Profile of Sn3z

Brits need sections and mgs in the T0 because they can choose to be aggressive(sections) or defensive(mgs) or a mix this is the one current litle argument for a more mobile mortar which I agree with as it could bring about a more mobile play style, though I don't think the emplacement should completely go if there's a way to keep it keep it, if the player chooses he can use mgs/sections building up this defensive's and banking mp for those costly emplacements with minimal model losses or he could opt for a more mobile section with support weapons maybe with some specialised infantry like AT rifles. In short and very basically those two staring units dictate only play styles present within the brits faction, so its really complex question that your asking.

Ost are similiar in nature though they can transition very fast from defensive/aggressive play and are the best at it. They need mgs to allow themselves to do this, open up on the map and from there transition to how ever they like, mgs are not just about area denial they give you time to bank and augment your build its quite complex once again. It is unclear how these kind of things would effect OKW if the mg was competent because now its a stock mg(my view has changed I think the OKW mg needs to be left the hell alone)

The pj could not be implemented and can never be implemented because the faction was design around t0 always having access to shreck doesn't matter how many tweaks were made. Even now the combat package for mp40's is the best solution to not over lap on doctrines as there would be some short/long range synergy between volks with mp40 and specialised infantry don't think its going to happen, though would like to see a experimental unit, I was very much in favour of sturms getting shreck as it looked like it was going to be completely removed and expressed this since OKW can't be without it. This is how relic made the factions not much we can do about it.

Edit: if you're not getting the hint, I'm using your logic of keeping things "different". If one Army doesn't have the basic tools (that being an Engineer/Builder unit, mainline infantry unit, support weapons in some way and a medium tank, ALL BY DEFAULT) then why should another have them?

[quote


This is really about OKW design and conjuction with doctrines. The faction was designed around low tier infantry having access to shrecks and some of the doctrines were made in part to supplement them which is the real problem here. We have moved over to a more combined arms approach but its lost some synergy with doctrines. This is the OKW doesn't need this argument, its more than trying to keep factions different, but as I have seen ATM there is experimental jaegar unit with some interesting changes this is just a example of things going in the right direction and attention is being payed to OKW doctrines which is a good thing.

MG34 comes too late and sucks. It needs a buff, be moved to t0 and an increase cost to compensate so at least we will see different openings and strats.

This is already possible with Ostheer, Oberkommado are better than that

It was a Doctrine unit with suppression and a ability deal with vehicles this synergized with Ober as a specialised unit, now its been moved as a stock unit it needs a rework, AP should be removed to compensate for any buffing that follows. I liked the original idea of the MG42 in replace of it in the doctrine that could of had the AP rounds and still kept some kind of creativity with Ober missed opportunity but I'am not taking into account balance here. But for sure the mg34 needs something done.

Question would the assault grenadiers have a combat package and start with rifles? I don't think it would end well if Ostheer can only start with mp40 infantry, now we may as well give pioneers rifles to keep some synergy with thier starting infantry, its too risky all faction's have access to rifled infantry so you can stem bleed depending on how well you play.