I've always felt like Bolster was the main thing that was fueling Section spam - even to the point where the old sections might have been balanced if they gated Bolster to tech. Brens might need a slight buff if they are going to be the primary early-mid game power spike for sections.
The Bren Gun should be decent enough. 45MU is on the the cheap end of weapons upgrades, and Infantry Sections can get two, which should keep them competitive enough. If Brens are not powerful enough after moving Bolster to Company Command Post, then buffs might be reasonable.
Valentine shouldn't have 160 damage as it shouldn't be able to kill medium tanks by getting on rear armor when AEC already fills that role. Might be cool if Valentine was bundled with AEC as "Light Armor Group" and filled a sort of Greyhound role of being strictly AI specialist that minorly threatens other LVs.
The Valentine proposed in my changes would be weaker than it currently is against vehicles (see the part about the DPM nerf). It would be slower than the Sherman Firefly and even the KV-1 with only 5 speed. This pretty much precludes it from chasing after light vehicles and retreating infantry, which also means it will probably never see the rear armor of a medium tank (which it can do right now). It would be a tanky AI-oriented generalist, but a Puma would still be a reliable counter (as would AT guns due to its speed).
Bofors should stay as Anvil tech as per core faction design. If anything Royal Arty should get Land Mattress XD (Okay I admit you would never see Sexton again lol)
I don't see a reason against moving Bofors to Company Command Post when we already get the 17-prd Emplacement as a stock unit (no need to specialize). Also, as you said, who would want a Sexton if you could get Land Mattresses?  |
My idea for bolster is just to delay it slightly as an adjustment instead of a major change such as moving it to company command post. MP is valuable resource in that it is required to train new squads and reinforce existing squads (especially if models are lost in combat once bolster is completed). I think 150MP is already on the high end of adding to the MP requirement. The reason why I suggest adding grenades as a requirement is because it eases the transition as you can get it earlier and while fighting and it delays *research time* of bolster as you have to wait for research grenades first. The UKF player is already significantly investing into their infantry by researching grenades and bolster and they should see a return on that investment.
The delay is 3 fold.
1. MP requirement adds delay
2. Grenade research requirement adds an additional time delay
3. Reduced fuel cost to compensate not being able to tech to company command post and thus get pyrotechnics and medical supplies which is another power spike to infantry sections. I see healing in the field as very powerful. Keep in mind that not getting medical supplies means a higher MP bleed over time, using MP for medics is also another form of MP bleed.
Pyrotechnics and Medical Supplies come with Platoon Command Post (Sappers, AT Sniper, 6-prd), not Company Command Post (with the Centaur, Cromwell, and Firefly). I've never seen anyone actually tech Bolster before they get Medics. Delaying Bolster to Company COmmand Post will not affect British healing in any way.
Additional MP cost is barely noticable before the late game. As stated before, 150MP is not even one minute of MP income. Thus, MP is significantly cheaper than Munitions before late game. In addition, MP as a whole is much more plentiful than MU. Assuming you have five sections, reinforcing an additional 5 models would cost 140MP. For contrast, buying three LMG42s for your Grenadiers would cost 180MU. I do not include the cost of reinforcing "lost" models because those belong to the original squad (and not part of the upgrade).
In the late game, when MP bleed starts to be an issue, it would be very significant, but in the mid game it would merely be a one minute delay. With grenade tech (which already has a return for your investment), Bolster would probably be delayed for two minutes.
Royal Artillery isn't even that great in team games. I find it pretty lack luster especially if your team can't hold ground. And if they can hold ground, they probably don't need (you) royal artillery in the first place. Watch PFC02 on twitch play royal artillery in random team 4v4. Most of the time if he wins, his team carries him and if he loses, its because he didn't have enough impact on the game to turn the tide as royal arty. Don't take away valentine from royal arty.
I don't see how an exclusively support commander played in an exclusively support manner is an argument against taking away the Valentine away from Royal Artillery. In team games, as you stated previously, the strength of the Valentine would be for its Sexton Concentration Barrage. If the doctrine's Concentration Barrage (which already includes 25-prds) would be reworked to include Sextons in the barrage, this issue would be taken away.
RE: Blob clearing
UKF is very vulnerable to blobs. They don't have a dedicated unit to deal with blobs. They can't punish blobs in the same way that other factions can without doctrine units.
They either have to counter with their own blob (and be susceptible to enemy blob clearing units) or go a specific commander to deal with it and this is not something you can predict will happen in the game. Outside of what I mentioned before (mortar pit/land matress), you can also try running them over with a Cromwell/Comet but thats a great way to lose your Cromwell/Comet if they have a snare unit in their blob.
I will list the blob clearing units of other factions that do not require a commander.
USF have Sherman HE, Pack Howie, Mortar Carriage.
Soviets have katy, demo charges.
OKW have IG gun and stuka. Stuka arguably the best blob wiping unit in the game.
OST have MG42, Brumbar and Werfer. OST have it good in the blob control department in regards to suppression. I don't mention the MGs in other factions but the MG42 is the best in the game for suppression and the werfer is the fastest out of all rocket artillery and includes suppression.
UKF has a mortar pit which can be easily destroyed by any other blob clearing unit. Building a mortar pit is kinda like a double edge sword. You can fight blobs within the mortar pit's range but the enemy can get a blob control unit to destroy the mortar pit and then they can't blob to fight the enemy blob. In addition, you have to put a squad in the mortar pit to make it fight better which is a great way to lose a squad.
I didn't mention pyrotecnics as a counter but that comes waaaaay too slow and has a very obvious indicator of where its going to land for it to be an effective blob countering tool.
The only effective method I have used to counter blobs is a vickers MG in a trench but it can be easily countered by moving around it, smoke or indirect (such as a stuka). It doesn't punish blobs, only suppresses it so you can deal with it using something else.
Edit: Forgot about Brumbar
I do not understand how the above is an argument against my Vickers adjustments. The proposed changes to its burst duration would improve its ability to fight blobs.
I want my fuel investment into the Bofor not to delay my tech just like Schwer.
That is simply not possible, as the 40mm Bofors emplacement is completely different from the Schwerer HQ. And, as with any western front army, you already get benefits for teching up (Brits get 25-prd howitzers).
A closer comparison to the 40mm Bofors emplacement would be the 2cm Flak emplacement: a moderate investment to deny an area to the enemy. Aside from building SimCity or the Westwall, their roles are much the same: a serious deterrent to one section of the map. This is just like building MG bunkers to cover your cutoff or to deny a VP in late game, only the deterrent is stronger (and thus the investemnt is greater).
|
Wouldn't that make KT OP due to the aurora bonuses from the Command PV?
However, I personally think Panzer Commander would be a better versatile option.
-Gives the doc an arty option like u mentioned,
- Makes the cmd PV a bit better from the accuracy bonus & extra sight!
Can't ask more.
The Panzer Commander is the optimal buff.
I would argue that the KT would not be OP due to the aura bonuses. What made the Command Panther + KT combination so strong in the past was that the Command Panther didn’t require tech. You would amass a huge infantry army, ignore tech, stall for the Command Panther, and then slap down all your tech, finally topping off your army with the KT (since you had to go Schwerer HQ anyway, why not get the biggest tank).
With both tied to tech, I would argue that the issue is gone. It would be a powerful combination, no doubt. But as SuperHansFan mentioned, it’s simply been overshadowed by another unit. |
|
The Panzer Commander would be a welcome addition to a doctrine that lacks artillery. However, I would argue that a better change would be to allow it to be deployed in tandem with the King Tiger. |
UC getting a fuel cost is the right step, it’s not good for the game to have such a strong no fuel T0 vehicle.
What would you say to a fuel cost for the upgrades? This is essentially what borobadger proposed, as the stock UC is only marginally more powerful than the Kubel. Giving the Vickers or Wasp upgrade a fuel cost (maybe 10 fuel?) would delay light vehicle timing and/or Comany Command post tech, which would make upgrading the UC a harder decision. |
Currently bolster is a requirement early to keep infantry sections competitive which is sad. I enjoy the buffs but I can't agree with adding it after company commmand post.
Instead of moving bolster to require Company Command post, make it cost more MP, less fuel and require grenade upgrade.
The way I see it, the MP requirement/cost is too low with the amount of power it brings. Especially calculating the cost of adding additional models when the upgrade is complete. Increasing the MP cost gives it a slower power spike while still retaining the early game advantage but a little costlier.
The fuel cost requirement as high as 35 doesn't really make sense to me. Lowering it by 10 is better. I would even recommend adding grenades as a requirement before being able to get bolster as players will not usually get grenades before bolster. Its a nice pre-step before the power increase of bolster anyway.
Final verdict on bolster:
+ 50MP to bolster
- 10 fuel to bolster
+ requirement grenades first
In total:
+150MP requirement (100 grenade + 50)
- 10 fuel saved (but still 35 total for bolster, 10 from grenade).
