Profile of Grumpy

The problem is that without the mortar pit Brit indirect fire does not arrive until the land mattress. This means that cheese strats, like support weapon only plays would be possible.



The Pak 43 is very niche, and to be fair the 17 pdr is also rare, both suffer from something similar, having a giant AT gun that can't move is always going to become a target for every indirect fire weapon on the map. Now the 17 pdr also costs a fair chunk of fuel so it needs to be better than the pak 43 in someway, although I would be happier if it didn't exist at all.

The only other emplacements I can think of are MG nests and Howies (RIP 20mm flak), both of which are common in the right matchups. While I completely agree that brace requires no skill, it is supposed to be a retreat button for a unit that can't move, and in this way it is trying to be COH. I don't think the brace button is sufficiently COH-like, this should have been a warning to the designer of the unit, and I don't think emplacement play should ever exist because it's lazy.

Brace should be addressed and maybe part of that is reducing flame damage against emplacements but removing brace and maybe forcing some emplacements to be garrisoned to be useful. Don't know, that is something that I need more time to think about.

Brace could be removed but there would be a couple of other changes that would probably need to be made to keep balance.

1) AT rounds should do, at most, 1/4 of their current damage. Rounds from something like a Brumbar (sp?) should do full damage.
2) Flame should be toned down to about 1/2 their current damage.
3) Small arms fire should affect emplacements, even if very slowly like when attacking a cache.
4) Depending on how much coding would be involved, make the crew separate from the weapon. If a player doesn't support an emplacement, it could be decrewed and used against them.


On a slightly different subject, there is a change that I think would help make UKF trenches more fair and a better game mechanic. Allow an engineer with a hazard removal package to remove them in 30-45 seconds. This way overly aggressive trenches are no longer rewarded, especially in early game where there is no easy way to counter them.

But for the love of god just play 20 axis games just to see what it's like facing Calliopes, Kattys, landmatresses, Mortar pits, 120mm mortars, Pak howies, auto repairing emplacements, Bofors with barrage, USF retreat points that can move, Brit ones that can equip units with LMG's and Soviet t-34'76 spam.

Apologies for an overly aggressive response but the general consensus of players who play ALL the factions is that axis lose out in team games specifically because of weaker artillery/indirect fire and worse 'emplacements'. Axis also tend to have smaller squads meaning indirect fire wipes them faster. (I'll leave tanks out of this one).

I have played more than 20 games as axis, both in randoms and arranged teams. A lot of what you're saying isn't true. The win rate for the top 250 arranged teams in larger games (3v3 & 4v4) has been the balanced between axis and allies for the last several months. It hasn't changed that much since the last patch but probably will be very axis-favored after the UKF armor nerf and arty cover becoming worthless.

Soviets have the ML-20, B4, 120MM, Katy, and easily the worst win rate in 4v4 random. They're the only faction with no way to heal near the front. If any squads have to retreat, it takes an eternity in COH2 time to get the squad back to the front, particularly on maps like Red Ball.

Claim all you want that you were traumatized by a pack howie. Anyone who has used one in the last several patches will know better. Pack howies rarely kill enough models to justify their purchase price and pop cap. Upkeep on them in a long game will be around 900 MP, plus the 350(?) purchase price. Please go play a 4v4 random and post the replay with you killing 40 models with one.

After that, play another 4v4, do this with a Calliope and then post the replay:
[url=][img="http://i65.tinypic.com/119oz8i.jpg" alt=""]
because you should be able to better with a Calliope than a scrub like me does with a Walking Stuka.

UKF players who go multiple emplacements might be annoying, but are more of a liability than anything else. If someone sees this and doesn't get walking stukas then they deserve to lose. Get two of them to Vet 5 and no amount of brace or repair will keep any emplacement up. Having the fire barrage on a separate cooldown is icing on the cake.

The meta for USF is Calliopes and bazookas because they have no counter to the JT or Ele. Your only way to win the game is to strip away the infantry support with Calliopes and push the elite armor off with bazookas, and hope that the axis players are bad with their rocket artillery. Loads of fun for everyone.

It wasn't fair that only the Soviets were nerfed into the ground.......

This is such a confusing thread. Is the complaint about veterency bonuses or the actual weapon? The weapon does not get stronger when picked up by inferior squads. Relic did implement something to make some weapons WEAKER when picked up by inferior squads, but not STRONGER. With Veterency, dropped weapons get stronger in the hands of Axis, they get way more accuracy bonus. The pathfinders do have a unique bonus, but they aren't that common on the battlefield at vet3.

The complaint is about RE's and their vet bonus.

IF one want to make USF doctrinal infantry more attractive one need to tone down riflemen and not buff the the doctrinal infantry.

1) This isn't buffing pathfinders to be a replacement, it's making them useful without being a replacement.

2) You already got a nerf to rifles and the Stuart. Nerf them any more and USF will fall apart.