So UKF rework when?

.....

This pretty much mirrors my experience playing with and against them as well.

Brits crush both axis factions for the first 4-5 minutes of the game. They explode onto the map with no buildings and extra fast cap speed, then win every fight overtuned sections, a stronger starting unit, and the UC for free bleed. Snipers and JLI are the only things that can hurt you at all.

But then they start to falter. Squad weapon upgrades, support weapons, and cheaper veterancy requirements start coming online for the axis factions. Brits suddenly struggle to hold ground, and once they get forced off they lack the tools to retake the map.

While they always start the game ahead, the second they fall off they can never recover. So you end up with this awkward faction design of "take a ton of ground and then bunker up hard."



Random Musings on their problems:
* The Brit vehicle roster is extremely top heavy. There is only one LV, no vehicular arty, and, outside of the Comet, a whole bunch of (at best) 'meh' units.

* The Mortar Pit is ineffective if forced into an artillery duel. Being stationary is a huge disadvantage, making it nearly impossible to use on some maps, and extremely challenging to use if starting the duel on the back foot.

* The vaunted Artillery calldowns are terrible. The smoke has the range of a smoke grenade, but the delay of a mortar barrage, giving it the worst of both worlds. The arty itself is cheap, but again short ranged, making getting to where you need it challenging when assaulting a defended position. The slow arrival and long barrage time likewise mean it will basically never force a retreat, just a reposition.

* Brit anti blob tools are nonexistent. Their MG doesn't do its job, they have no rocket or even tube arty, and there is just a general lack of good AOE tools in the arsenal in general. (Mills bombs being the only exception)

* The snare thing I think is overstated. 2 snare squads is usually adequate for most game modes. Brens being garbage on IS out of cover though really pushes them toward 5 man, which in turn makes maxed out Brit armies feel incredibly small.

I'll add a small suggestion:

To make UKF Base Artillery functional, add an ability to the HQ to re-direct the facing of the artillery.

UKF needs a source of reliable, consistent, and responsive indirect fire to assault fortified positions, punish blobs, and threaten enemy indirect fire. The Base Artillery was designed for that job, but never appropriately implemented and nerfed when implemented poorly.

The pack up-spin-drop speed of the artillery makes response times untenable unless you're shelling the same place repeatedly. Adding a QoL feature to orient this arty would help UKF pushes with minimal changes.

...

The problem is how different 1v1 and teamgames operate. First of all, you need to control a smaller part of the map and you can get away with teching decisions which would be an auto loss in 1v1. Sheer amount of unit volume makes some units more viable than others and fight flow tends to be more static, with clearly defined frontlines.

Most of the nerfs in the patch affect 1v1 mostly. Timing, healing, capping and sandbags. UKF doesn't have many options to recover lost ground or launch a counter attack cause most of their tools are awkward (mortar pit/Bofor barrage, artillery barrage and doctrinal Suxton/LM).

This leaves you with mostly brute forcing your way out.

UKF wins if they can hold into territory, don't get cheesed hard by snipers and sneak in all of their upgrades without getting overrun.

They have poor blob control units while they do more than fine blobbing on their own. I would say that UKF late game peaks other factions if they can get towards 2x Comet, 5 IS with Brens + Grenades and medic/pyro upgrades.


Teamgame wise i would say they are in a better position, specially for the average player.

The problem is how different 1v1 and teamgames operate. First of all, you need to control a smaller part of the map and you can get away with teching decisions which would be an auto loss in 1v1. Sheer amount of unit volume makes some units more viable than others and fight flow tends to be more static, with clearly defined frontlines.

Most of the nerfs in the patch affect 1v1 mostly. Timing, healing, capping and sandbags. UKF doesn't have many options to recover lost ground or launch a counter attack cause most of their tools are awkward (mortar pit/Bofor barrage, artillery barrage and doctrinal Suxton/LM).

This leaves you with mostly brute forcing your way out.

UKF wins if they can hold into territory, don't get cheesed hard by snipers and sneak in all of their upgrades without getting overrun.

They have poor blob control units while they do more than fine blobbing on their own. I would say that UKF late game peaks other factions if they can get towards 2x Comet, 5 IS with Brens + Grenades and medic/pyro upgrades.


Teamgame wise i would say they are in a better position, specially for the average player.

That too. Out of all allied factions, UKF has objectively the best end game with comets or churchills. And again it's a 1v1 perspective which the mod team is adamant about forcing. It's not surprising that the patches revolve around 1v1 but that mode will never be balanced, if you do not want OP factions in teamgames ofc, where there is a multiplier on each unit.

That too. Out of all allied factions, UKF has objectively the best end game with comets or churchills. And again it's a 1v1 perspective which the mod team is adamant about forcing. It's not surprising that the patches revolve around 1v1 but that mode will never be balanced, if you do not want OP factions in teamgames ofc, where there is a multiplier on each unit.

You are implying as if trying to balance team games isn't harder than 1v1. You can have OP factions on 1v1 but UP in teamgames and viceversa.

OH is OP while using meta on 1v1 not so much in teamgames.
USF is OP when using mechanized on 1v1, not so much in teamgames.

That too. Out of all allied factions, UKF has objectively the best end game with comets or churchills.

No, this is subjectively. I would say for instance, soviet is "objectively" the best allied late game faction in the big team modes. Churchills are just damages sponges which level your opponent Panthers. Furthermore this game doesn't need a damage spoon, because you can choose your targets. Comets on the other side were nerfed a little bit too much. Both take a lot of population space. In big game modes there are always multiple Panthers if you have multiple Comets. Comets doesn't perform very good versus Panthers.

Soviet has all the tools allied team needs in late game. Compared to UKF you have way better offmaps (especially for killing howitzers), you have the best limited (super) heavy tanks, a howitzer on your own, a strong nondoc rocket artillery piece and the best TD in allied team when it comes to cost efficiency and damage dealt in comparison to population space.

Brits only shine when it comes to mainline infantry.

When I'm playing Axis in the big game modes the things that bother me the most are mostly soviet units/abilties and some USF ones.

No, this is subjectively. I would say for instance, soviet is "objectively" the best allied late game faction in the big team modes. Churchills are just damages sponges which level your opponent Panthers. Furthermore this game doesn't need a damage spoon, because you can choose your targets. Comets on the other side were nerfed a little bit too much. Both take a lot of population space. In big game modes there are always multiple Panthers if you have multiple Comets. Comets doesn't perform very good versus Panthers.

Soviet has all the tools allied team needs in late game. Compared to UKF you have way better offmaps (especially for killing howitzers), you have the best limited (super) heavy tanks, a howitzer on your own, a strong nondoc rocket artillery piece and the best TD in allied team when it comes to cost efficiency and damage dealt in comparison to population space.

Brits only shine when it comes to mainline infantry.

When I'm playing Axis in the big game modes the things that bother me the most are mostly soviet units/abilties and some USF ones.

it's arguable who's the best in team games in things if we both choose the best commanders artillery and the isu 152 , both have some very good tool , sexton especially works even Vs elephant If u can aim, and if all fail u can Try to fall back on the 17 pounder emplacement which can work on some maps

You are implying as if trying to balance team games isn't harder than 1v1. You can have OP factions on 1v1 but UP in teamgames and viceversa.

OH is OP while using meta on 1v1 not so much in teamgames.
USF is OP when using mechanized on 1v1, not so much in teamgames.

I ain't implying that. I'm implying that why focus on balancing 1v1 when balancing 2v2 would achieve in my view, a better result as it is the "perfect" (subjective) mixture of teamgame and solo game. And 1v1 is the least played mode. It's probably the easiest to balance 1v1 as you can literally put units in a vacuum (the current preview patch has proven it) and call it a day. I can accept that. 1v1 is a clear-cut balance problem. No extra variables or anything like that.

"OH is OP while using meta"... yeah, if you use those meta commanders in team games, you'll have a bad time, but OH is nowhere near UP in teamgames. USF as well. USF does rely on soviets/UKF for some stuff but it has it's merits in teamgames.


All in all. 1v1 is easy balance but the higher the mode goes, the bigger the disparity. 2v2 would be a perfect mixture for balancing. That's my point.

1v1 and 2v2 can arguably be balanced "Together", but larger teammodes and smaller teammodes/1v1s can't really be balanced in the same way.

3v3s and 4v4s should either be expected to remain unbalanced messes, or they need mode-specific tweaks in some way. (Examples include: Unit population rebalances for Teammodes specifically, unit limits, etcetera)

This isnt likely to happen though, so balance discussion should generally stick to talking about 1v1s/2v2s, at least in my opinion.

3v3s and 4v4s just need lower pop caps at the very least. This is the easiest and laziest fix and it would do a lot.

team games just need less resource points. add more points of interest instead to make up for it. more repair stations, more medics, more scout post points. these are really neat features that have been abandoned and would be nice to see back as a way to keep points around without contributing to the resource income inflation in team games. it would slow down things a bit but still offer value.

I ain't implying that. I'm implying that why focus on balancing 1v1 when balancing 2v2 would achieve in my view, a better result as it is the "perfect" (subjective) mixture of teamgame and solo game. And 1v1 is the least played mode. It's probably the easiest to balance 1v1 as you can literally put units in a vacuum (the current preview patch has proven it) and call it a day. I can accept that. 1v1 is a clear-cut balance problem. No extra variables or anything like that.

"OH is OP while using meta"... yeah, if you use those meta commanders in team games, you'll have a bad time, but OH is nowhere near UP in teamgames. USF as well. USF does rely on soviets/UKF for some stuff but it has it's merits in teamgames.


All in all. 1v1 is easy balance but the higher the mode goes, the bigger the disparity. 2v2 would be a perfect mixture for balancing. That's my point.

And it's the way it's been done since the last 3/4 years. You balance around 1v1 and look at the outliers which affect teamgames, which in most of the cases, are doctrinal units and abilities.

The problem is that this patch was supposed to fix core root problems within factions and the only one which seems to be done in a decent way was OKW. SU was a bit underwhelming and UKF accomplished nothing.


UKF is gonna be slightly the same on teamgames while it looks like trash in 1v1 at the moment.

team games just need less resource points. add more points of interest instead to make up for it. more repair stations, more medics, more scout post points. these are really neat features that have been abandoned and would be nice to see back as a way to keep points around without contributing to the resource income inflation in team games. it would slow down things a bit but still offer value.

I'd still like lower pop caps in 3v3+ in addition of what you're saying.

it's arguable who's the best in team games in things if we both choose the best commanders artillery and the isu 152 , both have some very good tool , sexton especially works even Vs elephant If u can aim, and if all fail u can Try to fall back on the 17 pounder emplacement which can work on some maps

Arguable is a good word, it is clear to me that UKF simply hasn't objectively the best allied end game as Protos Angelus said.

ISU152 + IL2-Bomb (delete howitzer) are already two really great commander abilties, add in Mark vehicle, ambush for AT-Guns and Guards -> unquestionable a very strong end game commander.

Royal artillery on the other side suffers somehow because of the existence of the USF Infantry commander. Priest still outshines Sexton. Slower shooting cycle, but higher base damage and a way better AOE makes the Priest first choice for artillery in teamgames when you need something else than Calliope/Katiusha. The 80dmg kill area is more than doubled from Sexton to Priest. In addition Priests barrage abiity reloads nearly 20 seconds faster at Vet0 and Vet1 and has a higher range all the way up to Vet3. While ability reload evens out at Vet2 the Priest gets less scatter with vet and thus is more accurate in the end.
On top of it all the USF commander has a click-and-delete-enemy-Howitzer ability for 180 munition, even cheaper than IL2-Bomb. So this would be my superior choice for artillery-battles in large team games.

You shouldn't be judging the faction on its commanders. You should judge it on its core as it is present every game in every mode. Commanders are a separate issue that should be addressed individually. Faction balance has nothing to do with them.

You shouldn't be judging the faction on its commanders. You should judge it on its core as it is present every game in every mode. Commanders are a separate issue that should be addressed individually. Faction balance has nothing to do with them.

Commander have a lot to do with faction design since they influence the performance of core units directly or fill blank spots in core roster. So they have to be looked at when you are balancing the core game.

Take the UKF Emplacement commander for instance. It directly influences the performance of emplacements and makes core emplacements hard to balance as a result. There are multiple examples of commanders that give abilities or additional weapons to core units.

If we have a look at the two mentioned commanders:

Mechanized Support Tactics
Guards
AT-Gun Ambush
Mark Vehicle
IL2-Precision Strike
ISU-152

-> Fills spot of elite infantry and super heavy AI unit. In addition you get a passive ability and two very good munition depended abilities, which give soviet a way to spend their munition in another way than spamming mines. Great designed commander which influences the core of how soviet is played.


Royal Artillery Regiment
Early Warning
Concentration Barrage
Valentine
Sexton
Perimeter Overwatch

-> Good abilities on first glance but a horrible designed commander in the whole. Why? Valentine comes far too late in 3vs3 and 4vs4 to have a real combat value other than calling down the Concentration Barrage for munition. But even more disturbing is the fact that pretty all commander abilities are munition depended (including Valentine somehow) while UKF is pretty low on munition generally (IS upgrades + Brens + grenades/mines + heavy sappers and so on...). There you have a further context between balance of core design and commander design.


