Do British IS need 5 men? I feel a bit 2sided on it ever since british got released.
On the one hand, it obviously improves their survivability which is needed later in the game when heavier weapons and more dangerous AOE weapons come in making it a must in order to let those vet3 sections live longer.
On the other hand it goes hand to hand in making british IS dominating the long- range firefights, something that a large part of the axis roster relies on to combat the allies. Ofcourse it is part of the faction design from the very beginning to have long ranged mainline infantry, but having 5 man and 2 Brens for each individual squad seems a bit too much to handle sometimes and is way too predictable in my opinion.
It's why i made this thread, just to see if other people feel the same(or the other way around), as it is barely discussed from what i see in this forum or on Steam.
British infantry sections
24 Feb 2018, 12:51 PM
#1
Posts: 249
24 Feb 2018, 13:11 PM
#2
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Do British IS need 5 men...
The problem is not that they have 5 member but that they have access to LMGs and especially 2.
LMGs should be restricted to 4 men squad only (at least for non elite infantry).
That could be fixed by changing the bren to a weapon closer to assault rifle similar to bad instead of an LMG.
They could still have the option for Vicker-K as LMG but that should only be available to 4 men squads.
Imo the weapon that can picked from racks should also become less effective but cheaper.
Finally a system should be introduced so that weapon become less effective in the hands of cheaper squads.
That could be achieved either by implementing the UKF system of different weapon versions (see bren), or by introducing penalties/bonus to these weapons (a bit like Ostruppen solution for lmg).
24 Feb 2018, 13:43 PM
#3
Posts: 12
Possible solution in my way of thinking:
1) Make the Bolster squad upgrade available after the Platoon Command Post is acquired.
2) Make it possible that double lmg can be equipped only after you have researched all of the
followings:
a) Bolster squad
b) Weapon rack
c) Company Command Post
(If UKF is able to do all the above he can be able as he pleases... The enemy just let him not UKF's fault)
3) Make a duplicate of the "Bolster squad" upgrade for Ostheer too,after you have unlocked Battle
phase 2.
(That way both axis armies have 5-man squads)
1) Make the Bolster squad upgrade available after the Platoon Command Post is acquired.
2) Make it possible that double lmg can be equipped only after you have researched all of the
followings:
a) Bolster squad
b) Weapon rack
c) Company Command Post
(If UKF is able to do all the above he can be able as he pleases... The enemy just let him not UKF's fault)
3) Make a duplicate of the "Bolster squad" upgrade for Ostheer too,after you have unlocked Battle
phase 2.
(That way both axis armies have 5-man squads)
24 Feb 2018, 14:38 PM
#4
Posts: 162
As vipper said, the problem is the weapon racks mechanic introduced with the western front armies and the fact that you can double equip squads.
Another thing is 4 man main line infantry, this works early game but eventually all factions need that extra model in their main line infantry. Ukf has the bolster upgrade but wehr doesn't have anything and thus it suffers late game to basically everything. Also all "Elite squads" like commandos should be reduced to 4 man squads because they aren't main line infantry.
Another thing is 4 man main line infantry, this works early game but eventually all factions need that extra model in their main line infantry. Ukf has the bolster upgrade but wehr doesn't have anything and thus it suffers late game to basically everything. Also all "Elite squads" like commandos should be reduced to 4 man squads because they aren't main line infantry.
24 Feb 2018, 15:41 PM
#5
Posts: 12
We all say the same but why you voted No instead of Other? I mean the problem is not UKF, its all the others...
24 Feb 2018, 15:55 PM
#6
Posts: 162
Ukf has a lot of problems (no snares, only one indirect fire unit that is stactic, op(?) early game vehicle, centaur, croc and a few others) and one of them is the fact you can get bolster super early nullifying the faction design to start with 4 models. I think Ukf really needs an overhaul and moving bolster squad to the platoon command post (t1) is a must.
24 Feb 2018, 16:15 PM
#7
Posts: 12
Ukf has a lot of problems (no snares, only one indirect fire unit that is stactic, op(?) early game vehicle, centaur, croc and a few others) and one of them is the fact you can get bolster super early nullifying the faction design to start with 4 models. I think Ukf really needs an overhaul and moving bolster squad to the platoon command post (t1) is a must.
1)Snares: a)AEC treadbreaker b) sniper ability c)tank hunter squad (meta/commander I know take it easy)
2)Indirect support(mobile): a)Pyrotechincs flares b) Sniper flares
3)I think that UC see is ok..a small bit overtuned but ok (222 tears it apart in secs).
TO sum up...they have a few weknesses cause they are strong elsewhere otherwise they would be unkillable insta win faction.Now there is a bit of a challenge into them.
