Half of these upgrades grens have without spending additional dime....
...they pay a lot for any upgrade. For ost You also need to add the risk of losing those upgraded 4 men units - much higher than for 5 men squads. Your argument that they are cheaper also is not completely true. First, there is the cost of the building they come from. Sections come from tier 0. Secondly, sections still cost 270 after the bolster. So you replace a 5 men section for only 270 manpower. The cost difference is not that great.
Sections actually can't snipe team weapons just as good, can't make enemy HMG deathloop, can't get opponent out of cover without exposing themselves, can't keep light vehicles away from team weapons.
And yeah, there is a MASSIVE difference on reliance on support weapons between the factions.
That is simply not true. Grens are much worse than sections at all the things you listed. Their reliance of support weapons is not an advantage. It is simply a must because grens are so weak. If you support sections in a similar way with vickers and other support UKF has you will achieve better results.
Now, about the red part, agreed, you are 100% correct, that's why people who want to buff grens should finally shut up. Sections were overnerfed on the other hand and had to be rebuffed.
Lastly, sections have LESS and less efficient support then grens, vickers suppresses worse then HMG42, sniper shoots slower, there is no mobile mortar to help them at all, no reinforcement halftruck that also heals them, no assault infantry protecting them from CQC specialists.
Name one.
And this is just totally wrong I'm afraid. People keep wanting to buff most allied mainline infantry and keep repeating (after you) that ostheeer is designed to be reliant on support weapons. That is correct. But using this logic allies should not have access to them or, if they have (and they have) their infantry can't be overbuffed. You can't have both support weapons and rambo style infantry. The game evolved into allies strong infantry (including sections) and similarly powerful support weapons. In a matchup it is just not fair. For example, vickers is ok and has some cool features, especially range. Remeber once again - it will be shooting at 4 men squads - this alone will make it more efficient at draining manpower and forcing retreats. Sniper is again definitely not inferion as it can stun vehicles and will shot at 4 men squads. Each shot will drain more manpower and reduce more dps on ostheer units. You have a mortar and a mobile mortar with a commander. You also have artillery from sections and their sight increased thanks to that. Again - the reinforcement halftrack means manpower and fuel delayed tech - you can build reinforcement structure. Assault infantry you get with commanders, but sections are ok at dealing with most threats. Brits are more powerful than You think, especially lategame. |
That makes me think you never made it to the end of my post, because I specifically underlined that.
I did. Still it is a lot of arguments that you enumerated that are misleading. The truth is that there are more upgrades avaliable for sections than for grens. The truth is that sections are simply stronger.
Stock grens are long range DPS squad that excels from cover fighting, but is reliant on support from other units
Sections can do the same but better. Remember that after the first few minutes of the game all factions can rely on support. Stop repeating the myth that it is only ostheer. There is no difference between factions in this respect. A good player always supports their infantry. The problem begins when players can't use support units they have and keep asking for buffing their mailine infantry instead. Anither problem begins when they lose to a player who can support and they think it is because of their infantry being inferior. It is simply wrong to not notice how much support IS can have.
Picking right doctrine makes it much more independent in a way you think you need, so solutions to his problem already are in game. And they aren't going become stock, because infantry flexibility is NOT design of ost or axis at all, contrary to UKF, which is very much supposed to be flexible, scaling and reliant on strong mainline. While UKF was introduced as allied response to Ost, weaker early game, but strong late game, that's where similarities end, ost isn't reliant on grens to the point UKF is reliant on tommies. Ost got much more options to support grens and they are meant to use them together with grens, UKF is build to have a very strong, but not so numerous tommy force that can be supplemented by much less cost efficient support weapons, that's why HMG42 is much more efficient then vickers, that's why ost sniper is much better then UKF one.
Those support weapons are not less cost efficient! Many of UKF units are simply more cost efficient that those of ostheer's. |
You can see i write "4 man sections"
Well, they can get upgraded to 5 men, and they scale much better than grens, plus have more stock upgrades. It is a nice game design I wouldn't change that by making UKF stop relying on sections. There are other allied factions to do that. Don't forget you really have a lot of nice tanks, emplacements, etc. And you have one very potent upgradable infantry squad. You could probably think of giveing them some AT or close range weapons, but they get such things through commanders. |
Out of cover, 4 man sections win gren with 1 model and a tini bit of HP, for a more expensive squad and sections is worse on the move.
Do you compare it when they are 4 or 5 men? |
G43.
Pios can so they don't have to waste time doing it.
Stun nades.
Only squad in game that won't lose full health models to direct mortar/regular nade hit.
In addition, ambush camo, 5th man, global sprint.
Sure, these are all doctrinal options, but they make grens extremely flexible.
Are you saying that 20% moving accuracy of sections and 30% longer cooldown is better then 50% moving accuracy of grens?
80-90% of what you wrote is doctrinal. The author of the post wants non doctrinal stuff. You can't compare doctrine for ost and non doctrine for UKF. |
While i agree with you about making AEC and bofor not mutually exclusive, the current ability of removing emplacements is not enough. As now, to remove an emplacements, you need a royal engineer squad and it take you about haft a minute, too long to be count as "retreat anh move". This ability main purpose is allow you to free pop cap later on with 100 mp refun, it only work if you push the enemies far away, lead to the emplacement no longer needed, if you get push back and have to leave the emplacement behind when your army retreat, it still result in a dead emplacement anyway.
All true. My poit is that refund manpower amount and deconstructiin speed can be toyed with, and could help a lot if done correctly. I'd make UK emplacements less potent but more quick to demolish and build again. You could even think of, for example, not refunding a dismantled emplacement but having a possibility to build it for free in a different spot. Sort of bank with dismantled emplacements for later use. There could be two dismantling options. Quick blow up with a little refund or slower giving you the possibilty to build a structure for free when you need it. |
|
Has anybody thought that there is a huge potential in makin AEC and Bofors not mutually exclusive?
Also there is this ability to remove empplacements. If you made it give back more resources it could help UKF a lot. Mortar could be basically "retreated" and moved. Could be enough.
Two above solution retain UKF uniqueness and allow different gamplay than you have with US and Sov. I'd love to try them. Just a different approch - not copying other two allied factions is imo the best solution. |
Rifles were "underwhelming" for cost in the early game. The shock part in USF early game came from the officers as "free units". This lead to basically call in infantry meta replacing most Rifle builds. I'm still on the fence of whether the change was good or not.
I'm on the fence when it comes to play against OKW. Against ostheer not too good. I'm generally against nerfing volks and buffing rifles at the same time. Volks nerf (or sturmpios) should be done so that it is enough. Maybe they should have made volks even more expensive.
Grens did get buffed. Replacing RA for a damage modifier. They are the only unit besides snipers who can survive a direct rocket, mortar or normal grenade (non nuke ones such as bundle/commando).
True. But it is only related to vet 3. They also got one of their stats nerfed and got this "buff" in return. This is one of the problems. This buff is really tiny (or some may say nonexistent) in comparison.
I can understand claims for buffs on specific units, not on factions. This thread or OP as of several months long, not really.
But you can buff another unit in return. If you gave stug 60 range there is a chance you will make scotts less threatening, which in turn may lead to fewer gren wipes.
|
Not only that. A massive problem is the range + accuracy.
Elefant an Jagdtiger will rotate, that should be their weak-point. They can also be overworked, to be stationary to shoot.
I like this idea. They could become a bit like AT guns with arc, for example. |
Elehant, Jagtiger and ISU-152 will not fire on move at all...
Imo the problem lays with high accuracy of the TDs at range 60, many of them reach chance to hit close or even above 100% even vs kubel.
The effectiveness of the units at max range should go down and that might include lowering accuracy and increasing reload.
Exactly. There are 2 simultaneous problems. Accuracy and range. I would rather nerf range. But the otjer option makes sense too. I'm just a bit afraid nerfing accuracy may be too rng dependent. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
