British Forces 2v2 balanced?

In my opinion, there is still room for finetuning and with that I really mean finetuning, not the huge buffs/nerfs we experienced the last patches since from my point of view the game is pretty much balanced. I played many 3v3 ATs the last time, on ally side Sov plus double Brit. I always enjoyed it. On axis side my 3v3 ATs as OKW went horrible, mostly when we faced 2+ USF.

I do agree that some units need tweaks, such as sexton or valentine. But overall I like the state of the game.

@OP Do you play with emplacements? In my games I always rushed cromwell around 10 min. mark. Worked most of the time. Against Blobs I used double Vickers, Luchs gets countered by AEC. In combination with the units of Vanguard, commandos, airlanding... these games were pretty cool.

Just my 2 cents.

Brits just handicapped faction with failed design, which remains relevant only thanks to op abilities (heroic charge, croc, covering arty). Without question worst faction to play randoms with due to lack of self-sufficiency. Bits cant do much on their own, and always forced to rely on teammates to carry them through early-mid game, which is utter failure in random scenario.

Brits can never field enough units, cannot trade cost efficiently without tanks, their teching and upgrades ensure tremendous amounts of bleed, emplacements are useless, gliders get shutdown by free OKW aa and cant be repaired, their medics are terrible and they don't have useful light vehicles.

Worst British problems:

1)Sections are garbage, both in cost-efficiency and performance, and the fact that you cant avoid them only makes things worse. Vetted OKW blobs walk over upgraded and vetted sections without any problems.

2)Their most expensive HMG (DSHK aside) in entire game gets gunner-killed and erased by blobs up front or rifle grenaded to death 99 times out of 100.

3)No viable light vehicles.

4)Maps. All factions suffer from bad maps, but Brits most of them all.

words of wisdom

I went UP 30 places (~135 to ~104) due to not playing brits in the last few days. I'd imagine this is the result of me not tanking my win rate like the poor sods who are slogging it out. Dropped from top 50 in 2s and 3s to ~200 in both modes when the patch first hit. No surprise that Brits have been the least played faction in top 150 - those that play them are likely to drop out of that bracket pretty fast!

Thank you for giving a wonderful fact to atleast partialy prove my suspicion that those who remain high ranked as brits are so because they dont play them atm. I went as said in the OP from approx 7 to approx 13 wins per loss to 6 losses in a row for 1 win.

In my opinion, there is still room for finetuning and with that I really mean finetuning, not the huge buffs/nerfs we experienced the last patches since from my point of view the game is pretty much balanced. I played many 3v3 ATs the last time, on ally side Sov plus double Brit. I always enjoyed it. On axis side my 3v3 ATs as OKW went horrible, mostly when we faced 2+ USF.

I do agree that some units need tweaks, such as sexton or valentine. But overall I like the state of the game.

@OP Do you play with emplacments? In my games I always rushed cromwell around 10 min. mark. Worked most of the time. Against Blobs I used double Vickers, Luchs gets countered by AEC. In combination with the units of Vanguard, commandos, airlanding... these games were pretty cool.

Just my 2 cents.

Hi there. No I do not build any encampments. I spend 30 fuel on the 2 inf upgrades with bolster sometimes after the cromwell and 15 on a bren carrier. I dont built the AEC as i find 440 mp and 65 fuel or something around that mark horrendously overpriced for it and also rush a cromwell asap. The luchs I normaly manage to kill or fend off with 1 6 pounder and sniper.

But ofc when your mate is already struggling at that point and you sometimes habe no fuel for a while its not truly rushing anything.

May I ask on which rank you play?

Hi there. No I do not build any encampments. I spend 30 fuel on the 2 inf upgrades with bolster sometimes after the cromwell and 15 on a bren carrier. I dont built the AEC as i find 440 mp and 65 fuel or something around that mark horrendously overpriced for it and also rush a cromwell asap. The luchs I normaly manage to kill or fend off with 1 6 pounder and sniper.

But ofc when your mate is already struggling at that point and you sometimes habe no fuel for a while its not truly rushing anything.

May I ask on which rank you play?

Of course, but I haven´t played random for a while, must have been 1.000+. AT is (was) <250 if I remember correctly. Playercard is public too.

You could take a screenshot of the leaderboard now and then in a week to see how many games the top ranks are playing.

snip

Finally fixed my fucking steam card playercard (I played alot more custome games with skilled/highly skilled players in 1v1s and 2v2s) but yeah I knew IS got some nerfs but thanks to Relic changelog being done I only remember the received accuracy being put back. I DO still think IS are powerful as they still scale well with a cheap reinforce that leads them to being powerful AND relatively cheap for what they provide. Yeah the drop weapon bug it's freaking stupid but not that bad as you can just pick it back up and duel brens are great or dual vickers. Wasn't the bonus in cover like a 30% to 15% increase of dms or something? If they fixed that with IS and maybe a slight accuracy bonus they'll be in a great spot. I love em.

The thing about mortar pits is knowing your opponent as I always build one in a match. Yea a lieg destroys but only if you put it too far. I never said mortar was amazing against OKW but good in general.

Hi there. No I do not build any encampments. I spend 30 fuel on the 2 inf upgrades with bolster sometimes after the cromwell and 15 on a bren carrier. I dont built the AEC as i find 440 mp and 65 fuel or something around that mark horrendously overpriced for it and also rush a cromwell asap. The luchs I normaly manage to kill or fend off with 1 6 pounder and sniper.

But ofc when your mate is already struggling at that point and you sometimes habe no fuel for a while its not truly rushing anything.

May I ask on which rank you play?

Yeah the bofars and 17prd need some adjustments but AEC ain't bad just overpriced really. Some buffs for it too. AEC actually shines with combined Sniper critical. You jam that turret on a Panzer 4 you can circle strafe it pretty easily. Ofc unless there's fausts or such in range. AEC works best in pair with a sniper but thats alot of manpower.

Biggest issues with Brits are the MP costs of everything, piats not countering lights, and the totally anemic early game. Lack of indirect isn't that bad because if you have good army composition mid/late you won't need indirect. Early building/static counter is WASP and sniper.

Worst British problems:

1)Sections are garbage, both in cost-efficiency and performance, and the fact that you cant avoid them only makes things worse. Vetted OKW blobs walk over upgraded and vetted sections without any problems.

2)Their most expensive HMG (DSHK aside) in entire game gets gunner-killed and erased by blobs up front or rifle grenaded to death 99 times out of 100.

3)No viable light vehicles.

4)Maps. All factions suffer from bad maps, but Brits most of them all.

1) Sections are anything but not garbage. Increased squad size is not an option, but a MUST. If you know how to put your infantry in cover, they can kill anything. Panzerfüsiliers are 290MP, locked behind a CP and doctrine, supposed to be a long range squad, yet they need a 90MU G43 upgrade to kill british stock infantry. I never tested, but i have a feeling they could even kill un-upgraded obersoldaten too. Now thats what i call bullsh*t.

2) Their HMG is expensive but also deals great damage, it has wide arc, and in buildings its just a pain in OKWs a**. MG42 got better suppression, but less damage. Every 4 men squad can be wiped out with explosive weapons, and allied blob can also walk on mg42s frontally...

3) Yes, they have AEC and Carrier... Those might not be the best light vehicles, but the worst one is still the 222.

4) Sure...

Biggest issues with Brits are the MP costs of everything...

To me, this feels like the biggest killer. You can't have a Wehr-esque faction built around combined arms when buying artillery (400mp + 210mp for engies) and a light vehicle (440 + 65 fuel if I remember correctly for unit + unlock) costs you over a thousand manpower.

1)Sections are garbage, both in cost-efficiency and performance, and the fact that you cant avoid them only makes things worse. Vetted OKW blobs walk over upgraded and vetted sections without any problems.

2)Their most expensive HMG (DSHK aside) in entire game gets gunner-killed and erased by blobs up front or rifle grenaded to death 99 times out of 100.

3)No viable light vehicles.

4)Maps. All factions suffer from bad maps, but Brits most of them all.

Double Bren IS is nearly on par with double BAR rifles. Problem is they get outnumbered by OKW.

Vickers get wiped too easily yes.

Snipers is still good.

AEC is ok-ish. at least better than 222.

The main issue is going to be 3 key points

*Volks 10 -> 12 base damage increase

*Shrek

*no snare / light at unit to stop luchs push

"Volks 10 -> 12 base damage increase"

Tommys have 14 right? With higher accuracy wouldn't they just wipe the floor early game?

The AEC is definatly not Okisch for its cost and every unit needs to be evaluated based in its cost.

Also, on the simple issue of even volks vs IS which shouldn't even be a comparison as Volks are Infantry AT (with the best AT in the game which your heart jumps when you pick it up as allies mind you) not AI.

IS get 23 % less rec acc and 20% acc with vet 3. Volks get 2 times -10 rec. Acc. And 30 + 15 % acc with vet 5. Among other less important but noteworthy improvements over the IS.

So even god damn volks! Outscale them with vet now... whilst primarily beeing AT. If those volks manage to pick up a weapon. Say a dropped bren... you're in trouble as they shoot better with it then the IS.

This is volks ladies and gents... not obers or füssiliers (60% acc!!) Or falls.

And again... is dont even have a snare and require 2 upgrades. 3 if you count grenades which i consider a luxury i can never afford.

A better comparison would be IS and riflemen. Yet rifles have better vet, dont have 4 weapons with 2 upgrades thus allowing them to actualy safely double equip and dont require a tech to be 5 men. Oh and they have a snare...

IS is not what it should be atm. Its pretty simple.

Also... another topic but guys... the 222 in the hands of a good player is insane... its imcredibly cheap and has the best scouting range which is invaluable in games and funnily enough the best anti air..(i had one shoot down both US strafing planes in their very first pass). plus if well microed it can kite and fend of or even destroy any light vehicle up to a t70 amd stuart. All of that for 15 fuel 210 mp. When i used to play more wehr i was rank 7 and beat the AT nr 2 team with my mate and that thing was pivotal in our sucess. Its not meant to be an inf killer. But for its price its beyond incredibly versitile.

222 costs the same as a UC?


Seriously?

"Volks 10 -> 12 base damage increase"

Tommys have 14 right? With higher accuracy wouldn't they just wipe the floor early game?

Tommys have 16. And the vet 0 balance of IS and volks is ok. Just vet 5 and 3 nomore.

Thought it was reduced in the last patch to 14? I am pissed and probably wrong...

I wouldn't have an issue with IS if they didn't drop their weapons at vet3. What I do have an issue with is the UC, AEC & mortar pit.

what impresses me most about this thread is that it took 15 (or so) posts before someone raised an issue with the lack of logic in the author's argument.

This piece of writing reminds me of the GRE essay part where you have to prove that the argument is flawed.

Back on the topic - you simply CANNOT attribute your fall in rank to the state of balance. The only conclusions that I got from reading your post is:

(1) you do not have a good understanding of how the rank system works
(2) you are contradicting yourself when implying that you do not care that much about your teammates because "that's how you get to a high rank" WHILE following up with a whole paragraph complaining about matchmaking flaws
(3) you dropping from 1 to 20 could also mean that 19 other people figured out how to use the Brits better

Not trying to be overly negative or critical or anything, but really man, your post is rife with logic flaws

)))