I wouldn't say that Bolster is necessary to keep Sections competitive, four-man IS with 2x Bren already stand up to Volks and Grens with no problem. It's just so powerful and cost-efficient to get this upgrade.
Increasing the MP cost of bolster would definitely drag out the powerspike Bolster has, but I'd argue that 150MP is negligable. It's not even one minute of Manpower income. Also, saving fuel on this upgrade is probably not a good idea because fuel investments are central to teching. Spending on side tech delays main tech, so you're essentially trading a later powerspike for an earlier powerspike, which is a decision that must be made by the player.
I disagree with removing valentine from royal artillery as that removes super barrage which makes royal artillery *fun*.
Brits really lack a blob clearing tool outside of mortar pit and land matresses. Both of which are expensive and extremely vulnerable to call in's and other indirects. I would like to see a tool in to help with blob management. The vickers burst increase is a nice start but I feel it adds too much power to the vickers as it is. Its a powerful killing machine but not a blob management machine. It becomes even stronger in a trench which I would say is a requirement to use it effectively as a blob management tool.
Would a concentration barrage cost decrease/cooldown decrease work to make up for the Sexton barrage?
What do you mean by "blob clearing"? If you mean destroying blobs outright, the Land Matress and the AVRE are viable options. If you wish for indirect fire, I would say that providing the Brits with the USF mortar halftrack would be sufficient. |
About the Vicker, currently, i can sometimes make good use of it vet 1, but it's still gimmicky. Replace the vet 1 range bonus with some suppression bonus from vet 3 and give vet 3 the sight bonus from the old vet 1, and it will be good. Price can go up to 270 if it become too good.
Self-spotting at Vet 3 seems to be an interesting alternative to Vet 1 range increase.
About the valentine, having it stock by far is my biggest wish. It is a slow, durable infantry tank IRL, but in game, it is nonsensically fast. Following changes are to make it into a slow, more durable infantry tank. It will be an AI tank, can hold again luch and below but will not stand again Puma.
- Speed reduce to 5.
- Smoke remove
- 500 HP so it can survive 3 AT shot, since it is slow and dont have smoke.
- 70 armor, it will not bounce anything above luch.
- main gun damage to 80.
- Mutually exclusive unlock with AEC.
- Valentine im royal artillery regimen replace by designated artillery command vehicle. Give the chosen vehicle vitor barrage from old valentine.
The Valentine can already survive three 160 dmg shots. The Puma already bests the Valentine as it is right now, and it would be even more effective against it with the proposed mobility nerfs (thus an armor nerf is not necessary).
Instead of a unit with sexton "victor barrage", would a concentration barrage cost decrease/cooldown decrease work? |
I'd rather not move bofors up to T3 though, I feel like it removes the selection of a defensive/offensive playstyle that's simular to hammer/anvil tactics. Also, when bofors is T2, it can be useful before lategame, when the opponent doesn't have a lot of counters to it, and lategame tanks and artillery can deal with it easily, making it a bit of a waste of money later on unless you protect it and repair it constantly + you still unlock the mortar pit at T2 so you can't protect it with a bofors now until T3 rolls out.
Basically, it won't be very useful at T3, but there might be a viable use for emplacements that I didn't discover that isn't slapping all 3 kinds of them next to each other.
Even with a Valentine, there is still the hammer/anvil offensive/defensive playstyle. The AEC is the hammer option, with great mobility and decent anti-vehicle capabilities (much akin to the Comet). The Valentine is the anvil option, a generalist with poor mobility (much akin to the Churchill).
What you say is quite true, how emplacements face more counters the longer the game goes on. Where else would you fit the Bofors? Allowing it to unlock with the Platoon Command Post would be too early, and if it unlocks with the 17-prd perhaps we can buff the 17-prd as well in the meantime.
I saw a suggestion once that i personally prefer: make bolster an upgrade that can be bought for individual squads, and cannot be bought along with pyro/medic upgrade. Does not lock out any weapon upgrades, so you can choose raw performance with bolster or utility with pyro/medic. When it comes to sappers they can be 5 man squads without upgrading, it shouldn't affect balance too much.
This is my preferred method of implementing Bolster, but delaying it until late game is probably the simplest change. |
This is an interesting idea, and it definitely would address some of the problems surrounding bolster. However, it doesn't actually address the core problem of the power-spike existing in the first place. Early-game IS' will still be incredibly powerful, mid-game IS' will still be incredibly powerful (provided they have muni), and late-game IS' will still be incredibly powerful due to their cost-effectiveness (and eHP pool) upgrade.