As for the OP, i think that my propositions in the first comment of mine are far better than a simple nerf to UKF. In my opinion just tuning down "bolster squads" is a semi solution and we have seen how those worked out in the long run.
P.S. Sorry for any mistakes in my comments.Not my mothertongue :/
24 Feb 2018, 16:43 PM
#8
Posts: 162
1)Snares: a)AEC treadbreaker b) sniper ability c)tank hunter squad (meta/commander I know take it easy)
The problem with these is that you have to get a aec's or sniper to get these abilities that don't cause damaged engine and thus you only really use them in critical situations, also because those units are "key units" that you don't want to lose because you were snaring. Tank hunter squads do have snares but the problem here is that snares in general are something every faction should have access to in a reliable form, being commander restricted just to get snares is just bad game/faction design.
2)Indirect support(mobile): a)Pyrotechincs flares b) Sniper flares
Again, those are not reliable because of their range and the fact that they cost quite a bit of muni while other factions get mobile reliable mortars. Those are only good to stop a infantry push/cap or make support weapons move.
3)I think that UC see is ok..a small bit overtuned but ok (222 tears it apart in secs).
UC is one of the very few units 222 can counter but while 222 isn't on the field UC doesn't really have a counter, only okw has in the form of the raketenwerfer.
As for the OP, i think that my propositions in the first comment of mine are far better than a simple nerf to UKF. In my opinion just tuning down "bolster squads" is a semi solution and we have seen how those worked out in the long run.
I'm saying precisely what you said, move bolster to platoon command post. As for other things ukf needs some buffs to some things and nerfs to others.
24 Feb 2018, 17:49 PM
#9
Posts: 1930
the british at 4 men at 280 mp is too expensive, but at 5 men is too cheap.
instead of delaying the upgrade, nerf the soldier overall and make the upgrade cheap enough to buy in the first ten seconds. this would avoid the huge power jump.
This would allow the british of choosing between tommies (squad size), bren carrier, or vicker for their opening.
and limit tommy to one bren gun. Commandos are actually fine with dual bren gun since it mess up their CQB synergy.
instead of delaying the upgrade, nerf the soldier overall and make the upgrade cheap enough to buy in the first ten seconds. this would avoid the huge power jump.
This would allow the british of choosing between tommies (squad size), bren carrier, or vicker for their opening.
and limit tommy to one bren gun. Commandos are actually fine with dual bren gun since it mess up their CQB synergy.
24 Feb 2018, 19:05 PM
#10
Posts: 249
Possible solution in my way of thinking:
3) Make a duplicate of the "Bolster squad" upgrade for Ostheer too,after you have unlocked Battle
phase 2.
(That way both axis armies have 5-man squads)
I can only disagree on this. Ill leave a copy- paste of a post on Steam that summerizes the entire debate around 5 man grens.
''The main reason people bitch about Wehrmacht infantry performance so much is that mid range is not their domain with the very exception of spamming G43 grens. If you aren't any good at setting up things to account for that, you will fight at a disadvantage. That they are individually great tools at their respective range is rarely considered though... Better get 5 men mid- range Grens to compete...''
24 Feb 2018, 19:09 PM
#11
Posts: 1220
maybe bolster squad or weapon rack but not both in same time
like aec and bofors but maybe its too much
like aec and bofors but maybe its too much
24 Feb 2018, 19:22 PM
#12
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
Wait, weren't double brens fixed like double BARs?
But yeah... the British are the only Army without non-docrtrinal snares and non-doctrinal mobile indirecrt fire support so I think they pay enough for their late game infantry dominance, but perhaps limiting them to only 1 bren would be enough, I prefer equipping them with 1 Bren and 1 PIAT to deal with both Vehicles and Infantry anyhow, I just wish the PIATs were their CoH counterparts in terms of stats.
But yeah... the British are the only Army without non-docrtrinal snares and non-doctrinal mobile indirecrt fire support so I think they pay enough for their late game infantry dominance, but perhaps limiting them to only 1 bren would be enough, I prefer equipping them with 1 Bren and 1 PIAT to deal with both Vehicles and Infantry anyhow, I just wish the PIATs were their CoH counterparts in terms of stats.
24 Feb 2018, 19:58 PM
#13
Posts: 911
Wait, weren't double brens fixed like double BARs?
But yeah... the British are the only Army without non-docrtrinal snares and non-doctrinal mobile indirecrt fire support so I think they pay enough for their late game infantry dominance, but perhaps limiting them to only 1 bren would be enough, I prefer equipping them with 1 Bren and 1 PIAT to deal with both Vehicles and Infantry anyhow, I just wish the PIATs were their CoH counterparts in terms of stats.
Do you mean double 1919s?
Imagine my playercard is here
24 Feb 2018, 20:05 PM
#14
Posts: 1930
Do you mean double 1919s?
logically they would have limit the bren at the same time as the m1919.
only elite infantry like the airborne or commandos should get double LMG. the Ober's lmg34 is basically a double lmg.
24 Feb 2018, 20:08 PM
#15
Posts: 249
BTW, has anyone ever tried commandos with 2 Brens? They're amazing! Dunno if this was mentioned before of if it is common knowledge.
24 Feb 2018, 20:10 PM
#16
Posts: 249
Wait, weren't double brens fixed like double BARs?
But yeah... the British are the only Army without non-docrtrinal snares and non-doctrinal mobile indirecrt fire support so I think they pay enough for their late game infantry dominance, but perhaps limiting them to only 1 bren would be enough, I prefer equipping them with 1 Bren and 1 PIAT to deal with both Vehicles and Infantry anyhow, I just wish the PIATs were their CoH counterparts in terms of stats.
Yea, i would personally rather see them only have 1 bren per squad, and then it's a toss- up on wether you get more LMG's from wiped squads or get a piat for minor AT.
24 Feb 2018, 20:38 PM
#17
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
logically they would have limit the bren at the same time as the m1919.
only elite infantry like the airborne or commandos should get double LMG. the Ober's lmg34 is basically a double lmg.
Not really, because tommies:
-Are not as durable without upgrade
-are not as good at CQC as m1919 created squad powerful at all ranges
-did not come with built in suppression(first m1919 did)
-brens are ~20% weaker then m1919
-do not have vehicle snare
-do not have potent nades
Don't be another vipper, just because 2 units share single feature in common does not mean they should be mirrored with their limitations AND rifles can still double up on BARs.
These two squads are not the same, therefore should not get the same treatment.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
24 Feb 2018, 21:04 PM
#18
Posts: 1930
Not really, because tommies:
-Are not as durable without upgrade
-are not as good at CQC as m1919 created squad powerful at all ranges
-did not come with built in suppression(first m1919 did)
-brens are ~20% weaker then m1919
-do not have vehicle snare
-do not have potent nades
Don't be another vipper, just because 2 units share single feature in common does not mean they should be mirrored with their limitations AND rifles can still double up on BARs.
These two squads are not the same, therefore should not get the same treatment.
in the long term it's better for the british to lose the double bren. It is an expensive (60 mu) upgrade that break the game in large game but impractical for smaller game. As a 60mu upgrade the bren is overprice, but the moment you make the price more fair people will spam it.
Unless people agree to cut down on the extreme case we can't settle on a medium. People are always going to remember the double lmg blob, it is just human nature.
In fact all other attribute of the Tommies are getting nerfed to hell to accommodate the double bren. The tommies now have one of the weakest veterancy in the game to justify the double bren. It is a poor way to balance the unit.
and actually the tommies mills bomb is a clone of the US pineapple, with the exception the tommies can throw them at their own feet.
24 Feb 2018, 21:08 PM
#19
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
Do you mean double 1919s?
I don't remember exactly what but they made it so you could only pick up 1 of each instead of 2.
And I'm not sure because like I said, I put 1 Bren and 1 PIAT on my IS, and I almost exclusively play USF for the shits and giggles so I never bother with arming my Rifles with 2 BARs.
I mostly prefer playing with Tanks so yeah...
24 Feb 2018, 21:20 PM
#20
Posts: 2742
Not really, because tommies:
-Are not as durable without upgrade
-are not as good at CQC as m1919 created squad powerful at all ranges
-did not come with built in suppression(first m1919 did)
-brens are ~20% weaker then m1919
-do not have vehicle snare
-do not have potent nades
You disagree that only elite infantry should be able to double up by pointing out how non-elite tommies are? The brens being weaker than m1919s is the only valid and relevant point there. Although IMO the tommie bren should be closer to guard DP-28s rather than split the difference with the m1919.
Don't be another vipper, just because 2 units share single feature in common does not mean they should be mirrored with their limitations AND rifles can still double up on BARs.
These two squads are not the same, therefore should not get the same treatment.
Strategic Territory Points Mod:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
19 users are browsing this thread:
19 guests
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.554203.732+8
- 2.830222.789+36
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.916404.694-1
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.305114.728+1
- 8.721440.621+3
- 9.14758.717+1
- 10.17046.787-1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1222
Board Info
386 users are online:
386 guests
0 post in the last 24h
15 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
15 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48923
Welcome our newest member, MaxwellsdPerez
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, MaxwellsdPerez
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM