British Forces 2v2 balanced?

Brits in 2v2 suffer from:

IS not trading favourably

UC being literally useless with bad armour and health, barely beating a kubel, while costing 15 fuel.

AEC being a terrible investment with its poor speed, health, etc. Only redeeming quality is how strong the gun is for how early the unit comes out. Nothing else.

Luchs dominating the field due to the AEC being a non-viable counter (by ruining your teching and costing heavy manpower presence)

After you reach this stage in the game and survive, then Brits have it pretty easy. Cromwell is the most cost effective medium in the game, that also has the best crushing with vet. Churchills are the highest HP tanks in the game, croc is still ridic, list goes on.

Crutching with how absurd mortar pits are right now will work wonders on most 2v2 maps, and excel on dumb maps like Trois Pont. Try it out.

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

)))

I will try to formulate this in a way to not sound like a jerk. You know why it took 15 posts for that? Because I actualy stated that me falling in rank is NOT the argument for flawed balance. It's meerely personal experience. I even explained it again in another post. I think you must have cind of skimmed through my post or I did not bring my point across as well as I thought.

I also dont see the contradiction as I simply said that I know matchmaking is flawed and often puts you in bad spots where chances of loosing are stacked against you but that to get into the top 10 you have to win those games all the same, or most of them. And that before the patch I was able to do so. Never loosing more than 2 games in a row.

I also then explain that maybe the matchmaking has become to extremly skewed as of late so you cant compensate it due to no good players wanting to do allies 2v2 atm.

And last that many of the top players play 1 game only atm i believe. As partialy prooved in the guy who went from rank 130 to 100 without playing a game. I myself went from 16 to 15 without playing. So no, i dont think 19 14 people figuered it out better. But that many of those 14 only played 1 game. Had luck with a decent matchup won it and thus retained there rank. Whereas i played 10 games and lost 8 of them.

And my argument is NOt based on my ecperience but on the facts about IS, aec, no snare and indirect fire that came up partialy in my post and more after.

There's much more to say but i'll leave it at that. Rest assured that i do understand the matchmaking quite well and i wished theyd change it so you could select an option of the like of "i dont care if you have to search an hour but give me a mate and opponents in max my rank range +-50

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.

That would already go a long, loooong way. 1 guy wrote before, just pick them back up... But most scenarios that either costs you quite some micro that you loose somewhere else, dps as your squad moves, or worst of all, just not possible, 5 IS members stand arround, a mortar shell hits them whilst they are in a fire fight, 3 men die, bren drops, what do you do? Wait under fire to pick the weapon up? No, you just retreat most of the time. But thats with all weapons and its ok, just the scoped einfields make this happen too often.

I still think though they dont stand up to their price even then, compare them with vet 3 double 1919 rifles, who again, have a snare and better vet and require no tech for 5 men. Yeah I know it's doctrinal but still, also works with bars.

Especialy the lack of snare is crucial to me, they just need more firepower to make up for it. As OKW you have shrecks, you dont even need a snare (falls and pfüssiliers have it anyways) but as brits with piats you simply need to excel in AI to make up your lack of AT as a faction because you will need to invest more MP into AT leaving less for AI.

A firefly even looses to a p4 if they have a straight out gunfight both needing 4 shots to kill one another with the 10s reload vs 6.4 or smth like that. Without a snare the only way to keep that p4 from rushing in is to have enough AT to simply outmuscle him.

This NEEDS to be represented in better AI power. My 2 cents.

And now I am rank 11. From 16 down to 11 without having played a sinlge game. So yes. Obviously the people staying at a high rank are simply not playing/playing 1 game only hoping for a loopsided matchup.

I have played a lot of OKW lately. And when you face the brits as okw it's just a joke... I am not that great an OKW player atm due to me most of the time only having enough game time to focus on 1 army as you have to play a lot to reach the top 10 yet I won countless games I should have lost with my squads wiping left and right and I win. With the british I play a flawless game and still loose.