UKF September patch discussion

No i disagree. Your calculation only show over nerf if head to head with a panther. 120 will still dominate all other T3 tanks. By reducing damages, it balances out with more chance of axis T3 tank to pen it and drain hp. The same issue with reducing panther armor to allow T3 units to fight it.

Why should Churchill concern with panther 1v1? Ukf have enough units to compose an army to support 120 Churchill main gun. should we make shreks 160 damage too, cos heck unit composition.

But as you say, the boss have the last say. Those with powers wins and will never go back after publication, there are those who can trademark best spot ever or pat themselves with symbolic 5 fuel 'overperformance' penalty or just 'decent' 240/180/1400 survivability.

But i believe in democratic freedom of speech, things may change for better or worse, just because we care. Trump may be president today, who knows what if next year.

So your point is that you want to nerf the main gun of a UKF battle tank to match a Shrek (120), except that it will have about 50 less pen than a shrek. What a brilliant idea! Then the balance team could turn around and nerf all of the axis tanks to match the bazooka. I don't know if they could do the less penetration part of the match though, I'm not sure if the bazooka even has 50 pen.

That didn't stopped allied TDs from getting pop cap increase when they were spammed too much.
I can't see why panther would be immune to it.
Allied TD meta comes directly from panthers being spammed as allied meds can't stand up to them.

I disagree with this. I would argue more that allied TD spam comes from the power of allied infantry affording the option to focus on TDs which will deny the enemy a chance to fight back without heavy bleed. Allies can go TD because they don't need armour to make up AI.

I disagree with this. I would argue more that allied TD spam comes from the power of allied infantry affording the option to focus on TDs which will deny the enemy a chance to fight back without heavy bleed. Allies can go TD because they don't need armour to make up AI.

This +1.

I disagree with this. I would argue more that allied TD spam comes from the power of allied infantry affording the option to focus on TDs which will deny the enemy a chance to fight back without heavy bleed. Allies can go TD because they don't need armour to make up AI.

It's both? I mean forget Panthers, fighting OKWs p4 with any of the stock allied mediums can be risky. All of the tanks in okws t4 have 230+ armor, you can't tell me it's JUST allied infantry advantage

And people complain about scotts too much for allies to not need vehicles for AI. That's the go-to against obers for me

No,


Why do you ignore how much it would change the TTK against an Ostheer P4 (average from 4 shots to 6) and OKW P4 (average from 4 shots to 7)? Potentially up to 7 and 8 when we take accuracy into account too?

Is it because

? Because that's not really an argument.

But Sanders i want relook where is our stance.
You think 3 churchills is OP, i agree.
You think 2 churchills is ok, i kinda disagree. It is not 1 click win but in 2v2 i played, when allies massed their tanks, and 2 churchill pushes, it is near impossible for wehr to counter.

Hence you suggest +1pop/+5fu in bid to reduce chances of spamming. I dont think is effective because churchills can do AI and a fair bit of AT quite well.

My choice is to reduce damage to 120. Sure it takes P4 2 more shots, but we have to consider P4 counter pen against Churchill, or P4 moving accuracy? 0.5/0.75 is more inferior, 110/240 is more inferior, should Churchill be afraid of waiting for 2 more shots?

What about rear armor? Close quarter combat pen?

As stated in my 2v2 experience, Churchill is fairly deadly in dealing extra AT damages, which imo it should not for its stats purposes.

I can think of 2 reasons why, firstly tank shots in game goes out every other seconds, the rng dice rolls faster then it seems on paper. Does it pen, yes no.
The second obviously is rear armor effect. Wehr tanks are tasked to be more mobile, brumbar needs to get close, P4 needs to flank, P5 needs to dive etc. When the 50% rear/side armor is in consideration, the Churchill "bad" pen is no longer an issue. Hence it can stay and deal AT damages.

Now to be fair, the sbp has put resources nerf to Churchill. I survived for a year with Churchill meta, surely the sbp makes things better.

