British infantry sections

So are you implying that if you pump half of your economy into a single unit it deserves to overperform

In that case i would like to start a petition to bring back the old WFA launch Jagdtiger so i could snipe tanks from 85 range through terrain. I paid for it after all.

Alright, but remember, with how old OKW eco was, it was the only mechanized Piece other then kubel you will be able to afford in game, so you have one OP boi and no eco to ever get second anything

Alright, but remember, with how old OKW eco was, it was the only mechanized Piece other then kubel you will be able to afford in game, so you have one OP boi and no eco to ever get second anything

As long as volks get their cold immunity package back (and the other random minor benefits) I'd happily take that trade Kappa

Isn't 500 the combined cost of their actual cost value plus their deploy anywhere mechanic?

And if cost justifies OP ness, why are expensive obers perform only slightly better than Bren IS?

That's an IS issue. Hence i made the thread.

So are you implying that if you pump half of your economy into a single unit it deserves to overperform

In that case i would like to start a petition to bring back the old WFA launch Jagdtiger so i could snipe tanks from 85 range through terrain. I paid for it after all.

Comparing commandos with Jagdtigers is one thing, but with the jagdtiger you don't have to pay extra to get it on the field in the first place, like say a glider.

The jagdtiger is also way more reliant on supporting units around it than the commando squad.

Comparing commandos with Jagdtigers is one thing, but with the jagdtiger you don't have to pay extra to get it on the field in the first place, like say a glider.

The jagdtiger is also way more reliant on supporting units around it than the commando squad.

Man seriously load the game and try the commandos.

Glider is extremely cost efficient for 390 manpower you get Commandos and a reinforcement point that even work on neutral areas.

Comparing commandos with Jagdtigers is one thing, but with the jagdtiger you don't have to pay extra to get it on the field in the first place, like say a glider.

The jagdtiger is also way more reliant on supporting units around it than the commando squad.

390 manpower is hardly unreasonable for a 5 man close quarter specialists with camo, nades and demoes.

The fact you get a reinforce point as a bonus is a nice addition. Compared to USF paratroopers that cost 340 manpower + need a munitions upgrade the price difference isn't that big of a deal (although i admit the use of camo requires more effort than a-moving) I would also happily pay 400+ manpower if the paratroopers had on-map reinforcement like in vcoh without beacons.

Also if you don't approve of my JT argument then it becomes a matter of where does one draw the line? Is it okay for elite infantry to overperform? How about double equipped mainline infantry or non-doctrinal TDs or heavy TDs?

Am I as a USF player entitled to beat any axis squad head on with my paratroopers if i just invest 120 munitions into them?

Imo bolster squad should have been tied into hammer/anvil side grade. That anvil will had 5 man bolster and hammer would have something equivelant. Im not sure what that would be.

Imo bolster squad should have been tied into hammer/anvil side grade. That anvil will had 5 man bolster and hammer would have something equivelant. Im not sure what that would be.

I wonder what would happen if you'd tie 5 man upgrade to anvil to encourage picking that instead of hammer every single time. Wouldn't be too off the theme of more defensive play with more durable squads while double equipping lmgs would be available only in hammer tech. Then one would have to make a choice of having more durable squads or more offense oriented double lmg equipped ones that are less durable.

(Or maybe make the choice between 5 man squads and double lmgs a choice in t1 like the bofors and aec are in t2)

Would probably need some tweaking of the stats to get them in a good spot though.

Then again as long as i get to keep my Jacksons and Thunderbolts in a good spot I don't really mind.

Imo bolster squad should have been tied into hammer/anvil side grade. That anvil will had 5 man bolster and hammer would have something equivelant. Im not sure what that would be.

I have suggested the exact opposite, I am not a big fun of LMG squad with more than 4 entities. Hammer anvil is an option for each tier.

For tier 2:
Hammer get 5 men+ bren that work more like assault riflers (bars)
Anvil get 4 + bonus while in cover men + Vickers K that are lmgs.

I wonder what would happen if you'd tie 5 man upgrade to anvil to encourage picking that instead of hammer every single time. Wouldn't be too off the theme of more defensive play with more durable squads while double equipping lmgs would be available only in hammer tech. Then one would have to make a choice of having more durable squads or more offense oriented double lmg equipped ones that are less durable.

(Or maybe make the choice between 5 man squads and double lmgs a choice in t1 like the bofors and aec are in t2)

Would probably need some tweaking of the stats to get them in a good spot though.

Then again as long as i get to keep my Jacksons and Thunderbolts in a good spot I don't really mind.

Without any additional buffs?
You'd end up with extremely gimped faction until H or A is unlocked as brits would not have any staying power or any meaningful ranged damage.

Without any additional buffs?
You'd end up with extremely gimped faction until H or A is unlocked as brits would not have any staying power or any meaningful ranged damage.

Like I said, it would obviously require "slight" tweaking of stats and I'm pretty sure such revamps this late in the games life cycle are unlikely. Just theoretical what if -scenarios.

Now back to the What if part: I don't think basic mechanics like snares or flamethrowers should be put behind a doctrine or another gimmick like the aec sidetech so might as well give brits the same basic tools other factions have like the non-doctrinal snares.

Having increased utility and maybe some other perks it would be reasonable to tone down the raw firepower of the sections.

For example the USF AA halftrack had its raw firepower nerfed but it is still good because it has such great utility imo. It acts as probably the best mobile suppression platform while having good anti air and will scare off or outright destroy axis light vehicles and in the lategame can cover your flanks from infantry pushes. One can't headbutt a Panzer 2 with it (except sometimes when you can if you kite it) but the utility it has for the price of 310/50 it's a real bargain to get.

