Profile of Hon3ynuts

Hot out the shoutbox and Off the Imperial Dane Rant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt_WWwN3Cc8

What are your thoughts on T4 and the Units within?

I'll start with my own experience

Panther - Exactly the same as the OKW Panther, this unit is constantly monitored as the "Lategame" unit for axis. I feel its in a good spot as parity with the jackson, SU85 and Firefly are very tightly monitored and updated often as the game evolves.

Brumbar- Can be very strong in the right situation, but can also get blasted by AT very easily if brought in at the wrong time against heavy resistance. Prohibitively expensive especially if you don't have less expensive t3 units to back it up or you are opting for a panther as well.

Panzerwerfer- Rockets all come at once but arrive slower than the first rockets from Katusha or Calliope. I find it slightly worse than those options as it makes it much easier to aim, but other players seem to have more success with this than me.

Tech cost
100 MP 25 fuel for BP3
100 MP 25 fuel for T4 building

With your first panther costing over 235 fuel from your last p4 it can be very difficult with a player who jumps from t34 to IS2 or Sherman to pershing in terms of resources. In teamgames this fuel isn't as much of a major concern but in 1v1 it can be prohibitively expensive in a competitive game.

I also don't really see why Ostheer should be paying more for the Panzerwerfer when its around as good as the other rocket artillery options that do not cost more to unlock.

The Brumbar can work well or poorly so paying this extra fuel seems like a risk if you don't know how it will do.

TLDR: I find the T4 units to be fine, but My question is why should someone pay a penny extra in tech over USF, Soviet, OKW after I have gotten my initial tank tech.

I'm a big fan of making the Hammer Gammon Bomb a sticky AT satchel clone to give Infantry Sections a heavy AT snare locked behind an unpopular tech choice. I feel they already have enough tools to deal with light vehicles.

I'm also a big fan of the AEC - I don't think it needs extra anti-infantry power as that would just make it more of a no-brainer choice. It's my favourite light vehicle after the Puma. Treadbreaker is very nasty against enemy light vehicles, and I've never had too much of an issue using it against Axis LVs.

I do highly recommend the Vickers Universal Carrier for anti-infantry duties - the suppression ability is incredibly useful, if a bit unreliable. It's a nice little machine for no fuel cost, and I feel like it's far too overlooked in favour of the WASP upgrade, seeing as it's the only non-doctrinal anti-garrison unit the Brits get.

I feel we should move away from the concept of 5-man Tommies as essential - as I've outlined in my own thread, I feel like with their current performance, 4-man Tommies should have some benefit over 5-man sections, namely no accuracy penalties or received accuracy penalties. That's an argument for another thread though.

I agree on the 5 man idea, It seems like if you don't commit to the Infantry sections with 5 man your other units really can't pick up the slack AND your 4 man sections aren't that good. Idk how to balance that But I think the current design kind of promotes spamming infantry.

It feels like so much of the effort into UKF was placed into the Emplacements and the Hammer/Anvil Dynamics. All of it at this point is relatively unhelpful as the emplacements are quite weak and the Hammer/anvil bonuses come extremely late.

They don't have a good diversity of infantry or light vehicle options as a result of these design decisions.

I feel they could benefit from an additional light vehicle or infantry choice in t2 to make up for the lackluster emplacements. A good candidate might be one of the many halftracks allies have access to. They can come early but aren't overwhelming by themselves (Barring the quad)

Assuming your not fighting shock troops Pgrens would do best as they have better mid range damage to aid in killing retreating models.

If you are going to be moving and chasing the g43 upgrade would improve performance, but if you drop off on weapons teams that have to pack up the stgs could do fine at cycle killing mg gunners as they packup. I also haven't practiced with the g43s enough But I think they are better at sniping models where as the stgs will do more hp damage and mabye drop fewer models when the enemy retreats on time as automatic weapons often do.

Mp40 stormtroopers would perform similarly and have the damabe boost ability, but they won't do as much if your opponent retreats or if they get pushed around and have trouble navigating where your 251 takes up space. Of course if you play Tiger ace you could get mp40s then g43s on them and they will basically perform the same as pgrns.

Also good tip is to press tab while selecting the halftrack, and ordering a move command on the squads inside. This way your HT will keep moving while the squad jumps out, but it may be a little harder to get 2 squads out at once using this method, i am more familiar with the single squad m3

From my perspective this unit is basically a pack howitzer with 3-4 times as much airtime under the projectiles.

When it gets rolling it is still devastating but often there may be few stationary targets to fire at and it may not do much at all (vetting slowly) until the pace of play slows down to a crawl.

Giving a flare at vet0 and reducing popcap (b/c 10 is far too high) would allow for it to be more effective at finding its own stationary targets in 1v1s without risking a major change in performance.

The same change made the soviet 82mm mortar quite good