Login

russian armor

Ideas on Bringing the UKF into Balance

17 Mar 2016, 00:14 AM
#1
avatar of dOPEnEWhAIRCUT

Posts: 239

I know there's been a lot of threads discussing this topic lately, in which I've posted these ideas a couple of times but surprisingly there's no discussion on whether or not they are bad ideas. So here they are again:

-Make it so that the cooldown on brace only starts after the emplacement is repaired to full health, assuming it has been damaged (the emplacement would start with brace). That way brace can't be spammed as easily and opens up more time for emplacements to be attacked without making the ability as well as the emplacements useless.

-Make the counter-barrage ability in the Advanced Emplacement Doctrine an activated munition costing ability (A long duration ability costing similar to a recon run with a moderate cooldown length) so that emplacements intended counters can actually have a window to do what they are supposed to do, yet provide the Brit player a BALANCED option if being hit by indirect spam.

-If Bofors performance and abilities are to stay the same, they'll need a substantial price increase (suggested 300MP and 50 FU).

-If Cromwell performance is to stay the same, it needs a slight increase in fuel cost.

-Decrease pop-cap of 17-pounder to be more in line with PaK43. Would help to make Anvil more appealing.

-Slightly increase standard Churchill speed/acceleration to open up its roles a bit more. Currently the units only real purpose is to camp emplacements and soak damage and discourages offensive plays to a player who invests in them. Would also help to make Anvil more appealing.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?
17 Mar 2016, 00:20 AM
#2
avatar of tenid

Posts: 232


-Provide the 17-Pounder with the same ability the JT has (activated munitions ability to shoot through shot-blockers). Would help to make Anvil more appealing.


I find it telling that people don't realise it already has this. Shows how much it's used. It's the vet 1 ability. It also desperately needs a pop cap reduction.

The brace nerf would only work if engineers didn't take extra damage while repairing. Even then I doubt brace would see more than one use. Really, I don't think brace needs to be nerfed at all. After all, the emplacement can't do anything while braced.
17 Mar 2016, 00:23 AM
#3
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

Bofors are already easily countered in 1v1. I see no reason why it should be more expensive.
17 Mar 2016, 00:24 AM
#4
avatar of dOPEnEWhAIRCUT

Posts: 239

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Mar 2016, 00:20 AMtenid


I find it telling that people don't realise it already has this. Shows how much it's used. It's the vet 1 ability. It also desperately needs a pop cap reduction.

The brace nerf would only work if engineers didn't take extra damage while repairing. Even then I doubt brace would see more than one use. Really, I don't think brace needs to be nerfed at all. After all, the emplacement can't do anything while braced.


Was going off an old guide when brainstorming, going to change the initial post to reflect this. Thanks.

As for brace, it definitely needs something else. The cooldown triggers the second you pop it, and by the time brace wears off you can pop it again within a few seconds.
17 Mar 2016, 00:26 AM
#5
avatar of MarkedRaptor

Posts: 320

I see a lot of nerfs with 0 compensation.
17 Mar 2016, 00:31 AM
#6
avatar of dOPEnEWhAIRCUT

Posts: 239

Bofors are already easily countered in 1v1. I see no reason why it should be more expensive.


Only when they don't have support. Placing a bofors in close enough proximity to a mortar pit and also covering it with an MG is usually enough to keep it alive from smaller scale assault. Usually the Brit player comes out on top even if their bofors is destroyed; the amount of bleed you inflict on your opponent when they are taking out the bofors is greater than the actual cost of the bofors, not to mention your opponent would normally retreat afterwards providing you with enough time to simply rebuild it. Not to mention it soft counters its hard counters.
17 Mar 2016, 00:35 AM
#7
avatar of dOPEnEWhAIRCUT

Posts: 239

I see a lot of nerfs with 0 compensation.


