[Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback

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.

One Panther versus one Churchill and one Firefly? That isn't realistic at all. What does the axis player has in addition for same pop and price?

One Panther versus one Churchill and one Firefly? That isn't realistic at all. What does the axis player has in addition for same pop and price?

No sh**. Did you really take the scenario just there and that? Of course there might be a pak near by, supporting infantry. Maybe a werfer or supporting ally... A lot of things can be there. Of course, same applies for the UKF. Point is, for it's role and stats, it's cost effective.

No sh**. Did you really take the scenario just there and that? Of course there might be a pak near by, supporting infantry. Maybe a werfer or supporting ally... A lot of things can be there. Of course, same applies for the UKF. Point is, for it's role and stats, it's cost effective.

No reason to get salty. We just discussed, stay calm please.

As I said: Not for population, 19 is way to high. If the Churchill stays as it is now people will pick Comet for good reasons. Sad for game diversity.

No reason to get salty. We just discussed, stay calm please.

As I said: Not for population, 19 is way to high. If the Churchill stays as it is now people will pick Comet for good reasons. Sad for game diversity.

I ain't salty at all mate. Seldom are times where I get mad. About the pop cost. Maybe. I won't get into that since I don't play UKF much these days, nor do I play vs them since I only play allies so I won't comment about population balance. Population balance is one of the key elements and I'm not sure the 18 // 19 makes much difference. Does it?

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.

1) yes that was not correct it 1020 for 3 PGs sqauds.
2) And even 3 pgs onyl soft counter a churhcill according to you so I fail to see the issue.
3) Yes if one's opponent has invested so much in AT infatry one should not make tanks. Same goes for ATG, your point thou?

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.

And the Panther is way more expensive the Churchill so again your point?

Don't understand this comment...

A FF in range on enemy AT is using the unit wrongly.

Claiming that Churchill need buff because Comet is better is not a solid argument since these vehicles do not fight each other. If choice A is better than choice B that design issues and not balance issue. This can fixed with add utility not with buffs.

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.

That is one way to look at it. Another would be it more than twice the durability for about 1.5 times the pop...

Chuchill is a cost efficient Tank. Should the pop be reduced? probably but then the power level of the unit should be decreased also unless you want to go back in meta where multiple Churchill where used.

I ain't salty at all mate. Seldom are times where I get mad. About the pop cost. Maybe. I won't get into that since I don't play UKF much these days, nor do I play vs them since I only play allies so I won't comment about population balance. Population balance is one of the key elements and I'm not sure the 18 // 19 makes much difference. Does it?

Okay, then I want to apologize. It seemed so.

18 or 19 -> no its not much of a differnce. The problem is the whole concept of the damage sponge. A damage sponge would be great if you couldn't pick targets and all units would fire on the nearest target of their target priority. Since this is not the case you don't need a damage sponge.

The game is not about taking damage but about how much amount of damage x you deal while you get the amount of (penetrated) damage y yourself. At a good unit x is greater than y.
Surviabilty is the second important aspect. You have to get away in time to make the differnce between geting hurt badly and geting destroyed. In that category the Churchill isn't so good as it seems to be one first glance. Too slow and too easily snared. More speed beats more health when it comes to escaping death/destruction.

The Panther is the best tank in the game overall, because it accomplishes both this aspects to a very good degree.

1) yes that was not correct it 1020 for 3 PGs sqauds.
2) And even 3 pgs onyl soft counter a churhcill according to you so I fail to see the issue.
3) Yes if one's opponent has invested so much in AT infatry one should not make tanks. Same goes for ATG, your point thou?

1) and even less for Fussis
2) The problem is, that they are no softcounter for this T4 lategame tank. Instead they own him, even by standing in the open. Only units like PAKS and TDs should be like this, because they have the big weakness versus infantry (and indirect fire in case of PAKs). PGs and Fussi have no real weakness and have a lot more of utility by capping points, throwing grenades and so on. So they should be a softcounter.
3) No, you still can make tanks, but you need mobile ones which are able to kite. Again this is an argument for going Hammer with Comet. Inspite of its health the Survivability of a Churchill is seriously hampered by its speed and accleration.

And the Panther is way more expensive the Churchill so again your point?

My point was that you put two tanks versus each other that are in different tech levels. Panther is in the same tech as Churchill at least, although it is more expensive.

A FF in range on enemy AT is using the unit wrongly.

So where is the reason for a Churchill as a damage sponge then, when my FF will be never in range of enemy AT unless I failed it? So I need the churchill for my personal failure? What a bad designed unit.

Claiming that Churchill need buff because Comet is better is not a solid argument since these vehicles do not fight each other. If choice A is better than choice B that design issues and not balance issue. This can fixed with add utility not with buffs.

They don't have to fight each other, still they are competing with each other about the ressources like population, fuel and manpower. This isn't only about utility. I always would choose a Tiger over a Kingtiger for example (there is one commander where you have the choice actually). Not because of greater utility but of greater combat performance.

That is one way to look at it. Another would be it more than twice the durability for about 1.5 times the pop...

But it is not enough to just scale durability. All other heavy tanks (including half-heavy Panther) scale durability and combat performance. And in the end it even hasn't more than twice the durabilty because speed/accleration is an important part of durability.

Chuchill is a cost efficient Tank. Should the pop be reduced? probably but then the power level of the unit should be decreased also unless you want to go back in meta where multiple Churchill where used.

That meta was completely fucked up. Churchills were completely op, noone wants to go back there. Just make it a tank with some decent AI damage output and cap it a 1 (maybe shared with Crocodile/Avre). A unit is only efficient if it deals more damage than it takes. Anything else is a misconception.

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.

hard cap it. problem solved. it can BE attractive without running the risk of having multiple super meatshields roaming around. same with the comet. both these tanks should be great but are hampered by the risk of swarms. increasing the pop cap is counter intuitive because it takes up army space to support it meaning its power needs to be greater to make up for presence. hard capping heavies was one of the best changes in coh2 history and these elite premiums would benifit from it as well i feel.

Show Spoiler

That meta was completely fucked up. Churchills were completely op, noone wants to go back there. Just make it a tank with some decent AI damage output and cap it a 1 (maybe shared with Crocodile/Avre).

It has decent AI since at vet 1 it get grenades and extra smg.

If one redesigned to unit be limited to 1 one could probably buff but I doubt the moderation team would go for that.

Point here is that the unit is cost efficient so any change would have to do with power level (both cost and performance either going up or down) or limiting to 1.

If you check my suggestion I think that it would be better design if Comet stayed at the same price but lost its AI abilities (grenade/WP) and Churchill got these abilities and lower pop and lost some of its AT capability by reducing penetration.

With Royal Engineers having a capping bonus at the moment, what do people think about putting them in T0?

Possibly in combination with reverting the AEC build time increase, moving medics, and giving the UC a ~10 fuel cost. And gating the destroy cover ability behind a unit upgrade or tech.

These changes may increase build diversity (think early capping power and doctrinal flamers), while also making the 222 less mandatory to counter the UC (as the UC would now delay tech) and in turn (with RE on the field) making the AEC less mandatory to counter a 222.


So for example changes could be roughly:

- (Royal Engineers now have 1.25 capture rate)
- Royal Engineers moved to T0
- Blow up cover ability locked behind T1
- Medic Squad moved to T1. This way going for early doctrinal flamers (potentially strong) would lock you out of early healing on Infantry Sections
- Possibly 5-10 fuel cost added to UC
- Possibly revert AEC build time increase

Well, the Comet nerf from 1 second to 2 seconds for WP aim is pretty big in my opinion. It is considerably harder to use now. I think a nerf to 1.5 second is more realistic.
Comet could lose grenades. Also, people that state Comet is OP, please remember it has one of the worst combat bonuses for tanks. Only a 20% reload bonus at vet 3. The rest is just for mobility or gimmicks (vet. 3 grenades....). It is good when it comes out, but it doesn't get much better with vet.
On churchill, I think if it is to receive buffs, it should be damage wise. I remember when it was unkilable and meta. Very annoying.

With Royal Engineers having a capping bonus at the moment, what do people think about putting them in T0?

Possibly in combination with reverting the AEC build time increase and giving the UC a ~10 fuel cost.
And gating the destroy cover ability behind a unit upgrade or tech.

These changes may increase build diversity (think early capping power and doctrinal flamers), while also making the 222 less mandatory to counter the UC (as the UC would now delay tech) and in turn (with RE on the field) making the AEC less mandatory to counter a 222.

I can't see a single reason why anyone would get REs before vehicles, especially if you're going to gate the only reason why anyone would even consider it behind tech anyway.
It seems like another random nerf attempt with a token change to not say its 100% nerf.

I can't see a single reason why anyone would get REs before vehicles, especially if you're going to gate the only reason why anyone would even consider it behind tech anyway.
It seems like another random nerf attempt with a token change to not say its 100% nerf.

For a 210 manpower squad they would be good to cap the map faster or as response to some rushed out light vehicle. They're a bit inefficient in combat right now for 28mp reinforce cost, granted their base stats are pretty good for an engineer squad. Wouldn't mind seeing it lowered to 26mp.

The only real nerf here is the fuel cost for UC really, and that's imo a much better solution to open up a window between the UC and AEC follow-up than increasing the build time of the AEC, as it doesn't nerf the faction as a whole. There's already compensation for it as T0 Sappers means you can repair the UC without burning munitions.

I don't know how even you can't see this as a healthy change overall.

For a 210 manpower squad they would be good to cap the map faster or as response to some rushed out light vehicle. They're a bit inefficient in combat right for 28mp reinforce cost, granted their base stats are pretty good for an engineer squad. Wouldn't mind seeing it lowered to 26mp.

The only real nerf here is the fuel cost for UC really, and that's imo a much better solution to open up a window between the UC and AEC follow-up than increasing the build time of the AEC, as it doesn't nerf the faction as a whole. There's already compensation for it as T0 Sappers means you can repair the UC without burning munitions.

I don't know how even you can't see this as a healthy change overall.

Because I see it as a loss of map control due to IS bonus removal, further loss of map control and tech if you go for UC and while, as you've said, REs would keep UC high better then its self repair and maybe stay behind to cap while UC does its job, you'd need to be constantly aggressive with it anyway to compenasate for 1 IS squad less at that time, meaning less infantry presence. REs are indeed good, but I don't see them being appealing over 4 sections or 3 sections+uc and THEN REs(after tech anyway, MAYBE before with the change).

My point is, I do see the reasoning for a change, I just don't believe benefits outweight or even balance out downsides.
Yeah, it will open a new BO options, but it'll either be a dead BO possibility or osttruppen 2.0 resulting in REs being butchered in the following patch.

With Royal Engineers having a capping bonus at the moment, what do people think about putting them in T0?

It is one option or can move and redesign the officer.

Possibly in combination with reverting the AEC build time increase, moving medics, and giving the UC a ~10 fuel cost.

This problem start from making all these unit available so early. I would suggest to make 221 available to Ostheer to counter sniper and micro light vehicles and tone down the shock value of micro light vehicles.

And gating the destroy cover ability behind a unit upgrade or tech.

This ability is very power but it is needed to help with emplacement placing. Maybe there could be an alternative where placing would flatten the area where possible?

Imo the ability need a mu cost, longer CD and becoming more user friendly let the user know here it can not be used and the exact are it effect.

These changes may increase build diversity (think early capping power and doctrinal flamers), while also making the 222 less mandatory to counter the UC (as the UC would now delay tech) and in turn (with RE on the field) making the AEC less mandatory to counter a 222.

Again bring back the 221 and redesign the 222, Ostheer the faction with weakest light vehicles has become the faction most depended in LV.

So for example changes could be roughly:

- (Royal Engineers now have 1.25 capture rate)
- Royal Engineers moved to T0
- Blow up cover ability locked behind T1
- Medic Squad moved to T1. This way going for early doctrinal flamers (potentially strong) would lock you out of early healing on Infantry Sections
- Possibly 5-10 fuel cost added to UC
- Possibly revert AEC build time increase

Ditch the medic squad add base medic if needed.

If Ro.E are moved to T0 the F.A. should probably move behind T1.

Another issue is the IS performance (and bolster). Maybe IS should simply be redesign to start weaker but gain bonuses with each tech they unlock. The hammer anvil choice could be expanded to become allot more meaningful.

you cant compare sturmtiger to churchill bro!

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

Why can't I compared the sturmtiger and the churchill? They are both tanky Ai tanks, the pintle upgrade is one of the weakest in the game and isn't an upgrade but something you get with vet.
The tank commander gives it vision and 10% accuracy on the main gun, which only helps with hitting other tanks which isn't incredibly useful.

- Reload from 6.125/7 to 6.125

Thanks, I forgot that.

How many AT infatry are needed to beat a Churchill?


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.

Yes and cromwell is the worst medium tank in the game, so yeah it's bad.

and giving the UC a ~10 fuel cost.

There's a possibility that by doing this you would encourage more 4-section openings, which is the opposite of what most people would like to see.

Yes and cromwell is the worst medium tank in the game, so yeah it's bad.

Cromwell is a decent tank. Low profile and constant moving = hard to chase and hit. Decent enough AI power and a normal AT gun for flanking + smoke. Don't underestimate cheap medium tanks. Both sherman and cromwell, while being weaker than the axis counterparts in the raw performance, they more than make up for in other areas