Profile of blvckdream

Main problems pre-summer patch: Bolster now available early due to added snares, Bolstered stock static DPS too high and too durable in the open; optimal for A-move blobs and beating Axis mainlines in pretty much all match ups.

Some target size was moved to the cover bonus because it was the only way we saw fit, to let Infantry Sections remain quite powerful in the early game that can hold their ground, without having them steamroll the map. It was never the primary goal to force static play, rather something of a necessary evil. To compensate for this somewhat, higher moving accuracy should make Infantry Sections a bit more mobile again. But without going back to the same problem as before, since lower static DPS (due to overkill) and lower out-of-cover target size should prevent A-move blobs from being as powerful as they were pre-summer patch.

I don't care about what belongs to which faction when it comes to balance, if something needs to be changed, I'll opt to change it. This was the case with Infantry Sections totally dominating Axis mainline infantry for a very low cost (only Bolster and A-move were needed, weapon upgrades and cover were irrelevant) ever since the faction ecosystem shift caused by adding snares. I'd have done the same thing if it was Volks/Grens/Cons/Penals/Riflemen causing major issues.

Why not keep RA as it is and simply lower the DPS by creating overkill as it was done? Why does it need to be RA nerf + DPS nerf at the same time when Infantry Sections already have to carry UKF before they get a medium/heavy tank?

Also Infantry Sections absolutely have to beat Axis mainline infantry in most situations after spending 35 fuel to unlock the 5th man. 5 Man Infantry Sections used to cost 318 MP + Bolster upgrade costs. Why should they not stomp 240/250MP Axis mainlines. This is especially true because UKF is the only faction without AI LV and mobile indirect fire and a very limited number of snares on the field (2 at max) while OKW/Ost usually have at the very least 3 but usually 4 or more. It's ridiculous that UKF mainlines beating Axis mainlines is an issue but when Bar Riflemen+ free officers, 7 Man Cons, SVT Cons, Penals, etc. do it it's ok all of a sudden. I mean even 240 MP 45 muni SVT Cons available at 1 CP are superior to both Axis mainlines and dominate them after vet.

Blobbing is also not a UKF exclusive thing so I don't know if this is really a valid argument. And in the current balance, you are forced to blob Infantry Sections even more because otherwise you will just lose every engagement unless you sit in green cover waiting for the enemy to approach. So I really don't think this had the desired effect at all.

Because we felt it was the only way to keep Infantry Sections strong (power level is problematic because of Bolster early scaling, so they do need to have some drawbacks to restrain their early power) while nerfing the near unbeatable A-move blobs. By moving some of their target size to the cover bonus, we aimed to keep most of their early game power level, but stop them from running rampant across the map. It was very hard to predict the full extend of the Lee Enfield damage change, so we changed both to be sure. Given how fed up everyone was with Infantry Section spam, we went for a better safe than sorry approach (imo). Better to make the faction slightly underperforming and do some adjustments soon after, than keeping it overpowered and toxic, especially with the world tourney on the horizon.

To be honest, it was obvious that nerfing the crutch unit was likely going to cause some problems, although obviously we hoped it wouldn't have too much of an impact, but it was needed, and we can't predict every outcome. We just had to throw out the changes and see where the faction landed so that now we can identify some holes and attempt to fix them in the next patch. Balance isn't done overnight. In my opinion UKF is still very playable and good, at least in 3v3 and 4v4, even if not competitive for high level 1v1, but they could use some adjustments now that the dust has settled.

We have thought out some (hopefully) exciting changes for UKF, although all still very WIP at this moment, one of which is changing Lee Enfield moving accuracy to ~0.5 so Infantry Sections can fight more mobile.

I am confused. What is the plan with the Infantry Sections? Last christmas patch they lost a RA cover buff but got compensated with better out of cover performance. Then the balance team decided to revert this and went back to the more static defensive style no one likes. Now you want to give them better accuracy on the move again? Seems very contradictory to me.

And I also think the UKF OP phase is insanely overstated. When USF and Soviets dominate tournament after tournament it's somehow ok but when UKF is actually used in 1-2 tourneys it's suddenly toxic and needs immediate nerfs. Let's not forget UKF was basically completely ignored until Sappers got a snare. How many 1v1 and 2v2 tournaments did UKF actually dominate with insane W/R and win?

I am sorry but it does seem to me that the balance team is overly harsh on UKF while USF and Soviets get away with broken OP shit much more. Not only that, this insane power level of USF and Soviets makes both Axis factions (Ost in particular) seem pretty weak now outside certain crutch units (Tiger, Falls, etc.)

Also regarding the underlined part. This pretty much proves my suspicion that the balance team is simply not applying the same criteria for all factions. I hope when certain other factions get patched later the same "better safe than sorry" approach is used. Let's make some more factions shit on purpose in the next patch and then keep them like this for 3 months OK?

I feel like this needs its own thread. I respect the balance team but they have really really fucked up here.

So almost exactly one year ago we had a Christmas balance patch where Infantry Sections got adjusted. This one right here:

Infantry Section (All variants)

We feel that Tommies come out of the gate with too much raw power but also lack the offensive ability to assault positions. Therefore, to make Tommies feel more reliable and to improve their consistency on the battlefield, we've made the following changes:

Received accuracy cover bonus removed
Moving accuracy from 0.25 to 0.35
Cone of fire from 1 to 5
Population from 7 to 6
Pyrotechnic Flares cooldown from 150 to 80
Flare range reduced by 33% when suppressed
Veterancy 2 received accuracy from 0.76 to 0.78
Veterancy 3 scoped Lee Enfields removed

Everyone agreed that Infantry Sections are designed awfully because they are OP in long-range static combat but at the same time horrible at anything else. So in order to make this less of an issue, they removed the received accuracy cover bonus and made them better on the move.

Then after people figured out spamming Infantry Sections is OP especially against OKW the balance team decided to, for completely unknown reasons, go back to the old horrible design of cover bonus but Infantry Sections being complete dogshit without cover.

They made this gem of a balance adjustment two months ago.

Lee Enfield Accuracy from 0.598/0.564/0.529 to 0.676/0.637/0.598
Lee Enfield Damage from 16 to 14
Received Accuracy from 0.8 to 0.9
Squad models gain 0.89 Received Accuracy when in cover. Restores original value back to 0.8
Assault Tommy Upgrade removes the cover bonus and grants it as a passive instead; upgraded Received Accuracy Bonus from 0.95 to 0.8444.
Pyrotechnics Supplies upgrade sight range from 50 to 42

Why weren't Infantry Sections adjusted WITHOUT going back to this horrific old OP in cover but shit without it design? It's literally completely mind boggeling

True. USF recon and airborne are horrible too. OKW Luftwaffle doctrine with do it all Falls isn't much better either.

90 kills in 30 minutes of gameplay must be a record for the UKF sniper.





Same game I also killed the OKW Flak HT with a Vickers UC. It was an amazing game of high level 2v2