Also I think it's bad for the diversity of the game if some units just have more outright firepower without any other abilities. Although Red Alert 3 had its issues probably one of the coolest things in it was that every unit had a 2nd function. With proper micro and actual combined arms you could take down Soviet tanks with superior raw firepower with your weaker Allied tanks if you shrunk or froze them with cryocopters or captured them with a spy or used an EMP strike from a carrier for example.

I feel that I need very few combined arms after the December patch especially as USF in the lategame, all late game AT is handled by Jacksons and skillplanes while double BARred rifles will handle most of the anti-infantry and if need be M8 spam will support them. There is no point in me diversifying my build when more Jacksons and M8s have the raw firepower to slug it out with anything when properly used. I think this is the same problem people had with the Panthers in teamgames last patch because there was most of the time no need to build anything but Panthers when lategame kicked in.

I feel that I need very few combined arms after the December patch especially as USF in the lategame, all late game AT is handled by Jacksons and skillplanes while double BARred rifles will handle most of the anti-infantry and if need be M8 spam will support them. There is no point in me diversifying my build when more Jacksons and M8s have the raw firepower to slug it out with anything when properly used. I think this is the same problem people had with the Panthers in teamgames last patch because there was most of the time no need to build anything but Panthers when lategame kicked in.

Three of the five factions are designed specifically to be lacking in one area and stacked in another. They will never be able to effective use 'combined arms' for this reason. They weren't built around having 'diversity': they have prescriptive, intended play styles.

Three of the five factions are designed specifically to be lacking in one area and stacked in another. They will never be able to effective use 'combined arms' for this reason. They weren't built around having 'diversity': they have prescriptive, intended play styles.

Did somebody say Original Design

USF intended playstyle was to spam medium armor and have the best light vehicles but boy people sure seemed to demand that USF should get a Heavy tank so they got it. Riflemen were meant to be able to deal with pretty much any situation when properly equipped and use the smoke grenades to do sick smoke and flanks and not headbutt an MG head on but boy that USF mortar certainly reduces the amount of flanks I have to do while i can fight the enemy directly without outplaying him/her in any way.

UKF was designed around extremely strong emplacements with long brace durations but people sure seemed to think simcity was the purest form of cancer so it got nerfed. Tommies were meant to be very tough infantry with high reinforce cost in return but boy people sure seemed to dislike paying manpower to reinforce their sections so they got cheaper by a lot. (deal with it grens) UKF doctrinal abilities were usually a lot stronger compared to previous factions but with longer cooldowns. But it seems it was not fun for the opponent when the brit clicked a button and put arty cover on for that maximal fun, engine crits and instant pinning. (I'd like to think it was a matter of smoke and flank)

OKW was meant to rely on a great quantity of handheld AT to compensate for the lack of non-doctrinal snares but that worked out so well. OKW was the real late game faction that had to make do with less resources that had a hard time in early game with low damage volks. But IF it survived to the lategame it could rely on its terminator units like the Obers or JT on launch. But people didn't seem to like those fancy two extra gold starts and wanted to have an equally good chance to take down a lategame faction with an early game faction so here we are.


Just because something is an "intended play style" doesn't mean its fun or beneficial to the gameplay and some mechanics and assymmetrical faction design have to go. Also the original faction design has been thrown into the trash pile enough times already so saying "It can't be changed because the faction was designed that way" is just not a good argument in 2018. It has been changed several times, latest additions being the OKW rework, simcity nerfs and putting USF lategame in a good spot.

I get what you're saying and you're slightly off on what I was getting at.

I was speaking to the notion that the later factions have fundamental design issues that have prevented them from being improved as so desired, and all the effort to balance them is stunted from these issues. All the revamps and reworks haven't fixed things yet, just like youve said, and I don't think they ever will given how things have gone for this game.

The other side of this coin is the opposition to homologous factions.

The problem with faction design is that its been poorly inplemented in some cases and relic didnt stick to their guns in other cases.
A mobile smoke and flank, constant pressure faction sounds great! What we got was the exact opposite because flanking is generally optional as there is minimal negative impact to wave tactics using super soldiers.

Okw was interesting but felt more like they slammed all the unused ost commander ideas and turned it into a faction making it stacked then toning down resources to try and balance it.

Brits... Well the idea of emplacments and sappers stemming the bleed from tommies who would be eaten out of cover was interesting... Then they reduced the impact of veing out of cover and kept no bleed emplacments and dirt cheap sappera and hoped everything would be ok leaving us with a faction almost mirroring ost, but superiour in each and every way...

Ost v soviet they cocked up by making one sides advantage ALSO the other sides disadvantage. Make the ost tanks have high armour? Lets also make soviet tanks low AT capabilities widening the gap. Similiarily giving ost small squads, and then stacking the soviet AI with huge powerful AOE weapons and AI out the ass resulting impossible squad preservation from ost.

Then of course all the knee jerk over buffs amd nerfs that cascaded because of bad design.

Asymmetric design and unique factions is a great idea and keeps things fresh, but they need to bloody stop stacking shit and look at the whole. Like tommies being better grens but flexible and cheaper to reinforce, or Similiarily sappers, or volks v cons, now penals v pgrens.... Its just a mess of power creep and power vacuum

So are you implying that if you pump half of your economy into a single unit it deserves to overperform

In that case i would like to start a petition to bring back the old WFA launch Jagdtiger so i could snipe tanks from 85 range through terrain. I paid for it after all.

hehehe


Dont do this youll put me on life support