But imo, the +1pop/5fu is not necessary or effective as intention.
-40 main gun and +15 pen on all ranges makes more sense. More rng reliable pen but reduces damages to support with its survivability. Ukf player will still play their build order with minimum impact.

-40 main gun and +15 pen on all ranges makes more sense. More rng reliable pen but reduces damages to support with its survivability. Ukf player will still play their build order with minimum impact.

If churchill taking 6-7 shoot to kill a p4 is count as "dominant" then we can make panther 120 dmg too, because it will still dominant allies med and premium med, while less effective against it's dedicated counter - TD.

If churchill taking 6-7 shoot to kill a p4 is count as "dominant" then we can make panther 120 dmg too, because it will still dominant allies med and premium med, while less effective against it's dedicated counter - TD.

this make zero sense.

Firstly panther rear armor only 90/99, look at all allies med tanks pen at far. Even the AEC can hit panther for 120 with a good flank. Then you have shermans 50% better moving accruacy...

How is it comparable to my suggestion?

.
-40 main gun and +15 pen on all ranges makes more sense. More rng reliable pen but reduces damages to support with its survivability. Ukf player will still play their build order with minimum impact.

And still, i cant figure it out how the hell can you think this can "make sense", like, wtf ? increased pen on a dmg spong, anti infantry tank ??? You already crying like hell when AEC got stray shoot at your panther, which you cant event face front armor to the enemies.

At the same time, reduce dmg ??? Seriously ? mate? A heavy tank with dmg profile of pzsherk, how is it suppose to deal with infantry after that ? Churchill's AI event now is mediocre at best, worse than P4 for sure.

Obviously The churchill you want have to be nothing more than a vet farming machine for axis AT.

this make zero sense.

Firstly panther rear armor only 90/99, look at all allies med tanks pen at far. Even the AEC can hit panther for 120 with a good flank. Then you have shermans 50% better moving accruacy...

How is it comparable to my suggestion?

For the love of god, that is why you have to face your enemies with front armor. Stop pretending that panther have to dive in order to work, you should only dive to finish low HP tank or catch overextended arty pieces... And event then, get shoot in the rear is the risk everyone have to take when diving, i'm more than happy when lost a cromwell or event comet if i can take out a couple of rocket arty. Panther have best chance to survive and escape anyway.

I disagree with this. I would argue more that allied TD spam comes from the power of allied infantry affording the option to focus on TDs which will deny the enemy a chance to fight back without heavy bleed. Allies can go TD because they don't need armour to make up AI.

i wish

I disagree with this. I would argue more that allied TD spam comes from the power of allied infantry affording the option to focus on TDs which will deny the enemy a chance to fight back without heavy bleed. Allies can go TD because they don't need armour to make up AI.

This +1 also

Nerf the Panther’s MGs, and nerf allied infantry

Problem solved

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.

Not crying like a baby (like someone) doesn't mean we are comfortable.

I have played UKF more than any other faction, up to 1300+ hours. i adapted to the change and learn how to play better with what the faction have, instead of complaining to balance whenever cant figure it out how to win.

This +1 also

Nerf the Panther’s MGs, and nerf allied infantry

Problem solved

The problem is the recourse disadvantidge axis have in 1s disapears in 3s and 4s. The p4 panther and heavier tanks arrive far earlier the they do in 1s. Also flanking is next to non excistant in 4s except on 1 map. This leaves the t34 sherman and cromwell with a very tiny window to be effective if at all. Why bother if your 90 - 130 fuel is mostly a waste. Td,s is a much more efficient and safer option.

The problem is the recourse disadvantidge axis have in 1s disapears in 3s and 4s. The p4 panther and heavier tanks arrive far earlier the they do in 1s. Also flanking is next to non excistant in 4s except on 1 map. This leaves the t34 sherman and cromwell with a very tiny window to be effective if at all. Why bother if your 90 - 130 fuel is mostly a waste. Td,s is a much more efficient and safer option.

That is why Lago’s point blank idea for mediums could be good
https://www.coh2.org/topic/93799/tank-point-blank

It's both? I mean forget Panthers, fighting OKWs p4 with any of the stock allied mediums can be risky. All of the tanks in okws t4 have 230+ armor, you can't tell me it's JUST allied infantry advantage

And people complain about scotts too much for allies to not need vehicles for AI. That's the go-to against obers for me

I hear ya but that's kinda the point of the okw p4 right? I'm fine with that regard 100% it's supposed to push for harder AT the thing is though that Ost or okw it doesn't matter, you are a-OK using your infantry to punish the small squads and get a TD to ensure they struggle to make up the AI elsewhere.

I think my issue lies mostly in that late game tactics for Allies don't differ too much from faction to faction despite how different they are. I'd rather personally that there was more dynamic choice than "enemy could be building anything from a light tank to a KT, better get my TD ready" but yall know how I feel about more important decisions in the game for diversity sake.

I hear ya but that's kinda the point of the okw p4 right? I'm fine with that regard 100% it's supposed to push for harder AT the thing is though that Ost or okw it doesn't matter, you are a-OK using your infantry to punish the small squads and get a TD to ensure they struggle to make up the AI elsewhere.

I think my issue lies mostly in that late game tactics for Allies don't differ too much from faction to faction despite how different they are. I'd rather personally that there was more dynamic choice than "enemy could be building anything from a light tank to a KT, better get my TD ready" but yall know how I feel about more important decisions in the game for diversity sake.

Yeah I don't disagree it's not a great design. I'm just saying it's not only because allied infantry is better. I too would rather they need/be able to build more mediums

Very cautious changes in the last patch preview. Seems they get close to release.

A little bit disappointed that Infiltration Commandos still get overlooked, while other infiltration troops get some care (Partisans, Falls...). Please adjust their MP value. 440 MP for the full five men is just too much. No other elite unit comes close to that. That includes Commandos themselves on other doctrines where they are called for 350 MP with a glider or are buildable for 350 MP in the HQ Glider. Adjusting the cost is a very simple change. What is the reason for not doing it?


Advanced Emplacement Regiment should be changed completely. You will never balance brit emplacements as long as this commander exists. Either emplacements will be okay without it and op with it or emplacements will be up without it and okay with it. Both scenarios are pretty bad...
Just change him in a defensive commander with no emplacement buffs but some sort of defensive tools like Hull down for tanks. The repair of the Forward assembly could be for vehicles only. You could add in the land mattress which would fit too and is only in one other commander right now. That way the mattress could see some more action.

A little bit disappointed that Infiltration Commandos still get overlooked, while other infiltration troops get some care (Partisans, Falls...). Please adjust their MP value. 440 MP for the full five men is just too much. No other elite unit comes close to that. That includes Commandos themselves on other doctrines where they are called for 350 MP with a glider or are buildable for 350 MP in the HQ Glider. Adjusting the cost is a very simple change. What is the reason for not doing it?

To be honest, the reason is simply that the list of changes is huge, and a lot longer than originally intended, and no one brought it up so it just got overlooked. Changing their deployment cost seems fair. Can't promise to get it in this patch (as it's already quite convoluted) but perhaps it can be changed in one of the follow up patches or the next big one.

To be honest, the reason is simply that the list of changes is huge, and a lot longer than originally intended, and no one brought it up so it just got overlooked. Changing their deployment cost seems fair. Can't promise to get it in this patch (as it's already quite convoluted) but perhaps it can be changed in one of the follow up patches or the next big one.

can we fix the land matress targeting circle ?
it's 3 time the actual size is supposed to be

To be honest, the reason is simply that the list of changes is huge, and a lot longer than originally intended, and no one brought it up so it just got overlooked. Changing their deployment cost seems fair. Can't promise to get it in this patch (as it's already quite convoluted) but perhaps it can be changed in one of the follow up patches or the next big one.

Oh that was a prompt answer. And it sounds promising. Thx ;-)