So while Mechanized Support Tactics adds a lot of interesting doctrinal stuff that can be used and removes some blank spots, Royal Artillery Regiment is solely about indirect fire in such a bad overburdened design that you can never use all the commander abilities to full effect.

Commander have a lot to do with faction design since they influence the performance of core units directly or fill blank spots in core roster. So they have to be looked at when you are balancing the core game.

The problem with that is that you need to set a baseline for the commanders to work around. Attempting to balance every single aspect of the game as a whole is a surefire way to result in disaster because you're playing with entirely too many variables that co-exist within, apart, and combined with each other.

If fundamentally fixing core factions results in breaking commanders temporarily that's probably okay, Commanders can be fixed afterwards when you have a stable operating table of a faction to base the commanders around.

The reason the Soviets work so well is because they have a solid well-rounded if a bit weak base to structure themselves around which allows their commanders to provide the punch required to push them above the line. Guards, Shocks, T-34/85, KV-1 IS-2, Dshk MG, etc all of these things provide interesting ways for a Soviet player to play their style of game.

The Brits are an absolute mess across the board in terms of their core design (primarily due to Infantry Sections) which results in their doctrines having wildly outdated tools, insanely powerful abilities, weird off timing items, and and just overall janky things because these are hamfisted attempts at fixing the faction and relics (heh) of a bygone era when the faction operated differently.

So while Mechanized Support Tactics adds a lot of interesting doctrinal stuff that can be used and removes some blank spots, Royal Artillery Regiment is solely about indirect fire in such a bad overburdened design that you can never use all the commander abilities to full effect.

Mechanized Support Tactics is not a good example of a well-designed doctrine as it is completely OP due to the combination of ISU + Mark Target + IL2 bombs.

It's is just too strong similar to Ostheer Jäger Armour for example.

Commander have a lot to do with faction design since they influence the performance of core units directly or fill blank spots in core roster. So they have to be looked at when you are balancing the core game.

Take the UKF Emplacement commander for instance. It directly influences the performance of emplacements and makes core emplacements hard to balance as a result. There are multiple examples of commanders that give abilities or additional weapons to core units.

If we have a look at the two mentioned commanders:

Mechanized Support Tactics
Guards
AT-Gun Ambush
Mark Vehicle
IL2-Precision Strike
ISU-152

-> Fills spot of elite infantry and super heavy AI unit. In addition you get a passive ability and two very good munition depended abilities, which give soviet a way to spend their munition in another way than spamming mines. Great designed commander which influences the core of how soviet is played.


Royal Artillery Regiment
Early Warning
Concentration Barrage
Valentine
Sexton
Perimeter Overwatch

-> Good abilities on first glance but a horrible designed commander in the whole. Why? Valentine comes far too late in 3vs3 and 4vs4 to have a real combat value other than calling down the Concentration Barrage for munition. But even more disturbing is the fact that pretty all commander abilities are munition depended (including Valentine somehow) while UKF is pretty low on munition generally (IS upgrades + Brens + grenades/mines + heavy sappers and so on...). There you have a further context between balance of core design and commander design.


So while Mechanized Support Tactics adds a lot of interesting doctrinal stuff that can be used and removes some blank spots, Royal Artillery Regiment is solely about indirect fire in such a bad overburdened design that you can never use all the commander abilities to full effect.

You are missing my meaning entirely.
Commanders are optional. As such they have no direct weight on the faction balance. They can easily not be brought or not be owned whilst the faction core is ever present. The core faction needs to work regardless of what commander.
Brits need work and while that work is done commanders shouldn't even be considered in the process as they can be tuned separately and individually as needed without impacting anything but themselves

.....

while u are completely right about the 2 commander , soviet unlike UKF relies on the commanders heavily, while ukf does have almost all stock option heavy tanks too, u really only need some sort of good arty to close the deal with ukf, and maybe some CQC units so in the end u fall for landmatres commander which is a gamble as the unit it self is not soo god or the sexton that while is weaker than priest , is cheaper and come in a a commander which has flare and ukf a stock recon flight + a delete howy ability , everything else u don't care for UKF, the ideal would be that it gave mobile mortars too (as it would make it viable even in 1vs1)