[Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback

Early mill bomb are allot more common and thus more impactful than early pineapple. At list that is my opinion.

I personally do think the USF grenade upgrade is a lot more common. First of all you get the smoke grenade for Echelons in addition which is great by itself. Secondly with Rifles beeing a lot more offensive you know you will get the pineapple to good use. With tommies you can only assume that you might need the mills bomb occasionally. The USF grenade upgrade has a way stronger guaranteed pay off.

I personally do think the USF grenade upgrade is a lot more common. First of all you get the smoke grenade for Echelons in addition which is great by itself. Secondly with Rifles beeing a lot more offensive you know you will get the pineapple to good use. With tommies you can only assume that you might need the mills bomb occasionally. The USF grenade upgrade has a way stronger guaranteed pay off.

Maybe I was not very clear enough, the emphasis was on "early".

I personally feel USF player needs the early fuel and munition for other purposes since IS to fine even without weapons upgrade. Thus for UKF player the investsment in grenades early is less punishing.

So what's the purpose of reverting the Pop change on the Churchhill infantry tank,

So here's the overview of the changes:
Ability to get tank commander (fairly minor buff)
A Pintle with 2 long range dps with VET 1 (Minor Buff, but it does help give Ai)
Reduced rear armor to 150.
19 --> 18 --> 19
Increased Reload speed(Thanks Vipper)

How does any of this actually make the Churchhill infantry tank viable?
I'd also like to point out if the argument is that it's too tanky, then why does the Sturmtiger with veterancy get more hp and frontal armor yet only requires 18 pop.


How does any of this make sense?
The reason the change was implemented in the first place, is that the UKF already has insane pop cap requirements. It is the highest pop cost for an AI tank and yet it has some of the least effective AI for a tank intended in that role.

So what's the purpose of reverting the Pop change on the Churchhill infantry tank,

So here's the overview of the changes:
Ability to get tank commander (fairly minor buff)
A Pintle with 2 long range dps with VET 1 (Minor Buff, but it does help give Ai)
Reduced rear armor to 150.
19 --> 18 --> 19

How does any of this actually make the Churchhill infantry tank viable?
I'd also like to point out if the argument is that it's too tanky, then why does the Sturmtiger with veterancy get more hp and frontal armor yet only requires 18 pop.


How does any of this make sense?
The reason the change was implemented in the first place, is that the UKF already has insane pop cap requirements. It is the highest pop cost for an AI tank and yet it has some of the least effective AI for a tank intended in that role.

you cant compare sturmtiger to churchill bro!

i think a pop revert is fair with the tank commander and pintle upgrade now.

As said, scrap the tank commander or the vicker k pintle and let it be 18 pop. Both tank commander and pintle gunner sticking theirs head out on top of the tank at the same time look silly and unrealistic since the it need at least 2 man inside to operate the main gun, namely gunner and loader.

And have anyone try the grenade ability on a churchill with vicker K pintle? God,It look like the grenade flying out from the stomach of the gunner. Bloody awful.

Just scrap the pintle and keep the tank commander. The commander is the thing that fit the faction design, not the non-existen viker K (the british dont mount vicker K on top of their tank like that irl).

If more AI is needed, let the grenade available from vet 1 with more expensive cost and reduce it cost to normal at vet 1.

...

- Reload from 6.125/7 to 6.125

So what's the purpose of reverting the Pop change on the Churchhill infantry tank,

Patch note: The Churchill is having its population change reverted. If the unit receives additional changes, it will be to make the unit more potent individually.

Sounds to me there is another small buff incoming maybe. For a tank that late with poorly speed and AT abilities they should give it some more AI power by increasing AOE of main weapon to PZIV/T34 level. Its ROF is still slightly inferior.

It is absoluteley okay that a single Panther will beat it because of range and speed, but it is a problem that AT infantry will do the same. A damage sponge without a real damage infliction potential will just get ignored for better targets unless there are no better targets in which case it gives away free vet for axis side. At the moment the Churchill is only good if the opponent attacks it while your Firefly shoots from behind it without getting targeted manually. But that is not the case versus skilled players.

Patch note: The Churchill is having its population change reverted. If the unit receives additional changes, it will be to make the unit more potent individually.

Sounds to me there is another small buff incoming maybe. For a tank that late with poorly speed and AT abilities they should give it some more AI power by increasing AOE of main weapon to PZIV/T34 level. Its ROF is still slightly inferior.

It is absoluteley okay that a single Panther will beat it because of range and speed, but it is a problem that AT infantry will do the same.

How many AT infatry are needed to beat a Churchill?

A damage sponge without a real damage infliction potential will just get ignored for better targets unless there are no better targets in which case it gives away free vet for axis side. At the moment the Churchill is only good if the opponent attacks it while your Firefly shoots from behind it without getting targeted manually. But that is not the case versus skilled players.

That is definition of damage sponge, it can take damage but not dish out, it is supposed to be supported by other units that dish out the damage.

As for Churchill its damage potential is not "fake", it has the damage output similar to that of Cromwell.

in the bug fix note, there is a line said the scope lee enfield having it profile fixed, so it will be a such a waste if it can make it to the game, like, in live, this weapon cant be found anywhere in the game, which is a shame.

in the bug fix note, there is a line said the scope lee enfield having it profile fixed, so it will be a such a waste if it can make it to the game, like, in live, this weapon cant be found anywhere in the game, which is a shame.

Could replace one of the rifles for pyro sections, without taking a slot.

Could replace one of the rifles for pyro sections, without taking a slot.

it could and should event take a slot, to provide something other than double bren on any sections.

It doesn't matter what changed are made to Churchill unless Comet is nerfed into unplayable state or Churchill made OP. Comet is simply so much more potent and useful that even with the 10 fuel cost nerf it's still an infinitely better option. Churchill is slow, wastes pop cap, doesn't kill much, isn't really that much durable than a Comet. Comet already has large health pool, great frontal armour and additional survivability tools, it's quite difficult to actually lose one in 1v1. If you get stuck in some hopeless scenario with a snare, both Comet and Churchill die. If you play well, there is no reason to lose either, but Comet ditches out more damage. Why would anyone pick a Churchill again?

This is not to say Comet is OP. Its AI potential is worse than that of T34/76, which costs half the price, and in the AT department it's still inferior to a Panther. But the design of Hammer vs. Anvil is the problem. One gives a direct late game upgrade over your stock mediums, a role that needs to be filled and an improvement in that area is always welcome. But nobody needs a damage sponge. You don't win games by siting ducks and taking damage, you win games by outmaneuvering and pushing back your opponent. With a popcap of 100 and finite amount of resources, nobody can afford to waste pop and fuel on a unit that doesn't really contribute in that department.

How many AT infatry are needed to beat a Churchill?

2-3 squads are enough to chase it away.

That is definition of damage sponge, it can take damage but not dish out, it is supposed to be supported by other units that dish out the damage.

As for Churchill its damage potential is not "fake", it has the damage output similar to that of Cromwell.

A units that just takes damage without inflicting damage by itself makes no sense. It could have 5000 Hp as long as it isn't a threat it gets ignored when it comes to picking targets. So the Firefly gets destroyed first nevertheless. A damage sponge which isn't a problem for a least one type of unit isn't worth it at all. As I said free vet for german AT. I'm all in for more diverse builds. If it would be a threat to infantry there would be a reaosn to pick it, although the Comet seems to be stronger allround. Isn't it boring to see the Comet always?

A late game tank with the damage output of a Cromwell? Oh wow I'm really impressed. Must have unit.

An IS-2 has a similar surviability. Less health but more armor and speed. For just two more population it is completely out of the league of a Churchill and a thread to every single unit on the battlefield.

2-3 squads are enough to chase it away.



A units that just takes damage without inflicting damage by itself makes no sense. It could have 5000 Hp as long as it isn't a threat it gets ignored when it comes to picking targets. So the Firefly gets destroyed first nevertheless. A damage sponge which isn't a problem for a least one type of unit isn't worth it at all. As I said free vet for german AT. I'm all in for more diverse builds. If it would be a threat to infantry there would be a reaosn to pick it, although the Comet seems to be stronger allround. Isn't it boring to see the Comet always?

A late game tank with the damage output of a Cromwell? Oh wow I'm really impressed. Must have unit.

An IS-2 has a similar surviability. Less health but more armor and speed. For just two more population it is completely out of the league of a Churchill and a thread to every single unit on the battlefield.

But Churchill IS effective against infantry... It's a sponge which can kill infantry, good support for fireflies and other units. + The utility on it. The changes are welcome and well worked out

Seems like the goal is to make 1 churchill appealing, but discouraging multiple, so why not just make it 200 fuel or so, limit it to 1 and just give it everything it needs, whatever that would be? Just a wild idea based on randomness going around its pop costs shenanigans and overal randomness on where to put it, what should it do and how many should be used in contrast of its previous patches.

2-3 squads are enough to chase it away.

So if a player has invested 1.020 manpower , 24 pop and 300 ammunition in AT infatry it can chase away a singe tank. And that is unbalance because?

A units that just takes damage without inflicting damage by itself makes no sense.

But that is hardly the case Churchill inflict enough damage to take out PzIV 1vs1.

It could have 5000 Hp as long as it isn't a threat it gets ignored when it comes to picking targets. So the Firefly gets destroyed first nevertheless. A damage sponge which isn't a problem for a least one type of unit isn't worth it at all. As I said free vet for german AT. I'm all in for more diverse builds. If it would be a threat to infantry there would be a reaosn to pick it, although the Comet seems to be stronger allround. Isn't it boring to see the Comet always?

If one's FF is in range of AT assets he is probably doing something wrong.

The Comets performance is irrelevant since it does not fight the Comet.

The question one has to ask is "is the unit cost efficient"? and the answer is yes.

A late game tank with the damage output of a Cromwell? Oh wow I'm really impressed. Must have unit.

There is a huge difference between no damage and firepower of medium tank.

An IS-2 has a similar surviability. Less health but more armor and speed. For just two more population it is completely out of the league of a Churchill and a thread to every single unit on the battlefield.

Do I really need to point the differences?, ok will just point out the obvious:

Stock vs Doctrinal
Limited to 1
Around 1.5 the fuel cost

No matter how one want to look at it, Churchill is a cost efficient unit.

edited to correct 3 PG cost.

But Churchill IS effective against infantry... It's a sponge which can kill infantry, good support for fireflies and other units. + The utility on it. The changes are welcome and well worked out

Giving its timing its damage output is really low. It really struggles fighting AT-squads, especially those double shreks at Fussis. Since it is so slow PAKS are a greater threat for it too in comparison to other late game tanks. It is far easier to snare it on top. Without the smoke that is used for its own escape instead of infantry cover it would be absoluteley dead meat. So whats about that damage spong thing?

The tank with the best surviability in the game is the Panther. Even with motor damage it is faster than infantry, has great frontal armour and a decent health pool. It will take some beating, inflict some good damage by itself and escape fast if needed. If thats not enough, add in doctrinal Panzer Tactican for last second escape. Comet comes closest to Panther and thats the reason you'll always take a Comet instead of a Churchill if you want to win.

So if a player has invested 1340 manpower , 24 pop and 300 ammunition in AT infatry it can chase away a singe tank. And that is unbalance because?


But that is hardly the case Churchill inflict enough damage to take out PzIV 1vs1.


If one's FF is in range of AT assets. The Comets performance is irrelevant since it does not fight the Comet.

The question one has to ask is "is the unit cost efficient"? and the answer is yes.


There is a huge difference between no damage and firepower of medium tank.


Do I really need to point the differences?, ok will just point out the obvious:

Stock vs Doctrinal
Limited to 1
Around 1.5 the fuel cost

Churchill is a cost efficient unit.

This. It really is a cost efficient unit. Even more so with the new (good) changes. It's not doctrinal, which is the biggest +. If it were doctrinal, then one could talk about it's price and performance (would be comparable to KV1 in terms of role). Right now it's a great tank, good if you rush it, good late game. It won't kill Panthers but will make for a scary scenario where you rush a Panther next to a Churchill to take out a Firefly only to expose the rear armour to it's gun. Churchill will penetrate pretty much every axis tank that rushes past it, without even needing to rotate the whole chassis and expose itself. Of course, a good axis player will first use the Churchill to vet up the panther while keeping out of firefly range and a good brit player will try to keep the churchill close enough for the firefly to do dmg. It all boils down to specific players and their willingness to concentrate and micromanage. All in all, a good unit.

So if a player has invested 1340 manpower , 24 pop and 300 ammunition in AT infatry it can chase away a singe tank. And that is unbalance because?

1. 1340 manpower? What do you bought?
2. AT-infantry should only be a soft counter to tanks, TDs and PaKs should be hard counters.
3. AT-infantry is available way sooner, it is somehow redundant to build a Churchill, when its counters are on the field for a long time and vetted already.

But that is hardly the case Churchill inflict enough damage to take out PzIV 1vs1.

PZIV is at a different tech level. Fighting a Panther is more of a realistic case. In addition the PZIV is able to pick the fight or not, the Churchill can't choose.

If one's FF is in range of AT assets. The Comets performance is irrelevant since it does not fight the Comet.

Don't understand this comment...

The question one has to ask is "is the unit cost efficient"? and the answer is yes.


There is a huge difference between no damage and firepower of medium tank.


Do I really need to point the differences?, ok will just point out the obvious:

Stock vs Doctrinal
Limited to 1
Around 1.5 the fuel cost

Churchill is a cost efficient unit.

I talked about population. 19 population is not cost efficient for such a low damage output. It is about 1/5 of your army for the damage output of a medium tank.