Profile of Mr.Smith

I was talking about 1v1 sorry then. In higher gamemodes it may be problem if both players are going to do this strat perfecty and one can cover weakness of other (eg maxims + emplacements, us rifles + emplacements) and other opponents are not prepared for this strat.

But if we nerf it even more it will be complete trash in any 1v1 match

It is always better to sacrifice a unit's presence in some gamemode (e.g., mortar in 1v1), than to throw entire other gamemodes under the bus.

If an extreme-long-range unit is THE 1v1 meta -- or part of it (e.g., pre-nerf Elefant, ISU, Calliope), then it's a good indication that the unit completely breaks other modes.

For instance. The OST Sniper requires a tremendous amount of effort to make him pay off in a 4v4 setting (artillery, shorter delay until tanks start rolling out). Would it ever make sense to oppose the upcoming survivability nerf of the sniper, just so that it remains relevant in bigger gamemodes?

Good point. I see your previous comparison between the usefulness of the smoke vs either of the blitz abilities. Yes, the okw Panther can have it's accuracy, speed and received accuracy increased by a durational ability that has a munitions cost. But it's worth noting that at vet 2 the comet gets +30% accuracy and 35% weapons rotation and at vet 3, it's +30% speed, +20% acceleration and an auto nade ability. It also has it's own blitzeque ability that has to be reset after every use. Vett'd up the comet is so fast, it's very easy to crush infantry while your crew members are tossing nades at the survivors. It's also a smaller target which is like getting -9% received accuracy all the time. Honestly, I really like playing with the comet, it's a great tank, definately different than a Panther, it's just a bit light on the cost side. Maybe even mispriced, a bit more fuel and bit less mp. That's all I'm saying.

The Comet gets speed veterancy. Auto-nades could be removed/changed/etc. However, have you ever noticed what Panthers get in return for their Vet? A Comet will lose in 1v1 vs a Panther at Vet0, most of the time. At Vet2 and above, there is no way the Panther can lose to a Comet.

Yes, I understand the tech cost of okw. All of their vehicles are just priced higher in fuel and there are a lot of either/or decisions made mid game that effect the timing of your panther late game. The british don't have as much of a fuel constraint, they seem to have a manpower constraint, which makes lossing units harder to handle.

Not only that. As the game drags on, OKW always has the opportunity to tap onto both their resources (MP, Fuel) and pull out something useful. If you are floating fuel, it's time of a (great) new tank. If you have low fuel, it's time for another Volks squad. No other faction possesses a similar advantage.

Good point, but the arty they do have, barring the 25 pounders, seems to be very effective. The power of the land mattress is fine if it's a bit higher than 5 cp.

Land mattress is DLC, and needs a nerf (rocket potency, or at least rate of fire), which it is getting. However, Brits have nothing else available to break a pak-wall:
- Their infantry is completely useless vs entrenched enemy (except for doctrinal commandos)
- Mortar Pits can't just pick up and relocate

This is why Brits have tanks that seem so strong; they need to be autonomous to operate, because they can't get any support from anywhere else.

Now, as long as Brits continue to lack access to indirect fire, their tanks will have to continue to be strong. Otherwise, they would be a lame duck.

I believe it's high damage per shot, longer RoF and slightly lower dps. But this damage profile kills models more evenly, than the low damage higher RoF. It's a disadvantage because losing a model hurts more than a grenedier squad where the dps is consentrated on one gun. But when they get 2 lmgs late game, I feel like the perform more like a mob of rambos.

It's either more DPS or less DPS, or equal DPS. Infantry fights don't resolve themselves in 5 hits (like tanks do), they drag on much longer.

Good point. I agree. I think the strenght of the Bofors and the AEC were intended to make up for snares via raw dps to light vehicles. To adjust my opinion slightly, I think the emplacement play is a symptom of bad faction design and the best way to deal with the problem is to remove the either/or teching design. Maybe have them operate as a sub tier like t2.5 and t4.5 by making one upgrade unlock both units. I don't see anything wrong by letting a british player use both AEC and Bofors aswell as both comets and churchhills. The british player needs more options. (Previous position was that Bofors needs a min range)

The AEC is not particularly strong at all. It (really) is just a crappier puma, with a twist:
- The first AEC is more expensive (due to the side-tech cost)
- Treadbreaker is OP, but it's the only thing it has
- Shorter range means you can't kite the enemy (like Puma can)
- Terrible turret traverse means you can't flank the enemy (like Puma also can)

The reason why AEC seems so awesome, while (OKW) Puma seems so meh has to do with the armies they are in. Brits have absolutely nothing that can threaten light armour rushes apart from their 6pounder (no snares, inaccurate handheld, no cloaking gun). Thus, even the AEC alone seems godlike. OKW have so much AT readily available to them, they probably don't need the Puma most of the time; they need the Luchs, to break the enemy's infantry.

Comets and Heavy Sappers would probably be very, very OP.

So, your position is that there is no problem because a new faction that the player base is getting used to has a lower w/l record that the other established factions?

Are you ok with the shooting on the move accuracy and the smaller sizes that the british tanks have?

Are you ok with the 2v2 space that forces a completely different response to emplacemences forcing OH to have specific so-so commanders equiped "just in case"?

I don't think that anybody sane would ever deny that the game suffers from emplacement-play, and that the land mattress is a bit stronger than it should have been.

However, try to read the OP, and try to play devil's advocate with it.
- Do you believe that the views expressed in the OP are fair and objective?
- Even when the OP identifies issues. Is the analysis correct?

In order to help guide you to think a bit more objectively, I'm offering some comprehension questions to you:
- Is the main issue with emplacement play the fact that the Bofors is better than the OKW T1 halftrack? (OP's opinion)
- If we made Bofors a copy-paste of the OKW T4 FlakHQ, do you think that would solve the issues with emplacements? Or is it the Mortar Pit?
- Is Comet really more accurate on the move than other, similar, tanks? Did you factor in similar tanks' Vet1 abilities?
- How does Comet veterancy compared to other tanks' veterancy. Does the Vet1 ability really scale with the amount of Comets fielded?
- How relevant is the grenade toss to Comet's performance, really?
- How relevant is the Churchill at all without a grenade toss?
- If AVRE is such a major issue, how does the Sturmtiger compare to the AVRE?
- Enumerate all indirect fire options for the Brits which are even remotely useful.
- If land mattress shouldn't exist, then what about Katysha, Panzerwerfer and Calliope? Is it an issue with the stats, instead?

Advanced reading:
- State at least 3 downsides that Tommies have compared to other mainline infantry.
- How would each of the other 4 factions perform if we substituted their mainline infantry with Tommies?
- How would Brits perform if we substituted Tommies with LMG Grens?

I'm mostly concerned about the long-range penetration. Taking the T34/76's penetration profile instead of the Panzer IV's (100/110/120) means that the Cromwell and Churchill are only good in a flank, which isn't always possible.

It's not a bad idea if the Churchill is only good in a flank.
- If the frontal armour is large enough, the Churchill will not be easy to pick off from a distance (like it currently is)

Thus, the enemy, will have to choose between:
- Closing in to flank the Churchill (and expose themselves to the support weapons that accompany the Churchill)
- Attempt to ignore the Churchill and jump straight for the glasscannons

In the latter case, the enemy will have to be careful about not exposing their rear armour to the Churchill gun. That is when flanking has been accomplished.

- Accuracy against retreating units to 0

Technically, I think that's the best idea to date to reduce the extreme-lockdown effects of Bofors/Schwerer.

What the defender is paying for is a 360 area denial tool for a specific area, which is only counterable by smoke (Schewer only), AT guns or tanks. The fact that those emplacements also double as killing machines for retreating units means that they also lockdown access to entire swathes of map that lie behind them. On the "right" type of maps, the return in investment is massive.

Before you say "learn to flank" and "retreating through enemy units should be suicide", consider that:
- No other MG/suppression platform can murder entire retreating squads, even if it happened to be set up the right way.
- Even designated murder machines (e.g., King Tiger) on the retreat path don't have that degree of lethality. That is even though they can't suppress, and that they cost a fuckton more resources/fuel to field.

If you want to decimate a retreating enemy, make sure you place your units at the retreat path the right time to do that. You should invest some micro into that, just like the poor guy that invested micro/risk and lost the flank.

The lockdown-emplacements-must-murder mechanic invalidates a large number of maps from being considered "valid" or "fair" for the game. That's not a problem that the mapmakers should be forced to endure (e.g., make all 1v1 maps a copy-paste of Langreskaya, or all 4v4 maps a copy-paste of Steppes). This is a design issue that limits mapmaking choices, which limits map diversity. If we don't address that, we will end up playing Steppes well into the 2020, since it will remain the only choice that's fair for 4v4, and everything else is a cheap rip-off. Hamlet used to be a good map before WFA. Post-WFA, I can't think of a way to make this map feel balanced for all factions.

The other option is to fix certain problematic game mechanics (e.g., lockdown emplacements, FRPs), which will make game dynamics more even and thus, balance a bit more robust to different environments.

In the case of Bofors vs Schewer it's all about who is the king of artillery. When Leigs were dominating Mortar Pits (leigfest), everyone was raging against OKW, and the lockdown of Schewer. The only thing that changed now is that Brits have access to more cost-efficient artillery, and that the system of counters vs Mortar Pits is flawed. Thus, Brits are now the new kings of campiness.

PS: Lead Strategist RTN Cook Ez ftw