AEC and Bofors Tech.
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
Posts: 127
My point is offering an affordable AA platform, built in the rear line. As i go for AEC, my next vehicle at least have to be a cromwell, and my only AA source then is the centau, which cost event more. If enemy have alot of air strafe then the centau is needed, but if all they have is just some annoying recon planes then just the boffor is enough, and it can be deconstructed if wanted.
In that case, I think then the Bofors may have a cost decrease once the player gets to T3.
Something like 260MP 15 Fuel. But I feel like it must have other restrictions to it, if built after T3, which, I presume, is really hard to code or even impossible, since we have to keep the pre-T3 Bofors in mind.
It kinda sounds like the whole balancing Bolster for years now, that I think of it...
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
In that case, I think then the Bofors may have a cost decrease once the player gets to T3.
Something like 260MP 15 Fuel. But I feel like it must have other restrictions to it, if built after T3, which, I presume, is really hard to code or even impossible, since we have to keep the pre-T3 Bofors in mind.
It kinda sounds like the whole balancing Bolster for years now, that I think of it...
Why would anyone get it at T3 timing? That's the point when it becomes completely irrelevant.
Posts: 127
Why would anyone get it at T3 timing? That's the point when it becomes completely irrelevant.
I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR YOU
That's what I tried to tell the Heavy Sappers dude, but he's not talking about it being used for combat, or anything it would be used for in early game, instead of the AEC, but as a Light AA platform, because Centaur is pretty costly, if you also want to have a Cromwell on the field. Which I agree with.
But yeah, I personally think different, which is in the head, the main post of the Thread.
Posts: 5279
Why would anyone get it at T3 timing? That's the point when it becomes completely irrelevant.
Meh. It could have some use in terms of AA or a check cut off surprise. Im not against the suggestion. Not like at that timing it's going to hold a lot of ground, but it'll help by making the enemy need to commit more than an infantry squad.
Posts: 1527
Permanently BannedPosts: 1220 | Subs: 1
We don't need any more Brit buffs right now. Sections, AEC and Valentine are overperforming already.
If you read the op post, you will see that op was suggesting neft AEC timing and open up more Window for boffor. But seem like you just jump in.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
A number of changes can implement that could include extra tech or doctrinal abilities that allow player to invest more and get more out of emplacements.
For instance:
One could get pop reduction from commander or teching
one could buy extra armor and HP with manpower/fuel
Emplacement could perform superior when manned while occupants could take less damage
Player could have access to auto repair by spending manpower or fuel
On the other hand certain units abilities could be designed to do extra damage to them so that there is more counter play
Emplacements simply need an redesign.
Posts: 127
As I have posted elsewhere imo emplacements simply need more dept.
A number of changes can implement that could include extra tech or doctrinal abilities that allow player to invest more and get more out of emplacements.
For instance:
One could get pop reduction from commander or teching
one could buy extra armor and HP with manpower/fuel
Emplacement could perform superior when manned while occupants could take less damage
Player could have access to auto repair by spending manpower or fuel
On the other hand certain units abilities could be designed to do extra damage to them so that there is more counter play
Emplacements simply need an redesign.
I can't disagree nor agree. Each emplacement has to be looked at specifically with it's own tweaks, and also while looking at the bigger picture of each mode. So we can't just generalize all this and then agree/disagree. For example, I talked about Bofors and Mortar Pit in my post, and tried to look at them + the bigger picture.
Posts: 127
We don't need any more Brit buffs right now. Sections, AEC and Valentine are overperforming already.
Bro do you ever read posts lol
Posts: 2358
AEC relies on mobile light AT
Bofors is the best area denyial
The fact that bofors cant destroy anything that shoots above 40 range is not enough reason to consider it trash.
Posts: 127
The fact that bofors cant destroy anything that shoots above 40 range is not enough reason to consider it trash.
I never said that Bofors is trash, I just said that it would use some tweaks, because it is rare, and it could EVEN have a buff, because I said in the post, that AEC is too good. So, if we nerf AEC, Bofors will see some use more often, but it is NOT trash.
For me, personally, Bofors is like Su-76. Neither is bad, in fact, both are really good and reliable, and can be used effectively in the right hands, it's just that you see them not so often, and it begs a question of "Why?" and "How to fix this?".
Posts: 2358
Its no simple matter to touch such a cornerstone for UKF like AEC's. Its like touching SU T70's or USF Jacksons.
Posts: 127
A timing nerf for AEC is irrelevant. You cant either nerf its stats because 222's and luchs will wreak havok towards UKF heavy IS investment, only if PIATS were "reliable"...
Its no simple matter to touch such a cornerstone for UKF like AEC's. Its like touching SU T70's or USF Jacksons.
T-70 comes at the same time a Luchs does, or Luchs even earlier, while AEC sometimes comes at the same time as a 222 does. Simply not fair. I just want it to come out later, maybe when a Luchs does.
Idk about Jackson, I dun play USF.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
T-70 comes at the same time a Luchs does, or Luchs even earlier, while AEC sometimes comes at the same time as a 222 does. Simply not fair. I just want it to come out later, maybe when a Luchs does.
Idk about Jackson, I dun play USF.
You are doing meth, not math.
I highly advise you to go into the game and actually add the costs up, you'll find that its nowhere close.
T-70 comes out much later then luchs.
AEC can't be on field in 4th minute, unless opponent just goes afk or its 4v4 fuel cache spam.
Posts: 127
You are doing meth, not math.
I highly advise you to go into the game and actually add the costs up, you'll find that its nowhere close.
T-70 comes out much later then luchs.
AEC can't be on field in 4th minute, unless opponent just goes afk or its 4v4 fuel cache spam.
...or if the Brit is winning. Happened to me a million times, when I had at least 1 fuel and was pressing on the enemy.
And I use T-70 pretty rarely, I still use that Su-76 out of pure nostalgia...
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
T-70 comes at the same time a Luchs does, or Luchs even earlier, while AEC sometimes comes at the same time as a 222 does. Simply not fair. I just want it to come out later, maybe when a Luchs does.
Idk about Jackson, I dun play USF.
I think the main issue is that UKF has so many side techs and is the only faction that needs to rely on IS for their AI fighting power until the mid game.
If UKF bolsters (and maybe even buys weapon racks) before the AEC, the AEC comes at an okay timing of about 7-8 minutes, which is not far off the timings of other LVs like Luchs, Puma, Stuart etc. However, if they don't, they can just skip these two minutes of fuel income and get it at 5-6 minutes. On the other hand you cannot screw with the costs of all these side techs too much because this would just mess up other timings.
If the AEC becomes gated too harshly and comes too late, UKF will have serious issues especially against OST because it cannot effectively fight the 222 and 251 since they will likely only have 1 unit with snares on the field. Additionally, LVs are usually the best way out of the downwards spiral if you fall behind in the early game. So if we'd nerf the AEC, all the weight is back on IS to at least win the infantry fights which could result in a buff of those and then again lead to oppressive fights against Axis infantry. Gladly we have left this phase behind.
I think we have only a couple of options:
- Increase some price by a very low fuel amount (5-10 max, otherwise UKF fuel economy could get screwed). AEC side tech would probably be the best target.
- Add some time (~20-30 sec) to the AEC research or build time
- Move some fuel costs. I think the only way to go here is to move 5 fuel from the grenade to the Platoon Command Post. UKF having grenades is not super oppressive and would not change too much, while at the same time we'd increase the total teching costs and delay the AEC a bit. However 5 fuel is really not much and translates to only 5-10 seconds of time. This also means that UKF tank timings get a mini nerf as well.
- Somehow split the AEC and let it come as weaker version (low armor or something). Then get it back to normal performance once bolster or so is researched (does not make much sense from a logical point of view, but could be a band aid)
- Final possibility I can think of: Rework the whole synergy between IS, UC and AEC. The current issue is that - if played correctly - UKF can propel itself through the early game with the UC, neglect infantry upgrades if it works well, force a LV from Axis as a counter and then insta build the AEC. I don't know what would be the best course of action here since the UC has a narrow window and IS are difficult to touch.
Posts: 127
If UKF bolsters (and maybe even buys weapon racks) before the AEC, the AEC comes at an okay timing of about 7-8 minutes, which is not far off the timings of other LVs like Luchs, Puma, Stuart etc. However, if they don't, they can just skip these two minutes of fuel income and get it at 5-6 minutes.
That's exactly how I get AEC at pretty much the same time 222 and 251, which makes it roll around when Mediums hit the field. That's why it is so oppressive.
I think we have only a couple of options:
- Increase some price by a very low fuel amount (5-10 max, otherwise UKF fuel economy could get screwed). AEC side tech would probably be the best target.
- Add some time (~20-30 sec) to the AEC research or build time
- Move some fuel costs. I think the only way to go here is to move 5 fuel from the grenade to the Platoon Command Post. UKF having grenades is not super oppressive and would not change too much, while at the same time we'd increase the total teching costs and delay the AEC a bit. However 5 fuel is really not much and translates to only 5-10 seconds of time. This also means that UKF tank timings get a mini nerf as well.
That is the solution that will work the best, imo. Because it still has to be very good to fight off other LVs effectively, but not come out to early to make an LV phase a loss for the Axis. As you said before, neglecting the Bolster and Racks makes an AEC come out faster, so just the cost is not enough.
Final possibility I can think of: Rework the whole synergy between IS, UC and AEC. The current issue is that - if played correctly - UKF can propel itself through the early game with the UC, neglect infantry upgrades if it works well, force a LV from Axis as a counter and then insta build the AEC. I don't know what would be the best course of action here since the UC has a narrow window and IS are difficult to touch.
Exactly how I play. There is my build somewhere here, which shows how exactly I force that insta AEC.
Posts: 2243
They had weakness since they had no snares. For this weakness they had several advantages in AT ability like a super early AEC, sniper with critical shot and armor penetration, bofors, great AT gun and homing piats.
Now they get snare you forget to take away / nerv their advantages...which mean they got the same power in AT ...while even had their old advantages. Same with sov zis....this gun is better wiping machine vs team weapons than mortar or brummbar (more range/ faster reload) while has now the power to penetrate with high chance KT at max range. While sov has great other AT options to.
It would be like to give ost 6model grens and a forward retreat point (delete some of their weakness) and don't nerv any advantages from them
Livestreams
23 | |||||
2 | |||||
341 | |||||
211 | |||||
15 | |||||
10 | |||||
9 | |||||
9 | |||||
6 | |||||
3 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1099614.642-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, jennifermary
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM