anyone ever getting bofors in late game, when so many units are just hardcountering it without any effort.
Its not viable in early game now, how would it be viable in late game with just one and a half shot worth of health?


What changes would you propose to make Bofors a viable option ? Firesparks previously suggested a 500MP 60FU Bofors emplacement that had 2000 HP.
29 Apr 2020, 09:28 AM
#34
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8


I LOLed pretty hard.

Your point stands. In my focus on balancing it against light vehicles I neglected AT guns.

What if speed was reduced from 7 to 6 (still slower than Axis light vehicles), and health was increased to 560? This would make it nearly identical to the StuG III.


I guess that's one way to go, its a "top tier" light that performs closer to meds anyway, if its to lose speed and firepower, it should gain durability. Keeping its target size where it is, it could work.
Its pretty much a comet of lights, at least in my eyes.

What changes would you propose to make Bofors a viable option ? Firesparks previously suggested a 500MP 60FU Bofors emplacement that had 2000 HP.

Drastic durability increase would be a one way, however it would lead to an engineer being permanently bound to it. 0,5 rec dmg modifier would be more reasonable idea, but with both, you'd have people REEE-ing how it just locks down a point without you having your whole army there.

Firepower way would also be awkward as it isn't exactly meant to do anything to med armor and above and it would need to erase infantry as it did pre nerfs to justify it being there over anything else.

I just don't see bofors in late game at all, 17 pounder does have a place, but I can't imagine bofors being there. Plus, there is advanced emplacements doctrine to consider as well.
29 Apr 2020, 09:43 AM
#35
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Apr 2020, 09:28 AMKatitof


I guess that's one way to go, its a "top tier" light that performs closer to meds anyway, if its to lose speed and firepower, it should gain durability. Keeping its target size where it is, it could work.
Its pretty much a comet of lights, at least in my eyes.


Currently, its target size is 18 (StuG III is 17).

Adjusted my first post with your suggestions as well.


Drastic durability increase would be a one way, however it would lead to an engineer being permanently bound to it. 0,5 rec dmg modifier would be more reasonable idea, but with both, you'd have people REEE-ing how it just locks down a point without you having your whole army there.

Firepower way would also be awkward as it isn't exactly meant to do anything to med armor and above and it would need to erase infantry as it did pre nerfs to justify it being there over anything else.

I just don't see bofors in late game at all, 17 pounder does have a place, but I can't imagine bofors being there. Plus, there is advanced emplacements doctrine to consider as well.


The objection to Firesparks' change was the same, that it does its job of area denial too well. He stuck with the change anyway.

What if the 40mm Bofors could self-spot? Currently, its weapon's range is 45, but its sight is only 35. If the sight was increased to just 40, it would become even more capable of acting independently (e.g. you don't need to build SimCity for it to be useful).

British Cancer Doctrine increases the HP pool by 20% (the armor buff is negligable). That translates to two extra shots (which is the same even with the increased HP pool). Two 160dmg shots is practically nothing when there's a howitzer (or two leIGs) at your disposal.

Another place to put the Bofors would be to unlock it along with the Platoon Command Post, but we'd have Bofors Emplacements about one to two minutes earlier than they come out now.
29 Apr 2020, 09:47 AM
#36
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1515

Reading some of the posts... thank God you're not in charge of balancing. There is a clear bias in Axis/Allied. Either you want Allies buffed and Axis nerfed or you want Axis buffed and Allies nerfed... all in the disguise of a "logical" and "intelligent" design. Brits are fine ATM
29 Apr 2020, 09:56 AM
#37
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



What if the 40mm Bofors could self-spot? Currently, its weapon's range is 45, but its sight is only 35. If the sight was increased to just 40, it would become even more capable of acting independently (e.g. you don't need to build SimCity for it to be useful).

I can definitely see the value in self spotting, that would actually allow to place it defensively as well as support 17 pounder better.
Could work.
29 Apr 2020, 10:01 AM
#38
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951

Reading some of the posts... thank God you're not in charge of balancing. There is a clear bias in Axis/Allied. Either you want Allies buffed and Axis nerfed or you want Axis buffed and Allies nerfed... all in the disguise of a "logical" and "intelligent" design. Brits are fine ATM


Your words are true. Thank God I'm not in charge of balance, because I miss things (see Katitof's post on how the original Valentine proposition was unusable). But one thing I do pretty well is listen. So, would you care to elaborate on your accusations?
29 Apr 2020, 10:02 AM
#39
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

Currently boffor have increase sight at vet 2. But a vet 2 boffor is close to nonexistent anyway, so sight buff will be handy. Once can move some hp bonus from vet 3 to 2 then.
29 Apr 2020, 10:28 AM
#40
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

I know the patch just hit recently, but I'd still like to share my thoughts on the Brits and some suggestions I have for the faction.

The suggestions are designed to address the following:
  • Bolster and its massive powerspike
  • Lack of mid-game build diversity
  • Lack of viable indirect fire options

Constructive criticism and discussion would be welcome.

Bolster Section
Bolster makes British infantry extremely cost-effective, even against upgraded Axis infantry. By delaying this upgrade until the late game, the British player will have to invest in munitions-based weapon upgrades to remain competitive against upgraded Axis infantry in the mid game. This also reinforces the British theme of having a powerful late-game arsenal.
  • Now requires Company Command Post


My suggestions would be:
IS cost down to 260, bolster now per squad upgrade taking 1 weapon slots.

Available option:
1 medic entity that give the heal option
1 entity with a scoped enfield gives the pyro upgrade now has a timed ability similar to pathfinder critical shots, take all weapon slots.
1 entity



Vickers .303 HMG
One issue with the Vickers .303 HMG is that it does not suppress as effectively as other HMGs. To alleviate this issue, it is getting an increased burst duration. This increases its effectiveness while also giving it a unique strength.
  • Burst duration from 2.75 to 4.5 (+64%)


Vickers simply get a timed ability similar to maxim they are both water cooled weapon anyway. Some adjument to damage might be needed.


Platoon Command Post
The Valentine tank is being moved to the Platoon Command Post to diversify British build orders. While the AEC remains the anti-vehicle option, the Valentine will be a generalist that is better at anti-infantry.
  • Unlock 40mm Bofors replaced with Unlock Valentine Tank

Valentine Mk. XI
The Valentine is intended to be a generalist with no utility. The damage increase is designed to increase AoE damage and thus its effectiveness against infantry. The reload nerf lowers its overall anti-vehicle firepower. The speed nerf solidifies its role as mainly anti-infantry, as it is now too slow to chase after other light vehicles. However, it is certainly able to hold its own, with a bigger health pool, armor capable of deflecting Puma shots, and a gun comparable to that of the Churchill Mk. VII.
  • Damage increased from 120 to 160 (+33%)
  • Reload increased from 5/5 to 7/7 (+40%)
  • (Originally the tank had 1440 DPM, now it has 1370 DPM. The AEC has 1870 DPM)
  • Health from 480HP to 560HP (+80)
  • Speed from 7 to 6
  • Observation removed
  • Concentrated Sexton Barrage removed
  • Sexton Creeping Barrage removed


The AOE profile will need allot of adjustment since it was designed for 80 damage. (it already needs).

Imo the unit should be redesigned as an infatry support tank with less penetration and damage output (currently has the same penetration as AEC) but higher durability. Armor could go up and also have the ability to fire smoke rounds.


40mm Bofors Emplacement
After removing this from the Platoon Command Post, allowing it to unlock alongside the 17-prd seems reasonable. Also giving both survivability buffs to make them slightly more usable because emplacement counters are so powerful. The Bofors gets a small sight bonus to self-spot (to a limited degree) and do its job of destroying infantry before they can fire back.
  • Unlocks upon completing Company Command Post tech
  • HP of both Bofors and 17-prd increased to 1200 (from 1000/900)
  • Bofors sight increased from 35 to 40.


Bofors already gets sight with veterancy.

Emplacement simply need a redesign that includes bleed and some sort crew or interaction.

For instance their performance is lower if they do not have garrison, the get a ability to auto-repair costing manpower or munition and so on.



Royal Artillery
Royal Artillery is currently a meta commander due to the call-in Valentine. After removing the Valentine from this commander, giving it a powerful indirect fire option and linking Concentration Barrage with Sextons would keep this commander a viable choice.
  • 2CP Call-in: M21 Mortar Halftrack (Same as USF version)
  • 3CP Concentration Barrage now also activates Sextons

The valentine can be simply replaced by a artillery commander upgrade providing the abilities of valentine currently has to any vehicle above UC.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 17
unknown 15
Germany 971
Russian Federation 2

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

537 users are online: 537 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49111
Welcome our newest member, Schrick
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM