Universal carrier rework thread

This thread is inspired by the recent changes and complaints from players on both sides. As I see it the unit has two problems

1. It hits the field early and can drain OKW until they are forced into early AT gun. (This patch has tried to fix it by further nerfing it's survivability in armour, but this has made issue 2 worse)

2. Brit players complain it dies too easy midgame and it's too fragile as your only flame platform. Compare flamer HT health and armour to WASP and you'll see why.


I propose to make UC a T1 unit unlocked with AEC or Bofor tech and add a fuel cost mirroring wehr HT. Possibly also and put the flame projector up to 80muni.

BUT in return mirror UC health and armour with wehr flame HT. For bren upgrade give it double accuracy vs sniper and make the MG ability free with a 1 minute cooldown.


This would make the UC a real risk vs reward unit and delay bolster or AEC if you opt for it. The timing would place it around the same time as 222 or luch so there's plenty of axis counterplay.

Brits get a bit more building clearance ability and OKW can play crossing on the woods without bring munched by a UC the first 4 minutes

Thoughts?

The answer to me seems obvious. Tone down OKW's starting resources, give Volks snares from the start.

This whole "OKW wipes the floor with any infantry build but a single ultralight snaps its spine" design is a proven failure. The OKW/SOV early game in particular is abominable for both sides.

Nope at all. UC are not 251 to begin with. One is a toy the other a logistic vehicle. 251 are a odd unit subject of many discussions already, cloning it will make the game worse.

T1 UC ruins UKF openings, forcing all but IS spam, wich is already being a problem. It also removes the IS carrying to force a HMG out of place. It denies the only flanking tool in the first 3 minutes.

Want a WASP buff? Its ok to say it so but there are just too many assuptions i do not agree with about making UC T1.

Its easier to unlock volks pfaust from min 0 rather.

The only complaint worth mentioning is the UKF IS spam, UC nerfs were aimed towards making UKF players to choose, IS spam with no UC support, or a balanced opening with no bolster.

Edit: Lago's on point, even reducing starting MP for OKM seems a better idea

The answer to me seems obvious. Tone down OKW's starting resources, give Volks snares from the start.

The UC changes are not meant to help OKW. OKW has the T0 Raketten and good blob potential to deal with it. They are mostly meant to help Ostheer, who don't stand a chance against a well microd UC until they can finally get a 222 out.

OKM

It's OKW.

What if the UC was less expensive, but the default bren did less damage?
That means it causes less bleed right away, is easier to fit into builds, and is just as good when it's upgraded with an MG or flamethrower.
There's also less opportunity cost for using it to ferry troops around.

EDIT: the bren does 11.4 dps at max range; that's almost as much as a grenadier squad with mg42, and it fires on the move.
Other light vehicles use BAR-like curves that get worse at range. Maybe the bren should as well, but the Vickers follows the lmg curve?

Nope at all. UC are not 251 to begin with. One is a toy the other a logistic vehicle. 251 are a odd unit subject of many discussions already, cloning it will make the game worse.

T1 UC ruins UKF openings, forcing all but IS spam, wich is already being a problem. It also removes the IS carrying to force a HMG out of place. It denies the only flanking tool in the first 3 minutes.

Want a WASP buff? Its ok to say it so but there are just too many assuptions i do not agree with about making UC T1.

Its easier to unlock volks pfaust from min 0 rather.

The only complaint worth mentioning is the UKF IS spam, UC nerfs were aimed towards making UKF players to choose, IS spam with no UC support, or a balanced opening with no bolster.

Edit: Lago's on point, even reducing starting MP for OKM seems a better idea

if the original "role of vehicle" was never changed or adapted kubel would still be a suppression vehicle and brumbar would not barrage things. That line if argument means very little if you ask me

Sometimes forgotten units need more attention then simple nerfs up or down. Tech swap would adjust that, and if you ask me the reason bolster is so popular is because

A: it's an indirect counter vs sniper

B: it's a fuel sink to give you some AI capability. Much needed vs volk spam (current UC costs no fuel, further pushing players to bolster button)

C: current UC offers very little after min 5 due to low survivability, bolster Tommy is far easier to keep alive and manage

Current UC is rarely used apart from against OKW on open maps. WASP is like a unicorn vs Ost because of faust and MG42 with magic bullets more than enough to keep you off until 222 one minute later.

The current timing of the unit makes no sense with how the meta has changed if you ask me. And with these changes you would see MORE change in meta rather than sitting in T0 with bolster upgrade, now you would have a option to tech and rush a unit

Current UC is rarely used apart from against OKW on open maps. WASP is like a unicorn vs Ost because of faust and MG42 with magic bullets more than enough to keep you off until 222 one minute later.

Apparently the rationale for the armour nerf is because the live UC clobbers Ostheer.

Apparently the rationale for the armour nerf is because the live UC clobbers Ostheer.

As I say it makes point 2 I made in the OP worse, brit players don't want a expensive MP unit with half the survivability of a flamer HT. They just want a decent flame platform and axis want to not be forced into AT gun at the earliest opportunity

I think a timing change and health buff would solve that

The proposed armor nerfs might be more palatable if the UC gained back some/all/more of the armor/HP after you upgrade Vickers/WASP. You can tinker with upgrade costs to reflect the power spike (maybe re-gating Vickers behind T2 if needed). That way you can have early UC for build diversity and flexibility but can still be forced away by small arms but you can always build one later and upgrade but not have it die to swift breeze (or be a meme like WASP).

...
It's OKW.

My bad, i was rushing myself. Thx.

if the original "role of vehicle" was never changed or adapted kubel would still be a suppression vehicle and brumbar would not barrage things. That line if argument means very little if you ask me
...

Not at all, you just cant justify with an OP mobile suppression platform to get nerfed for a T0 unit getting the same stats as OST T1 (a real tech, not like UKF T1) mobile reinforce/Flame HT. Flame HT is a core unit on OST armour, its OP also and there is No need to clone it, it should be adjusted. Imagine uparmouring T34s to KV1 levels, what you suggest is the same.

...
Sometimes forgotten units need more attention then simple nerfs up or down. Tech swap would adjust that, and if you ask me the reason bolster is so popular is because

A: it's an indirect counter vs sniper

B: it's a fuel sink to give you some AI capability. Much needed vs volk spam (current UC costs no fuel, further pushing players to bolster button)

C: current UC offers very little after min 5 due to low survivability, bolster Tommy is far easier to keep alive and manage
...

A is false. What changes to have 1 extra IS? Withstand 1 more shot? Thats not a counter at all, you are enduring the damage Snipers do. They will always run away from IS, bolstered or not, so no counter at all there, not even indirect.
B "a fuel sink" you say? Id call it a teching, to improve AI. One is considered a waste the other a real global buff to all infantry. A unique one (not so unique now, *looking at you OST) but not a resource sink at all. And i must say the core of the changes UKF is going through.
C. So does kubel, m3a1, dodge and even 250's and 221s... There is no problem at all for UC becoming useless. Use them as sappers transport if you will but thats UC fate is

I liked the idea of reducing UC cost to 'enforce' using them as ferrys.

...
Current UC is rarely used apart from against OKW on open maps. WASP is like a unicorn vs Ost because of faust and MG42 with magic bullets more than enough to keep you off until 222 one minute later.
...

Do you really think a UC should roflstomp on a defensive strong faction that is OST? Really? I think you've been wasting time too much on those "magic bullets". If wasp is not used against them is something intelligent from both factions, but you arguibly are against that. Im not. Btw the game balance is far more important than a unicorn. Wasps are meant to counter garrisons, not factions.

...
The current timing of the unit makes no sense with how the meta has changed if you ask me. And with these changes you would see MORE change in meta rather than sitting in T0 with bolster upgrade, now you would have a option to tech and rush a unit

On this we agree both, but with a clear difference. WASPS are slow, expensive and damaging. But it should not last long since garrisons are countered by indirect fire in midgame or lategame. We can buff its timing, changing its cost from muni only to fuel (its going to make them a hard choice, i know)
UC could use some durability but as a T0 LV you cant expect to rush into frontlines.
UC need more rotation speed buff, maybe acc buff as all the other T0-1 LVs

Edit: Last note, i think UC need some love, but i disagree on making them the most OP unit of OST. Wasp do not need to be OP, they have to have a good shock value.

The UC changes are not meant to help OKW. OKW has the T0 Raketten and good blob potential to deal with it. They are mostly meant to help Ostheer, who don't stand a chance against a well microd UC until they can finally get a 222 out.



It's OKW.

I disagree. It helps both, and helps okw more because they struggle woth the UC more. Some pushed the changes to help ost, and some because they help okw, but yeah, they help both.

Also, okw vs okm is semantics.

Some numbers:
251
Armor: 9/4.5 Health: 320

UC
Armor: 7/4.1 Health: 240
to be changed to 5.8

bren Lmg 1x150% vs snipers.

Generally speaking the armor value is too high for the time frame and it should go down for the same reason the armor of Kubel went down, if it needs more durability it should be HP.

Other Car should also be looked at.
M3A1
Armor: 5.4/4.2 Health: 200
WC51
Armor: 3.9/2.5 Health: 240
Kubel
Armor: 3/1.9 Health: 240

Some numbers:
251
Armor: 9/4.5 Health: 320

UC
Armor: 7/4.1 Health: 240
to be changed to 5.8

bren Lmg 1x150% vs snipers.

Other Car should also be looked at.
M3A1
Armor: 5.4/4.2 Health: 200
WC51
Armor: 3.9/2.5 Health: 240
Kubel
Armor: 3/1.9 Health: 240

Yeah, those are the numbers I used for reference, and think others should reference them too.

Also, effective hp against small arms (1 pen weapons):

UC: 1680 hp
M3: 1080
Wc: 936
Kubel: 720

Each of these has advantages that the UC doesnt, but even still, the high durability and lmg-esque dps curve mean that the UC is extremely safe and durable - safe and durable enough that multiple top level players believe it deserved nerfs. If you play safe from minutes 5-7, its not that hard to keep alive after that because youll have an aec out.

Some numbers:
251
Armor: 9/4.5 Health: 320

UC
Armor: 7/4.1 Health: 240
to be changed to 5.8

bren Lmg 1x150% vs snipers.

Generally speaking the armor value is too high for the time frame and it should go down for the same reason the armor of Kubel went down, if it needs more durability it should be HP.

Other Car should also be looked at.
M3A1
Armor: 5.4/4.2 Health: 200
WC51
Armor: 3.9/2.5 Health: 240
Kubel
Armor: 3/1.9 Health: 240

Flamer HT can also get panzer smoke iirc (pretty sure they did not remove it just decreased vet mobility bonus), it's also much easier to "track" units due to the way the flame projectors work. That makes pathing easier

Personally I think it would be cool if the Universal Carrier had a mortar upgrade.

Personally I think it would be cool if the Universal Carrier had a mortar upgrade.

but could that be implemented? is there a model?

Flamer HT can also get panzer smoke iirc (pretty sure they did not remove it just decreased vet mobility bonus), it's also much easier to "track" units due to the way the flame projectors work. That makes pathing easier

quit with the FHT. seriously. its irrelevant. the only thing the units have in common is that they shoot flames. UC is a t0 unit, flamer requires not only a tech, but also a seperate building. whats more, the halftrack costs more AND its upgrade costs more OF COURSE ITS BETTER. THATS HOW BALANCE WORKS.

quit with the FHT. seriously. its irrelevant. the only thing the units have in common is that they shoot flames. UC is a t0 unit, flamer requires not only a tech, but also a seperate building. whats more, the halftrack costs more AND its upgrade costs more OF COURSE ITS BETTER. THATS HOW BALANCE WORKS.

And you forgot to mention that smoke is a doctrinal choice.

What if UKF now gets the UC+sappers at T0? I mean, sappers mounting the UC.
Cost should be adjusted to be fair but this way we solve the never ending problem for sappers not being T0 and also bring a powerspike for UCs. Just unload sappers nearby for an early assault.

quit with the FHT. seriously. its irrelevant. the only thing the units have in common is that they shoot flames. UC is a t0 unit, flamer requires not only a tech, but also a seperate building. whats more, the halftrack costs more AND its upgrade costs more OF COURSE ITS BETTER. THATS HOW BALANCE WORKS.

We are posting survivability for the units

With the kubel nerfs people found it UP (right now there's a thread saying it's too fragile in need of buff), I argue nerfed armour UC will be the same and end up needing to be buffed again