Why Brits aren't op (and their design isn't bad)

Cromwell argument makes no sense whatsoever. Ostheer has T4 with Brummbar and Panther, OKW has Panther in the same tier and KT stock. Both factions have workhorse Panzer IVs

I don't think the Brummbar/Panther/KT are comparable to the P4 in any way like the Comet is just a bigger generalist version of the Cromwell and to some extend how the Churchill is a (way) more durable generalist version. They are specialist vehicles and the KT as a superheavy is a completely different category. The Panther and Brummbar are not meant to replace a Panzer IV, they are meant to supplement it with heavier AT or AI duties as the match progresses and bigger threats start to arrive. Or to completely bypass it in the case of teamgames meta.

I think the Cromwell is fine for its price anyway. It can come onto the field at a very good timing, it has good AI since the MG buffs, good near and mid penetration, similar ROF to a P4 but slightly better accuracy and sight range, it's fast/nimble and it has the smoke shell. I don't think there's anything left that needs to be buffed and I don't think it needs a cost decrease either.

Keeping in mind that design is subjective, I disagree strongly. The original British design in CoH2 is one of the worst in the series, after CoH1 British.
The last 4 years of changes have made the faction more normal, but it's built from scraps and hotfixes. Considering where the faction started, it's turned out alright.

I think that the real lessons from the series' expansions are that factions need all tools (anti-building, snare, suppression) to feel well-rounded, and if they're going to try something other than the combined arms system that the game is built for, the alternative needs to be compelling.

+1
Indeed.

This all stem from the design philosophy of stripping factions of tools but instead giving them OP options to compensate. Then 2 perspectives clashes, the ones who are facing them which feel cheesed and the ones who basically play the faction and feel shoehorn into utilising only the OP things cause everything else is irrelevant.

When you strip out the outlier factors that carries a faction, then you notice how everything scrambles around (OKW/UKF). Or you have a similar case with stronger tools but limited ones, then you balance them out and you end up with SU/USF situation.

...

It's not hard to understand that the 2 factions which gather the most hate around are the 2 who had their core design scrapped just barely weeks/months before release and took years of balance and rework to fix it. Specially when they screw around the modes which most of the playerbase uses (2v2, 3v3 and 4v4).

The problem with UKF is that they have too many key units which tread the line between obnoxious to play against or useless. It doesn't help the discrepancy in performance between modes, specially for core units.

1- Why IS spam is worst than other main line infantry spam? Potential non doctrinaly. IS goes from a slower style 4 man squad which can lay cover, into an either mobile AoE healing/self spotting artillery caller, 5 man squad, double bren wielder which can unlock grenades or potentially satchels.

It doesn't help that the strength comes mostly from tech + upgrades and not vet.

2- The UKF problem is not a tech one but tool one. Similar to what OKW had in the past.

3- The hate on UKF commanders stem from the non interactive OP tools they received initially. OG Artillery cover, Cancer commander base artillery, double skill commanders or non stop artillery offmap.

snip

Why do you actually think that the Cromwell is bad? AoE profile might be slightly worse, penetration is pretty standard, ROF as well, vet bonus is also standard, smoke shell utility is also good. And in the late game UKF has pretty similar tools like any other faction apart from rocket arty. Don't know too much about the MGs since the DPS site is bugged, but it was buffed in one of the more recent patches to bring it more in line with other mediums.

Why do you actually think that the Cromwell is bad? AoE profile might be slightly worse, penetration is pretty standard, ROF as well, vet bonus is also standard, smoke shell utility is also good. And in the late game UKF has pretty similar tools like any other faction apart from rocket arty. Don't know too much about the MGs since the DPS site is bugged, but it was buffed in one of the more recent patches to bring it more in line with other mediums.

It’s a 110 fuel T34/76 without ram and with slightly better pen.

Go hammer and you get a Panther with P4 wipe potential.
It’s not very complicated.

cromwell is also faster if i recall correctly, the problem is not that the cromwell is bad, it suffers from the fact all mediums do that it dies to 4 pak shots.

in 1vs1 cromwell can be a good choice and does pretty well, it is just outshined very hard by the comet

+1
Indeed.

This all stem from the design philosophy of stripping factions of tools but instead giving them OP options to compensate. Then 2 perspectives clashes, the ones who are facing them which feel cheesed and the ones who basically play the faction and feel shoehorn into utilising only the OP things cause everything else is irrelevant.

When you strip out the outlier factors that carries a faction, then you notice how everything scrambles around (OKW/UKF). Or you have a similar case with stronger tools but limited ones, then you balance them out and you end up with SU/USF situation.



It's not hard to understand that the 2 factions which gather the most hate around are the 2 who had their core design scrapped just barely weeks/months before release and took years of balance and rework to fix it. Specially when they screw around the modes which most of the playerbase uses (2v2, 3v3 and 4v4).

The problem with UKF is that they have too many key units which tread the line between obnoxious to play against or useless. It doesn't help the discrepancy in performance between modes, specially for core units.

1- Why IS spam is worst than other main line infantry spam? Potential non doctrinaly. IS goes from a slower style 4 man squad which can lay cover, into an either mobile AoE healing/self spotting artillery caller, 5 man squad, double bren wielder which can unlock grenades or potentially satchels.

It doesn't help that the strength comes mostly from tech + upgrades and not vet.

2- The UKF problem is not a tech one but tool one. Similar to what OKW had in the past.

3- The hate on UKF commanders stem from the non interactive OP tools they received initially. OG Artillery cover, Cancer commander base artillery, double skill commanders or non stop artillery offmap.

So basically a year ago I would've agreed with this for the most part. This is probably an accurate explanation of why people hate brits. However if you think about it it really doesn't make sense at least in theory. You talk about stripping away "tools" and instead of giving them "op options". So these "op options" are not tools? Wehrmacht is somehow considered the gold standard of what a faction should have? Why? Any attempt by relic to create asymmetrical balance has basically been homogenized at this point.

1. Eh you just described tommies. Rifles also don't rely on doctrines. Neither do cons since 7men is a thing.

2. Could you elaborate? I've mentioned that there's certain blind spots in the faction design like the lack of anti building and indirect fire. But it's not like indirect fire options make a faction popular. USF indirect fire spam with Pack Howies and Scotts is universally hated almost like brits.

3. I get that point. All those "combined" abilities doing several things that aren't really intuitive. Then again there's a similar amount but different kind of obnoxiousness in other factions commanders. Also since you say "initially": May I remind you that OKW used to have an arty strike that would literally end the game immediately if put on base? OKW is worse than brits design wise in many regards but for some reason it reveives way less hate.

It’s a 110 fuel T34/76 without ram and with slightly better pen.

Go hammer and you get a Panther with P4 wipe potential.
It’s not very complicated.

Which means it's a balanced T34/76. Your problem with using the T34 as a comparison is that you misjudge the strength of your reference point.

It’s a 110 fuel T34/76 without ram and with slightly better pen.

Go hammer and you get a Panther with P4 wipe potential.
It’s not very complicated.

Obviously the Comet is better, but the Comet is also overperforming for its cost.
Cromwell might benefit from a small tweak as well, but overall it trades pretty evenly with a P4. I think your statement of lowering the price to T34 level is exaggerated because it performs better.

Your problem with using the T34 as a comparison is that you misjudge the strength of your reference point.

Right back at you.

Obviously the Comet is better, but the Comet is also overperforming for its cost.
Cromwell might benefit from a small tweak as well, but overall it trades pretty evenly with a P4. I think your statement of lowering the price to T34 level is exaggerated because it performs better.

And I think anyone looking at the Cromwell like it’s fine has severe L2P issues.

This shouldve been posted on April 1st

The Cromwell could perhaps do with a slight reduction in cost, but it really is far from a terrible tank. The smoke shell is a very nice feature, all on its own.

The Comet existing (as it is) sort of compounds issues with the Cromwell, though, as others have mentioned. Being able to Multi-Comet (Though this isnt a 1v1 thing) makes it even more a no-brainer in most cases.

In general, as much as it pains me to suggest, Heavy-Tank-esque concurrent unit limits might help alleviate a lot of team game concerns. Even team-wide restrictions on the number of certain types of units might solve a few of the major annoyances, though I expect this might be a rather controversial suggestion.

I've come to terms with Brits except for the very early game.

Having the ability to have a light vehicle that can be upgraded to lay flame lava AND an MG is what breaks them for me. OKW really struggles against this, because you can't get everything you need to counter fast enough. If you want to counter the MG and IS sitting in green cover, you need the truck fast. But you can't lay down the truck and get the ISG because you need the raketen for the bren. So you either go 2 volks and good luck flanking the Brit's 4 units to have a raketen or you get pushed off by the bren carrier. It just seems simply totally imbalanced to me vs OKW and always has. And then they can still get an AEC out in a reasonable amount of time anyway so puma is not the answer.

I'd like to see Brits have to make a choice between the MG and the bren flame at least.

Maybe making bolster take up 1 weapon slot for Tommies would be a good change. Therefore you either get 5 man squads with 1 bren or 4 man squads with 2 brens? Might create a trade off for bolster instead of it being a must get after t1 tech.

So basically a year ago I would've agreed with this for the most part. This is probably an accurate explanation of why people hate brits. However if you think about it it really doesn't make sense at least in theory. You talk about stripping away "tools" and instead of giving them "op options". So these "op options" are not tools? Wehrmacht is somehow considered the gold standard of what a faction should have? Why? Any attempt by relic to create asymmetrical balance has basically been homogenized at this point.

1. Eh you just described tommies. Rifles also don't rely on doctrines. Neither do cons since 7men is a thing.

2. Could you elaborate? I've mentioned that there's certain blind spots in the faction design like the lack of anti building and indirect fire. But it's not like indirect fire options make a faction popular. USF indirect fire spam with Pack Howies and Scotts is universally hated almost like brits.

3. I get that point. All those "combined" abilities doing several things that aren't really intuitive. Then again there's a similar amount but different kind of obnoxiousness in other factions commanders. Also since you say "initially": May I remind you that OKW used to have an arty strike that would literally end the game immediately if put on base? OKW is worse than brits design wise in many regards but for some reason it reveives way less hate.

0- Those OP tools end up been removed or nerfed. Example:
For the lack of normal snares, UKF had a sniper who could engine damage, a TD which could 1 shot combo destroy any medium, an AT gun with was basically a pak40 with accuracy bonus and the most broken handheld AT infantry in game with cheaper reinforce (only that u needed to micro attack ground with them).

Relic's attempt of assymetrical balance was:
-Soviets getting few options regarding units access but getting carried by those units. People don't like facing maxim spam, penals whenever they are viable, double man squad sprinting snipers, OG Shocks/Guards or cost effective call in vehicles which compensate for the lack of performance of non doc vehicles.

I could go on with any of the other 4 factions.

1- The problem is the difference between where they start at min 0 of the game and how they can end up being. You don't have this problem with any of the other main line infantry. Rifles were tuned down on purpose to allow other units to be viable while UKF generally doesn't have those options to branch out.

2- Indeed u mention it.
Tech problems is basically current OKW. Soviets doesn't have it cause they mostly don't need T1 atm and not counting 1v1 T2 is relatively cheap. And USF whole rework was basically making different officers more accessible.

What i'm saying is that from conception, UKF didn't had any tech design problems. It had other problems.

3- I know about OKW i win button, but that required like +500 muni and only worked against USF on 1v1. It also didn't last too long before nerf. In comparison, UKF abilities took quite a while to resolve and there had been several metas around those abilities.

OKW receives less hate depending on how weak/strong they are. People have a hate boner for UKF since CoH1. Many people complain about Simcity but a lot of them are hypocrites cause those same people "defended" OKW when it release and it was basically UKF simcity in the way it played.

Which means it's a balanced T34/76. Your problem with using the T34 as a comparison is that you misjudge the strength of your reference point.

do we have to explain again as to why the T-34-76 is a terrible unit? youve made some blatantly false arguments in the old thread... you cant perpetuate the same lies here aswell

Maybe making bolster take up 1 weapon slot for Tommies would be a good change. Therefore you either get 5 man squads with 1 bren or 4 man squads with 2 brens? Might create a trade off for bolster instead of it being a must get after t1 tech.

Imo it should simply increase the entity number but not provide the extra model which would have to purchased separately. That would fix the pricing of Tommies/Sappers

Imo it should simply increase the entity number but not provide the extra model which would have to purchased separately. That would fix the pricing of Tommies/Sappers

Wait, what's the difference?

ukf are pop limited.
i never agreed with churchill pop increase
my suggestions was a mix of +1 pop and -50% reduce in gun damage.

Wait, what's the difference?

the difference is 5 man tommy will cost 308mp per squad (if base price will be 280).

the difference is 5 man tommy will cost 308mp per squad (if base price will be 280).

Well realistically this is applyable only to the sappers or maybe 1 IS squad. Considering that before you get bolster you've already got 3-4 ISs.

Not to mention that you already have to pay for additional models anyway for every squad you've got before bolster.

This this will only affect lost squad rebuilding.