Profile of Mr.Smith

But thinking about the faction concept, the UKF doesn't need to have the absolute best mainline infantry, because it has pretty fucking good everything else. It is the only allied team with krupp stahl equivalent non-doc armour (which is also on the whole better than Ostheer armour). It is the only faction with viable emplacements. Where do these major bonuses factor into your decision to make IS the equal of Grenadiers?

You are absolutely right. On the other hand it the only faction with 3 separate infantry upgrades, 1 of which affects Tommies exclusively.

I barely ever play 1v1. However, from what I have seen:
- Nobody ever buys early infantry upgrades. AEC rush/Cromwell rush are more cost-effective
- Even if somebody does buy infantry upgrades, up-kitting double Brens is a very cost-inefficient use of your resources (though it is a nice option to have if you picked an ability-free commander)

In teamgames, Tommies are already a liability due to their lack of utility (except for medics). Thus, if you ever want to see Tommies built in teamgames they need to have something that they are good at.

You have never disclosed which gamemodes you play, nor which brackets you are in. Thus, pick whichever of the above applies to your case.

If you disagree with this assertion, feel free to post a replay where:
- You upgrade all UKF infantry upgrades
- Restrict yourself to only buying 1 Bren gun, maximum
- Diverting your resources to the upgrades actually had a net positive impact for you

And I think it's a bit much to say received accuracy is a garbage stat for long range infantry. Just because they are optimised for long range, doesn't mean that every battle actually goes like this. Opponent squads close distance and received accuracy is anything but garbage then. You correctly identified the close quarters flamers as OP for long range penals, but you can't see how received accuracy benefits a likewise long range squad.

1) When it comes to infantry fights, you need to compare the DPS curves between the two squads. Then you pick the distance that benefits you the most.

Accuracy and received accuracy bonuses do not alter the shape of the DPS curves. Thus, if you would trade cost-efficiently only between ranges 20 and 35, trading accuracy for received accuracy will not change your effective range at all.

Thus, if the enemy gets a jump on you, your received accuracy will not help you trade. The only thing you -can- do is hit retreat.

2) For a long-range unit, trading useful accuracy for useless received accuracy only prolongs the fight.

This allows your opponent to relocate and choose the range where they want to engage you (which is going to be THEIR optimal range).

For Tommies, prolonging the fight means that they will have to reload their Bren guns multiple times. Since Tommy-version Bren guns take insanely long to reload, they will experience long periods where their DPS drops abruptly.

Thus, given a mobile opponent, investing your bonuses in received accuracy does skew the DPS curves; but only ever against you.

3) Retreating

Received accuracy is useful, though, if the enemy outflanks you and you have to retreat through them. This is the only occasion where trading received accuracy for accuracy nets something positive.

However, this doesn't help if you want to bleed an advancing opponent and then retreat. Once again, if you had higher accuracy, you would inflict more losses on the enemy as they advance (when you have an advantage), to make their advance more costly.

4) Trenches/Garrisons

All of this talk about DPS curves and whatnot assumes equal cover opportunities, or the ability for a flanking squad to be able to stop somewhere, where cover becomes equalized.

When Tommies are behind sandbags, the enemy can "simply" close the distance. Due to the point-blank mechanic, if the enemy closes the distance to the sandbag, sandbag cover is negated, thus both sides are equal.

Point blank mechanic doesn't work vs garrisons, though. This means that no matter how much you close the distance, Tommies will never be negated of their cover. Thus, you need to find nearby cover somewhere to besiege the garrison.

Such cover is not always available. Tommies also have trenches, and a careful player can choose exactly where they want to dig a trench, so that Tommies will always have the advantage when fighting nearby enemy.

When holding a garrison, prolonging the fight means that you have the opportunity to bring a reinforcement squad to replace the garrison and keep it warm.

Thus, Company of Garrisons is the best reason why Tommies are viable in 1v1 (with or without weapon upgrades).

Will have to to take your word for it as I don't have time to play the mod and test every map, but it really seems a bit excessive. Granted there may be other factors to consider when looking at the entire brit faction and how they interact with other factions ( and honestly I haven't looked at the entire picture )
but I seriously doubt (now that AC spam is probably coming to an end ) that ost has any real chance to kill this unit before mediums arrive unless the brit player screws up terribly.

It will really need to "kill a bit less".

If something cannot base-dive to kill your squad, and bleeds you a lot less, do you still have to finish it off for your defense to be effective?

