People complaining about the lack of a mobile mortar because they play team games.
Absolutely no one builds mortars right now in 1v1. Howi and ISG yes, there are plenty of those. However Mortars are a liability so I would agree with OP that there is no real need for a mortar.
If mortar was really the problem then Lend Lease and Tatical support would have fixed a lot of things.
Guess what though, no one in top level Brits use lend Lease. In the top 100 games i've played and watched, I think Advanced Emplacements was picked more than Lend Lease. Tatical support sees a fair amount of play in team games cause of the other things like Croc, call in airplanes, and ofc almost free AT guns.
I like what's here. Although I do have a probhlem with tech. I suggest making it so that you have to get Bolster Tech before T3. T2> into T3 > into Cromwell is 130 fuel. it means the Cromwell Rush, which the cromwell will hit at around 11 minute, will be around a 10 minute cromwell almost competitive with light vehicles.
Before you say that's an unrealistic strat, I've observed this particular build order used by Kobal (I think he's around rank 30 brits atm) I've been using his BO and it works suprisingly well.
I doubt the 4 man Balance team will consider reworking Brits which makes me sad cause this is a really good idea. |
I'd rather see Cromwell MG get buffed and Section moving accuracy to 0.5
Other than that Brits shouldn't get much more. |
Imagine having an upgrade that makes grens better on the move wiping.
Oh wait there's two. |
Vickers change was a token buff like the Jackson fuel increase nerf. I don't notice any difference in-game.
Sniper buff was good I agree.
Firefly is still the objectively worst Allied TD in COH2. No penetration buff with vet unlike Jackson and SU85, bad mobility, horrible turret traverse, super bad reload. I absolutely hate it.
Comet was buffed to a decent level but at the same time Tiger, Pershing and IS2 are completely batshit broken OP and make the Comet look very mediocre. So there isn't much actual impact from this change.
Churchill was nerfed which hurts UKF because it was widely used and an actually good unit.
Cromwell changes are OK but I still think Cromwell is the worst medium tank. HE Shermans are way better, so are OKW P4s and even the T34/76 when you factor in price and their strong performance vs infantry and synergy with off-map ability (RAM+IL2).
This isnt an other unit thread. we are talking about sections. the performance of other units can stay in other threads. It is undeniable that these listed units were buffed no matter your personal feelings about them.
The sections changes i proposed will bring them into a reall good spot. Perhaps even a great spot. |
I think it's blind to look at the Section nerfs in a vaccum when other things have been adjusted too.
There was a stright buff to the Vickers, Sniper, Firefly, Comet, and Cromwell.
The balance team didn't just cuck UKF and be done with it. These changes were probably supposed to help smooth out the powercurve of the faction.
I think the only point to really critique them on is the fact they didn't properly explain the impact of these changes. For example, the USF changes had their own comprehensive graph which drew people's attention away from these changes which has their own massive impact.
As for my take on this, I think sections in combination with a firing on the move buff and a veterancy power curve normalization would be good enough the bring them back into glory.
My proposal: 0.5 moving accuracy, Vet 2 10% accuracy/12% recieved accuracy, Vet 3 15% accuracy/10% recieved accruacy
Why this works: Sections currently have no offensive vet 2 bonuses at the moment (which is different from almost every infantry unit in the game) making their mid game espically reliant on staying in cover and brawling from long range. Whether or not you think those bonuses are OP is a different story but the fact is these promblematic vet bonuses makes it so that it's impossible to bleed sections in the right conditions, and sections are no better at killing than they are stright out of the gate. Now you might be wondering why the vet 2 works that way, well it's probably because Sections were designed around the 16 damage volley which more likely than not bled models massively on approach. With the new 12 damage rifle it is more advantageous to have accuracy at vet 2 in order to secure some more model bleed rather than the 22% RA bonus; WHICH doesn't even help them that much with the true counter to sections which are: Snipers, Barrage weapons, and light vehicles.
Btw i'm gonna post this absolutely everywhere and i'm not trying to derail the flow but god damn it buff Cromwell MG to be simular to Comet MG thx |
I wouldn't recommend buffing sappers. Right now they are quite decent anti closing infantry.
I've tested their close range damage and here's what I've found.
: Vet 1 sappers can stay behind green cover and fight Sturmpios almost to a standstill. Stumpios, however, will always win.
Vet 0 5 man sappers can close in on yellow cover volks at max range and still win.
In the sapper Sten guns aren't too shabby and they are very cost effective for what they are. They just need vet in order to do anything.
The British AT gun is also the best Allied AT in the game.
Literally the ez fix to unit variety: make assault sections non doc. |
Grens might not be the most survivable, or tactically flexible, or have the most dps, or the cheapest.
Yeah that's it. Even as an Allies main it doesn't seem like to me Grens are anywhere the best mainline. |
If you make assault sections stock a lot of problems would be fixed. |
I've already said what I wanted on Brits before.
New point I wanted to bring to this post is that Brits also have some very inefficient manpower call ins.
Commandos are nice and all but the call in costs are insane. The Vanguard options call in is also insanely ineffecient.
Tank hunters infantry section also didn't get a 10 manpower decrease to reflect the recent changes.
To get access to the Vickers machinegun in specialweapons, you need almost 45 fuel and a meh halftrack.
|
I wonder why the balance team decided to go with one man sniper teams instead of the two man sniper teams.
One of the biggest problems imo snipers have is they have no effective manpower bleed until they are killed. The soviet sniper team used to have two members and had I think a 80 manpower reinforce cost.
I'm not an expert on snipers and I don't claim to be. But could 2 man sniper team with higher RA, shorter camo, and lower ROF be more fair than the single sniper iterations we have now?
The benefits of this: More bleed on snipers. Even if the flank doesn't kill the sniper out right, it will have significantly more cost to the player using the snipers. The ROF will require snipers to be on the field longer in order to be cost effective.
Con of this: It's been done before with soviet snipers. Not sure how it will work in the current iteration.
Keep in mind that the current iteration of the game has a lot more sniper counters. |