British Needs These Vehicles!

Infantry squads are perfect infantry...

So perfect that they're only good when stopped in cover at long range and have to pay at least 50 fuel and 300(?)mp for upgrades to compete after early game.

UKF's tanks are very nice and good, so - they have no weakpoints to their design

Except for the part where most of those tanks are fairly expensive

. Offensive gameplay - perfect

Except for the fact that defensive infantry and reliance on MGs puts them squarely as a defensive faction

what balances all that then? High prices?

High prices, shit map control early game, worst light vehicles in game (unless you can't micro 222s), inflexible core infantry with a high reliance on upgrades, reliance on squishy light vehicle for anti-garrison, no mobile artillery, worst stock late-game arty option, no snares, worst hand-held AT for dealing with light vehicles, no mobile smoke to deal with MGs until you can vet a cromwell, core infantry bleed like crazy to snipers, etc. etc.

Comet is not allie's Panther bro, it is Tiger himself, but with lower gun accuracy and damage

And less armor, health, worse veterancy, lower penetration. Its almost like its a panther class unit that trades armor for speed and AT for AI or something. Please check your stats before making BS claims.

Just understand it - non-doctrinal spammable Tigers (mean you can make more than 1)...

Blatant hyperbole.

And Churchlis, destroyable only with PaK 43s or other heavy TDs

They have 240/180 armor. PShreks have a ~71% chance to pen, Stugs have ~77% with an excellent rate of fire, paks have an ~83% chance, panthers 100% at mid range and shorter. They require 9 penning hits to kill from normal AT. Two Paks can force one off pretty easily if they're faced and spotted correctly.

I love people posting stuff they want to have implemented only for the sake of being cool units without any usefullness.

The British army doesn't look complete without these vehicles:

Yes it would. Germans have no Flak 8.8, no Panzer 3, no Marder, no Hetzer, I can go on and on...

1) The M3 Lee — it would be nice to see this double cannon tank shooting two units simultaneously.

Would have the exact same role as the AEC.

2) The Matilda Tank — a heavy tank like the Churchill and Comet, but unlike them this one should be non-doctrinal and available earlier.

Would have the exact same role as the Churchill/Comet. Why should it arrive even faster?

3) SAS jeep — this one is not as essential the first two but would be a good idea for a mission. It's basically a jeep carrying a machine gun that fires incendiary bullets.

Would have the exact same role as the Universal Carrier.

So perfect that they're only good when stopped in cover at long range and have to pay at least 50 fuel and 300(?)mp for upgrades to compete after early game.


Except for the part where most of those tanks are fairly expensive


Except for the fact that defensive infantry and reliance on MGs puts them squarely as a defensive faction


High prices, shit map control early game, worst light vehicles in game (unless you can't micro 222s), inflexible core infantry with a high reliance on upgrades, reliance on squishy light vehicle for anti-garrison, no mobile artillery, worst stock late-game arty option, no snares, worst hand-held AT for dealing with light vehicles, no mobile smoke to deal with MGs until you can vet a cromwell, core infantry bleed like crazy to snipers, etc. etc.


And less armor, health, worse veterancy, lower penetration. Its almost like its a panther class unit that trades armor for speed and AT for AI or something. Please check your stats before making BS claims.


Blatant hyperbole.


They have 240/180 armor. PShreks have a ~71% chance to pen, Stugs have ~77% with an excellent rate of fire, paks have an ~83% chance, panthers 100% at mid range and shorter. They require 9 penning hits to kill from normal AT. Two Paks can force one off pretty easily if they're faced and spotted correctly.

Lol, so this went from Brits are OP to Brits are the worst ever.

Lol, so this went from Brits are OP to Brits are the worst ever.

Eh, not really. If you had to exaggerate any faction's weaknesses to point out they're not perfect, any of them would sound UP, just a Commissar cherrypicking strengths and ignoring the faction's weaknesses would make them look overpowered.

Facepalm... adding more units for faction, which is already have all possible kinds and types of units in good performance and without any doctrines? Where is your mind, bro?

I think, that UKF shouldn't get units anymore. They actually should have some units removed, like Comets and Churchills, at least from stock to doctrines. Not sure, that they deserve to have snipers, and maybe would be nice to change Vikkers HMG to HMG emplacements, such as QF 6 gun should also have static analog instead of it. Maybe 17 pounder could be reworked for it somehow...

Everything you said in this post is terrible.

To wit : remove British heavies, or lock them into doctrines. How about no.
Remove snipers ? Sure, let's leave the slow-moving, 4 man IS even more of an easy target for Ost snipers.
And why not change the Vickers into an emplacement ? That's something the UKF needs more of, emplacements.
Same applies to your comment about the 6 pndr.

You have messed up phrase "British NEEDS" with "it would be fun for ME".

The British army doesn't look complete without these vehicles:

1) The M3 Lee — it would be nice to see this double cannon tank shooting two units simultaneously.

2) The Matilda Tank — a heavy tank like the Churchill and Comet, but unlike them this one should be non-doctrinal and available earlier.


3) SAS jeep — this one is not as essential the first two but would be a good idea for a mission. It's basically a jeep carrying a machine gun that fires incendiary bullets.

1) M3 Lee is outdated and surpassed by the Sherman and Cromwell.

2) Why should the Matilda be in the game? It would be redundant since the Churchill exists within the faction as a non-doctrinal heavy tank.

3) The USF has the same kind of unit; however, no one will use it because it will end up like the referred unit. Plus, the UC has a flamethrower upgrade and some armor that is better than a Kubel.

1) M3 Lee is outdated and surpassed by the Sherman and Cromwell.

2) Why should the Matilda be in the game? It would be redundant since the Churchill exists within the faction as a non-doctrinal heavy tank.

3) The USF has the same kind of unit; however, no one will use it because it will end up like the referred unit. Plus, the UC has a flamethrower upgrade and some armor that is better than a Kubel.

1) KV-1 says hi, outdated unit is what makes SU.
2) Still better than Valentine.
3) I'll take Jeeps over UC anyday, that thing can't turn for crap, can't push inf, MG still shred it to pieces.

Facepalm... adding more units for faction, which is already have all possible kinds and types of units in good performance and without any doctrines? Where is your mind, bro?

I think, that UKF shouldn't get units anymore. They actually should have some units removed, like Comets and Churchills, at least from stock to doctrines. Not sure, that they deserve to have snipers, and maybe would be nice to change Vikkers HMG to HMG emplacements, such as QF 6 gun should also have static analog instead of it. Maybe 17 pounder could be reworked for it somehow...

lol how did I overlook this post.

This is just precious XD

so you want the UKF to have no stock comet, chuchill, sniper or mobile HMG/AT guns....

Eh, not really. If you had to exaggerate any faction's weaknesses to point out they're not perfect, any of them would sound UP, just a Commissar cherrypicking strengths and ignoring the faction's weaknesses would make them look overpowered.

Don't mind him/her, he/she is a sad little Soviet fanboy/fangirl, altho I've seen him/her defend British arty a fair number of times, guess it's all about the Soviets needed an overhaul because they're behind the USF and UKF now with him/her, sad little brainwashed communist bernie supporter.

1) KV-1 says hi, outdated unit is what makes SU.
2) Still better than Valentine.
3) I'll take Jeeps over UC anyday, that thing can't turn for crap, can't push inf, MG still shred it to pieces.

The KV-1 is a different matter entirely, it was part of a doctrine before the times of WFA. As for the M3 Lee, we have to take into account that the British and the USF don't need this unit since they have their own medium unit which is good enough.

The Matilda would just be having the same role as the Churchill, but it would be doctrinal.

As for the UC, it can counter garrison units with a flamethrower and be selected as a command vehicle compared to regular jeeps since it can survive.

The KV-1 is a different matter entirely, it was part of a doctrine before the times of WFA. As for the M3 Lee, we have to take into account that the British and the USF don't need this unit since they have their own medium unit which is good enough.

The Matilda would just be having the same role as the Churchill, but it would be doctrinal.

As for the UC, it can counter garrison units with a flamethrower and be selected as a command vehicle compared to regular jeeps since it can survive.

It is a command vehicle because it is the cheapest vehicle there is, any Axis vehicles except Kubel look at it funny and it will be melted, the flamethrower is not really reliable compared to flamers RE from Mobile Assault. All these vehicles are proposed because currently UK can only go Cromwell/Firefly, everything else is a luxury or you have seriously outplayed Axis.

You know what

UKF should get this vehicle:
Show Spoiler

You know what

UKF should get this vehicle:
Show Spoiler

+1

You know what

UKF should get this vehicle:
Show Spoiler

Yeeeeeeeeeeee

1) KV-1 says hi, outdated unit is what makes SU.
2) Still better than Valentine.
3) I'll take Jeeps over UC anyday, that thing can't turn for crap, can't push inf, MG still shred it to pieces.

WHY DON'T WE FIX THE UNITS WE ALREADY HAVE FIRST.

WHY DON'T WE FIX THE UNITS WE ALREADY HAVE FIRST.

BECAUSE LELIC WANTS SHINY NEW UNITS FOR GLORIOUS DLC.

Yeeeeeeeeeeee

You know what

Just because of that snarky reply, I'm going to make a commander idea that has the Kangaroo Carrier in it.
Show Spoiler

I honestly think adding the Kangaroo into CoH2 would go over far better than it did in CoH1. Think about it! The British can no longer button vehicles (The prime reason they were loathed in CoH1) and the game coding supports 360 Degree this time round (Better at assaults).

Hell, I want it so much that I'd give up Infiltration Commandos and replace them with the Kangaroo in the Mobile Assault Commander. It would fit far better than the weakened Commando Section anyway.

Though I don't think it should more than two sections each. Four (Like in CoH1) is far too much. Maybe it should even have a smoke ability like the AEC too.

I honestly think adding the Kangaroo into CoH2 would go over far better than it did in CoH1. Think about it! The British can no longer button vehicles (The prime reason they were loathed in CoH1) and the game coding supports 360 Degree this time round (Better at assaults).

Hell, I want it so much that I'd give up Infiltration Commandos and replace them with the Kangaroo in the Mobile Assault Commander. It would fit far better than the weakened Commando Section anyway.

Though I don't think it should more than two sections each. Four (Like in CoH1) is far too much. Maybe it should even have a smoke ability like the AEC too.

Don't worry, I got this.

Now, I finished some of the commander concept, It has the Kangaroo (I chose Churchill Kangaroo because I know relic doesn't want to spend manpower on making a Ram Tank Model.). an Upgrade to put a 2 in. Mortar on the UC, and possibly a 2 pounder UC unit or Anti-Garrison Infantry Sections (They have Satchels and Flamers, but can't build stuff unlike normal IS).

I don't know what to put for the last 2 ability slots. maybe Crew Repair and a generic off map Ability?