Keep scrolling down. Not that there needs to be "compensation", the faction is arguably overperforming.
17 Mar 2016, 00:49 AM
#8
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1



Only when they don't have support. Placing a bofors in close enough proximity to a mortar pit and also covering it with an MG is usually enough to keep it alive from smaller scale assault. Usually the Brit player comes out on top even if their bofors is destroyed; the amount of bleed you inflict on your opponent when they are taking out the bofors is greater than the actual cost of the bofors, not to mention your opponent would normally retreat afterwards providing you with enough time to simply rebuild it. Not to mention it soft counters its hard counters.


Right. This is all true, and here lies the weakness of the bofors: it requires a big investment in supporting units to be able to hold ground. So much that the brits offensive capabilities are very weak. So how does a player counter this? I will give you a hint: leave the bofors alone and prepare for the long game. Get fuel cashes and tech to panthers and panzerwerfers.

Emplacement play is weak in 1v1. You are simply bunkering down and then you hope that the opponent loses his patience and walks into you. If your opponent decides to do the smart thing and tech rushes, there is nothing you can do to stop him and you will lose in the late game.
17 Mar 2016, 00:53 AM
#9
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

The game is balanced for 1v1 play, and at the top level at that unfortunately, so I'm not sure your ideas have merit.

You just don't see emplacements in top level play and the emplacements commander seems to be designed more for multiplayer games. Although there are a few players who are very good with the Brits very few of the top 150 seem to touch them with a bargepole. I've never seen the emplacements commander used in competitive play ( though Dusty did click on it by accident in one game and lost inside 10 minutes!).

I think you might be better off asking for help in combating emplacements rather than asking for balance changes, or maybe try playing the Brits yourself ( according to your playercard you play them 0.6% of the time and OKW about 50% of the time).

Bear in mind that brace only gives warning of an attack and allows a response from the player. Once it wears off any axis player has plenty of time to take out the emplacement. Counter-battery is easily countered by simply shooting and scooting.

17 Mar 2016, 01:00 AM
#10
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

it's going to take a lot more buff to the british's mobile force to make them "balance", especially if you're going to nerf the cromwell tank.

a small speed buff to the churchill is not going to make it useful.
17 Mar 2016, 01:10 AM
#11
avatar of dOPEnEWhAIRCUT

Posts: 239



Right. This is all true, and here lies the weakness of the bofors: it requires a big investment in supporting units to be able to hold ground. So much that the brits offensive capabilities are very weak. So how does a player counter this? I will give you a hint: leave the bofors alone and prepare for the long game. Get fuel cashes and tech to panthers and panzerwerfers.

Emplacement play is weak in 1v1. You are simply bunkering down and then you hope that the opponent loses his patience and walks into you. If your opponent decides to do the smart thing and tech rushes, there is nothing you can do to stop him and you will lose in the late game.


As good as this sounds this doesn't happen. If done properly, you keep the opponent away from areas you'd like to set up emplacements on with Vickers and Tommies. Once you force a retreat you are free to put up an emplacement. Leaving a properly placed emplacement alone is not an option, especially on smaller maps where single emplacements are easier able to cover VPs. Not to mention the abundance of maps currently in the map pool that feature plenty of shotblockers which in turn promote campy play; not that there's anything wrong with campy play if that's your thing, but emplacements are simply too cost effective at the moment and shouldn't be dominating the current meta as they are.
17 Mar 2016, 01:13 AM
#12
avatar of MarkedRaptor

Posts: 320



Keep scrolling down. Not that there needs to be "compensation", the faction is arguably overperforming.


I did, all I saw was a slight speed buff to the churchill and a slight buff to the 17 pounder. This is ignoring all of the issues with Brits base faction. Such as AEC being overpriced, no vehicle snare, no proper handheld AT weapons, no building clearing tools.

Since you are touching brace you are hurting the mortar pit, which would make their indirect fire even weaker(Their building "clearing" tool).

The faction isn't over performing, especially since they are rarely played seriously. This sounds like a sim city commander problem.
17 Mar 2016, 01:18 AM
#13
avatar of dOPEnEWhAIRCUT

Posts: 239

it's going to take a lot more buff to the british's mobile force to make them "balance", especially if you're going to nerf the cromwell tank.

a small speed buff to the churchill is not going to make it useful.


A slight increase to fuel cost (10-15) for Cromwell is hardly a nerf to UKF armor.
17 Mar 2016, 01:19 AM
#14
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 919

and by the time brace wears off you can pop it again within a few seconds.


Thats simply not true. Please try to be constructive and stay with the facts, else your thread will look like a big cry out for "I can't play versus emplacements please nerf brits". Its like MarkedRaptor said a lot of nerfs with zero compensation. Maybe its no fun for you to play versus brits, but that is a totally different aspect. Its about faction design not about balance. If you nerf emplacements you have to buff their mobile units accordingly at least.
17 Mar 2016, 01:19 AM
#15
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930



A slight increase to fuel cost for Cromwell is hardly a nerf to UKF armor.


a cost nerf is still a nerf.
17 Mar 2016, 01:25 AM
#16
avatar of dOPEnEWhAIRCUT

Posts: 239



I did, all I saw was a slight speed buff to the churchill and a slight buff to the 17 pounder. This is ignoring all of the issues with Brits base faction. Such as AEC being overpriced, no vehicle snare, no proper handheld AT weapons, no building clearing tools.

Since you are touching brace you are hurting the mortar pit, which would make their indirect fire even weaker(Their building "clearing" tool).

The faction isn't over performing, especially since they are rarely played seriously. This sounds like a sim city commander problem.


Grenades can be teched, Vickers does respectable damage against garrisoned units, sappers on a building flank (no windows) are fairly effective, mortars have good range, bofors suppression ability flat out destroys most if not all buildings in one barrage, not to mention doctrinal options. The UKF lack of building clearing tools is only apparent within the early game (which is still extremely critical, I get that) but they gain access to plenty of tools within a few minutes of match start. The lack of "serious play" probably has more to do with older factions being practiced more and being more comfortable rather than British overall performance.
17 Mar 2016, 01:58 AM
#17
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

With prize money at stake the top players would happily abuse the crap out of anything that worked boyo. Other than watching Hans fairly consistently lose with UKF's mobile assault and Dusty in the NA you just don't see the Brits being played.

"Grenades can be teched,"

150 manpower and 15 fuel for the mills bomb, and only then with T2. Utterly useless until you get Vet 2 squads and even then a very pale comparison to the plethora of grenades which the Axis get extremely cheaply.

"Vickers does respectable damage against garrisoned units"

When it is garrisoned itself it will win by inches against an MG42. As long as the 42 doesn't hit Vet 1 and use incendiary. Which just results in both units having to retreat to reinforce.

"sappers on a building flank (no windows) are fairly effective"

As long as there are no windows... They lose badly to Sturms etc if there are ( as they should, they are cheaper). I think you'll find early game UKF squads are likely to have dropped a model just approaching a garrison.

"mortars have good range, bofors suppression ability flat out destroys most if not all buildings in one barrage"

Waiting around for your pit to remove a garrison doesn't compare very favourably to incendiary mortar rounds, flame halftracks ( I know about the Wasp, don't go there!), grenades which can always be used as the Vickers refuses to pin etc.

Yes the Bofors can destroy the building, but not clear the garrison for you to capture. An important difference.

"not to mention doctrinal options"

Flamer engineers with mobile assault and infiltration commandos with mobile assault?

"The UKF lack of building clearing tools is only apparent within the early game (which is still extremely critical, I get that) but they gain access to plenty of tools within a few minutes of match start."

Enlighten me please. Sniper is the only one I can think of. You'll notice it is rarely used as such by the serious players.

No-one is saying that it is impossible to clear a garrison, though compare to the simply wander up to building at the cost of a model and chuch very cheap overpowered grenade in. Not rocket science.

"The lack of "serious play" probably has more to do with older factions being practiced more and being more comfortable rather than British overall performance."

If you watch the Euro ESL you'll probably have noticed the odd player choosing UKF to the amazement of the casters, and losing hard. As I say, if the Brits were overpoweringly brilliant to the point of needing their core and useful units nerfing then these same units would be dancing merrily on our screens and causing havok in the ESL.

If there was a way to nerf the Brits in 2v2 and higher ( which seems to be your favourite mode) alone then you could nerf away as far as I am concerned. As a community the majority of players only play these modes it appears, but 1v1 is where the competitive game is and small changes which might make 4v4 more playable would have massive repercussions at the 1v1 level.


17 Mar 2016, 02:24 AM
#18
avatar of tenid

Posts: 232



A slight increase to fuel cost (10-15) for Cromwell is hardly a nerf to UKF armor.


That would put it almost identical in cost to a panzer 4 but without the pintle mount MG, doctrinal synergy (smoke, scopes, hull down vs command aura, repairs) or vet blitz and armour upgrade.
17 Mar 2016, 02:29 AM
#19
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

here's a change list I've been working on for myself. this is the kind of change I've been advocating. british stuff is at the bottom.

Soviet:

maxim teardown increased to 1 seconds from 0 second
t34/76 main gun reload time decreased by 1 second
t34/76 cost increased to 310mp 100 fuel

Wehr:

grenadier vet 2 accuracy bonus lowered to 30%
sniper target size increased to 1.15
t4 and t3 building fuel cost lowered to 50
panzer 4 armor lowered to 160 armor
panzer 4 cost lowered to 340 mp 110 fuel

USF:

m8a1 scott hp increased to 400
sherman armor increased to 180
sherman hp increased to 800
sherman cost increased to 340 mp 120 fuel
sherman penetration lowered to 80/100/120
sherman size increased to 24
removed rifleman terminator veterancy
major artillery cost lowered to 90 munition
pack howizter barrage recharge time lowered to 30 seconds
m8a1 scott barrage recharge time lowered to 30 seconds
.50cal cost lowered to 260 (reinforcement cost remain the same)

OKW:

panzer 4 pop cost increased to 14
Fallschirmjaeger panzerfaust range increased to 18 meters.
volksgrenadier schreck replaced with panzerfaust
flak halftrack setup time decreased to 3 seconds
flak halftrack max speed increased to 6.5 seconds

British:

glider commandos cost lowered to 410mp, reinforcement cost unchanged
glider commandos squad pop cost lowered to 9
infiltration commandos squad pop cost lowered to 8
light gammon bomb damage lowered to 80
vicker cost lowered to 260 mp (reinforcement cost remain unchanged)
mortar emplacement autofire range decreased to 80 m
mortar emplacement cost lowered to 360mp
bofor suppression barrage range lowered to 60 m
firefly cost lowered to 350 mp 125 fuel
tulip rocket damage lowered to 2x100
tulip rocket upgrade cost lowered to 30 munition
tulip rocket ability cost lowered to 60 munition
sniper target size increased to 1.15
tommies squad pop cost lowered to 6/7
Tommies and sniper coordinated artillery range increased to 35 meters
coordinated artillery recharge time lowered to 90 seconds
coordinated artillery 25 pounder reload time lowered by one second
coordinated artillery and sexton 25 pounder aoe profile increased to 7/6/3/2
coordinated artillery 25 pdr scatter decreased
sexton artillery range increased to 160
hammer gammon bomb cost lowered to 45 munition
PIAT projectile now track its target
PIAT damage lowered to 80
PIAT deflection modifier lowered to .25
PIAT range lowered to 35 meters
PIAT cost increased to 45 munitions
cromwell and churchill main gun penetration lowered to 80/100/120
churchill variants hp and armor standardized to 1280 hp and 320 armor
anvil churchill cost lowered to 510 mp 180 fuel 16 pop
wasp upgrade cost lowered to 60 muition
universal carrier hp increased to 320
universal carrier cost increased to 220 mp 15 fuel
17 Mar 2016, 03:08 AM
#20
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072

-Increase bofors price as OP mentioned
-decrease 17 pdr Pop cap
-Increase cromwell fuel by 5-10
-Counter barrage requires user to select a large area to overwatch. Small cooldown
-AT nades with mills bomb tech.

My thoughts.
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

953 users are online: 953 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49079
Welcome our newest member, Rodfg15
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM