Profile of Svanh

How hard the game is really depends on how easily you can stop them building emplacements. The Bofors isn't too difficult to take out on its own (use AT guns from max range, mortars or ISGs, etc.) but a Bofors with a Mortar Pit and infantry support is horrible to deal with.

It's important to be aggressive early (Sturmpioneers, mortars/ISGs and snipers are good against UKF infantry) and, as a team, prevent UKF players from having the resources or time to start building up emplacements. If you see a Mortar Pit, go after it ASAP with flamethrowers, AT weapons and indirect fire units to prevent them from building a Bofors right next to it and vice versa (minus the flamethrower). Try to kill any units you see building something (units and buildings take extra damage while building/being built) and destroy what they're building. If you have the resources without giving them too much breathing room or slowing down your teching, abuse 222 Scout Cars and light vehicles (PIATs can be dodged,the AEC prevents them from building Bofors and UKF needs to go for a different doctrine if they want AT grenades).

This isn't easy, of course. If you can't prevent them from building a Mortar Pit and Bofors, and you aren't significantly ahead of them tech-wise (i.e., you don't have any armour) you should get any OKW players on your team to build a few ISGs (between them) and use attack-ground to destroy first Mortar Pits, then building units and Bofors. Make sure that they move them to avoid Counter Battery shots. If you don't have any OKW players, the doctrinal Ostheer Mortar Halftrack is quite nasty against emplacements and Ostheer mortars can work as well if you micro them well. It's important to make sure you are holding roughly half the map during this period, otherwise you're likely to lose from VP drain or lack of armour.

At this point it's important to ensure you have tanks (Panzer IVs and Stugs/Panthers are good choices), Panzerschrecks and/or AT guns to deal with Cromwells (Panthers are too expensive/low ROF) and Comets (mostly Panther/AT guns for Comets). If you've been holding the majority of the map or bleeding/killing their units better than they've been bleeding/killing yours, the outcome shouldn't be in much doubt if you can gain a tank/AT advantage. You can speed this up by having players with a doctrine with a LeFH 18 artillery piece (OKW Fortifications doctrine has one, as of the last patch) which is extremely effective against emplacements.

In the end, whether you can win comes down to a team effort. Rolling up the UKF player on your side before they can build a single sandbag will help but isn't enough if your allies insist on running infantry straight into a Bofors and won't build armour. Make sure you communicate/coordinate with your allies and concentrate your forces when you're making a push. There are some reasonably accurate unit stats here and the guide section on this website has some good articles to help you get more familiar with units and abilities if you want.

I hope this helps. Good luck!

Let's just skip it and remove blobbing. Increase AOE suppression rates and add negative zeal. It worked in CoH1, and it will work here.

Negative zeal, as it has been implemented in the past and as Relic would implement it, isn't the best mechanic. Its implementation in CoH1 and mods is generally through a stacking debuff for each additional friendly unit within an arbitrary distance of a squad. The problem is that this punishes both blobbers and any player who decides to place a squad in cover (i.e., micro) that is slightly too close to another friendly squad (especially when the debuff is triggered by a single stray model), which is especially nasty if you have to fight through a chokepoint. This also hits any squad using a friendly vehicle for cover (rare as it might be).

The reason players latch on to Volksgrenadier, Bazooka Riflemen, and PIAT blobs is because infantry are durable enough against medium vehicles that a few squads of AT infantry can completely prevent a Panzer IV, Cromwell, T-34/76, or Sherman from making any impact whatsoever. The way to remove this is simply to make infantry AT less common by increasing the price (see Panzergrenadiers), adding trade-offs (see Panzergrenadiers) or finding a way to discourage players from having too many AT squads at a time (see Panzergrenadiers).

This has already been done for Volksgrenadiers of course.

FFS, dont you guys get it?

Allies are allowed to have anti everything blobs, axis arnt.

Is it really necessary to start a world war in every thread?

But arent they inferior only at 30-35range?

Some time ago when I was checking, I could swear that LMG Grens were superior but only at the end of the range..

From the DPS spreadsheet, a squad of Panzergrenadiers is superior to a squad of LMG Grenadiers up to range 25, have roughly 80% of the DPS at range 30, and roughly 36% of the DPS at range 35.

"We want to make player´s decisions valuable"
"We wanted to make the difference between attack and defence"

This is exactly whats missing with the current UKF

It's not the structure of Hammer/Anvil that reduces player choice but the actual units and abilities in them. Bofors into Comet is the easier strategy for UKF and scales better with player numbers.

The first choice gives either the AEC or Bofors and is decided by whether you want to be mobile or camp but the Bofors is arguably better than the AEC (especially for new players) simply because it requires significantly less micro while being more potent and cheaper. Making Hammer/Anvil a choice here requires some cost and/or performance nerfs to the Bofors and a rework of the AEC's Tread Shot.

Part of the problem with the second choice is that most of the Anvil abilities are under-powered or broken. The Early Warning point sight doesn't work, Airburst Shells are chained to the already lacklustre Coordinated Fire, and the Churchill is a worse Cromwell for the cost. Heavy Engineers are really the only reason to tech Anvil and that's because they're completely OP (60 munition LMG, improved repair speed and doubled durability against small arms for 70 munitions). Compare this to Hammer, where the only bad ability is the Gammon Bomb (which is simply overpriced). Emergency War Speed and the Comet are extremely good and Vehicle Tracking is also fairly useful (especially with Fireflies).

To make the second Hammer/Anvil choice an actual choice, Early Warning needs to work (+10 sight on owned points sounds good), Coordinated Fire needs a range increase from 20/25 (30/35 in the upcoming patch) to 40/45, and the Churchill needs to be reworked (better armour, less health, lower pop cost). Heavy Engineers will also probably need a change (cost to 40/50 munitions, LMG removed, repair bonus reduced/removed).

The Penal modifier is down to how many squadmates are alive or not. In that case, the state of the system is "stored" on the number of actual squad models alive.

In order to implement any sort of pseudoRNG, at the very least we need a counter that goes up when there is a non-penetrating hit, and a counter that resets when there is a penetrating hit (and ideally, no change to the counter when there is a miss).

Then, to make things worse, the base (0-counter) percentage seems to be a non-linear function of the desired penetration percentage. I am not completely sure about this part, but this is what the numbers on the "standard percentages" table say to me on scratchedpaintjob's link. This means, that even if we could implement the counter, we couldn't just multiply the (modified) counter with base penetration. Like:
- If your multiplication would work correctly on P4
- It will probably completely fuck up Tigers
- and vice-versa

Assuming that we're only implementing this for penetration, you could simply have a weapon add an upgrade to the target every deflection that reduces armour by a percentage. You then simply have the weapon remove all accumulated upgrades on a successful hit (i.e., on damage). The upgrades would also expire when the target leaves combat. The AEC uses something similar for its Tread Shot.

Unfortunately, I don't think this would be worth implementing at this point. The current system is easier to grasp and Relic is unlikely to want to implement it.