Profile of Chocoboknight88

I would agree with this too. Although I would do this a little differently. I wouldn't touch the base reload value of the main gun. I would make a vet 2 bonus for it's reload instead. As for the Tulip, it seems it already has a high chance of dealing criticals, so nerfing the damage shouldn't weaken it too much and Tulips can take of the role of a snare instead. Making it cheaper would be needed though so maybe 50 Munitions per use?

I really hope those guys can be rehired to do additional voices in a future update. For the longest time, I've been hoping to here what the British Soldiers would say in a winter environment. They complained quite a bit about the rain in CoH1 but also made the comment "At least it isn't bloody snow...". Sigh... I would love it if we get more lines based on the Weather. It would make them consistent with the Russians. Those actor's deserve the extra work.

Of course - as a British Player, I would prefer to have emplacements resist Flame DOT in general. However, that would be biased and doesn't take into consideration that it might bring back the "Sim-City" days of CoH1.

But at the same time, the current system makes having Mortars as part of your combined arms hard to sustain in the face of incendiary attacks that obliterate them outright.

Being interested in keeping the British more accepted by the community (Compared to CoH1), I thought the decrewing mechanic would be the effective middle ground for reasons already explained. I am thinking of both sides when I support this idea. It can get fine tuning here or there, but in my opinion it's a step forward.

And pak 43 will be dead cause of bomb air strike, heavy artillery ability, with brit you have to click brace to ignore that

We can say a lot of things of Brit emplacement VS Pak 43, but not that pak 43 is more MP friendly

Actually, it still is when bombs of that scale aren't involved. Bombing abilities are abilities that are expensive and should work to destroy the weapon. It's what they are designed to do. I can absolutely live with that myself. I have no complaints about Stuka Bombs doing that to British Emplacements too and YES it can be done if you wait for brace to go into cooldown before using it.

However, this topic isn't about their fragility in general, but rather the extremely cost effective incendiary attacks quickly destroying the emplacement rather than decrewing it. Flames do not destroy support weapons almost instantly like they do British Emplacements.

I'd like to see flames (Mainly DOT) almost have the same effect they do on other armies heavy support weapons. Destroy the crew and leave the weapon salvageable. A weapon you should use when you want to take the emplacements out of commission quickly and cheaply, without quickly obliterating massive Manpower investment at the same time.

Of course, I'd still like to see flamethrowers (Non-DOT) damage still deal good damage to the emplacement itself. These changes to flame weapons at least makes them more consistent with other armies.

If I should create 3 17 pounders it would be more mp friendly to have a pak43 Kappa

If you created three 17 Pounders, your armies would be laughably easy to crush due to staggering Pop costs.

Well I certainly wouldn't mind the AVRE and especially Croc have Health nerfs to reflecting their diminished armoured appearance. How about these numbers for a health nerf?

Churchill Mk.VII (Non-Doctrine) = 1400 (Health still pretty high)
Churchill AVRE = 1280
Churchill Croc = 1080