You probably cannot kill SU-76 without vehicles, but you can defend vs it just fine, even though you eat the occasional barrage.

Also. Removing AEC smoke means we have to also remove Puma smoke.

thanks for the update

Question:
Is it possible to give the raketenwerfer another change in matter of the terrain elevation? It feels like that the projectile hits more often the ground/fences etc. than paks/zis.

for the UC command ability (free recon):
What do you think about a munition cost for the recon?

A munitions cost for the recon would be a good idea. However this was deemed out of scope. We did manage to ban the UC from being a command vehicle though, which should curb its strength.

Given the fuel price of other available options, this should bring the ability in line with the infrared halftrack/Valentine, at least.

Fixing the raketen further would mean having its projectile spawn from higher up than where the gun is visually at

At the very least the accuracy boost will make it fire fewer fence-hitting shots.

I am arguing that the inequality in lmg stats is fair as there are other relevant stats which give them balance. So citing the worse Bren stats as reason to allow two of them is bogus logic.

m1919 is clearly not balanced, but it's doctrinal at least and usf need stronger infantry as (aside from Pershing) they have paper tanks. To use that as reason to allow double Brens is also bunk. If anything you could improve the Bren stats a little but if you do this, at least consider other indirect stats which factor into balance such as timing and squad sizing and the original faction concept.

Ok. So what should tommies be good at? And why should anybody invest in UKF infantry upgrades?

If penals have PTRSs wont SU t1 Penal/sniper play be practically invulnerable vs OKW? I mean, its not like OKW had any good way of countering sniper play to begin with (other than map dependant jagger inf)

We don't know yet, and we certainly hope that this is not going to be the case. That's what people should try out and see. Penals don't have snares, and upgrading to PTRS makes them vulnerable to infantry.

On the other hand, people could already go Soviet Sniper into Guards.

Though it might spell death for the Kubel-spam.

I think his point was that despite the Bren dealing less DPS, it is comparatively as or more effective than the lmg42, because it has to deal with axis squads with less effective health than allied squads.

Tommies do cost more. With the upgrades considered, they do cost a lot more than the squads they have to fight.

As far as effective HP is considered, this is also not a valid point. Tommies receive a lot less Accuracy bonuses than other squads in the game.

Moreover, Tommy scaling per-model is equal to Grenadier scaling per-model. Thus, even though Tommies are way more resilient than Grenadiers, they deal way less damage.

Proof:

Grenadier
Total received accuracy: 0.91 * 0.77 = 0.7007
Total accuracy: 1.4

Bonuses sum = 1.4 / 0.7007 = 1.99800199801

Tommies
Total received accuracy: 0.8 * 0.76 = 0.608
Total accuracy: 1.2

Bonuses sum = 1.2 / 0.608 = 1.97368421053

Do note that:
- At some point we also need to consider the utility of Tommies to the cost disparity
- Received accuracy is a garbage stat for long-range infantry. Having veterancy bonuses slanted more towards hard-hitting accuracy is what makes a long-range unit scale well. This is why Grenadiers, who are so cheap, can punch very well above their weight
- The veterancy bonuses are applied ON TOP of the equipped items. Thus, further widening the gap between the LMG42 and the Bren gun.

Limiting Tommy Brens to 1 single one would make them:
- Unable to trade with the far superior utility-wise Grenadiers
- Make them completely useless vs upgraded Volks
- Make even fewer people consider to invest in infantry upgrades

I am worried about Penals change. I agree, that T1 need something against light vechicle, but i don't think think PTRS is right solution.
1. For what i need now guards? Penals do their job.
2.1 Why i need to take Conscripts? Penals deal with infantry and vechicle better. Maybe only 1 squad for merge Penals
2.2 Why i need to take doctrine with PTRS for conscripts?
3. New meta - Shock troops with Penals?

Do you think about M-42 in T1? If you did, why you reject this idea?
P.S. Yes, i have played WBP 1.1.

PTRS penals don't really overlap with other PTRS units. Penal PTRS deals significantly less damage than other PTRSes (even conscripts).
- Guards; Guards simply pack a ton more firepower and have button
- Conscript PTRS: Conscripts retain their oorah even when upgraded. THey also cost a ton more, and are a lot more cost-efficient, have AT nades (and molotovs, lol). Also their PTRSes are a straight upgrade anti-infantry wise

Penal PTRSes are supposed to be, really, a last-ditch AT. They aren't cost efficient, just like upgrading M20 bazookas is not cost-efficient. It's just something to keep the tier viable.