Profile of distrofio

Indeed. Sometimes blobbing is just the right tactic to use. If the opponet is spread out in a defensive posture, attacking spread out will just lead to a failed assault because he will be in cover and you will not be. Blobbing one point in the line can break trough it however, which then forces the opponent to get his units out of their dug in positions.

The game also has plenty of anti blobbing tools to counter players who do nothing but blob, so if you lose to it it's really on you.

There is a slight but important difference between blobbing and force concentration.

Blobbing is commonly refered as "grab a bunch o'troops and right click them blindly into battle" (A key movement apex)

Force concentration is more technical, you have a clear view of where are you striking and the amount of confrontation you will find. Also combine tools to succed, like smokes, ATGs or Armor to aid the breacktrhough

Wanna se a fair M36? Dont want to nerf its durability/mobility/pen? Nerf the damage instead.
HEVAP will still deal the same damage but nerf its Mu cost, like the double or so. It now destroys heavis as much as it does now but its not as proficient vs mediums. It can still engage mediums but at a high cost

While i understand the feel and some points of the OP, i dont agree with all of them. Or at least with the intent.
My premise is "Not all problems are solved the same way" and each faction reflects some of that.

Brits still have no indirect and therefore no counter to indirect despite having nothing but LMG troops and MGs. Section smoke is a great buff, but it won't counter MG spam and it won't counter indirect spam.

Mortar pit exists, it has the counter barrage, even when it is trash or is not used for that prupose.
A buff/revamp that make mortar pits counter barrage on default and cant auto-attack (but can perform barrages) with a durability buff could really solve this issue. Mortars are poorly used to bleed because they cant be compared to mobile mortars for that prupose.

The vickers is still trash at actually suppressing things, but its vet1 garrison range bonus is frustrating BS. Its vet1 should be removed and replaced and veterancy at some point should give it better suppression. A a straight group suppression buff wouldn't hurt either to make it actually counter blobs instead of the other way around.

I agree here with OP. Suppression is really a must for lategame and throughout the whole game for some map control. I would really like to enable some "fire at will" mode (either toggle or timed) that made the vickers shots had more suppression but really do little to no damage. This change is rather big and could require some fine tuning after implemented.

Brits still have no counter to falls, since vickers is not good at its job, brits have no anti infantry light vehicle, and their one rocket artillery piece (that they need a doctrine for) sucks for many many reasons.

To me, this is a clear example of a very vague and also very specific complaint. Falls are not only countered (if any) by vickers. Now that they lost the pfaust, they will be countered by any armor, some might take more time than others. The new cromwell should make short work of them because their new AI depends on the hull HMGs wich are more reliable than the main gun.

The land mattress is not great. Sure, it's the cheapest, but it takes about 4 hours to actually start firing since it has an abysmal setup and teardown time and it always auto sets up on the first unit it sees. It's minimum range is also ridiculously long, its payload comes very slow (which is fine IMO) and has like 0 pen for some reason, and its obviously the slowest since its man-portable. It's also over 50mp per model to reinforce for some reason, and doubles the reinforce cost of models recrewing it. Given that it's so much cheaper than other rocket arties, most of that is fine, but it should at least be responsive when it's in position already. Remove the setup and teardown time, and/or remove the auto setup when it sees an enemy.

I agree with the little to no versatility of the LM, but i really think that some of it, its intended. It could be discussed if it reliably fullfills its job, denying map to Axis troops. It has the widest spread of all rocket arty and that is sort of good if you want to scare a small team weapon with less than 4 man.

Limiting ALO to one doesn't make a lot of sense, and still keeps having commandos to be competitive without cheesing basically mandatory. There shouldn't be a lot of situations where you're building more than like 2, but having the flexibility in a faction with very inflexible mainline infantry would be useful.

To me its because the ALO was a big change to the UKF faction itself, a unit limit would allow a very precise study of its impact. It makes sense if its intended for defensive pruposes. It also means it can keep some 'uhmph' because you only get 1.

Cromwell is still easily the worst medium.

Not agreed at all. My experience tells me that is sub-par Pz4. Lots of patches have addressed mediums vs mediums and now its not that useless.
Saying "its the worst mediums" is like saying nothing, unless it is specified, i could say "The FF is the worst TD" (killing infantry)

Comet is still meh.

Same thing as cromwell's point.
Meh performance is because there are multiple factors maybe we are not considering. Unless we consider all those factors it will still be 'meh'

Churchill is a stupid unit. Should lose some armor and get a received damage buff like the KV-1 to make it actually counterable in smaller gamemodes seeing as axis don't have an abundance of high pen 60 range TDs like allies.

I really start to think you miss comets and dont like churchills. The game balance and metagame always forces players decision-making and thats fine. It is not stupid because it fitted the UKF current meta better.
DMG reduction is not a good suggestion IMO since RE are fantastic repairers with the heavy engie upgrade.

I voted that HMG34 needs no buff. Can you address the issue with it OP? If its a need for better suppression, i can only suggest you pairing it up with a Flak HT

Added: As part of the OKW design, they have great offensive power, often the best (Wstukas and KT) compared the rest standard tools. A reasonable drawback is to have less crowd control or make it harder to achieve, hence the need for 2 HMGs to tackle harder to control infantries.

I think that the fact that the rams makes the tank 100% lost after it hits is being overweighted. It is part of the cost of the combo, of course. But there are two major differences of both sides "costs"

Axis heavy tanks roughly cost 200+Fu and 700 or so MP.
A T34 was 300Mp and 90Fu IIRC.
Munition cost depends of the skillplane used, but its 100/200Mu

Fu cost often means valuable map control. Strategic investment in the frontlines, or some stalling strategy.
Mp is related to the bleed control and combat exposure, more combat often means less Mp available.
Munitions is the secondary map control value, when fuel is not an option or its too risky.

A t34 is worth its price as long as it can fight infantry. Meaning it has some use even if the player invested into it. If the player is hoarding MP+Fu for a Su85 he can reactively choose to get the T34 to combo. If the Su player has 200 munitions he can reliably try to nuke a spotted heavy tank. A single Su85 will not be able to destroy, maybe displace a heavy tank.

The Ram+skillplane combo is a reactive move, it means you need a heavy tank first to nuke. You dont proactively go for the combo. Thats why you need some sort of counter or at least make it less cost efficient if its going to be as effective.

If anyone were to substract the net cost difference between the two units you get something like 400Mp and 110Fu divided those remaining 200 Mu.
Making each munition worth a 1Fu and 2Mp is what people should judge, not if the T34 is lost or not. Its uniqueness can be saved, but its the combo the issue, not the ram nor the skillplane.