Bolster needs to turn into a choice rather than an "always click this" button. Maybe Bolster unlocks a cheap/free per-squad upgrade, but it takes up 1 weapon slot; something to give it a trade-off.
Alternatively, if we're keeping the "always get this" nature of the upgrade, it needs to be toned down a lot. Perhaps turning it into a 'reinforcement cost reduction' upgrade, rather than a +1 model upgrade, similar to OST's new T4 buff.
The idea is that the power level of Infantry Sections can be curtailed much more easily. Bolster is so powerful because all it costs is Manpower (unlock costs are more expensive than weapon racks, but are comparable). Now, there is a way to "flatten the curve" even more, which is to deny your opponent munitions. Brits are already quite munitions-intensive with all the utility upgrades for Infantry Sections.
As for Bolster as a choice, I like the "Pyro or Medic or Bolster" route, but the Bolster to T3 is probably the simplest change.
While the Vickers doesn't suppress all too well, remember that it does incredibly good damage for an HMG, while also reviving garrison bonuses at vet 1. A +64% burst duration would also mean its doing a lot more damage to the target squad; that means using one squad to draw fire while flanking with another would be much, much riskier, if not impossible.
The idea behind the burst duration increase is to maximize this aspect of the Vickers. So it will be a unique HMG that you would avoid not because of suppression, but because of lethality. I would argue that drawing fire and flanking is still viable, because the Vickers is quite slow at traversing.
These two are actually fairly interesting ideas. My only concern is the "capable of deflecting Puma shots" point; at what rate and what range? A 10% bounce chance would be fine, a 50%+ chance would make it far too resilient for a mid-tier tank. Or do you mean keeping it as-is (which would be fine)?
The Puma has 80 penetration far (30-50 range). The Valentine (right now) has 120 frontal armor. So it has a 33% chance to bounce Puma shots at distance far.
Again, an interesting idea. My only concern with buffing emplacement HP is the interaction with the "Advanced Emplacement" commander's "Improved Fortifications".
I'd argue that it serves its job, and shouldn't become too overpowered even with Improved Foritications. Improved Fortifications increases survivability, which increases the time the opponent needs to spend to take it out. It's a way of buying time and give the British player the time to mount a counter-attack. This is the same notion behind the HP buff, which allows the emplacement to take one (or two) extra 160 dmg shots.
The tools available are more than competent even if emplacements are more survivable. The 7.5cm leIG 18s outrage all emplacements, the Sdfkz. 250/6 mortar HT with its incendiary shells are incredibly effective, and the 10.5cm leFH 18 is exceptionally effective. 7.5cm Pak 40s and Raketenwerer 43s work too.
No.
The Pack-Howitzer, as it currently is, is an incredibly obnoxious RNG Wipe machine. Giving this to UKF would make defending their emplacements trivial, while also inflicting massive MP drain on anything static (OST in its entirety). Giving UKF a viable mobile indirect fire unit is a good idea, but it should absolutely not be this unit (with its current stats).
Taking the M1's model and applying the LeIG's stats would probably be acceptable, though.
My current idea is to give the Brits the USF mortar HT instead. I'd be hesitant to make it a leIG, because the leIG is clearly far less effective. |
You say you want to increase indirect fire options but your suggestions include nerfing Valentine link with sexton which it needs to perform in team games due to limited range until vet.
I have next to no experience in the larger game modes (3v3, 4v4) so my changes are from a 1v1 (2v2 somewhat) perspective. If the Valentine link with Sexton is removed, would a pricce reduction/cooldown decrease on Concentration Barrage be sufficient to cover the indirect fire gap?
Then adding a Pak howi at 5 command points doctrinally? IMO this will nerf British indirect in teamgames more than anything. Also I'm fairly certain the Brits never operated Pak howitzers anyway. Also it will spawn more axis tears as we know how Pak howi threads go.
The Brits actually did operate Pack Howtizers. Currently I'm in favor of giving them the USF mortar halftrack instead.
Also adding a Valentine non doctrinally would be a complete pain to balance because it's effectively giving Brits a unit in the T70 role and give them the biggest power spike in the game next to soviets. Even old AI AEC wouldn't match up to Valentine performance.
The point is to do exactly that. However, I'd argue that it's not as powerful as it appears. The Valentine proposed in my changes is a drasticly nerfed version with improved anti-infantry firepower but is mainly hampered by its low mobility. It's slower than the Sherman Firefly and even the KV-1 with only 5 speed. This pretty much precludes it from chasing after light vehicles and retreating infantry.
|
BrizzlyBear
AnAlternateWorld
Relic Entertainment
