UKF September patch discussion

There's a couple of things I think need to be properly explained about the emplacement changes (bofors + ability to deconstruct with no refund) because I think in the course of answering these question it will become obvious that these changes need the be re-examined.

First is the elephant in the room: A bofor's anti-infantry capability is destroyed by smoke even in its pre-patch state. Moving infantry are simply too hard to hit with attack ground. Similarly it's anti-vehicle ability is reduced by about half based on some tests I've done in the past. It's not like a t70 or even a flak-track that can move out of the smoke to stay relevant.

So here is the first question: Was there any consideration given to non-indirect-fire strategies at countering the bofors without smoke and, if so, why? Smoke is cheap, readily available to both axis armies via mortars, present on several commanders, and lasts a reasonably long time which makes it not very micro intensive. I personally don't think its unreasonable to effectively require axis players to use smoke when considering balance changes on the bofors.

Second question: Why was the choice made to not provide any refund on the emplacements? Emplacements that see a good number of engagements are basically the same as any other vehicle: they don't bleed manpower and can kill enemy units. However a vehicle can always be moved for free. Not refunding anything is implicitly making the relocation cost equal to 100% of the build cost. Granted a destroyed emplacement can be replaced with something different (like a tank) so the refund cost should be less than 100%, probably closer to 50%.

Third question: Has the balance team ever heard of the "Gambler's ruin theorem"? In essence company of heroes can be thought of as a front-line taking a pseudo-random-walk between the players bases. The gamblers ruin theorem can be applied here stating that in a long enough game an axis player will force the allied player into a full rout at least once (and vice verse). This means that unlike a movable unit a static object is statistically guaranteed to be either useless for parts of the game (due to forcing the front line too far away) or destroyed (due to being routed). The implication of this is that players will not build emplacements unless they can prevent the random walk from traversing over (or too far away from) their emplacements, usually in the form of a sim-city. This statistical result is what generates the all-or-nothing type of emplacement play seen in game.

The solution to this problem is to allow a "retreat" namely a 2nd version of brace which has no cooldown but has a cost. This allows emplacements to "retreat" in the same way vehicles and infantry do: You remove them from play but in exchange for not being wiped it costs resources to reinforce or engineer-time to repair. Since brace allows damage to be done to the emplacement it is still possible to kill it, just less likely (again very much like retreat). Best guess about the cost is 50mp for every 20 seconds. This means it costs 150mp to brace a structure for 80 seconds (first 20 seconds free). Given reinforcements take longer to get back to the front on larger maps this also sorts out the team game vs 1v1 problems.

Instead of return res, May be we can try giving the engineer squad that deconstruct an emplacement the ability to rebuilt that emplacement for a reduced cost.

Another thing, many times i heard on a forum that one of the solution to delay UKF Tommie blob was to move boolster infantry behind T1 and increase the upgrade time. Top players usually goes for boolster and then T1 to reach max efficiency of Tommies as fast as they can. Upgrade costs 35 fuel so it technicly delay a LV but in teamgames usually an ally friend delivers early counter to it. Simply it's too good for a stage it comes. At least it used to.

So, Do BalanceTeam planning to move boolster behind T1 and extend research time after Tommies accuracy changes? Honestly that could be a safe choice if new version of IS will still be overperforming.

+1

a few days ago, i just discussed the same problom about fast boolster with my friends. i also proposed that boolster should be put behind t1 tech. just like AG PF has additional man after tech and upgrade.

There was nothing Price could have done against them damage wise. 4 stugs could not kill one churchill. Bouncing like mad and not doing enough damage combined. If he went panther(s), the UKF player would simply go 2 churchills with a 6 pounder. Panther doesn't have enough dps to kill even one churchill. Pak 40s also have a huge problem with killing the churchill, especially 3 coming for you, as they can roll up and kill it easily and have health to spare. 3 churchills supported by sappers, tommies, is nearly unbeatable. There was nothing and I repeat nothing Price could have done. Mines allright, but it would only engine damage the Churchill, there are still 3 of them with a million health.

But we must be mindful not to nerf it to uselessness. A slight health reduction of 2 shots less needed to kill it would be in order, that is it. Nothing more.

Except that the Stugs did kill one of the Churchills and might have been able to get a second one had they focused on the original Churchill when it was brought back into the fight.

It's interesting that a certain group of posters think that the game is completely broken if 360 fuel worth of Axis armor doesn't beat 480 fuel of allied armor. Please nerf.

You could make the same video with four M10's and three Panthers. Should the Panther have its damage reduced to 120 or lose 320HP like you suggest above?

