Profile of comm_ash

That's my point. Light artillery shouldn't be getting increased damage, but heavy artillery should.

Forcing an emplacement to brace is the counterplay to artillery. Since they can't move, you are basically "retreating" it. Emplacements should take less damage from light artillery so that bracing is not required against them, while still being required against heavy artillery, tanks, and AT guns.

To do this, the light artillery should have a negative damage modifier, and the heavy should have no modifier (since they already deal good damage).

I really don't like the way British emplacements are designed. In real life, the whole point of emplacements was that they were very resilient against artillery. A defensive emplacement that was weak to artillery wasn't an emplacement at all.

Emplacements SHOULD be weak to flame based weapons, but not in the way portrayed. I would like to see:

Emplacements gain more resilience to all artillery. It makes no sense for a mortar emplacement to lose to 2 leigs. The emplacement should win hands down due to its inability to move.

Emplacements can now be decrewed by flame based weapons. Flame based weapons have a chance of decrewing, but it will be a good chance. Flame based weapons will do less damage against emplacements than they currently do (looking at you MHT). Grenades will also work for decrewing if you can get close enough (rnade probably wouldn't be able to). Brace does not help against flame based weapons and grenades anymore.

All other weapons will stay just as effective, so a good strategy would be to decrew an emplacement, then use direct fire to destroy it when it can no longer be braced.

This way, the Brits force the enemies to come to them, rather than being forced to take the initiative and attack themselves (which is something Brits are terrible at, due to their cover requirements). It is simply bad design to force the player that invested in a static build (also known as the British faction) to attack an enemy in order to make his army work in any way.

If you make Brits be the faction that people are forced to attack, and not the other way around, it will fix Brits in 1s and make emplacements a more dynamic and easily countered option.

The question is why 6pounder costs 270 mp, while pak costs 320mp, meanwhile it has same performance vs armor (if we dont talk about target weakpoint)

I think that the reasoning is that the 6lber is a Pak40 with a tighter arc, which means that it should be cheaper than a Pak40. To be fair, brits are quite manpower starved, so a cheap at gun makes sense, but that is also a bad way to balance.

Hello anybody here has any viable strat for Brit, for me it all boils down to Bofor + Mortar + Forward Assembly and guard 1 VP/fuel while waiting for Churchill + Anvil Engineer blob. IS bleeds too much MP to be mobile and dual ISG or mortar HT just rekt everything else.

When it comes down to it, it's all down to personal preference. You seem to like a more defensive build, but I personally like more aggressive tactics.

Starting IS > Vickers > IS > UC > tech > RE > AEC is a fairly solid start I find, vs. Both factions.

Its biggest weakness is the ostheer sniper, but I usually manage to counter it through map choice and UC + vickers flanks. AEC also does quite well, if you are lucky or get a clean shot into his base.

add some things

Tiger and Tiger Ace Vet 2 sight bonus reduced from 10 to 5
Added more of a stagger of time between the planes of Stuka Close Air Support
Fixed rifleman sandbag requirement so u can build it right off the bat

Man, it's great knowing that you guys read these forums and respond to feedback. Keep up the good work!