It has a flamethrower because the Royal Engineer squad doesn't.
I would be happy if Ostheer Pio lose its flamer, for a buff to sappper level.
Posts: 1392
It has a flamethrower because the Royal Engineer squad doesn't.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I would be happy if Ostheer Pio lose its flamer, for a buff to sappper level.
Posts: 1392
Posts: 518
The UC costs no fuel for the same reason the Kubelwagen costs no fuel: Relic decided to give these units a high manpower cost instead of a high fuel cost.
It has a flamethrower because the Royal Engineer squad doesn't. It's literally UKF's one garrison counter without an infantry flamer or a proper mortar.
It's a decent unit but if you really think it's impossible to deal with go play UKF and let your opponent teach you how to counter it.
Could you show your playercard since you throwing others' around? Sound like a low rank 4v4 player
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Which is a bad decision (at least when it comes to the UC) anyway. In my opinion there should be made some changes (not only to the price)
Same goes for OKWs flame nades and yet ppl want to remove them. (Please do not get me wrong. I understand that flamer is needed on UC I just wanted to point out that UC has a big versatility compared to other early LVs)
And I acutally did play UKF (1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2) and most times the UC is doing a pretty decent job. Can only really remember one situation where I lost him in the first few minutes and in this case it was 100% my fault(was too close near my enemys base while shooting at Volks and ignoring the warning of my senses that he'll get a raketen soon)
Posts: 518
Flame nades are completely different thing and are incomparable.
You don't build 5 UCs and upgrade flamers on them, but flame nade can hit you from any of multiple volks and put team weapon into death loop.
You literally just left placement in 1v1 with 50% win ratio.
You have 77 AT games as allies and I doubt more then 10 of them are as british.
Also, I find it hilariously ironic that you claim puppchen can't counter UC reliably, but yet, you decided it'll be a good idea to bring up one example when you lost UC to the very puppchen you claim is ineffective against it.
Posts: 5279
Posts: 3260
Which is a bad decision (at least when it comes to the UC) anyway. In my opinion there should be made some changes (not only to the price)
Posts: 503 | Subs: 1
Given you're claiming to have enough trouble with the UC to warrant complaining about it I doubt that's a change you'd want to make.
The UC is currently set up as a manpower opportunity cost: you get it instead of an additional infantry section. It's an immediate tradeoff: you trade the capping power of that Infantry Section for mobile fire support.
If you shift that cost from manpower to fuel you turn the UC into an early game power spike: both the lower manpower cost on the UC and the delay to T1 means you'll probably be facing the UC and the additional infantry squad. It's a delayed tradeoff: you get a much stronger build early on but delay your teching.
I agree with Relic in that making the UC an immediate tradeoff is the better way to do it for UKF.
Posts: 833
It used to be completely oppressive with its nonsensical armour, which made it virtually invulnerable to mg42 or Kar98s (both Grens and Volks). Right now it's actually killable by small arms fire, and can be forced to retreat by Sturmpios/sustained Volks fire, which makes Rak not a 100% necessity.
Posts: 3053
You are quite simply wrong and spouting falsehoods. Really watch any hans vid from prepatch and you will see the old armour was not "invulnerable". MG42 would win a straight up fight with vanilla UC so you needed to be careful with engaging them until tech and WASP.
But then by WASP he has MG42 inc rounds and 222 on top of faust, so it really wasn't as terrible as you make out. For reference old UC died quicker than the Wehr halftrack to small arms (FHT armour was 9, old UC was 10 but FHT had more health). I mean really if it was impossible to kill as you claim then we would have seen UKF building one maybe two every game... but they didn't. It had good armour for a light but you are overreacting.
If I had my way WASP and Vickers upon upgrade should be buffed to 9 armour and have the range nerf reverted, wehr FHT should also remain the same without any nerfs. It kind of sucks for the MP investment right now, which goes for a lot of UKF units really.
Posts: 264
Posts: 503 | Subs: 1
You are quite simply wrong and spouting falsehoods. Really watch any hans vid from prepatch and you will see the old armour was not "invulnerable". MG42 would win a straight up fight with vanilla UC so you needed to be careful with engaging them until tech and WASP.
But then by WASP he has MG42 inc rounds and 222 on top of faust, so it really wasn't as terrible as you make out. For reference old UC died quicker than the Wehr halftrack to small arms (FHT armour was 9, old UC was 10 but FHT had more health). I mean really if it was impossible to kill as you claim then we would have seen UKF building one maybe two every game... but they didn't. It had good armour for a light but you are overreacting.
If I had my way WASP and Vickers upon upgrade should be buffed to 9 armour and have the range nerf reverted, wehr FHT should also remain the same without any nerfs. It kind of sucks for the MP investment right now, which goes for a lot of UKF units really.
Posts: 833
snip
14 | |||||
878 | |||||
40 | |||||
23 |