Except that the Stugs did kill one of the Churchills and might have been able to get a second one had they focused on the original Churchill when it was brought back into the fight.

It's interesting that a certain group of posters think that the game is completely broken if 360 fuel worth of Axis armor doesn't beat 480 fuel of allied armor. Please nerf.

You could make the same video with four M10's and three Panthers. Should the Panther have its damage reduced to 120 or lose 320HP like you suggest above?

I meant the last fight specifically, where 4 stugs got completely rekt by 3 churchills.

As for interesting group of posters. Do you REALLY wish to argue that the churchill is balanced in its current or even patched form? 1400 health, able to throw grenades, good armor and not limited by number? If you do, then I fear you fall under the group that seems to miss any type of reasonable judgement.

Where exactly do I suggest nerfing panther damage or its health? 320 hp for the Panther is huge, compared to a churchill losing 2 shots to kill when it has 1400!!!!! health. I even suggested limited panthers to 2 per player in most posts.

Can we please not ignore the fact that the example being talked about was not one Churchill vs 4 Stugs but rather THREE Churchills vs 4 Stugs? Makes a hell of a difference to the balance discussion here. Stugs are not going to be effective when they are driving backwards while lowering accuracy, trying to get away from three tanks.

Also, I can't support a damage nerf to 120 since it will impacts way too many things. Damage vs Emplacements, Abandoned Weapons, Emplacements, AoE vs Infantry, Light Vehicles... List goes on!

People are mainly complaining about their Panthers or other High Tier units not detering them enough. Nerfing penetration will put the nerf where it is needed without hitting the unit with a sledgehammer.

I meant the last fight specifically, where 4 stugs got completely rekt by 3 churchills.

As for interesting group of posters. Do you REALLY wish to argue that the churchill is balanced in its current or even patched form? 1400 health, able to throw grenades, good armor and not limited by number? If you do, then I fear you fall under the group that seems to miss any type of reasonable judgement.

Where exactly do I suggest nerfing panther damage or its health? 320 hp for the Panther is huge, compared to a churchill losing 2 shots to kill when it has 1400!!!!! health. I even suggested limited panthers to 2 per player in most posts.

So you either didn't watch it or are lying about it. Sanders linked the video. The Stugs did kill one of the Churchills. Also, as Sanders pointed out, you can't reasonably extrapolate much from this fight. It's difficult to use the Stug's range advantage on a small map like Crossroads compared to Red Ball.

Can we please not ignore the fact that the example being talked about was not one Churchill vs 4 Stugs but rather THREE Churchills vs 4 Stugs? Makes a hell of a difference to the balance discussion here. Stugs are not going to be effective when they are driving backwards while lowering accuracy, trying to get away from three tanks.

Also, I can't support a damage nerf to 120 since it will impacts way too many things. Damage vs Emplacements, Abandoned Weapons, Emplacements, AoE vs Infantry, Light Vehicles... List goes on!

People are mainly complaining about their Panthers or other High Tier units not detering them enough. Nerfing penetration will put the nerf where it is needed without hitting the unit with a sledgehammer.

I don't agree to many UKF stuff (yes because I am biased against them) but this post needs a well deserved +1.

Can we please not ignore the fact that the example being talked about was not one Churchill vs 4 Stugs but rather THREE Churchills vs 4 Stugs? Makes a hell of a difference to the balance discussion here. Stugs are not going to be effective when they are driving backwards while lowering accuracy, trying to get away from three tanks.

Also, I can't support a damage nerf to 120 since it will impacts way too many things. Damage vs Emplacements, Abandoned Weapons, Emplacements, AoE vs Infantry, Light Vehicles... List goes on!

People are mainly complaining about their Panthers or other High Tier units not detering them enough. Nerfing penetration will put the nerf where it is needed without hitting the unit with a sledgehammer.

It was actually a Stupa and four Stugs versus three Churchills, a 6 lbr, and some engineers.

The Stug's armor is only around 140 so it made the Churchills look good. Their penetration is 135 according to CHO2DB, which gives them almost guaranteed pen against a Stug and about a 50% chance to penetrate a Panther. It is similar to other allied tanks like Cromwells, Shermans, etc.

any unit with high HP with decent armour will be OP when spammed, but most high HP and armour units are limited to 1, hence the Churchill is in a unique spot and difficult to balance. Increasing the pop cap for now is a right step, no need to overnerf the unit

any unit with high HP with decent armour will be OP when spammed, but most high HP and armour units are limited to 1, hence the Churchill is in a unique spot and difficult to balance. Increasing the pop cap for now is a right step, no need to overnerf the unit

you're not providing feedback, you're just trying to make it easier for you to win on live. You're an axis main, thats pretty obvious. If you check the OKW and OST patch discussions, it is just axis mains asking for more buffs. If you look at the USF, SU, UKF discussions, it is just axis mains asking for more nerfs.

Comet isn't good enough in the mod. 185F for a medicore tank when the Churchill is fantastic at 165 makes it really one sided. Drop the armor on the comet from 290 and buff from there. It doesn't need to bounce shells when it isn't lethal. The churchill is there to tank hits and it's much better at it.

SEPTEMBER 2019 PATCH PREVIEW - VERSION 1.3

UKF

Bofors
The recent changes to the Bofors impacted the unit's ability to hold back attacking infantry. The recent changes are to allow the Bofors to stop charging infantry squads that attempt to enter the Bofor's range.
- Suppression from 0.0006 to 0.0015
- AOE from 1 to 1.5
- Nearby suppression radius from 0.8 to 1
- AOE suppression from 0.1 to 0.75
- Target suppressed suppression multiplier from 0.5 to 1

Sniper
The recent changes in aim-time had the effect of speeding up the sniper's rate of fire. His rate of fire is being slowed to be slightly behind the Ostheer's Sniper to reflect the smaller squads he fires on, and his ability to harm light vehicles when supported.
- Sniper winddown from 4 to 5.25

Comet
We have slightly reduced the scatter of the Comet to improve its anti-infantry firepower at range.
- Comet scatter from 5.5 to 5.25

Churchill
Due to its extrmely high health and decent armor, we are increasing the Churchill's population and fuel cost to better reflect its performance.
- Population from 18 to 19
- Fuel cost from 160 to 165

Advanced Fortifications
The previous changes were too harsh on this upgrade. We are toning back some of the cost to better reflect its power.
- Fuel cost from 20 to 10

My post here:

Comet isn't good enough in the mod. 185F for a medicore tank when the Churchill is fantastic at 165 makes it really one sided. Drop the armor on the comet from 290 and buff from there. It doesn't need to bounce shells when it isn't lethal. The churchill is there to tank hits and it's much better at it.

is about the 1.3 comet just so everyone knows.

I meant the last fight specifically, where 4 stugs got completely rekt by 3 churchills.

Go watch the vid again.
3 churchills and FUCKING ANTI TANK GUN THAT TOOK DOWN 2 OF THE STUGS.

Go watch the vid again.
3 churchills and FUCKING ANTI TANK GUN THAT TOOK DOWN 2 OF THE STUGS.

It (the AT gun) didn't fit people's narrative so was conveniently left out. (comments not directed at balance team)

At 19 pop cap, 2 Churchills and 2 RE's to repair them eat up 52 pop. Contrary to popular belief, that still leaves you with no reliable anti-tank. Add in a vickers, a Firefly, and two sections and then you're going to have to choose between another piece of AT, indirect, or another section.

dear mod team fix land matress

i believe the nerf hammer was too hard on the poor thing (land mattres), the damage it does is similar to the katushya but has lower mid range damage and has a 0.5 reduce damage vs heavy cover, it's the only one to have it (all other have 1), but the bigger problem is the targeting circle, it's to big and it does not actually show where the rocket are gonna hit, the problem I believe is the distance ratio of a whopping 0.6 (all other have rocket art have 0.16) and the scatter angle of 15

To fix the unit I believe normalizing the ratio is the first step (if not 0.16 at least 0.2-0.3), then changing the angle to 12-13 would make it more consistent
maybe normalizing the cover damage to 1 too ? Or maybe 0.75 as is the only team weapon art (so no easy puma hunt)?

Here some img for what I mean the targeting circle doesn't actually show where the rocket hit, 1 at max range 1 at minimum (bigger than my resolution)

the blue dot is where I clicked, the red lines are the circle edge, u can see its worth jack shit as indication, in green I made the circle(?) of what the actual targeting circle should actually look like, so around half of what it shows
and yes I have a paint master degree thank you

here something vipper made so u can even better understand what I mean

5 fuel increase for churchill lol.

5 fuel increase for Jackson lol.

Obviously relic mod teams still think axis op.

Considering no noise is made with Churchill 1.3, shows ukf players are still comfortable.

We are just silently taking it. Being a British Player is like being in an abusive marrage. You suffer in silence because speaking out makes the abuse worse. You get used to it after many years.

That being said, the 1.3 change is nothing to get really upset over. It will however be followed by another nerf down the road. Death by a thousand cuts.