UKF September patch discussion

Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2019, 06:40 AMCombatWombat

Could you take a look at the AOE suppression of the Vickers. Its inability to stop blobs advancing is bit of a problem in the mid to late game, especially with vet and decreasing RA.

Please also consider looking at the wasp upgrade which has very poor performance next to the HT flamer. The UC has a harder time staying alive with its previous patch nerf which makes wasp a very risky and unattractive upgrade.

Jump back to quoted post17 Aug 2019, 21:22 PMWiderstreit

All over brits got some good changes, but still. They are sometimes way to powerful.

Emplacements are simply cancer. Bofors still killes Inf way to fast (give it stats of Ostwind).

Also the grenade bug isn't fix (they can still trew grenades when red suppressed, if order was before the suppression).


Not trolling, but the fraction was a joke and stays a joke.


There are so many things have to be changed.

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2019, 00:43 AMLoopDloop

Emplacements are a joke in 1v1 but I agree that they can be pretty cancerous in teamgames. I find them much harder to kill if they go the advanced emplacement commander, and that's the only time I ever find them to be really serious problems. I think that whole commander needs to be totally reworked from the ground up as something more useful and less cheesy without the focus on emplacements.

I wish there was something that could be done about emplacements in general that would make the game better for both sides, because they're super cancerous to play with or against and just kind of encourage arty spam on both sides, but they're also not super competitive unless you use advanced emplacement commander and brits still lack proper indirect options because hurr durr mortar pit.

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2019, 01:27 AMthedarkarmadillo

Could gut the emplacements, lower their price and gate power behind being garrisoned so that they function as part of an army instead OF an army.

I've said in the past that if brace was tied to garrison alone emplacements would be much better for it since there wouldn't be a 1 click save the unit button with next to no risk and there would be clear counter play. Un supported emplacements would be food, but as defensive positions (kinda like the usf fighting pit) they could hit above their price point as support units.

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2019, 15:30 PMShadowLinkX37

Consider lowering the absurd 290 armor value of the comet for further buffing its scatter. It should be a threat to infantry. The Comet already gets free EWS with hammer tech and has the speed to flank JP4/StuGs. StuGs and JP4s should not have a ~64% chance (off top of my head) to pen a high speed flanking tank.

Faster "projectile", better scatter, lower armor. That's my suggestion.

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2019, 18:07 PMthedarkarmadillo

I'd rather MG performance be looked at than tighter scatter. Tanks should, imo, be a constant threat to infantry who are in front of them. Let's cut this "wipe or miss" crap once and for all and load most of tank AI into the mgs and allow select tanks to stand out via high AOE HE. I don't think anyone can argue that the t34 isn't the best it's been now that it's constant against infantry under its sights.

This would also be an interesting way for axis vehicles to scale a bit better vs larger allied squads via their pintle mgs at a cost (usf too I guess)

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2019, 18:31 PMShadowLinkX37

The T34 is probably the pinacle of hull/coaxial MG mounts, and they are fantastic yes, but I do really hate how lategame when the field is covered with yellow that the all so great DPS gets halved. I'd be all for constant MG damage if it wasn't for that fact, and the UKF landmattress is king of making that yellow cover a reality. Fantastic for commandos and tommies, terrible for small arms fire.

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2019, 19:09 PMthedarkarmadillo

I'd argue that that seems pretty fair though right? If you are facing down a tank and there is a hole there you are going to jump in it. If anything it's in line with the game mechanics.
BUT you could maybe buff the coaxial MG (shooting higher, shoots into the crater) to deal increased damage.
I don't see how tank mgs being extra punishing against units outside of cover at the cost of a little less when in cover would be much worse than getting caught out of cover and being wiped.

Idk. For me it's so silly to see a tank roll up point blank to an unsupported AT gun and support to arrive because all of iuts AI is in its cannon and it missed 6 shots in a row. I think MG powered AI gives us more control over how tanks interact with infantry and how reliablely they do so. Less RNG and more consistency has don't nothing but good for the game


Also can't modifiers be added to lessen the power of cover? Could set it at 0.6 or something and go from there?

Jump back to quoted post17 Aug 2019, 21:22 PMWiderstreit

All over brits got some good changes, but still. They are sometimes way to powerful.

Emplacements are simply cancer. Bofors still killes Inf way to fast (give it stats of Ostwind).

Also the grenade bug isn't fix (they can still trew grenades when red suppressed, if order was before the suppression).


Not trolling, but the fraction was a joke and stays a joke.


There are so many things have to be changed.

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2019, 01:27 AMthedarkarmadillo

Could gut the emplacements, lower their price and gate power behind being garrisoned so that they function as part of an army instead OF an army.

Jump back to quoted post20 Aug 2019, 11:29 AMJulianSnow

Idea for the emplacements.

Make them de-crewable, just like the PaK 43 gun/2cm Flak of the Axis players.

Extra: remove the extra dmg vs emplacements on most of the flame units and just kill the crew. Would make the emplacements more squishy, but in return the guns could get a buff somewhere?

Jump back to quoted post20 Aug 2019, 11:35 AMKatitof

It would make them less then useless.

Remember that PaK 43 and flak are dirt cheap in comparison. They are also doctrinal addition to core army, not the core army itself.

Jump back to quoted post20 Aug 2019, 11:01 AMKatitof

Emplacement are 100% L2P issue.
If you can't fight them after 3 years, you will never be able to, learn to play already.

Well, they DO have pop cap and upkeep, they ARE part of army just as any other infantry or vehicle.
It may not be the best design, but its the only one we can have.

Jump back to quoted post20 Aug 2019, 11:01 AMKatitof

Emplacement are 100% L2P issue.
If you can't fight them after 3 years, you will never be able to, learn to play already.