Check OKW Panther and the Combat Blitz ability on the ability guide. Now, tell me again. Which tank has the best accuracy on the move?
Good point. I see your previous comparison between the usefulness of the smoke vs either of the blitz abilities. Yes, the okw Panther can have it's accuracy, speed and received accuracy increased by a durational ability that has a munitions cost. But it's worth noting that at vet 2 the comet gets +30% accuracy and 35% weapons rotation and at vet 3, it's +30% speed, +20% acceleration and an auto nade ability. It also has it's own blitzeque ability that has to be reset after every use. Vett'd up the comet is so fast, it's very easy to crush infantry while your crew members are tossing nades at the survivors. It's also a smaller target which is like getting -9% received accuracy all the time. Honestly, I really like playing with the comet, it's a great tank, definately different than a Panther, it's just a bit light on the cost side. Maybe even mispriced, a bit more fuel and bit less mp. That's all I'm saying.
If you still have objections, check the MP cost and the teching costs of the OKW panther.
Yes, I understand the tech cost of okw. All of their vehicles are just priced higher in fuel and there are a lot of either/or decisions made mid game that effect the timing of your panther late game. The british don't have as much of a fuel constraint, they seem to have a manpower constraint, which makes lossing units harder to handle.
If Churchill didn't have the grenade, it would never-ever-ever-ever worth it to field one. It has the same gun as the Cromwell, but without the ability to flank. Also pricier too.
A crappy tank that can flank (T-34) is occasionally useful (e.g., sacrificing it to kill a Panzerwerfer farm). A crappy tank that can't move or fire is a waste of popcap space and a veterancy-feeder.
Agreed.
The OP mentioned the AVRE. A "balance pls" topic without at least mentioning similar units is either naive or dishonest.
Agreed.
How many of these options are non-doc and suitable for the late-game? What about mobile options?
Have you ever tried standing in the barrage area of a 25 pounder? It does literally nothing 19 times out of 20.
Good point, but the arty they do have, barring the 25 pounders, seems to be very effective. The power of the land mattress is fine if it's a bit higher than 5 cp.
ROF is not relevant by itself. You need to mention how that factors in with their DPS. Do Tommies have superior DPS or do they have inferior DPS to other units? Does this make up for their lack of utility.
You could also add:
- lack of snares
- lack of grenades suitable for their range profile
None of the other units in the UKF arsenal really make up for either in the early game (... unless you spam emplacements)
I believe it's high damage per shot, longer RoF and slightly lower dps. But this damage profile kills models more evenly, than the low damage higher RoF. It's a disadvantage because losing a model hurts more than a grenedier squad where the dps is consentrated on one gun. But when they get 2 lmgs late game, I feel like the perform more like a mob of rambos.
This is a L2P UKF issue.
The lack of snares, grenades and smoke really stings.
- Soviets, yes (only if they have access to Brens); that's because conscripts scale even worse than Tommies. Lack of snares never hurt any maxim build ever.
- USF, though? Play 10 games as UKF and 10 games as USF. Riflemen are the best infantry in the game. By far.
If UKF had access to Grenadiers (just the LMG upgrade, and no 5-man), they would steamroll over everything. Basically what Elchino said:
Good point. I agree. I think the strenght of the Bofors and the AEC were intended to make up for snares via raw dps to light vehicles. To adjust my opinion slightly, I think the emplacement play is a symptom of bad faction design and the best way to deal with the problem is to remove the either/or teching design. Maybe have them operate as a sub tier like t2.5 and t4.5 by making one upgrade unlock both units. I don't see anything wrong by letting a british player use both AEC and Bofors aswell as both comets and churchhills. The british player needs more options. (Previous position was that Bofors needs a min range) |
I don't think that anybody sane would ever deny that the game suffers from emplacement-play, and that the land mattress is a bit stronger than it should have been.
However, try to read the OP, and try to play devil's advocate with it.
- Do you believe that the views expressed in the OP are fair and objective? [color=red]inaccurate at times and hyberbolic
- Even when the OP identifies issues. Is the analysis correct? He is correct in identifying disparities, and the point I was trying to make was, that people are getting frustrated with being told that the emplacement play is a L2P issue when the majority of Coh players agree there is a bit of a power issue. The same arguement was used with the Tiger back in the era of the call in meta. It wasn't a L2p issue, the damn thing was way too cost effective. Granted I would have liked to see the cost increased and tied to t4 rather than the nerfing. That also being said, I have been disapointed witht he russians since the games release. I was hoping/expecting that the game would be a balance across expensive equipment and trained soldiers vs less effective equipment/troops in number. Ie. my panzer 4 would have to deal with at least 2 t34s
In order to help guide you to think a bit more objectively, I'm offering some comprehension questions to you:
- Is the main issue with emplacement play the fact that the Bofors is better than the OKW T1 halftrack?/b] (OP's opinion) No
- If we made Bofors a copy-paste of the OKW T4 FlakHQ, do you think that would solve the issues with emplacements? NoOr is it the Mortar Pit? Not specifically the mortar pit
- Is Comet really more accurate on the move than other, similar, tanks? Did you factor in similar tanks' Vet1 abilities? Yes, they have the best accuracy on the move compared to all other tanks except for americans. Yes I did, okw panthers get another -25% reduction at vet 5.
- How does Comet veterancy compared to other tanks' veterancy. Does the Vet1 ability really scale with the amount of Comets fielded? The replacement of smoke with White Phosphorus is a nice addition to prevent handheld at to follow on retreat or smoking out/damaging support weapons
- How relevant is the grenade toss to Comet's performance, really? Vet 3 the gernade toss is automatic to all targets in range. The grenade toss is an open funtional ability.
- How relevant is the Churchill at all without a grenade toss? I haven't seen the churchhill used in awhile but I doubt it has anything to do with the grenade toss. I think it's because players, when faced with an either or tech structure will choose the comet over the churchill.
- If AVRE is such a major issue, how does the Sturmtiger compare to the AVRE? AVRE isn't an issue. It has low range and if you let it get as close as it needs to be..... I mean it's not like it's a surprise.
- Enumerate all indirect fire options for the Brits which are even remotely useful. Mortar, 25 pounder options, land matress, Bofors, and the call in arty is pretty good.
- If land mattress shouldn't exist, then what about Katysha, Panzerwerfer and Calliope? Is it an issue with the stats, instead? The land matress isn't the issue it's when it comes out that is an issue. 5 cps is a bit quick. Also, I believe that it's the only on map arty piece that recieves a damage bonus at vet, which I am indifferent towards.
Advanced reading:
- State at least 3 downsides that Tommies have compared to other mainline infantry. Cost, rof, only effective stationary and muni intensive healing
- How would each of the other 4 factions perform if we substituted their mainline infantry with Tommies? With or w/o access to the weapon racks? Sov = better, American = better if tommies can have bars, oh= worse, okw = better w/o schrecks, but equivilant with if you take hand held AT into account
- How would Brits perform if we substituted Tommies with LMG Grens? Worse
|
|
I think the community largely believe that the Bofors is an issue. Currently the poll I've posted with 65 votes is 75% in agreement that there needs to be at least some tweaks to the Bofors.
Personally, I think the only change it needs to balance it out is a minimum range like it had in vCoh. I'm fine with all other stats.
I understand the need for a power level bump because the tech forces an either or decision.
Even being an axis player, I've supported a lot of the nerfs made to the axis faction. The space that the tiger was in during the call in meta was a huge issue. When tiger ace was first released, it was stupid OP. And the axis tanks at release were laughibly powerful.
I'll also disclamer that outside of the Bofors, my only criticisms regarding the factions power are non-viable units (for example: okw flak halftrack, t34/75, and some american light vehicles), Sov reliance on call in infantry, and generally any spam strategies (schreck blob or rifle blob).
I play for fun. I have the most fun playing axis. Not because I'm an axis fanboy but because I'm a panther tank fan boy. Lol. Edit: At least I'm honest with my bias. Everyone has a bias and to infer you don't, is dubius.
|
Because, at the moment, without it, the Bofors is totally useless and unplayable.
If you remove this ability, you need to seriously buff others stats ( like range first ), or seriously reduce its cost because it would be easily destroyed by any AT gun. ( which is an >Anti-Tank< gun, not an Anti-Emplacement gun )
We talk about balancing here, not about murdering a unit because you don't want to play against.
AT guns are the counters to most other emplacements and buildings. I know this because thats what everyone uses to kill my okw trucks. |
I find it weird that you quoted me twice and responded differently to each post as if you forgot that you had already made a comment.
In any case, my "dismissive attitude" was because OP had 1 post, had a limited understanding of gameplay and was making large balance suggestions which are unlikely to balance the game.
You happened to post a number of reasons why the Brits are flat out "better" than all other factions, and yet they remain on the low end of 1v1 win percentages in top tier games.
No one is arguing that they need to be adjusted, but suggesting that I am failing to contribute by being dismissive is foolishness.
So, your position is that there is no problem because a new faction that the player base is getting used to has a lower w/l record that the other established factions?
Are you ok with the shooting on the move accuracy and the smaller sizes that the british tanks have?
Are you ok with the 2v2 space that forces a completely different response to emplacemences forcing OH to have specific so-so commanders equiped "just in case"? |
|
Maybe the reason that there is so much action on this topic, is because the emplacement game style is a serious issue.
Before you note the win/loss rate keep in mind that not everyone has as much time in brits as they do any other factions and most people only have hte basic commanders. |
Brits are so OP in 2s that you have won 2 games and lost 3 
So why don't you talk about the ones you have lost?
____
MHT and wait till Relic removes bofors' barrage or decreases range.
I was also helping my son with his math homework and making a pot of coffee. |
|
I just played a 2v2 random game with brits cancer doc into comets, 2nd 2v2 game with brits ever.
won. |
|
Most of my time played (1262hrs) has been mostly a mix of 3v3s, 4v4s, customs, and only more recently (6-12 months) 2v2 a, 2v2 random and 1v1.
I have more recently been playing 1v1 computers to learn the british army and I tend to get a comet, yes.
|
No, the Comet can not easily 1v1 a Panther. The Panther wins most of the time (there´s a nice video of multiple Panthers fighting 1v1 with Comets, we had this discussion about the Comet multiple times).
Regarding the Cromwell and P4, both tanks have completely different roles. The Cromwell sucks in AI while the P4 does very well in that. The Cromwell is for swarming axis armor.
Each faction has different strengths and weaknesses. The Brits have the most cost efficient medium tank and very good AT options. However, they lack in the AI department and have problems acting offensively with their infantry.
The "high" price of OKW vehicles is justified by their superiour veterancy. You clearly fail to see the point of faction diversity and complain why unit x outperforms unit y in a vacuum.
Well, yes I'd consider myself as a "playercard bully". And why does your playercard matter? Because it's the easiest way to dismiss fanboys and people with L2P problems instead of proving them they are wrong in a long and exhausting discussion while they eventually won't step down from their biased view. It's a good filter.
I would take the comet over the panther every time.
What you seem to be discounting is the fact the panther have a considerably longer reload/cool down. The comet on the other hand he much better rear armour, speed and accuracy on the move. Once the panther is forced to move any advantage it had was gone. Missing a shot for a panther is not a good situation. As for the veterancy, comets get much faster and gets better turret rotation. Generally speed/mobility/consistency > amour/health.
I will admit to recieving a great deal of satisfaction playing axis, I enjoy the tanks. I think your the fan boy, because there is an obvious powerlevel/cost issue here and your standing with you feet dug in pretending like it's not an issue.
I don't think I said anything was secifically OP, I said that the cost of the units/emplacements was more efficient than any of their counterparts measured up against any faction.
1v1 for both okw and oh, I have over 50% W/L. Most of my games played recently are with my friend, who doesn't even own his own computer, on my 2 gaming rigs.
Two major points. Bring the cost in line with the performance of the rest of the factions. Nothing is op except for the Bofors in 2v2. |
Canada
TomiCFRCLUJ
@Corp1770716
![[U.S.M.]HunkUmbrella flag](/images/replay/soviets_flag.jpg)
[U.S.M.]HunkUmbrella
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
Heartless Jäger 
