[Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback
- This thread is locked
Posts: 97
All in all, solid and very good changes. The direction this goes seems perfect!
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
With the changes to Sapper heavy sapper upgrades with 3 weapons + minespweers need to be look at.
I can not remember the last time I even saw anyone using Heavy Sappers as anything but a repair unit. Why do you think this unit needs to be nerfed?
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I can not remember the last time I even saw anyone using Heavy Sappers as anything but a repair unit. Why do you think this unit needs to be nerfed?
The reason not to use Heavy sapper is the movement penalty that has been removed. The upgrade is simply silly:
1) Repair speed
2) Armor
3) Lmg that take no weapons slot
It need to be look at.
It does have to be "nerfed" it could provide less and become cheaper.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Royal Engineers are being moved to the HQ to encourage different builds from the British, help provide map control over the more expensive Infantry Section, and provide a cheaper supporting unit. A number of their abilities and construction options are being pushed back to avoid having a significant impact in the early game.
- Now trained in the HQ rather than the Platoon Command Post
- Destroy Cover, Heat Grenade, and Forward Assembly require Platoon Command Post"
If encouraging different build from the UKF is goal I suggest you some of the utility of IS to Ro.E.
Currently Cashes/sandbag/trenches are all build from IS but these task are better suited for engineer so some of all of could be move to Ro.E
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
The reason not to use Heavy sapper is the movement penalty that has been removed. The upgrade is simply silly:
1) Repair speed
2) Armor
3) Lmg that take no weapons slot
It need to be look at.
It does have to be "nerfed" it could provide less and become cheaper.
Its an end game, exclusive tech and not exactly cheap in itself.
It doesn't need any "looking at" unless for whatever insane reason it will dominate meta out of sudden, which is very unlikely to happen given their vet and potential investment required to deck them out for anything that isn't repairing.
It can provide what it provides without any changes and be fine.
Just stop this random hate on any allied unit you find.
Posts: 486
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Its an end game, exclusive tech and not exactly cheap in itself.
It doesn't need any "looking at" unless for whatever insane reason it will dominate meta out of sudden, which is very unlikely to happen given their vet and potential investment required to deck them out for anything that isn't repairing.
It can provide what it provides without any changes and be fine.
Yes it does.
There simply no reason for Ro.E. to be able to get 3 weapons + mine sweepers.
As for the vet for heavy sapper the have some of the best numbers once they are vetted.
(Pls check stat before posting)
Just stop this random hate on any allied unit you find.
Pls stop posting imaginary and irrelevant things
Posts: 486
also, their combat stats are EXTREMELY tied to cover, with the Vet 1 improving cover combat. Could be an issue late game with mass yellow cover, but Rocket Arti tends to wipe squads anyways.
This needs testing.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Yes it does.
There simply no reason for Ro.E. to be able to get 3 weapons + mine sweepers.
And they still are very bad in actual combat despite all of that because:
As for the vet for heavy sapper the have some of the best numbers once they are vetted.
REs get ZERO accuracy vet.
Neither construction speed, nor repair speed helps them in combat.
Vet 1 affects EXCLUSIVELY their SMGs.
33% rec acc isn't going to help them out at all, because again, they have ZERO accuracy vet.
-10% reinforce cost helps against attrition, does absolutely nothing for combat potential.
So:
(Pls check stat before posting)
I mean... sure, you're right, if you add all the numbers, you will see some of the highest numbers.
But if you take a moment to check what these "high numbers" actually affect, you will see that a total of their combat vet stats, assuming we're going your "overpowered tripple LMG" route is:
-33% rec acc vet
And that's it.
That is all the combat vet they get.
Their scaling, except that vet3 rec accuracy is exclusively paid through upgrades. They do not scale otherwise.
Posts: 3053
The reason not to use Heavy sapper is the movement penalty that has been removed. The upgrade is simply silly:
1) Repair speed
2) Armor
3) Lmg that take no weapons slot
It need to be look at.
It does have to be "nerfed" it could provide less and become cheaper.
Imagine thinking heavy sappers are OP.
It also makes your only unit with snares slower in combat.
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
Posts: 176
30fuel for Platoon, 30fuel for Bofors & AEC. With 60fuel Brit unlock 7 units (while USF unlock 4 units).
Brit tech should get some nerf. Maybe not lock out unit like USF, OKW, but definitely need to splitted into a small Hammer & Anvil teches.
Something like this:
-Platoon 30fuel: Sapper, Sniper, mortar
-Mid tech Hammer 40fuel: Officier, AEC, weaponrack
-Mid tech Anvil 40fuel: Bofors, ATgun, bolster squad
(Grenade still a side tech)
Posts: 486
I feel Brit currently gain alot of new units, and in the future Bofors & AEC doesnt lock each other.
30fuel for Platoon, 30fuel for Bofors & AEC. With 60fuel Brit unlock 7 units (while USF unlock 4 units).
Brit tech should get some nerf. Maybe not lock out unit like USF, OKW, but definitely need to splitted into a small Hammer & Anvil teches.
Something like this:
-Platoon 30fuel: Sapper, Sniper, mortar
-Mid tech Hammer 40fuel: Officier, AEC, weaponrack
-Mid tech Anvil 40fuel: Bofors, ATgun, bolster squad
(Grenade still a side tech)
Currently, the UKF's 'meta' play style doesnt use less fuel than others... all that would do is add another accessibility split to an already straight-jacketed faction. See AT Gun? No AEC to counter LV. See AEC? Tank rush, he has no AT gun.
That was tried with USF and ends up really really clunky.
Also, they still have lowest non-doc unit count.
Posts: 155
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Imagine thinking heavy sappers are OP.
It also makes your only unit with snares slower in combat.
Read the patch notes the penalty has been removed.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I suggest you simply test them instead of theory crafting.
If you think that a dirty cheap squad, with even cheaper reinforcement, 847 EHP and the option for up you 3 weapons can not fight you are simply clueless. The EHP are close to that of vet 3 shock troops.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I suggest you simply test them instead of theory crafting.
If you think that a dirty cheap squad, with even cheaper reinforcement, 847 EHP and the option for up you 3 weapons can not fight you are simply clueless. The EHP are close to that of vet 3 shock troops.
You.... just AGREED with me you clown.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
You.... just AGREED with me you clown.
"And they still are very bad in actual combat despite all of that because"
Pls test you claim and provide evidence to support it. I have little to add until you do.
(Also work of reading comprehension because as I already posted this claim is simply false )
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.35157.860+16
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.934410.695-1
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Lekanterfki
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM