Login

russian armor

December Patch British

18 Nov 2015, 23:42 PM
#1
avatar of TehPowahOfWub

Posts: 100

I plan to make threads of similar composition on the Soviets and Ostheer later on - I would like to focus on these three factions because I fear with the massive controversy with the OKW will leave the changes to the other factions overlooked. I believe USF is fine in the new patch (besides the potential of 5 man RE flamers) so I will leave them out, but without further ado let me return to the topic at hand.

I feel the British Forces will suffer very heavily after this patch. I've spent the past few hours playing around with the new patch against friends and AI alike, so at this point I'd like to say I have a fairly good grasp on the preview changes.

First and foremost - the changes to the Infantry Sections. Unlike most, I feel that the Infantry Section is one of the most well designed mainline infantry units of any faction. Their reliance on cover and penalties on the move discourage blobbing, but they are rewarded greatly for good positioning and use of cover. Yes, they do get very potent vet, but I feel it was balanced by these restrictions. I feel that the recent nerf to the damage of their rifles and their vet 3 were over the top, and I also think that the changes to their out of cover performance should not have been implemented as well. I think these bonuses were also justified by the fact that they did not have access to any AT snares and were not able to upgrade their weapons in the field, and instead had to invest fuel and manpower to unlock a weapon rack. They also have the worst grenade in the game, which also must be purchased, which I think further justifies their potent performance.

That being said, I think all changes on the Infantry Sections should be reverted - the fact that they are purely anti-infantry, coupled with their reliance on cover and standing still makes their pre-patch performance just right, IMO, and no changes were needed. Also keep in mind that they are the ONLY long range anti-infantry units in the British arsenal, they lack the firepower of Guards, Paratroopers, Panzerfusilers, etc, and they lack the overall versatility of Grens. The only thing I think that should be changed is that they should only be able to pick up 1 bren from the weapon rack rather than 2.

On to the Scottish Sniper - I feel this unit has a very strange role - it is the only AT snare that British have, so it can at least deter some of the units meant to counter it, but it is also slow to fire and doesn't have the extra durability of the Soviet sniper or the excellent veterancy bonuses of the Ost sniper. All in all, it is a well designed unit. I think making the critical shot ability a veterancy 1 ability will be detrimental to this unit, though. This unit is the only non-doctrinal AT snare the British have, as stated previously, but it is also the only reliable way to take out an Ostheer sniper. This unit has a lot running on him, and combined with his fragile nature, he needs to perform up to scratch to be worth it. The fact that he's now so vulnerable right off the bat to 222s and the newly improved Kubel makes his already risky investment even more so. The fact that unlike the Ost and Soviet snipers which are able to screen from light vehicle rushes with their mainline infantry, the UKF sniper, with his removed initial access to critical shot, makes him an extremely easy target for a 222 or Kubel rush, which instantly sends a 360 MP investment to nothingness. Also the fact that the critical shot ability is only effective against light vehicles and nothing else makes me feel that not having this as a standard ability will make this unit very easy to be killed and thus very unattractive.

So, as with the infantry sections, I suggest reverting the changes made to this unit - but I would also remove it's ability to temporarily immobilize assault guns/tank destroyers with it's critical shot - stunning is a ridiculous ability that should be limited to dedicated AT units only. Replace the critical with something like being unable to fire temporarily.

The 6pounder is another thing that concerns me - I do agree at 280MP it was overperforming - but I feel 300MP rather than 320 would be more appropriate. As talked about in great depth, the UKF lacks any sort of AT snare, only one exclusive to a very fragile unit, and even that snare is only useful against light vehicles. The 50% accuracy versus vehicles is certainly nice, but do remember that vehicles with engine damage not only get a similar bonus from all AT guns, but it also makes the vehicles top speed slower, which the British have no way of doing bar mines.

The verdict, reduce this units cost from 320 to 300.

Finally, I'll briefly talk about both Churchills. I'm entirely in favour of the standard Churchill's cost increase if it means the unit's HP is brought back up to 1600. I feel the armour nerf for this particular version of the Churchill was enough, but combined with the HP nerf I found myself never getting this unit, only ever going Anvil to gain access to heavy engineers. Now with the increased cost I think it's safe to say most won't even bother going for Anvil, especially with the added munitions cost to the heavy engineer upgrade (which I think was needed, by the way). If the unit's HP is not brought to 1600, I would suggest lowering its fuel cost to 160 instead, to make the unit at least not a total waste of space in the British Army. As for the Crocodile, I'm happy to see the increases in the requirement for veterancy, as this unit previously vetted up VERY fast. I would also like to see the vet 3 ability of self repairing criticals removed as well though, as I think it's laughable enough on USF vehicles, but at least USF vehicle crews had to disembark to perform this action, which adds a AT LEAST moderate risk and cooldown. The flamethrower range was also slightly over the top, but I think the range from 32 - 25 is too much. I'd suggest more along the lines of 30.

So, that pretty much sums it up. I do apologize if it's a long read, but I do plan to make threads on problems with the Ostheer and Soviets in similar detail later tonight. Please leave me your feedback, and hopefully Relic will see this thread and implement some of these changes.
19 Nov 2015, 01:53 AM
#2
avatar of MarkedRaptor

Posts: 320

You summed it up really nicely.

The only thing I could add is that emplacements are nullified by the existence of flame.
19 Nov 2015, 02:28 AM
#3
avatar of TehPowahOfWub

Posts: 100

You summed it up really nicely.

The only thing I could add is that emplacements are nullified by the existence of flame.


Hey thanks! Glad I'm seeing some mutual agreement on the forums. :)

And you're right about emplacements - I just don't know what I'd suggest to balance them out. At the release of COH1 British emplacements were pretty problematic, and I'm sure no one wants a repeat of that. They need to have effective counters through flamethrowers definitely, but incendiary grenades are definitely problematic and should be looked at versus emplacements.

19 Nov 2015, 07:47 AM
#4
avatar of pugzii

Posts: 513

Good post, brits look fucked in the patch notes atm. Lelic
19 Nov 2015, 07:51 AM
#5
avatar of mycalliope

Posts: 721

holy shit m not at all getting these ukf complaints really people dont confuse op with normal or normal with up...at least it will encourage combined arms from ukf now with ukf having more than enough tools now
19 Nov 2015, 07:56 AM
#6
avatar of mortiferum

Posts: 571

I cannot agree with the UKF sniper part.

All snipers should be countered by scout vehicles, no exceptions. UKF snipers have no reasons to counter it's supposed counter. It can still do snare at Vet 1.

They just need to buff AT nade for UKF inf (The HEAT one), and give normal inf sect some weaker AT nade that could still snare?
19 Nov 2015, 07:56 AM
#7
avatar of pugzii

Posts: 513

holy shit m not at all getting these ukf complaints really people dont confuse op with normal or normal with up...at least it will encourage combined arms from ukf now with ukf having more than enough tools now


What are you even saying, your so bias its unreal, Brits have always been combined arms. have you even played the mod? Add me on steam (message me ur id) and you play brits ill play OKW and we will share the replay here
19 Nov 2015, 10:24 AM
#8
avatar of Jewdo

Posts: 271

Brits have a snare on the armored cars vet 1. Sniper is not the only snare.

Brittish sniper can no longer be rushed freely without a care yes..
You can still screen with infantry and place a mine on the retreat path.

I dont know if the nerf on IS was needed or not, im not sure..
But I do know that I barely ever get bren guns, because the IS vet 3 performance, combined with squad sizes, was working fine.
That, and I love using air landing officer and commandos.

6 Pounder was arguebly the best AT gun in the game, also the cheapest. Nothing wrong with 320 mp cost. (in my opinion atleast)

Hard times lie ahead for brits, but I doubt they will be close to crippled by these changes. I might be wrong, I am no far-seer, and new problems might arise. Still, I am not scared for brits.
19 Nov 2015, 10:55 AM
#9
avatar of vietnamabc

Posts: 1063

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Nov 2015, 10:24 AMJewdo
Brits have a snare on the armored cars vet 1. Sniper is not the only snare.

The problem is that nobody use AEC, AEC upgrade + AEC cost equal to a Puma and it sucks hard. The only reliable AT snare for Brit is AT section HEAT grenade, Mines and AT sniper. The first is doctrinal, the second relies on Axis mistake and now you want to nerf the third?
19 Nov 2015, 11:56 AM
#10
avatar of tenid

Posts: 232

Well written, and I agree with all of the points if not some of the specifics.

To those saying the sniper shouldn't counter a light vehicle - well what do you think an AT rifle is meant to bloody well do?

Quoting relic, the reason for the change was given as:
"We are adjusting the British Sniper’s veterancy ability and weapon to allow more counter play with light recon vehicles."

Does that mean the grenadier's panzerfaust will also be moved to T1? After all the british "sniper counter" is the bren carrier, which is rendered useless in that role due to lack of health and maneuverability. Somehow I doubt anything like this will ever be done.

Really, the main effect of critical shot on the 222 was to mitigate the effectiveness of one of the ostheer sniper counters. They had plenty of other counters to work with, arguably more so than the brits have to work with against the ost sniper.
19 Nov 2015, 12:05 PM
#11
19 Nov 2015, 12:23 PM
#12
avatar of TehPowahOfWub

Posts: 100

To answer those regarding the displacement of the British Sniper critical shot to vet 1, I must say that light vehicles are not the only counter for the UKF sniper. Firstly, you already have the far superior Ost sniper which can only reliably be eliminated with the UKF sniper, a task that will now be near impossible if you have no disposed of the Ost sniper before a 222 roles out - and even if you do the 222 can just roll up to your sniper and quickly avenge his fallen comrade - as there is absolutely no snare to screen him and any light vehicle can literally follow your sniper back to base with negligible worry. Hell, it's not like the critical shot even DESTROYED the 222, it could still reliably role away and live to fight another day so long as you didn't walk into an AT gun ambush.

So I'd either say revert the changes on the sniper's critical shot - or give Infantry Sections some panzerfaust equivalent so the sniper doesn't have to become useless as soon as a light vehicle rolls out. I'm willing to bet that the majority of players would rather the UKF sniper remain unchanged as his snare is ONLY effective against light vehicles and nothing else.

Also on an unrelated note - The performance of the IS is laughably abysmal now. Not only do they lack any of the versatility of other mainline units, they are one of the most expensive and are completely mopped up by Volks and Grens alike. The "buff" to out of cover was so minimal in impact since they still suck very hard out of cover, that it might as well have not even been added. Like I said, I feel the infantry section was one of the most well-designed mainline infantry units in the game, so I'm hoping fellow players and eventually Relic agree with me in reverting the changes made to them.
19 Nov 2015, 12:29 PM
#13
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

holy shit m not at all getting these ukf complaints really people dont confuse op with normal or normal with up...at least it will encourage combined arms from ukf now with ukf having more than enough tools now

Brits have no way to protect their sniper any longer, moreover tommies are LOSING to cheaper volks, grens are on pair, despite being considerably cheaper. UKF is FORCED to use combined arms since day 1, you will do nothing without fast sniper and fast AT gun and now it'll be even worse.

But yea, just be there in your little bubble of self delusions.

@Jewdo
And how are they going to get to that vet1 with AEC? No, brits don't have reliable AT snare at all now.
People could argue OKW doesn't either, but pfussies do have it and OKW doesn't have super squishy unit to protect from vehicles.
19 Nov 2015, 13:24 PM
#14
avatar of niutudis

Posts: 276

playercard pls

sry , Icant see yours. Maybe a bug? :lolol:
19 Nov 2015, 14:22 PM
#15
avatar of Jewdo

Posts: 271

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Nov 2015, 12:29 PMKatitof
And how are they going to get to that vet1 with AEC? No, brits don't have reliable AT snare at all now.
People could argue OKW doesn't either, but pfussies do have it and OKW doesn't have super squishy unit to protect from vehicles.


AEC does not need kills to gain vet 1. I never said the word reliable :P

But, you will be seeing allot more flack ht from OKW now I would think?
Flamer ht's is a popular pick when I play brits against ost.

Besides, if you think about:

AEC / 6 pounder / sniper AT rifle / small arms fire + mines.

These can all kill a kubel or 222, especially in combination. (I imagine a AEC would one shot a kubel no?)
at the very least buy time for vet 1 on either sniper or AEC.

I think that brits will have to be more wary, change and adapt. (and this is where the future problems might come in) Still, I dont see the problem yet.

19 Nov 2015, 14:33 PM
#16
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 830



First and foremost - the changes to the Infantry Sections. Unlike most, I feel that the Infantry Section is one of the most well designed mainline infantry units of any faction. Their reliance on cover and penalties on the move discourage blobbing, but they are rewarded greatly for good positioning and use of cover. Yes, they do get very potent vet, but I feel it was balanced by these restrictions. I feel that the recent nerf to the damage of their rifles and their vet 3 were over the top, and I also think that the changes to their out of cover performance should not have been implemented as well. I think these bonuses were also justified by the fact that they did not have access to any AT snares and were not able to upgrade their weapons in the field, and instead had to invest fuel and manpower to unlock a weapon rack. They also have the worst grenade in the game, which also must be purchased, which I think further justifies their potent performance.


No it wasn't. They were way too powerfull right out of the box and due to their terminator vet. The cheaper reinforcement cost was absurd as well. They greatly outperform grens in live version and are cheaper to reinforce model wise.

If tommies got in an important garrison early game, you knew you were ****** because there was no way in hell you would get tommies out of the perfect green cover position with their bonuesse. The vickers would follow up soon everytime which would allow greater range with its bonusses in garisons, which meant you were ***** even more. So you were forced to either get a sniper, which is a heavy investment micro and mp wise or get a mortar halftrack with icendiary rounds, forcing you to choose a doctrine purely because of the garison.



19 Nov 2015, 14:40 PM
#17
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

19 Nov 2015, 14:41 PM
#18
avatar of FichtenMoped
Editor in Chief Badge
Patrion 310

Posts: 4785 | Subs: 3

playercard pls


Do you even play the game?
19 Nov 2015, 15:07 PM
#19
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1

19 Nov 2015, 15:18 PM
#20
avatar of TehPowahOfWub

Posts: 100


If tommies got in an important garrison early game, you knew you were ****** because there was no way in hell you would get tommies out of the perfect green cover position with their bonuesse. The vickers would follow up soon everytime which would allow greater range with its bonusses in garisons, which meant you were ***** even more. So you were forced to either get a sniper, which is a heavy investment micro and mp wise or get a mortar halftrack with icendiary rounds, forcing you to choose a doctrine purely because of the garison.



I'm afraid I can't agree with that because getting any unit out of an important garrison can be trouble, it's not a problem exclusive to the British. But I find that the standard Ost mortar, not the halftrack variety, is a great investment to deal with this issue. Or if you're really having trouble, your standard builder unit can equip a flamethrower which is a very nice way to clear any cover position. As for the OKW, they have the rather potent incendiary grenade which will be even easier to access now that they have full income.

I'm also going to say this is not a problem exclusive to Axis - if the British lose an important garrison, how are they meant to clear it? They don't have access to a base mortar, flamethrower, and their sniper has added artificial difficulty since it cannot target a building without just attacking the building itself, meaning you have to A move. You only have the WASP which is...lol.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

813 users are online: 813 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49122
Welcome our newest member, Harda621
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM