|
i will also wish for a mp reduction on the mattress, too, as someone mention above, it is affordable fuel wise but a bit too expensive in mp compare to what it bring to the table.
Being in one more commander will be nice, too, it isnt very good but at least offer something. |
Things like Pathfinders, Assault Sections and Assault Grenadiers are trade offs. They need to be used in a very specific way or don't have snares. Yes you can completely replace your mainline infantry with them, but it will be a risk and good players will seek to exploit that risk. Now we've all seen how bad it can be when a unit does all the same things the mainline infantry does but is straight up better at it and replaces them (Osttruppen). People would pick them every game. And with Raid Sections having a good all round profile that would make them easier to play with than the static IS, and with both not having snares anyways, the latter wouldn't be an unlikely scenario.
You are explaining exactly why raid section should have a difference implementation than current. As you said by yourself, there must be trade of, but raid section dont have any clear/significant trade off compare to section, you dont even t lose access to sand bags, trench or caches as you still have a section as starting unit, while it have been pointed out pretty clear that pp have tendency to stall for cp1 and just go for them instead of section.
And if you already granted that pathfinder have clear perk and rish, why cant raid section following the set up. Multiple pp (me include) has suggest turn them into recon section, which specialized in a difference fighting distance from all other ukf infantry (mid range, on the move) and offer unique utilities while also having clear identity and trade off if used as mainline. What make you grip so hard on this unit. |
Yeah, still you have access to MG\Engi unit\Universal + starting section to use pyro\meds. This is more then enouth to play untill 1 CP and then jump into Raid sections train, skipping raks\bolster\nades strate into fast T3 for Vekers unlock.
It might not be as powerfull in 1v1, but in 2v2+ it will be complete cancer.
If anything they should come as a 4 men squad and benifit from bolster just like regular IS or at least Vekers to be locked behind either hammer or anvil.
Commander itself is already powerfull and a top-pick. Raid sections arent suppose to be its main and strongest feature.
My teamgame friend has already discovered the Bo. Stall for cp1 with UC, sapper and Vicker is easily doable, then it allow you to skip all three side tech at the HQ, saving upto 60fu. If the player managed to maintain a decent map control early on, things turning to a snowball very fast.
|
UKF doesn't really need a light infantry squad when they have a sniper and Infantry Sections that already excel at long range. The Raid Section is supposed to give them an option to play more mobile than IS, but not as aggressive as Assault Sections. The reason it comes at 1 CP is because we don't want people to just completely replace IS with this. I agree the camo doesn't make much sense though.
The intention of allowing more mobile than section without suffering from out of cover debuff is good. But as said the identity can be more clear. The point of sniper and sections being good long range make ukf not need a light infantry squad is not so solid, as a light infantry squad can also be specialized in mid range combat, fighting on the move and especially reconnaissances.
Take it rights from the current version, all you need to do is rename them "reconnaissance section", replace Molotov with a flare fire ability, and they are good from there. Sprint is optional, can be either keept, remove or put to vet1. They can then be also put in ro.arty to replace the problematic early warning, hitting two bird with a stone.
Scope Enfield if still available can use a mid range-good on the move profile (pfulisi g43). Or in worse case that the scope animation is gone,
They can be made to have only 1 slot weapons but can fire bren on the move (just Tommy bren with the moving fire enabled, not the elite version). |
|
Again, suggesting a carbine to be better than a full power rifle at far range is unrealistic and setting up rm for m1c garand is uneasy.
If m1919a6 is to be avoid in favor of an carbine upgrade, i suggest:
Light rifle squad upgrade:
45 muni to change all squad weapon to m1 carbine but with better close-mid dps and worse far dps than garand (carbine being better close-mid is way more reasonable than better at far). Upgrade take up 1 weapon slot and also unlock "Fire up"/"Spint". Upgrade replace fire up in rifle company.
Through this upgrade, fire up can still present in the commander but at the same time offer a better close range-aggressive weapon loadout to work with it.
|
No because there in not relationship between the command vehicles and shared veterancy.
There even no real relationship between auras and "command" units.
If in your opinion Valentine needs an aura feel free to recommend one.
I would rather fix all thing that wrong like shared veterancy, this patch focus on command units abilities and it should Valentine.
in the fist sentence you suggest "Remove shared veterancy since it not available to other Command vehicles". But If there is not a relationship between command vehicle and share vet then why it is used as a reasons to suggest remove share vet from one.
So, in your mind, if the valentine have something that other command vehicle dont have, it should lose it, but at the same time, when the valentine dont have what other command vehicle have, you dont care ?
Event with that speaking, im not that again the removing of share vet from the valentine, if it can have some better/more suitable perk of a command vehicle, but the reason you use and the way you express the proposal just feel off and making pp dislike. You can just call it a neft.
|
I am not complaining about anything. I am pointing out an inconstancy, Valentine has no reason to have shared veterancy.
As for claim about being easy to kill, Valentine has more HP more armor and smaller target size than T-70.
they both have 18 target size.
And yet, being a "command" vehicle without any aura is another "inconstancy", both should be and can be solved together. Or, one can simply leave the unit alone, as there arent any complain about it any more, while there are many other things to do. |
No I am not and did not claim I was.
you said "my suggestion" lound and clear, so it indeed will creat some misundertanding. |
|
defense operation allowing sapper to build more defense structure is nicem but trench and sandbag is already available so nothing actually new here. UKF still being the only faction without tank trap and bunker and Soviet is getting a mg bunker, please add them to ukf. |
British forces, who are supposed to be suffering from man power shortages
where did this come from i wonder ? |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
